Slashdot Mirror


New Bill Threatens to Plug "Analog Hole"

ThinSkin writes "In an effort to encourage consumers to embrace digital content, The Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting a bill that would restrict owners of analog devices from recording analog content. For instance, if a fan wishes to tape a Baseball game on his VCR, the VCR would re-encode the content of that game and convert it into a digital form, which would then be filled with right restrictions and so forth. The process would be driven by VRAM (Veil Rights Assertion Mark), a technology that stamps analog content with DRM schemes."

374 comments

  1. Paragraphs by ergo98 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Someone should enlighten the author of that article about the purpose and use of paragraphs. What a wall of text.

    1. Re:Paragraphs by RandomPrecision · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's the format of the headline that somewhat bothered me. I had my browser window tall and thin, thus displaying "New Bill Threa to Plug Anal Hole".

    2. Re:Paragraphs by wheany · · Score: 1
      The author clearly knows about them, since he uses the closing paragraph tag

      all the time. He doesn't open a single one, though.
  2. At first glance on my screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It read New Bill threatens to Plug "Anal Hole"

    Now that would be anal.

    1. Re:At first glance on my screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this joke is a dupe too

  3. Dupity Dupe by kernel_dan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dupe. But I do like the information-wants-to-be-encrypted dept.

    --

    Illegal? Samir, This is America.
    1. Re:Dupity Dupe by ajlitt · · Score: 5, Funny

      The **AA might just manage to plug the Analog Hole, but /. will never plug the Dupe Hole.

    2. Re:Dupity Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This story is a dupe!

      You readers have been living in a dream world. There are no slashdot dupes.

    3. Re:Dupity Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's not a dupe. The MPAA just wanted to tear us a new one.

    4. Re:Dupity Dupe by bhtooefr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is this a bad thing that it's a dupe?

      Much like the Sony rootkit article, this getting duped as much as possible is actually a very good thing.

    5. Re:Dupity Dupe by An+dochasac · · Score: 2, Informative
      O.K. it's an important story, but why publish this twice and completely ignore the MPAA's extortion $600,000 attempt on a 67 year old grandfather and his grandson?

      Honestly, there were campaigns to pay legal bills of hackers who use evil encryption and peer to peer. Why be silent and let the MPAA bankrupt these people just because they didn't know what they were doing?

      Yeah it's a little off topic, but I wasn't using my kharma anyway.

    6. Re:Dupity Dupe by ratpack91 · · Score: 2, Informative

      it was on slashback here, 3rd paragraph.

    7. Re:Dupity Dupe by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks now I feel a bit better that at least it was published. I sure hope the kid and grandpa come out alright.

    8. Re:Dupity Dupe by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Was it on the front page?

      no.

      stfu.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    9. Re:Dupity Dupe by kernel_dan · · Score: 1

      Yeah it was, so, stfu.

      --

      Illegal? Samir, This is America.
    10. Re:Dupity Dupe by JohnnyLocust · · Score: 1

      Is this a bad thing that it's a dupe? if it were an analog message, we wouldn't have been able to dupe it.

    11. Re:Dupity Dupe by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      Actually they just wanted to plug your hole from both ends.

    12. Re:Dupity Dupe by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1

      I thought that if it were analog it would just get worse with each duplication. Oh wait...

      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
    13. Re:Dupity Dupe by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      What goes on the front page is user configurable on Slashdot. You can have only "Games" articles on the front page if you choose. Or only Book Reviews. Or everything except Games, or Book Reviews.

      So "on the front page" is not an absolute, especially after they changed the html code and enhanced this features on slashdot several weeks ago.

      Click on preferences, then go wild with the clicky widgets and see.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    14. Re:Dupity Dupe by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I have the default setup for what shows up on the front page.

      It never showed up there.

      I've seen dupes that have, and dupes that haven't.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    15. Re:Dupity Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well I have your mom on the front page so ... stfu

  4. New meaning to an old word by soma_0806 · · Score: 1

    I guess encourage now means the same thing as force...

    1. Re:New meaning to an old word by bstone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought the DMCA was justified because, now that things are digital, copies are just like the original and that's why we needed all that new protection. Now we find that the rights for analog have to be just like the rights for digital. If it's really such a big issue that all the rights have to be the same, the easy way would be just to pitch the DMCA, wouldn't it?

    2. Re:New meaning to an old word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, it seems everything is that way now... check my site yo

    3. Re:New meaning to an old word by bersl2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the problem with thinking of the so-called "intellectual property" as property.

      The whole point of copyright is that it's the idea that matters*; and yet, once we can finally decouple the idea from the carrier medium by making it into a stream of bits that can be sent across the world within fractions of a second, we see that trying to reapply the previous metaphor of the physical object requires that we impose such drastic controls, since the most natural thing to do is to spread information, unlike when the idea depended on the replication of the media as well---you can't click and drag a second copy of a book from the first one.

      I think that the selling of ideas by copy cannot be done anymore, unless you impose this unnatural and invasive system onto the flow of information, and that it's going to be a painful process to widely come to this realization. Everyone struggles to find a replacement system to compensate for the loss of by-copy sale (a ransom system? a patronage system?), but surely the search for more money does not trump the free exchange of ideas.

      * Yeah, that's probably not exactly right, but IANAL, and I need sleep, so it's the best I can do.

    4. Re:New meaning to an old word by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I thought the DMCA was justified because, now that things are digital, copies are just like the original and that's why we needed all that new protection. Now we find that the rights for analog have to be just like the rights for digital.

      As much as I don't like DRM, the key word is D/A/D conversion. One high-quality analog generation doesn't deteriorate content much at all, and then you have the exact same problem that all following copies are digital.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:New meaning to an old word by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's really such a big issue that all the rights have to be the same, the easy way would be just to pitch the DMCA, wouldn't it?

      Whose lining the politician's pockets to make them see the issue in such a way? No-one that's who. Because your important politicians follow their constituents that give them cash, instead of their constituents, your freedoms will continue to be done away with.

    6. Re:New meaning to an old word by rohan972 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...surely the search for more money does not trump the free exchange of ideas.

      Depends on how you define the search for wealth: the search to accumulate more wealth or the search to produce more wealth. The search to produce more wealth requires the free exchange of ideas. This is the original idea of patents, copyrights etc.

      Available wealth is largely determined by technology, eg: a society with the technology of fishing nets has more wealth available than the technology of fishing lines. The rate at which technology (and therefore wealth) increases is determined by the speed with which we share information. As I understand it, when patents first came to be, they lasted 20 years, copyrights 14 (I could have this wrong, I think it makes little difference to my point). These were relatively short times compared to the speed of technological advance and speed of information distribution at the time, and so were very successful methods of getting ideas into the public domain (where they could be used to produce wealth).

      Now that technological change is so rapid, distribution is much faster and economical, and copyrights have been extended so much, the traditional application of patents and copyrights is working exactly contrary to the production of wealth.

      Current restrictions on the exchange of ideas help a few people to accumulate wealth, but hinders the production of wealth.

      For an example: If I recorded a album and sold 100,000 copies at $1 profit to me for each copy, the entire $100,000 I accumulate already existed. The only wealth produced is the 100,000 songs. If I release the album for download, lets say 500,000 people download it. More wealth has been produced, although I don't necesarily accumulate any money. Obviously, there must be sufficient incentive somehow for me to produce the album, but the real wealth is produced when the content is distributed, not when I personally get paid.

      Disclaimer: I am not a recording artist, I am a capitalist.

    7. Re:New meaning to an old word by Znork · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Everyone struggles to find a replacement system"

      Frankly, it shouldnt be that much of a struggle. In essense it's just another subsidy/welfare system, where we take in money in the form of taxes (equivalent to the monopoly rent on artificially scarce 'protected' items), and give to those we wish to subsidize. Currently, the system is indirect, as the money usually goes to other parties than the ones we wish to subsidize, and the monopoly rent is an indirect tax that doesnt quite show up in the government budget, but that doesnt make it any less real.

      Once you realize the whole IP issue is just an economic sleight-of-hand illusionist trick, you realize it isnt that hard to come up with a solution either. Like any other such system it's just a question of how much the taxpayers will accept paying for, and how to best use those taxes for the specific purpose they are supposed to serve.

    8. Re:New meaning to an old word by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

      "but surely the search for more money does not trump the free exchange of ideas."

      Ah but what you miss is that without the monetary incentive there will not be as many new ideas to exchange. People want to be paid. People want to have more than their neighbors. People as a whole struggle to be richer and more powerful than others around them. Sad, yes. True, yes. Socialism will never ever work with humans. I personaly don't want to be equal to the status quo. I want to try harder than others and do more in life. But what is the incentive if everything is free? I guess you could argue that it is the recognition, but the current system often gives recognition as well as money.

      If you kill the current entertainment industry then you will kill entertainment as we know it....probably not a bad thing in the long run, but in the short run we will have no new TV programming and no new moveis...The bonus is that we also have no more brittany spears or boy band crap.

      Just my worthless before coffee 2 cents.

      --
      what?
    9. Re:New meaning to an old word by Taladar · · Score: 1
      If you kill the current entertainment industry then you will kill entertainment as we know it....probably not a bad thing in the long run, but in the short run we will have no new TV programming and no new moveis...The bonus is that we also have no more brittany spears or boy band crap.
      I really don't think it would hurt society much if we had no more TV and no more movies for a limited amount of time of a few years until a new system to create them is established. Most interesting movies today are short films produced by people on the internet for free anyway. Sure, we would miss some things but I think it would be worth it.
    10. Re:New meaning to an old word by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that's the major reason that Schwarzenegger got elected governor. I remember one speech he did. He said something about not worrying about corporations bribing him, because he was already rich. I think corporations should be outlawed from giving money to politicians. They are not voting entities. They should not be able to give money to politicians to get what they want. The corporations should be able to speak their minds, about what they want, but they shouldn't be giving money to them. That's the same as a bribe. Only personal donations should be allowed. And it should probably be capped, otherwise, private citizens are committing bribery too. Giving large chunks of money to a campaign that is obviously going to win, because thats the way it always goes in that jurisdiction, is pretty much nothing more than a bribe.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re:New meaning to an old word by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      You're not a capitalist espousing perspectives like that. Capitalists don't consider it to be wealth unless it can be controlled and used to control others.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    12. Re:New meaning to an old word by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on the IP system being economic slight of hand, but I think that turning indirect monopoly rent into direct taxation is a terrible idea. Leting the government decide who the "innovation tax" goes to works fine for DARPA, because ultimately the defense department is the consumer of those technologies. I really don't want to see a similar model applied to consumer products, or we'd see a lot of items that Uncle Sam thinks is best for us.

      In essence the problem is that you need people who develop things that people actually want to be rewarded for spending the money to bring them to the public, but once they've recouped their R&D budget, plus a bit of profit the tech should go generic.

      A perfect example of IP gone arwy is the pharma buisness. Sure they spend billions on R&D, and sure they should be entitiled to recoup that money, but because of the governmental and insurance controlled field of medicine they can expect to be able to charge a price that is entirely to high. As a result of the expected price they get to dump more money into marketing than R&D, which stings a bit in the first world, but results in drugs that are entirely cost prohibitive in the developing world. - If pharma companies restricted their marketing campaigns to educating doctors every non-generic pill in the world could be conservitavely 30% cheaper.

      Of course the pharma companies would tell you they could charge less per pill if they had longer patent protections, but they wouldn't. The real solution in pharma is to stop letting the HMOs dictate everything, and let the free market work, forcing pharma companies to slash marketing budgets, focus on development, and make more good products - although you might need some protection against price gouging if one company comes up with something wholly unique. Besides with a seven year head start there is no reason they shouldn't still be able to make the pills cheaper than anyone else once it goes generic... unless of course they were more concerned with superbowl ads than streamlining manufacturing during the time that thier product was under patent protection.

      I don't have the the answer, but I don't think it is to bloat the federal government. Besides the patent system is international, if you change it to a research subsidy system, with no exclusive right to manufacture in the US there would be no patent protection overseas, and overseas consumers wouldn't pay the innovation tax either.

      An innovation tax is no less economic slight of hand than patent protections.

    13. Re:New meaning to an old word by AgentGibbled · · Score: 1

      For the sake of argument, consider the following:
      I suspect that a fair amount of the trade in pirated media over p2p is caused by people who are basically "hording" media. I know people that have binders upon binders of CDs full of burned movies and music of which they have watched/listened to less than 10%. I once read a fairly well-written article (long since lost the link... sorry) that basically made the conclusion that people will horde things if they foresee the supply being cut off (ie. they know Priacy is bad and that will eventually get shut down) and I think in a lot of ways that makes sense (certainly consistent with the binders of CDs).

      At the same time, we've got the ITMS model which, while successful, still isn't that attractive to some people (I can't stand the iTunes software, for example). It also places restrictions, however fairly reasonable ones, on what you can do with your files. Generally speaking, people don't like to be restricted. Cable and Satellite companies have had Pay-Per-View movie distribution systems for years and they really haven't done all that well. Why? I'm going to guess that there was a readily available alternative (renting) that was considerably less restrictive even though it was less convenient to get the movies (you need to go to the store... etc). ITMS' success may well be limited by a similar effect - usage options are *generally* less restricted on unprotected CDs (ignoring, for a moment, things like the Sony DRM debacle which are still the exception and not the rule).

      Then there's the amusement park scenario. You can use a pay-per-ride model, or you can use "all-you-can-eat" model. Most amusement parks now are using the latter. Why? Because if people buy ride tickets, they make damn sure they use them all because they have a finite number of them and want to get the most out of it (kind of like the guys with binders full of CDs). The guy who pays $40 or whatever to ride all day probably ends up riding fewer rides (the costs to the park are the same, and I can't imagine them intentionally using a less-profitable admission scheme).

      Maybe this is what the Recording / Motion Picture industry really needs... a flat-rate all-you-can-eat media download service. You can pretty much guarantee that the guy with binders full of CDs wouldn't download as much if he was on a service like that... he could just go and get the 10% of the media that he actually wants to watch when he wants to watch it, and it would all be perfectly legal. Sure, there would be some people who would abuse it, but the overwhelming majority would happily pay their monthly fee and download their two or three movies a month. You can still sell DVDs as a "value add" (with special features, pretty packaging, higher resolution and whatnot) but there is clearly a demand for being able to just watch a movie without having to invest the $20 in something that you may not even like.

      Basically, you make a for-pay service that's *more* convenient than p2p services -- the media's always available, easily searchable, the files always work, and you always get a reasonable transter rate. I suspect rather strongly that you would see p2p usage drop right off if something like that was available at a reasonable price. I'd happily pay for it.

      I fully realize that Satan would likely invest in a good parka long before **AA would ever agree to something like this. That doesn't stop it from being a good idea. A far better idea than suing your customers and installing rootkits on their computers.

    14. Re:New meaning to an old word by StopSayingYouSir · · Score: 1
      Copyright protects a hell of a lot more than just TV and movies, you know. It's not just the entertainment industry that would be affected.

      Sometimes I can't believe how short-sighted people are when it comes to this topic.

    15. Re:New meaning to an old word by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      nice. too bad scent cones not around.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    16. Re:New meaning to an old word by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Whose lining the politician's pockets to make them see the issue in such a way? No-one that's who. Because your important politicians follow their constituents that give them cash, instead of their constituents, your freedoms will continue to be done away with.

      Actually, it's worse than that. The general popluation really doesn't care. Maybe in 20-30 years when all the 15 year olds are grown up, but unless you are like the grandpa that got sued because of his grandson downloading the incredibles nobody over 35, which is most of the voting public, cares about this. It's not just corporate money that drives the politicians, it's also citizens and their representative groups. Look at the changes Bush wanted to make to Social Security. Do you think there weren't corporate interests all for getting all those investment dollars? The voting retired community and their representatives, the AARP made damn sure that reform didn't happen, regardless of how much sense it made.

      The *AA and other corporate entities are pushing this, but much of the reason it's passing is there's no organized citizen groups, that actually vote, that are opposing it.

    17. Re:New meaning to an old word by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "At the same time we have this ITMS, which while successful, still isn't that attractive to some people..."

      It isn't the model or software that makes it un-attractive to me...it is the low quality of the product. Until they sell CD quality audio, maybe in FLAC format or the lossless ACC, I'm not interested. Same goes for the video. If it was put out in DVD or higher quality...I'd be interested in buying it. I've got high end sound at home...and want the best version of the media I can get...I'll rip it lossey for poor listening environments myself (car, portable)....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    18. Re:New meaning to an old word by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Look at the changes Bush wanted to make to Social Security. Do you think there weren't corporate interests at all for getting all those investment dollars?"

      Well, I think there are a fair number of us citizens that want changes like that too. I just don't want to be involved in the ponzi scheme that is SS. I don't believe I'll get any money at all out of it...I'd MUCH rather invest my retirement dollars...and have what is left over of it...to give to my heirs..etc.

      I'm old enough to have put a pretty good deal of $$'s into the SS system, and if given the chance, I'd sign it ALL away, if I could immediately start taking that money I give in FICA charges now...and start investing it for retirement.

      In the case of social in-security, it isn't just corporate interests that want it changed...those of us working and want a meaningful retirement savings do too....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:New meaning to an old word by Znork · · Score: 1

      "I really don't want to see a similar model applied to consumer products, or we'd see a lot of items that Uncle Sam thinks is best for us."

      If badly done, yes. One could, however, imagine alternatives. For example, say we had an system where an 'innovation fund' pays out on a per-use or per copy basis. Like today, patent and/or copyright offices could award the incentive tokens, but as they'd be tasked with budget responsibility they'd suddenly have an interest in not overgranting, and the recipients of the system would also have a strong interest in there being a limited number of 'incentives' granted, as the payout per unit would shrink as the number of units grow.

      Consider the implications when there is no inherent conflict between innovators, as they'll always get paid no matter who uses their 'patented' research, the more the merrier. Consider also the implications when newer and concievably more efficient products are no longer penalized by higher prices; the spread and integration of such technology into society should speed up noticably.

      "but they wouldn't."

      Oh, indeed. The economic logic of monopoly power ensures that economic inefficiencies and waste (such as overmarketing) will merely accrue until the available capital is consumed. Any economic surplus generated will simply be eaten; pricing is set by the pain limit at which people will have to do without (which simply rises as more capital becomes available), not at the limit where more competitors will enter the market and drive prices down. Unfortunately, that does not bode well for the economy as IP grows to a more prevalent part of it.

      "I don't have the the answer, but I don't think it is to bloat the federal government."

      No, the direction of research or other programs should not be under government control. What I'd suggest is merely reforming the way the incentives are funded and distributed, in a way that's more explicit, measurable and in line with the rest of our free market economy.

      Yes, you're right, there is an international perspective. However, it isnt really more complicated than the current one, and would be resolved in a similar manner.

    20. Re:New meaning to an old word by Phisbut · · Score: 1
      The corporations should be able to speak their minds, about what they want, but they shouldn't be giving money to them. That's the same as a bribe. Only personal donations should be allowed. And it should probably be capped, otherwise, private citizens are committing bribery too.

      That's exactly the way it works up here in Quebec. From the Election Act

      90. Every contribution must be made by the elector himself out of his own property.
      91. The total of contributions to each party, independent Member and independent candidate by the same elector during the same calendar year shall not exceed the amount of $3 000. In the case of a party, the amount may be paid in whole or in part to one or another of its party authorities.

      Shouldn't be too hard to adapt to the US... that is, if the US would accept influence from French Canadians...

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    21. Re:New meaning to an old word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was with you, right up to the point when you obviously went bonkers.

    22. Re:New meaning to an old word by happyemoticon · · Score: 1

      Screw that. Let's just abandon politics now and create a metal god for ourselves: a giant, impersonal, intelligent supercomputer that knows all and sees all. I don't care if it's called Helios, Multivac, Amalgamus, Skynet, VIKI, Femputer, The Borg Queen, Imperious Leader, or Deep Thought, just so long as it attaches a happy chip to my brain stem, a suicide device to my heart, and it's running Linux. The Matrix wouldn't be so bad either. I look positively dashing in both shiny trenchcoats and business suits.

    23. Re:New meaning to an old word by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Also occuring to me is that corporations may be making donations that neither their employees nor their customers may support or even know about. Basically its a few guys at the top making decisions about what political party gets the cash. The corporation is using money they could be giving to their employees, and money that is taken from the customers to fund their own political agenda. I don't care what corporations spend their money on, so long as it's not creating laws that make them have more power than they should.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    24. Re:New meaning to an old word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... yeah, makes sense. We don't actually hate you down here, youre just a scapegoat.

    25. Re:New meaning to an old word by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      If badly done, yes. One could, however, imagine alternatives.

      One could also imagine Congress without it's collective head up it's collective ass. And while at it, one could also wish for a million dollars.

    26. Re:New meaning to an old word by robertjw · · Score: 1

      In the case of social in-security, it isn't just corporate interests that want it changed...those of us working and want a meaningful retirement savings do too....

      I agree completely. I would also support any SS reform that allowed me to invest money that I'm putting into FICA or even just let me invest more money tax free, but you and I appear to be in the minority for two reasons.

      First, people of retirement age constitue the majority of voters in this country, they may actually constitute an overall majority, but I'd have to look at some census estimates.

      Second, there are many people out there that think investing in ANYTHING other than a bank account is like gambling with all your money in Vegas. My parents, who aren't dumb people at all, think this way. They have had some bad experiences in the past and are extremely gunshy on investing. They probably believe that their money is safer with the government.

      Bottom line, there isn't a large citizen group of any kind with any orgainziation that is really pushing for SS reform, and there is a major one in the AARP that is against it. Same thing with the IP restrictions. There is are major groups that are pushing for it, but there isn't much of an organized effort to change copyright law.

    27. Re:New meaning to an old word by mpe · · Score: 1

      Once you realize the whole IP issue is just an economic sleight-of-hand illusionist trick, you realize it isnt that hard to come up with a solution either.

      The concept itself is a fiction. It's a fiction which actually made sense a few hundred years ago. The real question is if it still makes sense. In terms of human history it is a new idea.

    28. Re:New meaning to an old word by mpe · · Score: 1

      Cable and Satellite companies have had Pay-Per-View movie distribution systems for years and they really haven't done all that well. Why? I'm going to guess that there was a readily available alternative (renting) that was considerably less restrictive even though it was less convenient to get the movies (you need to go to the store... etc).

      PPV is closer to the cinema/movie theater approach. Thus it might work better if the same movies were available to both at the same time. An alternative to rental would be a video on demand system.

      Then there's the amusement park scenario. You can use a pay-per-ride model, or you can use "all-you-can-eat" model. Most amusement parks now are using the latter. Why? Because if people buy ride tickets, they make damn sure they use them all because they have a finite number of them and want to get the most out of it (kind of like the guys with binders full of CDs). The guy who pays $40 or whatever to ride all day probably ends up riding fewer rides (the costs to the park are the same, and I can't imagine them intentionally using a less-profitable admission scheme).

      Actually the costs are probably less. Since you don't need people to check tickets or take money on each ride.

    29. Re:New meaning to an old word by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      If you notice, I did not say "surely the free exchange of ideas does trump the search for more money." These concepts need to coexist better.

      But I completely agree with the rate of change argument. Things happen far too fast for exclusivity lasting easily over a century and a decade to be effective for copyright and patent, respectively. These lengths of time need to be decreasing, not increasing, in order to increase wealth and/or even its distribution.

    30. Re:New meaning to an old word by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      yes, I wasn't trying to argue with you, just pointing out that these ideas don't need to compete, they work together if you define the search for wealth as the search for production of wealth. I thought your post was very well written.

    31. Re:New meaning to an old word by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Not that I've spent time getting dictionary definitions or anything, but to me, that would describe facism, not capitalism. Wealth is still wealth even if it's not my wealth. Being a capitalist doesn't stop me seeing that it's better to live in a wealthy society than to be individually wealthy in a very poor society. It doesn't mean that I don't like to personally have wealth.

      As for those perspectives not being capitalist, I suggest you read Paul Zane Pilzer's book "Unlimieted Wealth" (ISBN 0-517-88200-0). While I'm sure you wouldn't agree with everything he says, I don't think you would say he's not a capitalist. If you read his "Six laws of economic alchemy", you will have a very clear picture of why, from a capitalist perspective, the proprietry software model, software patents etc are detrimental to wealth creation and therefore limit the amount of wealth available for accumulation.

    32. Re:New meaning to an old word by MacDork · · Score: 1
      He said something about not worrying about corporations bribing him, because he was already rich.

      Yeah, that's funny. Two words: Bush. Halliburton.

  5. Ignore that by ergo98 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Sorry, only in Opera does it appear paragraphless. Looks fine in Opera and Firefox. I apologize for this interruption.

    1. Re:Ignore that by Hey,+Retard... · · Score: 1

      ...are you drunk and retarded? It appears 'paragraphless' in Opera but looks fine in Opera and Firefox?

    2. Re:Ignore that by ergo98 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Clearly I'm talking about different versions beyotch. And yes, you insensitive clod, I am drunk and retarded.

    3. Re:Ignore that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I'm on the way... Woooo friday 5pm!

    4. Re:Ignore that by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Sorry, only in Opera does it appear paragraphless..."

      It appears that way in links2 also....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  6. This doesn't matter for us...! by QQoicu2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "[I]f you're someone who actually wants to infringe copyright by downloading video from the Internet, this will have zero effect on you," said Cory Doctorow, EFF's European representative, writing in his blog, BoingBoing.net, on the subject.

    So, of course, most /.ers have nothing to worry about. :-)

    --
    "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    1. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, not exactly. Many of the people who download stuff illegally do it because there isn't a convenient legal alternative. The absence of that alternative is a big part of the fuel for the piracy culture.

      So this crazy DRM stuff really will have some effect on illegal downloaders: It will increase the number of people who do the same thing, increasing the quality and quantity of the files available, while making it less likely for each given individual that she'll get in trouble. If there is going to be a realistic move to reduce piracy, it will have to involve making it convenient to stay legal and play by the rules. These DRM roadblocks do just the opposite. The more of these stunts I see, the less wrong piracy starts to seem. It's like they try to punish the people that play by the rules. Yeah, what an incentive!

    2. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Many of the people who download stuff illegally do it because there isn't a convenient legal alternative.
      Nono. You mistake being a cheapskate for an ideal.

      The only reason they download it for free, is because they can't get it for free in stores. More likely than not, the majority of people warezing stuff on line wouldn't pay for it. Ever. But they enjoy it.

    3. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by BewireNomali · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if by convenient, you mean free, then I guess you're right.

      my experience has been that downloading has two major upsides: EVERYTHING is available, and everything is free.

      piracy will increase if nothing changes simply because a generation is growing up accustomed to free product. It won't make sense to pay. It will only get worse as more people become web-centric.

      I can't speak as to the effects of DRM, but understanding the fundamental psychology of the consumer/downloader is important.

      Take your average convenience store... tell the clerk to disappear and monitor the cameras for a half an hour. Only a small number of people will leave the cash for their purchase on the counter. Most will loot and bail.

      The music industry has fucked up by letting too many people get shit for free for too long. It's a culture dynamic. Hollywood is a little better - they got these download deals jumping off on college campuses where you get billed on tuition statements for the shit you download.

      Let me get used to free shit; don't get mad if I don't want to pay later.

      As for this DRM shit, it's desperation, but what are the record companies gonna do?

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    4. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Baddas · · Score: 1

      And yet I spend $40 on internet and $20 on power to keep my computers running each month, yet I'm apparently unable to pay for things?

      I just find the idea that a copy of something that cost approximately $0 to create is somehow worth a nonzero amount. Maybe if I could pay $20 a month for fast free downloads, (VOD with recordability, high quality, and no ads?) it'd be worth it.

      Until then, going through the hassle of finding scene releases is worth it.

    5. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      And you know where is problem? There is no alternative and they know it! They (*AA) have most biggest monopoly on Earth, so, they won't loose so much customers in that way they will start to loose money, significanty. But now I think that they are very close to piss of majority of their customers.

      It is fact that greed without any point as main motivation (for example, earning bilions and still wanting every year increase) - sooner or later - is doom for your business. They (RIAA,MPAA) just stop to be reasonable. It is interesting that I think that Sony Music fucked that DRM thing up without big knowledge of main HQ (because main HQ cares a little more about customers - I have read in one big extended article about Sony). My pick is that music business executives doesn't know no borders in greed for easy money.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    6. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only reason they download it for free, is because they can't get it for free in stores.

      While that's true for SOME of the downloaders, according to a survey Australia (after the UK) has the largest number of illegal downloaders of television shows. In Australia, it is extremely difficult to get a lot of American shows, with their being quite a big delay for all but the most popular ones. Unfortunately I couldn't find a link, but that says something. It says that there is a correlation between stuff being inaccessible in a timely manner and easy format, and illegal downloads.

    7. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Walkiry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > if by convenient, you mean free, then I guess you're right.

      Eh, iTunes shows that a lot of people are willing to pay fair and square just for convenience. You're never going to reel in the people who want free no matter what, but you can easily reel in the people who want convenience, ala GP post.

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    8. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by blincoln · · Score: 5, Interesting

      if by convenient, you mean free, then I guess you're right.

      I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who just want free stuff. I end up being a pirate because I want to watch Battlestar Galactica, but I'm not willing to pay for cable and some sort of recording device in order to watch one show. So I download episodes and then buy the DVDs when they come out. Spare me any "you could just wait until it comes out on DVD!" comments, please. I can't be bothered to get upset about the idea of adding a six month delay to the time my $40 goes into the bank account of a multinational corporation.

      If I could buy the episodes as they air for a reasonable price, I would totally do that. I would be open to a number of possibilities:

      - The cost of a season's worth of episodes adds up to the cost of the DVD set plus $10 for being able to watch them early. When it's released, I pay for shipping and get the DVDs.

      - Same as above, but the total is e.g. 50% of the cost of the set, and I pay shipping plus the remainder and the convenience fee.

      - The episodes are super-cheap, e.g. fifty cents each, and I just buy the DVD set at the store.

      Option three is the easiest, but options one and two let Sci-Fi or whoever take a bigger cut from the DVD set price by selling directly to me.

      Of course, this will never happen, because for it to be as convenient as it already is for me, the downloaded episodes would have to be non-DRM'd, encoded using a quality codec, and free of commercials. I'm sure this would be a huge hit, but the marketing department would never let it happen.

      Why do I say a huge hit? Look at something that cannot be reasonably DRM'd, like photographic (as opposed to video) porn. There are tons of porn siterips on p2p networks, but it's still a very profitable industry. They probably realize that the money lost from bootlegs is less than what it would cost to come up with a protection system combined with the cost due to lost customers who weren't willing to put up with the hassle.

      It would probably do well even with DRM. I wouldn't be a customer, but there are plenty of other people out there who are happy to deal with iTunes (which I find crippled beyond what I'm willing to exchange money for).

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    9. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      as long as the media barons keep thinking in terms of segmenting the market for the "content" into regions, then people will get upset because America or whoever, is getting to see it now or has already seen it, but joe public in Australia/UK or whatever, has to wait until the "official" release date for them...

      /me has already pulled down all of what's been screened in America for Rome, but episode 1 has only just shown in the UK... and the bl00dy BBC were one of the producers as well, but you yanks got to see it first.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    10. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by kalbzayn · · Score: 1

      I'm against the entire business model as much as the next guy. I want to be able to watch it where I want, when I want. But, I'm not sure I buy the argument, "I end up being a pirate because I want to watch Battlestar Galactica, but I'm not willing to pay for cable and some sort of recording device in order to watch one show." If you have issues with the cost of cable or a recording device, and those are the only legal avenues for watching it, just don't watch it. Send the studio emails about how you would really like to watch it if you could buy weekly DVDs or downloads. If I don't like how much a restaurant charges for their food, or how long it takes for it to reach my table, I don't wait in the alley for the cook to through the scraps in the dumpster so that I can get it for free.

    11. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, not exactly. Many of the people who download stuff illegally do it because there isn't a convenient legal alternative. The absence of that alternative is a big part of the fuel for the piracy culture.

      Ok, I'll be honest here, I do P2P becaue I'm a cheap bastard, there's no way I could afford even $10/cd to feed my 80's metal and pop habit.

      • Upgraded computer: four hundred dollars
      • Broadband Internet connection: forty dollars per month
      • BitTorrent Client: free
      • Never having to hear your wife say, "Oh my God, you bought ANOTHER Judas Priest album?!?": Priceless!
    12. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Nobody said anything about your ability to pay - it's the willingness. You're taking something and using a flimsy justification about the physical medium.

      All I'm saying is at least be honest about your greed, instead of trying to portray yourself as some kind of hero for wanting free entertainment.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    13. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Robocoastie · · Score: 1

      >>Eh, iTunes shows that a lot of people are willing to pay fair and square just for convenience. You're never going to reel in the people who want free no matter what, but you can easily reel in the people who want convenience, ala GP post. Yup, and the peace of mind that its not a trojan horse like so much on the p2p networks. iTunes' deal with ABC for a few shows is exactly what I've been thinking has been needed to happen for some time. Now to expand to other shows like Smallville, Charmed, Supernatural and other shows commonly sought after on the p2p networks. Speaking of which. Is there anything stopping Apple from making iTunes accessible via the MSFT Media Center interface? Is the API to that open for them to add their own menu to it and so on?

    14. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by jhobbs · · Score: 1
      Take your average convenience store... tell the clerk to disappear and monitor the cameras for a half an hour. Only a small number of people will leave the cash for their purchase on the counter. Most will loot and bail.

      I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Where I live there are stands hocking everything from honey to dolls along the highway in people's front yards. Usually there is nothing but a price and a jar. Customers are expected to pick thier item, leave money, and make change from the jar if needed. They system works well and people rarely take advantage of it. Granted this is in the country but I have seen the same thing at hotdog stands in New York City, tell the guy what you want on your dog, make your change from the pile of it on the cart, grab your dog and go. Generally people are happy to take part in and not take advantage of a system they feel provides them with something of value, is convienient, and repectful of them as a customer.

    15. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by nine-times · · Score: 1
      if by convenient, you mean free, then I guess you're right.

      my experience has been that downloading has two major upsides: EVERYTHING is available, and everything is free.

      True, but the iTMS has been doing fairly well. To me, that's an indicator that people are willing to pay for convenience (which is obvious anyway). Given the choice between figuring out "what's the p2p network du jour?", hunting down the right software and torrent links, being unsure of the quality you'll receive, etc., vs. connecting to a quick, supported network where everything's laid out and all you have to do is a simple search and click "buy", I'm sure lots of people will choose the latter. Not everyone, but lots.

      And by pouring their money into bribes for politicians and lawsuits against their customers, rather than providing a decent online store, they're throwing away customers.

    16. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can't be bothered to get upset about the idea of adding a six month delay to the time my $40 goes into the bank account of a multinational corporation.

      What about the idea that by using BitTorrent (presumably), you are not merely skirting the 6-month delay for yourself; you are also providing content to others who may have no plans ever to pay for it? Doesn't that bother you at all?

      This is why the two strongest defenses ("I will buy it when it's released" and "I never would have bought it anyway") don't really hold water. Even if they're true for you, chances are you're uploading to complete strangers who may be using that content for all the "wrong" reasons. You are therefore still contributing to the problem, albeit indirectly. Sure, you can stop uploading (depending on what app you're using, maybe), but the entire culture of p2p expects you to upload, and if you don't, you're bullied for being a leech.

    17. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by BewireNomali · · Score: 2, Insightful

      dude, where do you live? that's amazing.

      lol. You've seen that in New York? I live in New York. It's why I posed the question. The reason I posed the question is because of the particulars: unsupervised goods and perceived freedom from reprisal.

      On a densely trafficked new york street before a hot dog vendor, there is little perceived freedom from reprisal. There are little avenues of escape and cost/return just doesn't wash.

      Also, the person downloading is most likely to be the same person who would otherwise be commiting crimes, namely young males - teens and young adults. So using honey and dolls as an example just doesn't cut it. There is little vested interest in those items from the group most likely to steal in general. As relates to the music industry, young males represent a critical mass of the music purchasing audience. Young women are still buying music; just look at soundscan and see that the acts geared towards young women and children continue to do well. It's all the other stuff that guys used to buy that are suffering.

      So lets more accurately represent the analogy:

      Take your average store that sells say video games and consoles, or DVDs, or athletic attire and materials - items typically designed to appeal to young males. Remove any visible artifacts of surveillance. That store would be cleaned out in short order.

      Are there going to be people who always follow the rules: yes. Clearly this is so, or ITUNES would be taking a loss. There are people who wait for the walk sign even with no cars in either direction.

      My point is that the length of time that has elapsed without a viable widescale business model has allowed the culture of downloading to become the norm. I say this because downloading is the norm for me; buying the product is the exception. And I work in media. I know very few people who actually BUY digital content. The instances where content is bought are particular, i.e. console games... games that require online certs that haven't been cracked, etc. In other words, if the inconvenience is too great, then a purchase is made.

      If you've grown up downloading stuff, then it's no inconvenience to have your virus scanner automatically checking your incoming folder or torrents folder. It's not an inconvenience to mess around with bin and cue files, or joining small peer networking groups that trade amongst themselves. You take the odds of the RIAA coming after you, after all, you do way more risky things every day. Some people grew up with the inconvenience of actually having to send letters in the mail and think email is newfangled and complicated.

      My point is that downloading is now de facto for a lot of people. Culture. Just the way things are done. And that's the industry's fault. The more they delay, the more it will become a part of everyone's lives and the more difficult it becomes to break the habit.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    18. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Take your average convenience store... tell the clerk to disappear and monitor the cameras for a half an hour. Only a small number of people will leave the cash for their purchase on the counter. Most will loot and bail.

      If I were one of those customers, I would hesitate to leave money on the counter out of fear that the money would end up in the wrong people's hands. Who knows how long that money will be sitting there in the open before the clerk returns, and how many other people might come along during that time and get the idea of taking my money for themselves.

      Now how does this scenario relate to the middleman syndrome propagated by the RIAA and MPAA, where an album can sell 100,000 units and its creators are still in debt to the label?

    19. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      In case you younguns don't recall, TV in the U.S. was always free to watch, and free to record on your VCR.

      This is nothing less than a Castro-like attempt to reprogram the minds of an entire culture. TV programs as property you can "steal"? WTF????

      Don't let them reprogram ya, kids! Cry "bullshit" and let loose the dogs of war.

    20. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by jhobbs · · Score: 1
      So what your saying is that your from a place full of jaywalking thiefs? No, that wouldn't be a problem where I am from (Arkansas). I'm happily from the type of place where (and I've seen this) when the deputy taking a truckload prisoners out to do highway cleanup stopped to go in McDonalds for breakfast he told them "Y'all don't run off." And they didn't.

      I wait for the crosswalk light to change even when there are no cars.

    21. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by BewireNomali · · Score: 0

      I'm happily from the type of place where (and I've seen this) when the deputy taking a truckload prisoners out to do highway cleanup stopped to go in McDonalds for breakfast he told them "Y'all don't run off." And they didn't.

      lol, you're happily from that place, hunh? To each his own.

      I can't imagine the group of prisoners that would stay for that here in NY. I wouldn't. lol. Talk about programming. They got you guys good.

      As for the crosswalk. lol. I cross even when there's traffic and the light is against me. lol. My mother taught me.

      I'll stick out like a sore thumb when I come around your way; I'll be the shackled prisoner jaywalking away from the McDonald's.

      And re: a place of jaywalkiing thieves? Let's just say that corporate America just loves your attitude. Lol.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    22. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by CDarklock · · Score: 1

      I entirely agree with this. Not that I'm in the same boat; my cable is loaded for bear with every damn channel I can get, and I have both TiVo and the dual-tuner Comcast DVR. If I want to see a show that's on cable, I can see it. With TiVo happily recording suggestions and my Comcast DVR dutifully snapping up every series I already want to watch, I am never at a loss for something to watch. (Finding *time* to watch things is a different story.)

      What bugs me is the horrific quality of imported shows. I want subtitles, not bad actors overdubbing the original audio. I want on-screen translations of the written material. I want *accurate* translations. When the subtitles for an exchange say "Let me go, let me go" and "Be quiet", I'm rather annoyed when I notice that the *audio* should translate to "I'm not gay, I'm not gay" and "Neither am I".

      I honestly have no interest in getting all my programs for free. I simply refuse to pay exorbitant prices (sometimes amounting to $20 an episode or more) for bad translations of those programs. If the industry wants me to pay for an episode of some show, it needs to be a high-quality recording with accurate subtitles and on-screen translations of written material. Until I can reliably get that somewhere, I have no real choice but to get bittorrents from other fans.

      The market is here, we're just not willing to settle for a bad product. It's valuable to me if I can get a DVD of some series with a quick online order, but *only* if the DVD is of a reasonable quality for the price.

      --
      Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
    23. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by kalbzayn · · Score: 1

      "If the industry wants me to pay for an episode of some show, it needs to be a high-quality recording with accurate subtitles and on-screen translations of written material. Until I can reliably get that somewhere, I have no real choice but to get bittorrents from other fans."

      You actually do have another real choice. Don't watch it. I personally don't care if you download it or not. Somedays I feel like doing it, somedays I don't. But there really is more than one option on how to deal with it. This isn't some kind of medicine that you need to survive. We're talking about movies/tv shows/music here.

    24. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      See, I work in media and I'll tell you like this.

      As for the RIAA and the artists who are indebted to their labels, it works like this.

      Artists get advances from labels... basically a budget to produce, package, and implement their artistic product. The artist also gets an advance against projected sales. This has to be recouped. Videos, expenses related to promotional touring, wardrobe, etc... all come from futre sales proceeds and count negatively towards the artist.

      The guys who work for artists... managers, et al, push for higher advances (means higher fees) and higher budgets (means better promotion in theory). Artists agree to this because they are GREEDY - and don't understand the business. IF they knew what percentage of artists returned X-amount to the label in sales, they'd take a small advance, or not even sign with a major at all.

      In short, artists get fucked because they sign shitty deals. Shitty deals are signed because labels promise stardom to everyone they want to sign in order to shift the power dynamic. Shifting the power dynamic means indebted workers for a term designated by the standard deal - somewhere like 3 to 5 albums. Artists fall for it; debt is the greatest motivator in the US - so these artists then have to work themselves to death in order to get out from under the obligations. I personally know about 5-7 artists/bands that have signed record deals the MOMENT they were offered - no attorney review of contracts, etc. That's inexcusable.

      There are smaller labels that only distribute music... they don't offer advances and they put up packaging marketing costs which they recoup. Artists build up a store of cash through shows and touring and then promote an album that gets put in stores and that they sell at shows. It's a model that sustains a lot of bands, and those bands make more money than many signed at majors.

      It's difficult to place blame on the RIAA when artists continue to sign away their rights and are ignorant to how the industry works, all in this amorphous hope of stardom.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    25. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by CDarklock · · Score: 1

      > You actually do have another real choice. Don't watch it.

      IMO, a choice that does not result in the desired outcome is not a "real" choice.

      This is, of course, a subjective distinction.

      --
      Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
    26. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Svartalf · · Score: 1
      "If I don't like how much a restaurant charges for their food, or how long it takes for it to reach my table, I don't wait in the alley for the cook to through the scraps in the dumpster so that I can get it for free."


      While I don't agree with the parent poster 100%, I do disagree with the above comment- it's not analogous, no matter how contorted you get trying to make it so. (Yes, this yet another theft/infringement rant, but I'll keep doing it until most everyone stops framing their thoughts the way that the Labels, RIAA, MPAA, etc. want you to frame them. Now, without further ado...)

      1) It's not "table scraps". Far from it.
      2) You're still talking about a physical item, which, when you stop to think about it, ISN'T ONE.

      Yes, he's guilty of something- it's called infringement. The taking of the right of the control of the production and distribution to first sale customers of a given Copyrighted work. It's not the same thing as taking table scraps or walking a ticket in a restaurant. In that case, there's a physical item, namely food, that is involved with those acts, and by taking scraps or walking a ticket, you've taken something away from the owner of the restaurant without paying for it. Now, that's defined as theft if the person who owns the stuff in question doesn't want you doing this. Typically the thrown away scraps aren't a big deal, because the owner or their representative threw it away- but it's still defined as theft all the same as the item now techincally belongs to the trash people to be picked up and disposed of properly.

      Infringement is a bit different. In the case of theft, the person being stolen from is deprived of the object being stolen. In the case of infringement, the most the person is out is the potential of profit for each instance of infringement commited against them. There's a good distinction here- if you think the infringer is taking money away, that is not actually the case, they didn't walk up and take the money out of the possession of the person being infringed. All that happened was a copy of a work was made without the permission of the rights holder. There is no distinction of what that rights holder might have made off that work in the law or anywhere other than in the propaganda from the BSA, RIAA, MPAA, etc. The law acknowleges that the infringement may never have produced revenue for the work in the first place- all that happened was that the work was duplicated without permission, with all the commensurate penalties that would ensue from this. If there is a case that there WAS real losses involved, still not theft, but real lost revenues like what happens with the commercial pirates that mass-produce and sell infringements for a profit, there's criminal penalties, but the law still keeps the distinction that it's not a theft.

      Any time that you frame things in terms of physical things being taken, you're framing things in the terms that the "IP rights protection" businesses want you to- even though it's utterly inaccurate and not the case. You really, really need to avoid doing this as the laws like the one we're discussing get made in the FIRST place because of this practice. We need to quit letting them control this discussion and we need to do it now- because they'll render this into a wasteland and another dark age.
      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    27. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by conJunk · · Score: 1
      Moderators should have a -1 Incorrect Use of Apostrophe option...

      eh? how about a +1 Good Use of the Here-Comes-the-Letter-S-! character!

    28. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by wfeick · · Score: 1

      The restaurant analogy isn't quite right. Nobody will let you just come in and eat a meal. Instead, there are be a few companies that have built their own transportation systems (roads, rail, airports, etc.) and the only way for you to get to a restaurant is via one or more of their transportation systems. What's more, they refuse to allow you to just go get something to eat. Instead, you have to pay a monthly fee for all you can eat access to 50 low end restaurants. If you prefer better food, you can buy access to one or more bundles of 10 higher end restaurants, but only if you also buy access to the 50 low end restaurants first. You can't just buy access to some nice Thai restaurants, you also have to buy access to a bunch of low end diners and fast food joints that you have no interest in eating at. You also have to buy all you can eat access to some really bizarre fringe restaurants that cater to small groups like those people who want to eat bugs. These restaurants generally have nobody in them, but the corporations argue that this is good, because if you didn't help pick up the cost of keeping these fringe restaurants open then they wouldn't be able to make enough money to stay in business.

      The corporations also require that the restaurants put ads on their menus, dishes, walls, etc. as an additional revenue stream.Some of these corporations have been selling commodity access to their transportation systems for purposes other than food as a way to get additional revenue. Others have built general purpose transportation systems and sold access to them so you can go anywhere you wish (e.g. parks, libraries, etc.). As the quality of these systems improves, both consumers and the restaurants are starting to realize it would be cheaper to just use a commodity transportation system to connect. The corporations realize that as well, and in an effort to maintain their profit margins are starting to threaten to introduce a toll fee if you're going to go directly to the restaurant yourself. It'll be a lower toll if you just want to go to the park, but if you want to go see a popular concert the toll will be high since you really want to go there.

      It's like the phone company charging you a different rate depending on the content of your conversation. They'd charge you more to talk to your doctor than they would to talk to your mother.

      I just don't believe this is the sort of model for the internet that people really want.

      I think it's fine to differentiate based on the quality of the connection (e.g. low latency / jitter vs. high latency / jitter, low bandwidth vs. high bandwidth), but to differentiate on the type of data you're moving just seems wrong to me.

    29. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by mpe · · Score: 1

      Yup, and the peace of mind that its not a trojan horse like so much on the p2p networks.

      Or it comes from Sony :)

    30. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by mpe · · Score: 1

      In the case of infringement, the most the person is out is the potential of profit for each instance of infringement commited against them. There's a good distinction here- if you think the infringer is taking money away, that is not actually the case, they didn't walk up and take the money out of the possession of the person being infringed.

      The likes of the RIAA/MPAA like to play "have your cake and eat it". By claiming that each infringement is some kind of a "loss" much greater than the retail price of the whatever, whilst their members certainly do not put these figures on their audited accounts.
      Often, for all the noise made, these actually appear to be highly profitable businesses.

    31. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Taevin · · Score: 1

      Nobody said anything about your willingness to pay - it's the cost. You're paying to much for something and using a flimsy justification about the effect on the industry.

      All I'm saying is at least be honest about being a shill, instead of trying to portray yourself as some kind of hero for wanting to protect industry profits.

    32. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      This was rhetorically cute, and semantically meaningless. Is this the best you can do?

      Here's the honesty: I make my money selling my intellect, so yes, I like the concept of intellectual property. Nothing to hide here.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    33. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Send the studio emails about how you would really like to watch it if you could buy weekly DVDs or downloads.

      It's not worth my time, honestly. I have what I want, and they get my money eventually. BSG is the only show I like that's currently broadcast, and it's guaranteed that I will own every DVD set that's released.

      If I don't like how much a restaurant charges for their food, or how long it takes for it to reach my table, I don't wait in the alley for the cook to through the scraps in the dumpster so that I can get it for free.

      Except that waiting in the alley for scraps means inconveniencing yourself for an inferior product.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    34. Re:This doesn't matter for us...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In Australia, it is extremely difficult to get a lot of American shows, with their being quite a big delay for all but the most popular ones.

      As an American living in the USA, let me assure you that you are not missing anything. There is absolutely nothing worthwhile here shown on TV!

      (Ok, except the Simpsons. But that's it.)

  7. Hmm... by DoktorGonzo · · Score: 1

    I feel that the MPAA is a bunch of Luddites.

  8. No Way !! by fodi · · Score: 4, Funny

    You CANNOT use an acronym with 'RAM' in it to describe something not relate to memory. That's a sin !!!

    1. Re:No Way !! by ndansmith · · Score: 1, Funny

      Also, you cannot use RAM in a way which pertains to plugging an analog (read: human) hole! Er...

  9. To be debated yesterday... by MLopat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Gee thanks. From the article "The Analog Content Security Preservation Act of 2005 is scheduled to be debated in a U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on Thursday."

    So how about a news article discussing the first round of debates?
    Here's a link to the bill.

    1. Re:To be debated yesterday... by fafalone · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's a video of the hearings, nearly 2 hours long (show your love of the committee by slashdotting it!) (only available in real video): Oversight Hearing on Content Protection in the Digital Age
      They talk about the broadcast flag as well, but is from Thursday and about plugging the analog hole.
      From http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=202

    2. Re:To be debated yesterday... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame Slashdot. The story was written well before the debate actually started.

    3. Re:To be debated yesterday... by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I despise listening to this committee's hearings. The lack of objectivity is palpable.. can you simply post a summary or something?

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    4. Re:To be debated yesterday... by fafalone · · Score: 1

      No, because I stopped listening as soon as they said their expert witnesses testifying included the CEOs of both the MPAA and RIAA. :)

  10. More info from EFF by tgtanman · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&p age=UserAction&id=181 Use the link above to write to your representative in the House and read a draft of the bill

    1. Re:More info from EFF by etymxris · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Here's mine:

      As my Representative [...snip...] on Thursday, November 3rd, 2005.

      My chief worry is that the universal restrictions proposed by the content makers will cripple the use of home electronics and computers. In order to enforce "digital rights", proposals such as the "ANALOG CONTENT SECURITY PRESERVATION ACT OF 2005" will require any hardware or software without certain restrictions to be outlawed. However, such built in restrictions are fundamentally opposed to "open source" operating systems that have been gaining popularity in recent years. In an open operating system, restrictions can easily be removed by anyone, and so the free open software contributed by thousands worldwide will become illegal under the proposals suggested by the content providers.

      I happen to be a user and supporter of such operating systems, and have already long been under the shadow of legislation pushed through by the MPAA and RIAA. For example, I have no legal means of playing DVDs under the operating system I choose to use. Software has been written and published that allows me to play DVDs, but due to the DMCA is illegal in the US. So I must go without. This is bad enough, but the proposed legislation would make all software created by volunteers and released without restrictions to become illegal.

      The RIAA and MPAA make it seem that the only ones who would want unfettered access to the working of their hardware and software are pirates. This is untrue. Those programming free and open software that is unrestricted by its nature would suddenly have their work outlawed, despite having previously broken no laws. I urge you to oppose such unreasonable restrictions on my behalf. Thank you.
  11. Re:As a record store owner. by QQoicu2 · · Score: 1

    You must be new here.

    --
    "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
  12. hehhh heheheehehehehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You said "analog".

    heh ehe he he heeh eh

    1. Re:hehhh heheheehehehehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plugging the A-Hole.

      Hehehehehe...fire fire....

  13. Who are they kidding? by Orinthe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone really believe that the government could make it illegal to record anything in analog? Come on, think about it--when I want to record my home movies, they're going to require that I only have a DRMed, digital copy? Or if I want to make an audio tape, I'll have to use an expensive, DRM-encumbered digital recorder, instead of a cheap cassette player? Or more pertinent, when a linguistics researcher or reporter wants to record a conversation, or a filmmaker wants to make a movie--there can't be any realistic expectation to force them to go not only digital, but DRM-encumbered digital.

    Even if such a bill were to be passed, it would be laughed at as the public went on its merry way using older analog and unencumbered digital devices.

    --
    SELECT quote.text AS sig FROM quote NATURAL JOIN attribute WHERE attribute.description = 'witty';
    0 rows returned
    1. Re:Who are they kidding? by tsotha · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Does anyone really believe that the government could make it illegal to record anything in analog?

      I didn't used to think so. But upon reflection I've changed my mind. I used to think there's no way the government could put the mp3 genie back in the bottle, but for the most part that's exactly what's happened.

      Look, any government that can make growing and consuming a plant in your house illegal can make analog recording illegal.

    2. Re:Who are they kidding? by Chemical · · Score: 1

      How and when did the government put the "mp3 genie back in its bottle"? AFAIK mp3 "sharing" is as rampant as ever, and sales of mp3 players are brisk.

    3. Re:Who are they kidding? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Even if such a bill were to be passed, it would be laughed at as the public went on its merry way using older analog and unencumbered digital devices.

      Yet many of us are being forced to adopt digital TV and Radio.

    4. Re:Who are they kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not being forced to adopt digital TV. If you were really opposed to it you would not buy any TV service. Same goes for radio. It's a luxury; if you don't like it, you can live perfectly well without it.

    5. Re:Who are they kidding? by aka1nas · · Score: 1

      Thta's different because it is being broadcast over public ariwaves, which the government can more easily enforce legislation upong those doing so. There is no way for them to effectively enforce a law that outlaws all existing analog recording devices.

    6. Re:Who are they kidding? by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1. Prison is big business in America.

      2. Most if not all polititions are lawers who game the system in their favor.

      3. DRM will be another nail in the coffin to inforce the limit of free speech.

      We know what kind of rules and regulations are being (or trying at least) to limit the freedom of speech in the blogisphere. Now the scumbags inside the DC beltway want to limit speech of the podcasters.

      Yes... I'm paranoid. But given the trends lately, can you *really* blame me?

      TRUST NO ONE!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:Who are they kidding? by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1
      People would laugh at it.

      But if it passed, and there wasn't a huge backlash, it would pretty much be Nineteen Fucking Eighty-Four.

      And I was hoping we could stave it off for another fifty years.

    8. Re:Who are they kidding? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Does anyone really believe that the government could make it illegal to record anything in analog?

      Yes. By definition in-fact.

      Even if such a bill were to be passed, it would be laughed at as the public went on its merry way using older analog and unencumbered digital devices.

      Oh yeah, you'd be laughing for a few years... Then your digital recorder will break down, and you'll stop laughing.

      Better to start now.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Who are they kidding? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i'm shooting for 1776

      keep an eye on your sporting goods store flyers i have seen .50 cal rifles in there every once in a while for under $500, anything that can shoot down a hovering chopper will be useful when the shit hits the fan.

      if you aren't strong enough to control the kick on a .50 cal get a good .30-06 don't bother with shotguns.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    10. Re:Who are they kidding? by syukton · · Score: 1

      Seen the shockumentary "Loose Change" ?

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    11. Re:Who are they kidding? by m50d · · Score: 2
      Does anyone really believe that the government could make it illegal to record anything in analog?

      Of course they can. Governments make all sorts of stupid things illegal.

      Even if such a bill were to be passed, it would be laughed at as the public went on its merry way using older analog and unencumbered digital devices.

      But if they ever need to get someone, they have something else that they're guilty of. There is a school of thought that says it's in a government's interest to have every citizen breaking the law - at that point they have control over everyone.

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:Who are they kidding? by Obsi · · Score: 0

      OK, so if the groupthink is correct, home movies/independent films/etc have to be DRM'd.
      So perhaps, the film maker could set the DRM settings something like this:
      NUMBER OF PLAYS: 1000! (or some other arbitrarily high bignum)
      NUMBER OF COPIES: 1000!

    13. Re:Who are they kidding? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Of course the government would make it illegal, given enough money from corporate sponsors. What the *AA fear is not necessarily piracy, but that people can now cut them out and distribute their own work without needing a big, traditional record company. If they can force all digital media players to only play secured media - and if they can then get to be the keyholders for those digital players, they ensure all artists still must go through a big, traditional record company to get any sort of widespread audience.

    14. Re:Who are they kidding? by Eustace+Tilley · · Score: 1

      With this bill, the government criminalizes the manufacture of devices with user-accessible drivers. Do you want to connect that monitor to any system other than the one the monitor's maker licensed at the time of your original purpose, such as a new computer? You must now seek the permission of the monitor's manufacturer to do so.

    15. Re:Who are they kidding? by gnarlin · · Score: 1

      You aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you!

      --
      A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
    16. Re:Who are they kidding? by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What's sad is that I see a day in the next 15 years where my daughter will come up to me and say "Daddy, what were movies and television like before you had to watch them through these MPAA DRM goggles?"

      "Well honey, back then you could look at the TV directly and it wasn't just a display of digital static. You could see the images and video right there on the screen as plain as day in an unencrypted format. Then the MPAA realized that people were still able to take a camcorder and record that display and got Congress to pass the Video Content Protection Act of 2008 to require the DRM-enabled goggles."

      Actually, hell, that's not sad, I'm looking forward to it. After the Internet gained popularity I started to watch less and less TV and I haven't been to a movie theater in 18 months. More of our content and entertainment will simply come via the Internet in the future instead of the passive television interface that couch potatoes are used to. We just need to ensure that we never allow the powers that be to take away our right to publish our own content with no restrictions (i.e. personal websites, blogs, home videos and photos... anything not created by a major media company).

    17. Re:Who are they kidding? by kocsonya · · Score: 1

      > Yes... I'm paranoid. But given the trends lately, can you *really* blame me?

      Nope, you are not paranoid. Just a realist. With little imagination :-(

    18. Re:Who are they kidding? by cryptoguy · · Score: 1

      Ok maybe I am missing something...

      Let's say I make my one authorized recording. It is now a file (ie, a sequence of bits on a disk--perhaps a CD?) I can now use a tool like K3B or PartImage to make a replica of the disk. I can FTP the file to another system. I can play it through open source software which gives me opportunity to capture the decoded material and perhaps re-encode it to remove watermarks. etc... The only thing that has changed is that commercially available tools will enforce the embedded copy controls.

      Sure DRM laws might prohibit some of those things. But copyright laws prohibit unauthorized file sharing now, yet people continue to do it. I don't see how this changes anything...other than for all those people who use commercial tools only.

    19. Re:Who are they kidding? by Jonboy+X · · Score: 1

      Look, any government that can make growing and consuming a plant in your house illegal can make analog recording illegal.

      Agreed. I, for one, am outraged by the US government's recent crackdowns on agugula and winter squash for personal use. Vegetation wants to be free!

      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    20. Re:Who are they kidding? by vern4of7 · · Score: 1

      Much of this legislation is driven trying to protect a dying business model. Every week you will hear on E! or whatever show does the movie numbers and hear that a movie did 50M or whatever. The higher ticket prices mask a trend that has been happening since the early 80's. Less people are going to the movies. Part of the problem is demographics, at least in California. 80% movie audience in the theater is between 15-30. The group that is behind the bady boomers is smaller, not the same or larger in size. When you build you business model on assumption that your business will grow, at minimum, with the population, your are now getting rude shock. This is true in the US/Canada and the EU. Oddly enough, the Economist has asked whether it is the governments place to protect business models that are dying?

      This of course is just one of several problems facing the MIAA and RIAA. There is also a the issue of other devices, media (internet, obviously) competing for our leisure time. This has been discussed here in the past.

      There are a number of Slashdot stories dating back as far as the 1998 speaking to the lack of quality product being delivered. One the contributing factors that brought done Heath Insurance in 2001 was the insuring of some really bad movies. Given how much money the studios are spending on movie, the reality is, that nobody is going to take chances. The largest most cynical difference between what is slowly happening to the movie business and what HAS happened in IT, they have great lobbyist and lots of money to protect their business model. In the http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0374 292884/qid=1131120891/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103- 1240697-8592637?v=glance&s=booksThe World is Flat", Friedman makes a case that in the new flat earth, it is innovate, adapt or perish (ok he said, get left behind).

    21. Re:Who are they kidding? by Chapium · · Score: 1

      One of the main purposes of any policy is to modify human behavior. If they wish to discourage behavior around analog, to promote the adoption of another technology, they feel that they can. Should they be trying to modify this behavior? Personally, i think not

    22. Re:Who are they kidding? by serutan · · Score: 1

      any government that can make growing and consuming a plant in your house illegal can make analog recording illegal

      Excellent analogy.

      Personally I would prefer eliminating the content industry to criminalizing private uses of simple technology. DRM is leading the way to a society where people have no rights, only permissions.

    23. Re:Who are they kidding? by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

      I agree. But if anyone DID put the mp3 genie back in the bottle, it would have to be iTunes and not the government.

    24. Re:Who are they kidding? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      those are .50 muzzleloaders, they're not .50 BMG rifles. The cheapest one of those I've seen is $2000.

    25. Re:Who are they kidding? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You are not being forced to adopt digital TV. If you were really opposed to it you would not buy any TV service. Same goes for radio. It's a luxury; if you don't like it, you can live perfectly well without it.

      He's probably referring to over the air broadcasts, which you can pick up for free once you have purchased a television and an antenna. In a couple of years, the analog broadcasts will cease, meaning if you still want to recieve television you have to buy a digital TV or a converter box.

    26. Re:Who are they kidding? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      From what I've been reading in the papers, the trendline for online mp3 sharing is in freefall. Between the lawsuits and all the garbage files out there it's just safer and easier for everyone to use iTunes. I don't think mp3 sharing is "as rampant as ever" at all.

  14. Y'know, at some point the whole argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wraps around! I mean, until our brains offer digital ports for input, all of our digital media ultimately has to present its content in analog form for human input. Given that analog recording devices have been around since... well... since Thomas Edison shouted "Mary had a little lamb" into an ear trumpet recording (in analog) on tin foil, I doubt that the content management folks will ever be able to put the analog recording genie back into the tube.
     
    I have especially delighted in using my lovely Dolby-equipped Sony tape deck to make a few dozen copies of the latest VanZant CD.
     
    There's no purpose to this post other than to point out the futility of the DRM folks trying to stuff toothpaste back into the tube. As the gatekeeper in the Wizard of Oz said, "Ain't no way, ain't no how!"

  15. Seriously by AutopsyReport · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Plug", "Analog", "Hole".

    I'm just about ready to submit this to Leno for Headlines... :)

    --

    For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    1. Re:Seriously by narcc · · Score: 0

      huhu 'plug anal log hole' huhu

    2. Re:Seriously by MaXiMiUS · · Score: 1, Funny

      Captain: Move 'Anal'. Mechanic: Somebody set us up the plug. Captain: For great hole!

      --
      It's never just a game when you're winning. - George Carlin
    3. Re:Seriously by Maian · · Score: 2, Funny

      On first glance, I actually read "Bill threatens to plug anal hole"... *cough*

    4. Re:Seriously by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      Bill, throw me a stool please Steve. I need to plug this anal log hole.

    5. Re:Seriously by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      Actually, should read:

      Bill: Throw me a stool please Steve. Gotta plug this anal log hole. Steve: No Bill, I think it would be absolutely reckless and irresponsible for anyone to try and break wind in this company.

    6. Re:Seriously by wootest · · Score: 1

      At least they won't be able to anally rape my mother while pouring sugar down my gas tank.

    7. Re:Seriously by CapnGrunge · · Score: 1

      Just wait for the IANAL crowd...

      --
      I see 57005 people
  16. Mod patent down by sr180 · · Score: 1, Troll

    This troll post appears everytime there is a story involving the RIAA.

    --
    In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    1. Re:Mod patent down by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah. There are too many patents anyway.

  17. Gotta love those bills without an author yet by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

    What can I say, you gotta love those bills that don't yet have an author. Kindof like the textbooks in California and Texas.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  18. Backwards? by The+Angry+Artist · · Score: 1

    With a little changing of the act name, ACSPA -> SCAT Act.

    Secure Content of Analog Technology Act of 2005.

    I believe the SCAT acronym accurately describes everyone's opinion of this legislation.

    I found chief technical officer of the MPAA Brad Hunt's comments funny.

    "Sometimes I think that people feel that the MPAA is a bunch of Luddites," Brad Hunt, chief technical officer of the MPAA, said in an interview Wednesday afternoon. "In this case, we are trying to incent the consumer to embrace the digital conversion, the digital connection...and that's why we need to drive this technology forward."

    The funny part isn't that the MPAA is saying that it wants to drive digital formats forward by pushing them backward -- the funny part is that the MPAA has a "chief technical officer."

    --
    If you're reading this, stop it.
    1. Re:Backwards? by Oxen · · Score: 1

      But if it is changed to the SCAT act, President Bush won't support its public debate.
       
      -Mark

        P.S. No more public scatology

      --
      First you animate. Then you SUSPEND!!!
    2. Re:Backwards? by LividBlivet · · Score: 1

      Brads brother Mike also works at the MPAA.

      Pretty funny when the secretary pages the building : "Has anyone seen Mike Hunt?"

    3. Re:Backwards? by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Do you think they'll have a mass debate over the SCAT act?

      (snigger)

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  19. Re:First Post by gaurzilla · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thank you CowboyNeal.. it's been a while since we had a good dupe.

  20. How about THIS idea by LardBrattish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sell good value (non DRM) products and more people will buy them.

    Decent books with CDs - sure you can download the tracks of the internet but you get a really nice package if you buy the legit copy.

    They can stick all the DRM they want onto a CD - it doesn't force people who think it's poor value to buy it. I think DRMed "CDs" are poor value & refuse to buy them on principle; so all they are doing is shrinking their potential market antagonizing their customers while the MP3s roam free on P2P.

    Put out something worth buying and I'll buy it. Video recorders that restrict use are poor value - I'll stick with my old one thank you very much...

    --
    What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
    1. Re:How about THIS idea by Grand+High+Wonko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The really stupid part of this is that they've done it before with massive success. When DVDs first came to market they sold DVD players and discs by loading lots of special content on them, and no, just in case there's any entertainment execs reading this, trailers and scene selection do not classify as special content. This encouraged early adoption and led to the monster that is DVD entertainment today, there was a very clear answer to the question "why should I buy the DVD instead of the video?"

      If they really want to make money and importantly maintain control over primary distribution they should improve the purchase experience of the physical media rather than DRMing it and annoying their only paying customers. Give out in the CDs things like rebates to concerts or posters or anything else that's hard for a pirate to reproduce. Make it clear that while it's possible to download the music it's impossible to get premium content without buying the CD. Another idea would be to distribute most of the tracks on the CD without DRM (word of mouth never hurt anybody) but add some kind of premium content that is DRMed (music videos, interviews with the band, hidden tracks or whatever).

      Basically show people that there are three ways they can get the media they want, by buying the disc which will give them all kinds of goodies to play with, through iTunes or other legal download methods which will give them what they want with no frills (and possibly not obscure content) and piracy which will give them the same no frills content but with guilt, possible lawsuits and the risk of infection by trojans, viruses and spyware.

    2. Re:How about THIS idea by LardBrattish · · Score: 1
      The really stupid part of this is that they've done it before with massive success. When DVDs first came to market they sold DVD players and discs by loading lots of special content on them, and no, just in case there's any entertainment execs reading this, trailers and scene selection do not classify as special content. This encouraged early adoption and led to the monster that is DVD entertainment today, there was a very clear answer to the question "why should I buy the DVD instead of the video?"

      I'd forgotten that but you're absolutely right. Also how about those beautiful LOTR editions with bookends & stuff like that. It IS possible & I'm sure the pirate quotient for those is virtually nil.

      Please don't get me started on DVD Region control though. I emigrated from England to Australia which means I have legitimately bought Region 2 & 4 DVDs Am I supposed to buy 2 DVD players? Fortunately I have an unlocked player so it's not an issue but it could become one. The pathetic thing is they're pretty much all old movies and were old movies when I bought them - you can just imagine the execs going "Oh, better stop the rest of the world playing this copy of 'Goldfinger' before it's released" FFS get a clue - the movie's 40 years old; all you're doing is forcing yourself to make several different versions & you can't ship them to different markets if one market takes off while another fails to sell as expected - duh!

      Also in Australia EMI were dumb enough to put copy protection on the 30th Anniversary edition of "Diamond Dogs" - Yep, that's going to stop online piracy, great job.

      --
      What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
    3. Re:How about THIS idea by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      absolutely, some of us actually LIKE having physical materials, and i'm not just talking about a bunch of lyrics and a few artsy fartsy photos either. they could actually reverse it, sell a book full of stuff from a bands latest tour and bung the cd along with it. *allow* the cd to be copied and distributed freely. also think of all the money that comes in from touring, assuming it's not all spent on fancy sets and lighting, that is.

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    4. Re:How about THIS idea by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      Is there something special about the 30th anniversary edition of Diamond Dogs? I remember back when Bowie had an ISP. As a memeber you got access to his entire lineup of songs in mp3 format. Whatever they're copy protecting there is probably already out on the net in a quality format and has been for years.

    5. Re:How about THIS idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You run with that idea... Good luck to you.

      Meanwhile, the music industry will continue making money hand over fist. They know their business a hell of a lot better than YOU do.

    6. Re:How about THIS idea by mpe · · Score: 1

      They can stick all the DRM they want onto a CD - it doesn't force people who think it's poor value to buy it. I think DRMed "CDs" are poor value & refuse to buy them on principle;

      Maybe these people will eventually get it into their heads that "DRM" just isn't going to work. No matter how much they try and no matter how much malware they bundle it with. If you want people to be able to listen to a CD they will be able to copy it (and convert it into another format).

      so all they are doing is shrinking their potential market antagonizing their customers while the MP3s roam free on P2P.

      Thing is that these, DRM free, MP3s might be of more value than DRM "CDs".

      Put out something worth buying and I'll buy it.

      Also, if your product isn't doing well try something else. Part of the problem here is that the RIAA/MPAA/etc appear to be more interested in trying to manipulate the publics taste than catering for what the public's tastes might actually be.

      Video recorders that restrict use are poor value

      The customer ends up paying for something added which reduces and impairs the basic function of the machine.

    7. Re:How about THIS idea by LardBrattish · · Score: 1
      It's a double CD with just DD on the first - so that's been available on CD for close on 20 years.

      The second CD has rarities - most of which were available on the Rykodisc edition from the early '90s & the rest weren't available for a good reason ;)

      You DO get a very nice book (proving my point beautifully) although it's not hardback & not as well done as the Ziggy one was.

      In summary, 90% of the content is available second hand DRM free if you buy the Rykodisc edition of Bowie's back catalogue.

      BUT there's a nice book that makes it attractive for Bowie obsessives (like my wife).

      Most...pointless...use...of...DRM...EVER!!!

      --
      What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
  21. Blah by Brantano · · Score: 0

    What ever happened to the United States being free? It seems in the past year, more government associations are trying to shush up the people's rights and control what they see, what they record, and what they do. Is it really that much of a bane on Television Stations if a person records a football game while he's at work with an old vcr? How is this any different than it being recorded on a DVR? What if that said person doesnt have a digital cable box and watches Fox Sunday Football on his rabit ears? This is not affecting a single damn person and its horrible that there trying to pass a LAW that hinders what someone can do with analog content.

    I personally cant wait for all these old government conservative officials that run these shitty conservative government organizations to die and there companies to fall into obscurity.

  22. Analog Holes! by sockonafish · · Score: 2, Funny

    In the future, speakers that produce piracy-inducing analog sound waves will be outlawed. All music will be transmitted directly to your auditory nerve.

    Oh wait, nerves use analog signals. All nerves must carry DRM!

  23. My question is... by elgee · · Score: 1

    Is printed matter analog or digital? Or does it depend how it is copied? If I scan it, it is digital. If I use an older copier to copy it, is it analog?

    1. Re:My question is... by gordguide · · Score: 1

      I love this question. elgee is confused to the point where he doesn't know what analog is, isn't sure what it's good for, or if anything made in the last 10 years even exists in an analog state. A sad state for modern man, I say.

      Now, back to his question:
      Your eyes require analog light to see, and therefore read, anything. If you can read it, even if you're reading it on a computer screen, it's in an analog state.

      We use analog things to store, transmit, or process digital data. It starts as analog, we then translate it to digital, but if we want to actually use it, eventually it has to be turned back to analog.

      Where you might be confused is this: we don't actually have to change the digital data to analog to use it in an analog world; we can copy it and translate the copy to analog, leaving the digital original alone. That's how your computer displays a page of text on a monitor. But, rest assured, if you can read it, it's in an analog form.

      " ... Is printed matter analog or digital? Or does it depend how it is copied? ..."

      So, can you read printed text? It's analog then.
      Does it depend on how it's copied? Sort of. Every means of copying it must start as analog. It could then be translated to digital data ( desktop scanner) or not (photographic film). You have a choice. Then, it can be stored, transmitted, etc in either analog or digital form. As long as you never want to read it, it can remain in digital form. As soon as you do, it must be turned into analog.

      " ... If I scan it, it is digital. ..."
      It was analog, you turned it to digital, where it stays until you want to read it, when it must turn to analog for you to see it.

      " ... If I use an older copier to copy it, is it analog? ..."

      Perhaps; analog copiers exist.

      Which brings us up to the main topic: copy control in the analog domain. It should be obvious that there is no way to do that without altering how something looks (reading, watching a video) or sounds (listening to or recording music, voice, the sound of the birds outside your home). Everything must ultimately be allowed to be translated from digital to analog or we can't actually make any real use of it. Certainly Hollywood needs to let us watch and hear their movies, and this must take place in the analog domain (no matter whether it's a newsreel on movie film or a DVD).

      So, it strikes me as insanely stupid to even think this bill could be crafted in the first place. What are they going to do, make it a crime to run around the back yard with a cassette deck and a microphone, recording bumblebees? I don't understand what they think they're debating.

    2. Re:My question is... by CAlworth1 · · Score: 1

      While you make good points, your lack of understanding of the bill comes from another detail: yes,everything you see can be classified as analog, it could also be argued that this only works to a point - then you have discrete atomic and subatomic particels, so back to digital.

      But nevermind that. Digital _data_ is that which can be precisely and discretely evaluated to be a certain thing. There is no question when you read the letter 'h' what it is, just as when you record an MP3 (discrete bits, all either 1's or 0's), it can be copied with no loss to the original. Analog music (and video for that matter) is recorded in a manner where (for all intents and purposes*) the exact state of parts of the recording cannot be detremined.

      Digital TV is a signal when can be exactly reproduced without loss of information. Analog TV can't. A speech given cannot be excatly reproduced, but the words and letters involved can be copied time and again.

      For the purposes of printed text, as far as the information itself is concerned, a 'digital' copier can do the same job as an 'analog' copier, so long as all the words are still there, they both have made a 'digital' copy of the information. If this bill were directed at text (which it isnt), then paper would need to have some kind of marker for who wrote it and where the original came from.

      *okay, at the molecular level, yes, it can. Be we cant play with pieces that small on a large scale yet.

    3. Re:My question is... by gordguide · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point; I certainly never there is anything flawed (or perfect, for that matter) about digital. I merely pointed out that it's a world that we, as humans, don't live in. Sooner or later, it's got to be in analog form if it wants to exist in the physical world, and typically (but not necessarily) it starts analog and ends analog.

      " ... Digital TV is a signal when can be exactly reproduced without loss of information. Analog TV can't. ..."

      What is "Digital TV"? I'm not sure, but for sake of discussion, how about an example of a typical TV broadcast using, say, DirectTV:

      Analog video & sound is digitized, the digital data is transmitted, received, and finally converted to analog so we can see and hear the TV show. By definition, what you referred to as "Digital TV" has an analog component that cannot be eliminated.

      I'm not sure if following your argument means the analog portion must, by definition, be degraded but I am sure that the period of time the signal stays in the digital domain is irrelevant if it's a fundamental part of the process and that process must include an analog component.

      Either the broadcast can be perfectly reproduced with necessary analog gear at each end (and I believe it can); or it can't (I think you believe it can't, correct me if I'm wrong) and the "perfect" part is irrelevant since it cannot rid itself from being part of a flawed process.

      But, going back to my original post, let's put it this way:
      You can't watch "Digital TV" because our eyes only respond to analog information; any TV image must be in analog form for us to see it. Sorry, but wishing it were not so won't change that.

  24. My "favorite" part by lheal · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "Sometimes I think that people feel that the MPAA is a bunch of Luddites," Brad Hunt, chief technical officer of the MPAA, said in an interview Wednesday afternoon. "In this case, we are trying to incent the consumer to embrace the digital conversion, the digital connection...and that's why we need to drive this technology forward."

    Of all the disingenuous malarky. "Incent the consumer". Since when did "incent" become synonymous with "bufu"?

    They want to keep me from making copies of stuff I buy, so if it gets ruined I have to buy another one. Or so I can only play it from the media I bought it on.

    Guess what, pally: most of the stuff I listen to is on sweet old vinyl. I want to preserve the music from my analog media, and the best way to do that is digitally. But don't try to tell me I can't do whatever I want with something I buy, as long as I don't try to give it to someone else.

    /rant.
    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:My "favorite" part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of all the disingenuous malarky. "Incent the consumer". Since when did "incent" become synonymous with "bufu"?
      For that matter, since when was "incent" a word at all, outside of the MPAA's marketing department? I think the word he was really looking for was "coerce."
    2. Re:My "favorite" part by hunterx11 · · Score: 2

      No, he just misspelled "incense."

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    3. Re:My "favorite" part by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      I think he just verbed 'incentive'

    4. Re:My "favorite" part by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      It could have been worse. He could have used the word 'incentivize'.

    5. Re:My "favorite" part by Wellspring · · Score: 1

      While we're plugging the analog hole, can we plug their pie holes too?

    6. Re:My "favorite" part by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      FTA:"In this case, we are trying to incent the consumer"

      The MPAA spokesperson apparently skipped a couple lines in the dictionary... what he meant is that '[they] are trying to incense the customer'.

      At which they are succeeding.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:My "favorite" part by Evangelion · · Score: 1


      incent (n-snt') pronunciation
      tr.v., -cented, -centing, -cents.

      To incentivize: "would use tax breaks to incent corporations to invest in their future" (Scott Canon).

      [Back-formation from INCENTIVE.]

      Language evolves. Get used to it.

    8. Re:My "favorite" part by noidentity · · Score: 1

      "Sometimes I think that people feel that the MPAA is a bunch of Luddites," Brad Hunt, chief technical officer of the MPAA, said in an interview Wednesday afternoon. "In this case, we are trying to incent the consumer to embrace the digital conversion, the digital connection...and that's why we need to drive this technology forward."

      Of all the disingenuous malarky. "Incent the consumer".


      I think they actually meant "incite", as in piss them off.

    9. Re:My "favorite" part by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Maybe they meant "incest"? I sure feel like I'm being molested by an uncle.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  25. Re:As a record store owner. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The parent raises an important point. If a troll is genuinly funny, should it be modded troll or funny? Should it be modded +1 or -1. Nice effort.

  26. Big F*cking deal by Browzer · · Score: 0

    Who records anything anymore anyway especially in analog? The crime should be wasting tax payers money debating the right of the citizens to record using baseball as an example when there are 150+ games/year/team. Couldn't they use an event that happens once a year as an example?

    1. Re:Big F*cking deal by Phisbut · · Score: 1
      Who records anything anymore anyway especially in analog?

      Some people still have VCR's... and not everybody has digital cable...

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
  27. put in copy prevention and lose copyright by bigpat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A rational and consistent intelectual property law would one be that prevented copyrighted content from using copy prevention technology at all. After all it has the protection of law, then why should people be prevented from making fair use of the content?

    I see copy prevention technology as being no different conceptually from a trade secret. If you decide to hide a technology as a trade secret rather than sharing a technology through a patent then your technology can be reverse engineered legally and you get no protection under law. The trade off is that society gets access to your new technology and you get legal monopoly for a number of years. If you don't share the technology via a descriptive patent, then you don't get a legal monopoly. So, similarly if you decide to prevent copying using technology rather than by using copyright law, then you should get no benefit under the law because you are ultimately depriving society of the content if it is never released in a copyable form.

    1. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Copyright is increasingly being viewed as property. From the my.mp3.com ruling:
      Copyright, however, is not designed to afford consumer protection or convenience but, rather, to protect the copyrightholders' property interests.
      If the legislature and courts take the view that copyright is akin to property, then protecting it via technological means (akin to locking the doors on your house) just makes sense, and doesn't remove the owner's right to the property they're protecting.
    2. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by jlarocco · · Score: 1
      A rational and consistent intelectual property law would one be that prevented copyrighted content from using copy prevention technology at all. After all it has the protection of law, then why should people be prevented from making fair use of the content?

      I've never understood this about the government. To solve the problem of people breaking the law, they pass more laws. If it's illegal to do something, and people are still doing it, making it a little more illegal isn't going to stop anyone.

      Do they really think someone's going to say "If only I had these cassette tapes on CD, I would rip them and post torrents somewhere. But all I have are the cassette tapes, and that would be breaking the 'Analog Hole' law. Damn you MPAA, your law has ruined my plan to illegally share music." Give me a break.

    3. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by idlake · · Score: 1

      I guess this points out a fundamental problem with case law: it assumes that judges are competent, not corrupt, and have the interest of the populace at heart. This judge doesn't seem to satisfy at least two of those properties.

    4. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by MSZ · · Score: 1

      With ever-expanding term of protection it becomes like the property. When copyright was limited to 14+14 years (or sth like that) it was obvious it's not a property.

      Seems it has to first get worse to get better later. Hope we live to see that...

      --
      The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
    5. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by MSZ · · Score: 1

      To solve the problem of people breaking the law, they pass more laws. If it's illegal to do something, and people are still doing it, making it a little more illegal isn't going to stop anyone.

      It is easier to pass a lot of laws than to actually deal with the problem. And much cheaper.

      Also, there's a factor called "magical thinking", where state officials' faith in the power of laws makes them believa that outlawing something actually stops the proscribed activity.

      --
      The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
    6. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by laughingcoyote · · Score: 4, Informative

      They also got copyright's purpose wrong. You'd really think they'd teach people about the Constitution in law school.

      Since apparently they don't, though, the writers of the Constitution were very clear on what copyright's purpose is, and they got it dead wrong. Here's the relevant portion:

      "The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" -United States Constitution, Section 8 (emphasis mine)

      Note two important things from that passage: Firstly, the purpose of copyrights is to promote the progress of science and art. (NOT the wealth of scientists and artists!) Since copyright and patents by definition restrict sharing and reuse of information, which is necessary for progress in science and art, they also put in another provision: such restrictions must be for a limited time. A period which someone born today will not outlive is not, for any intents or purposes, a "limited time," not in any meaningful sense. The "limited time" provision implies to me that it should be the minimum amount of time necessary to encourage creators to create-which is the time at which they can generally turn a profit. Since most copyrighted/patented material turns a profit within 5-10 years (or never will), and creators would keep creating even if that's all the time they got, why have it longer?

      Copyright is not about the "interests" of creators, except so far as recognizing such interests encourage them to continue creating. Copyright and patent are for the benefit of the public-and when it fails any longer to serve the public, to the benefit of the rights holders, it fails to the extent it does so.

      Also note that copyrights and patents are not treated like property. Congress may not seize your property for public use unless they pay you just compensation for it-that's right in the Constitution. Yet, they are REQUIRED to make it so that copyrights and patents are released to the public after a set period of time. Is there any clearer indication that the law does and should not consider such things "property"?

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    7. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by Xyrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they're going to treat copyrighted material as property, then it should have the same consequences as property.

      It should be taxed. Not just income tax, but property tax. A maitenance/registration fee should be imposed to maintain the copyright as well.

      Non-commercial copyrights would be immune to such fees and taxes. Thus free software, a poem you wrote, etc. would still be free as long as you didn't try to sell it.

      Commercial copyrights however are treated just like any other asset. It doesn't matter if the book/software/movie makes money or not, the entity that owns the copyright must still pay property taxes and whatever fees go with it. If the copyrighted material is being sold, then it is no longer non-commercial.

      This would force companies to dump their copyrighted materials into the public domain once the property was costing more to maintain than it was bringing in. Either that, or the companies would be forced to innovate in order to keep the copyright profitable.

      This would be a win-win situation in the end. But we all know the true colors of the megacorps, and something like this would be killed even before reaching committee.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    8. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1
      Great!

      A whole new area of taxation! What a boon to the goverment's coffers! What a field day for CPAs and accountants!

      Under your rules, I get taxed twice for being a photographer - once on the income that I earn from selling my photographs and again for having the audacity to copyright them so someone else can't get income from selling my pictures. And, even if they do, they only have to pay once because they didn't copyright it!

      Maybe my future is in tax law...

    9. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by IvyKing · · Score: 1
      If the legislature and courts take the view that copyright is akin to property...

      If "copyright" is property, then why aren't the governments collecting property tax? If it is property, then can we expect the "copyright" owners to be liable for their property?

    10. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by mpe · · Score: 1

      Note two important things from that passage: Firstly, the purpose of copyrights is to promote the progress of science and art. (NOT the wealth of scientists and artists!)

      Let alone the wealth of middlemen and the (great) grandchildren of scientists and authors.

      Since copyright and patents by definition restrict sharing and reuse of information, which is necessary for progress in science and art, they also put in another provision: such restrictions must be for a limited time.

      One thing that has been repeatedly overlooked is that whilst some measure of such exclusivity might be good this does not mean that adding more will be proportionatly better. In the same way that a small amount of a chemical might a useful drug, a larger quantity can be no more useful and a larger quantity still will do far more harm than good.

      A period which someone born today will not outlive is not, for any intents or purposes, a "limited time," not in any meaningful sense. The "limited time" provision implies to me that it should be the minimum amount of time necessary to encourage creators to create-which is the time at which they can generally turn a profit. Since most copyrighted/patented material turns a profit within 5-10 years (or never will),

      In many cases even less than that time period. Espcially with copyright, since you are unlikely to have to build a complete manufacturing system from scratch. Which is a distinct possibility with patents.

      and creators would keep creating even if that's all the time they got, why have it longer?

      An overlong time may actually discourage people motivated by the prospect of profit (which has never been all creative people anyway). A Short copyright term means they cannot continue to "flog a dead horse" or get paid for work they did years (even decades) ago.

    11. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by mpe · · Score: 1

      I've never understood this about the government. To solve the problem of people breaking the law, they pass more laws.

      Maybe a side effect of having career politicans with an over-representation of lawyers... They think that more laws are the solution to everthing.
      What's probably needed is more engineers in government :)

    12. Re:put in copy prevention and lose copyright by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      So instead you think it's fair that copyright last's the lifetime of the author + 99 yeras?

      How is that encouraging creativity? How does this encourage innovation? How is that helping out the community?

      It isn't. And if the megacorps get their way, they never will. The gov either needs to repeal copyright length back to reasonable levels, or something needs to be put in place to encourage copyright dictators^H^H^H^H^H^H^H holders to release older material into the public domain.

      A tax on your photo's would amount to a few bucks tops. The taxes for the huge amount of IP that Sony music owns would be a chunk of change.

      So taxation might not solve the problem. However it is unlikely congress will do anything that will cut itself off from the money pigs. Any other suggestions?

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  28. What?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sorry I gotta post AC as I modded before RTFA, but look at this paragraph:

    However, devices sold before the date the proposed legislation would be enacted, such as today's televisions, would be grandfathered in, according to the terms of the legislation. In addition, devices that were designed "solely of displaying programs," and ones that could not be "readily modified" for redistributing content would also be exempt.

    If all the old capture cards, VCR's, DVR's and the like are going to be 'Grandfathered' in, what's the goddamn point? I mean, anyone with enough technical knowledge to do this, is already going to have the equipment, and I sure as hell am not going to throw it away because a new bill passes.

    1. Re:What?? by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      I have a ten-year old video capture card here. You think I can even find drivers for it?

      Go ahead and store all the capture cards you like, in another ten years they won't be worth shit.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    2. Re:What?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just bought a 10 year old capture card off eBay, real cheap, and it works exceptionally well in my Linux box. I don't expect the kernel devs to discontinue driver support any time soon. Heck, there's still driver support for my old Western Digital MFM hard drive controller!!

    3. Re:What?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah... You forgot about the new day light saving time coming into effect. A lot of the existing VCR cannot be firmware upgraded for that. Not everybody can program a VCR correctly. The VCRs will ended up in land fills and the MPAA would have their say.

      As for video capturing cards, they would still need drivers to operate. ATI is very friendly to contention protections. They respect macrovision in their driver.

    4. Re:What?? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Right, but when they release the new round of HD equipment and BD or HD-DVD drives, they'll all have this protection. Being the tech-savvy types, the people you refer to will want to have the new equipment. One of the bad things about a developing market is how quickly things become obsolescent.

  29. Copyright our articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe slashdot should copyright its articles. Maybe that would prevent further dupes.

    1. Re:Copyright our articles by boarder8925 · · Score: 1
      Aren't they already?
      All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2005 OSTG.
      Eh, maybe not.
  30. Analogue Rights Management? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all I trust that whatever they think about that, there will always be a "DVD Jon" somewhere that will point the poor design of the schema/algorithm. The tighter they'll hold, the more they'll loose.
    We only need to avoid those chips being installed into our brains in order to enforce the brohibition to tell our friends about the football match we looked at. We paid for one private view, not for a public performance!

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    1. Re:Analogue Rights Management? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Analogue Rights Management? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, he just misspelled "lose" like every other faggot on the Internet who never graduated middle school, but consider their own opinions important just because their mommies bought them a computer.

    3. Re:Analogue Rights Management? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

      Yes I did. But I'm not anglophone and never listened to the exact sentence in English!
      Thanks a real lot!

      --
      Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
      For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    4. Re:Analogue Rights Management? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

      Menomale che ci sono persone istruite come te che provvedono a tappare la bocca a noi ignoranti.
      Grazie.

      --
      Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
      For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    5. Re:Analogue Rights Management? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're also greasy, affiliated with organized crime, and can sweep floors with your back hair? Shocker.

  31. Re:As a record store owner. by MLopat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wow, assuming there's any credibility to your story (and that's probably a real stretch) you assaulted a minor? Good for you. So maybe we should add your sorry ass to a list, you know, one like the sexual offenders list. How are you going to explain to your kids that daddy had to close down the store to afford a lawyer and still has to serve 3 months? Imagine their haircuts then.

  32. Let's googlebomb that "bunch of Luddites" by adnonsense · · Score: 1

    Like this: A bunch of Luddites

    1. Re:Let's googlebomb that "bunch of Luddites" by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      The funniest part is that when I clicked on that link, all I saw was the Firefox ad-block icon-widget. (insert mumbling about how content-free MPAA movies are...)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Let's googlebomb that "bunch of Luddites" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, both the ??AAs and those opposed to DRM can be described as Luddites, can't they?
      BTW, what use will googlebombing that bunch of Luddites serve?

      _V_

  33. Did anyone else think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy crap! There are two Bills?!?!

  34. Uhhhh.. that's just indecent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Firefox. Windows. This page opened in new window. 2nd tab opened afterward.
    This story's tab reads:

    New Bill Threatens to Plug "Anal...


    Just wrong.
  35. a hole, huh? by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Troll

    Can't say analog hole without saying: fucking government, always trying to fuck you right in the a..nalog hole.
    This is so stupid that a government (any government) is acting as a business protection agent. Of-course it looks like that's all governments do nowadays.

  36. I don't get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is Bill and what is she doing to Ana Log?

  37. *sigh* by Fordiman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another attempt to squelch innovation that will just redirect homebrew efforts in the direction of circumvention. Call me when they shut down eMule/aMule/xMule, Kademlia, or BitTorrent (or BitSpirit (BT/Kad-like subsystem), for that matter).

    I'm bored of this stupid timeline... you know:
    P2P services arise
    RIAA/MPAA kills one
    P2P piracy increases due to consumers being pissed off that the RIAA/MPAA has no respect for their rights (or their tastes... this summer had nothing good in the theatres aside from the Guide, you know)
    RIAA/MPAA freaks and claims P2P services are to blame, inviting legislation/technology that fucks fair use while not doing any real good
    P2P piracy increses, for much the same reasons as before, while homebrew programmers work around the new legislation/technology
    RIAA/MPAA freaks
    P2P piracy increses

    A quote from a relevant link of the article:
    "We have a bright young public who sees nothing wrong with downloading...it's going to destroy the copyright industry, it seems to me ... [peer-to-peer networking] is either going to be legal, or it isn't going to exist."
      - Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

    You're right, Dianne. But you haven't quite gotten the point.
    Unregulated, P2P users were still buying good CDs. But every time new anti-p2p legislation is enacted, new anti-circumvention technology added, and for each p2p site shut down, it alienates the Industries from their customers. Each time, the animosity that was once limited to the tech-savvy grows ever outward into people who'd never have thought bad of their content providers.

    There are easy ways to fix this; one is to stop with the lawsuits. Worst. Press. Ever. Another is to start producing quality. People won't want to steal that which is actually worth paying for. The real item is to fix copyright law. 95 years past the original author's death is rediculous. How about 15 years past initial release? If I knew I could, for example, download episodes of the original Battlestar Galactia without legal repercussions, I might reconsider downloding Sci Fi's Season 2 DV cap that's floating on Bittorrent.

    This law doesn't matter to anyone with a brain. A TV card with an offending chip can be "repaired" by anyone determined enough. You'd have to integrate your crap into the DAC and MPEG-4 encoders of every device, then hope someone doesn't hack the controls out of the software, or that someone doesn't make an open source version, fully functional (and easily modified), on the premise of interoperability.

    Yeah, release the drivers for linux in closed source code. Someone will build ones for their amiga system and claim interoperability. Release for amiga, and you'll have the BeOS people doing it. Do BeOS, and there's a few flavors of BSD that would be clean. BeOS covered? How about Minix? You're not going to win here without spending a few billion in development, and then you'll still lose to those who don't cower under a legal premise and have names like "Thundulator". The term is "Unenforcable", or, in colloquial terms, "Useless fuck of a law".

    Meanwhile, the cycle's going to go on until either the MPAA/RIAA have run out of money to throw at the problem, due to the combination of lack of consumers willing to pay to be fucked in the ass, or until they basically cow under - and eat what crumbs consumers will give them AFTER the content creators have been paid - like the good little middle-management fucktards they are.

    In conclusion, Dianne is partially right. Their either will be legal AND free P2P, or there won't be an RIAA/MPAA. Actually, I'm kinda pushing for both.

    --
    110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    1. Re:*sigh* by idlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What makes you think the interoperability provisions are going to stand?

      These people are after total control of speech and content: they want to make the cost of entry into publishing and media so high that only corporations can afford it, the way it used to be in the 20th century. It's comfortable for the media companies and it's comfortable for politicians. And the people that managed to bring you the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, software patents, and now storyline patents, will manage to do just that.

    2. Re:*sigh* by Kjella · · Score: 1

      In conclusion, Dianne is partially right. Their either will be legal AND free P2P, or there won't be an RIAA/MPAA. Actually, I'm kinda pushing for both.

      How can there not be P2P? P2P is just another fancy word for mass communication. Back in the old days pre-Internet when we were swapping warez CDs, it went from peer to peer. LAN parties were peer to peer swapping grounds. The Internet simply made it possible to do that on a global scale. Even if you were to Turn Back Time(tm) and erase everything invented since Napster, IRC and FTP would flourish with todays broadband speeds. Even disregarding the "open" P2P you have today, a "friend2friend" network that automates much of what I described above is quite feasible. How would you stop that? Are you going to deny two parties from communicating in privacy? Because that is ultimately what P2P is - a big honking number of pairs communicating.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and then you'll still lose to those who don't cower under a legal premise and have names like "Thundulator".

      This is sig material if I ever saw it. :-)

    4. Re:*sigh* by nine-times · · Score: 1
      This law doesn't matter to anyone with a brain. A TV card with an offending chip can be "repaired" by anyone determined enough. You'd have to integrate your crap into the DAC and MPEG-4 encoders of every device, then hope someone doesn't hack the controls out of the software, or that someone doesn't make an open source version, fully functional (and easily modified), on the premise of interoperability.

      And what everyone needs to remember is that it doesn't need to be easy to get access to the audio/video, there just need to be people somewhere who can do it. Put all the DRM you want on something, and yes, it might keep Joe Sixpack from being able to distribute his version, but as long as Joe Uber-nerd is out there somewhere stripping the DRM, it'll end up on P2P. And then Joe Sixpack will download the DRM-free version because he's sick of not being able to play it on [insert obscure device here], or because he doesn't want to pay for it, or whatever. It'll spread, and finally be just as accessible as if the [RI|MP]AA had posted it on the internet themselves.

    5. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, YOU don't get it.

      "People won't want to steal that which is actually worth paying for."

      Wow, someone is drinking the Kool-Aid WAY to hard, you're drowning in it.

      By STEALING it, how are you not implicitly saying you DO WANT IT, and you're just TOO POOR to afford it???

      Just because you can't AFFORD it at its market price, doesn't mean you have some right to steal it because you have issues with the price.

      Do I have a new BMW? No, I can't AFFORD it. Do I think they're overpriced? Well, of course, because I CAN'T AFFORD IT. Does that give me some sort of right to go to my local dealership and just steal one? I wish... :-/

    6. Re:*sigh* by mpe · · Score: 1

      Put all the DRM you want on something, and yes, it might keep Joe Sixpack from being able to distribute his version, but as long as Joe Uber-nerd is out there somewhere stripping the DRM, it'll end up on P2P. And then Joe Sixpack will download the DRM-free version because he's sick of not being able to play it on [insert obscure device here], or because he doesn't want to pay for it, or whatever.

      One rather significent "whatever" is that Joe Sixpack can only get the P2P version. Because they have lost the "geographic lottery" thus are expected to wait (in some cases up to years).

      It'll spread, and finally be just as accessible as if the [RI|MP]AA had posted it on the internet themselves.

      Most likely more accessible. Since Joe Uber-nerd knows that they are dealing with a global network (and market). Whereas the ??AA still appear to have not realised that the steam engine has been invented. There's even a chance that a couple of Aussies with a rowing boat could get the latest Hollywood release into their local cinema faster than is currently the norm :)

  38. Makes your Tivo unable to record by krbvroc1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the broadcaster doesnt want you to record 'their' shows you cant tivo it.

    (1) Copy Prohibited Content. An Analog Video Input Device shall not record or
    cause the recording of Copy Prohibited Content in digital form except for
    retention for a period not to exceed 90 minutes from initial receipt of each unit
      of such content, including retention and deletion on a frame-by-frame,
    minute-by-minute or megabyte-by-megabyte basis, using a Bound Recording Method,
    and provided that such content shall be destroyed or otherwise rendered unusable
    prior to or upon expiration of such period.

  39. MOD Parent up please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks :)

  40. And in unrelated news... by mpaque · · Score: 4, Funny

    -- April 1, 2008 --
    A new closed captioning system for home video use was announced. The device is capable of writing arbitrary bit streams into various lines of the vertical blanking interval data, to allow the addition or modification of closed caption data for personal use and home viewing.

    Note that posession of this device within the United States is a felony punishible by exile to the New York or Los Angeles Maximum Security Prisons.

    1. Re:And in unrelated news... by eheldreth · · Score: 1

      I though you where dead.

      --
      The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
    2. Re:And in unrelated news... by mpaque · · Score: 1

      I though you were dead.

      Yeah, you and everybody else.

  41. No way... by djflipstarx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm not letting them plug MY analog hole. I don't swing that way.

    --
    Y helo thar
  42. Hmm...Agree with me...or else. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I feel that the MPAA is a bunch of Luddites."*

    Translation: They're not doing what I want.

    *You might want to look up the definition of luddite.

  43. Microsoft's new clipboard in Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The clipboard in Vista will be DRM'd.
    Finally, our assignments won't get copied and pasted without permission.

  44. Celebrity Jeopardy, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see it now:

    Sean Connery: "I'll take Anal Log Hole for $200, Alex"
    Alex Trebek: "That's Analog Hole"
    Sean Connery: "Your mother's face was a hole, ya hog-wallerin' mamma's boy--HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!!!"

  45. Re:As a record store owner. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have thought that the drop in CD sales was more to do with people buying online and downloading from sites such as iTunes, then the effects of piracy.

    Or possibly it's due to the fact that "Family music" and "Christian rock" isn't that popular with the CD buying demographic.

  46. Not Really a Dupe by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    That other article discussed the same thing, but it was weak on details and heavy on ranting. This one is much more meaningful.

    1. Re:Not Really a Dupe by ArgieNomad · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      1- Post it
      2- Don't edit (or even read!) it
      3- Someone writes it well
      4- ???
      5- Profit!!

      --
      I just read /. for the sigs
  47. Not the only hole being plugged by Basehart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This brings to mind the latest iTunes compatible communication device from Motorola which doesn't have a headphone socket. Instead it is rumored to require a bluetooth device with which to experience the stereo audio feed.

    If it ends up never having a stereo socket, and subsequent devices don't have an audio output either, we could be seeing the beginnings of a closed system which stops "pirates" in their tracks by sending audio directly to a device which lives inside your ears.

    Although there are bluetooth products out there which have audio out, they may soon start becoming scarce if this is indeed how the industry intends to keep music in a closed loop.

    1. Re:Not the only hole being plugged by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      The receiving device must, by definition, have an analogue output. It's got a freakin' loudspeaker in it, for crying out loud! Maybe even two ..... all you need do is carefully cut it open, and solder some wires on to the terminals. Or, since a loudspeaker has an electromagnet in it, just place another coil around the outside of the headphone. A current will be induced in this, varying in perfect sympathy with the current flowing in the speaker's coil. Or of course you could train a microphone on the speaker itself.

      Whatever method you use, any distortion it introduces will be irretrievable {and so steps should be taken to minimise it} but at least it won't get any worse with subsequent copying.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    2. Re:Not the only hole being plugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? Sooner or later the audio has to be sent as an analog signal to the system that drives the magnets that move the speaker cone. Just capture the signal as it makes it's way along the last few millimetres of good old copper wire.

    3. Re:Not the only hole being plugged by idlake · · Score: 1

      Not quite; it can generate the low frequency audio by non-linear interaction of ultrasound with air; don't laugh--it's hot technology that lets you localize sound in a nice way, and it may well become the standard speaker system in the future. You could still re-record with a microphone, but there would be no simple analog electrical signal to capture.

    4. Re:Not the only hole being plugged by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Even if it's using ultrasound there will be a voice coil with a capturable magnetic field. As I understand it, it's using amplitude modulation {similar to MW and LW radio} but at tens as opposed to hundreds of kilohertz, and can be demodulated by simple rectification {which occurs naturally when a pressure wave is travelling through a fluid [air] and the receiving device [ear] is moving}.

      The prototypes I have seen using this method had a very noticeable "scratchy" quality to them.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    5. Re:Not the only hole being plugged by necro81 · · Score: 1

      It is possible that the standard audio/mic jack in most cellphones could be phased out in favor of wireless (Bluetooth, or something else) headphones, but I don't think it very likely in the foreseeable future. One only finds bluetooth capabilities in higher-end phones, and the bluetooth headsets are likewise a fairly pricey item. While I'm sure that the cost of that sort of thing will go down in the future, I don't think that all that added technology (and cost!) will be able to supplant a $0.02 audio jack - the market simply wouldn't support it. Remember that a lot of people get their phones free (or close to it, $20) with their service plans, and none of those cheaper models have bluetooth in them.

    6. Re:Not the only hole being plugged by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Ah, but if the speakers were (forcibly placed) in your ears and received data wirelessly and encrypted, they could make it so that if you tried to remove the speakers or open them, they would explode and give you an lobotomy.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    7. Re:Not the only hole being plugged by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      AND the true pirates of media will just make their own bluetooth devices with audio out, video out or whatever and continue along their merry way defrauding us all.

      But that's okay apparently... it's much more important to stop regular paying consumers from enjoying the media they paid for.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    8. Re:Not the only hole being plugged by Dufftron+9000 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they want to sell a phone to people who don't like headphone cords. Not everything is about taking away your rights.

    9. Re:Not the only hole being plugged by mpe · · Score: 1

      Not quite; it can generate the low frequency audio by non-linear interaction of ultrasound with air; don't laugh--it's hot technology that lets you localize sound in a nice way, and it may well become the standard speaker system in the future.

      How does such a system cope with people moving around?

      You could still re-record with a microphone, but there would be no simple analog electrical signal to capture.

      Or you could use a mannequin with microphones in the head. Something which isn't exactly that uncommon.

    10. Re:Not the only hole being plugged by mpe · · Score: 1

      It is possible that the standard audio/mic jack in most cellphones could be phased out in favor of wireless (Bluetooth, or something else) headphones,

      Would the reason for doing this be DRM or remove something which can break mechanically/admit foreign objects/electrical signals into the handset? As well as some phones being so small you'd have a hard time fitting one 3.5mm jack in.

  48. Let's googlebomb that "bunch of Luddites"-Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently "Luddite" is the next "Nazi".

    Whomever you disagree with, LUDDITE!

  49. Christ I hope they pass this and worse by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Copyright and patent and trademark, ie Intellectual Property (sorry, RMS) is so screwed up now that I hope that take it to the extreme and paralyze the bloodsuckers by making them sue each other for infringement. Think of it ... from whom will they profit more, mere consumers who are only good for $5K per shakedown, with all the overhead that entails, or each other, good for several hundred million and the chance to run them into the ground? They are, after all, your competition.

    Yes, pass this sucker. Make copyrights last forever. Make story plots patentable. Go ahead. See how much control you have over popular culture, you morons. Watch popular culture pass right on by, out of your control, beyond your puny stilted imagination. Paint yourselves into corners of your own making, spend all your energy fighting each other and hoarding and enhancing your little corner of the past, while the future bypasses you utterly and forever. While you think of a zillion ways to regurgitate your patented storyline, which is all you can do because your competitors have their own patented storylines which they are busy regurgitating, people will develop their own tools which they will share freely, and other people will swap these and improve these and make their own unpatented stories and their own uncopyrighted and locked down culture.

    You morons will be left holding ancient patented and copyrighted dreck which has been projectile vomited to a fare-thee-well because you have a 300 year patent on it, or a 500 year copyright on it, and heaven knows Disney has to protect Micky from all those hordes who have only one goal in mind: how to appropriate Mickey for their own perverted uses. Yes, that's right, the truth is out now, I have seen the transcripts of the meetings. Sony wants nothing more than to lock up Mickey for themselves, they have wet drems at board meetings when they salivate at the prospect of hijacking Mickey if you don't keep thsoe patents and copyrights in force. They have entire teams of lawyers searching for loopholes to grab Mickey form your slippery paws because you slipped up and saved a few megabucks by not hiring that one brilliant lawyer before Sony did.

    Morons, I say, morons.

    1. Re:Christ I hope they pass this and worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best. Rant. Evar.

    2. Re:Christ I hope they pass this and worse by nine-times · · Score: 1
      You morons will be left holding ancient patented and copyrighted dreck

      Right, because the OLD storylines are the bad ones. Screw Shakespeare and Sophocles, no one would bother to copy that dreck! DOOM is teh awsome.

      And that's where I think the idea of patenting story lines is most obviously absurd-- patents require novelty. There aren't any new stories. Show me a story line or a plot point, and I'll find you some prior art.

    3. Re:Christ I hope they pass this and worse by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 1

      Dammit, that's exactly what I was going to reply with :p

      --
      ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
    4. Re:Christ I hope they pass this and worse by corblix · · Score: 1
      While you think of a zillion ways to regurgitate your patented storyline, which is all you can do because your competitors have their own patented storylines which they are busy regurgitating, people will develop their own tools which they will share freely, and other people will swap these and improve these and make their own unpatented stories ...

      ... which the morons will then use. Remember, just because the "morons" have IP, does not prevent them from using unencumbered materials.

  50. There are 2 problems... by Anyd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The first is that you can *gasp* fast-forward through commercials. This has been an issue since the first generation DVRs. And after-all commercials>money>lobbyists>bills-like-this. The second is that all those recorded shows are then (obviously) uploaded to the internet, where all the single mothers and grandfathers download them while cackling like the wicked witch of the west (duh!)

    1. Re:There are 2 problems... by td4guy · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember being able to fast-forward through commercials on my VCR, also.

    2. Re:There are 2 problems... by Brantano · · Score: 0

      Actually i havnt seen a VCR recorded tv-show in a damn while. Its mostly digital HDTV and digital programming uploaded to torrent sites now.

    3. Re:There are 2 problems... by Anyd · · Score: 1

      Which is why they're trying to rid the world of that uninhibited technology (again.)

  51. disgusting... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Sir, we've made the new digital systems so restrictive that people would rather stick with older systems they actually had some control over..."

    "Okay, we'll have to cripple those too."

    Completely disgusting. And our Congress? They'll roll right over and do it too.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  52. Re:As a record store owner. by jrockway · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My horseless carriage business faces ruin. We should outlaw these new-fangled "automobiles".

    Riiight. That's just too bad, isn't it. If your business model is suddenly irrelevant, that's just way too damn bad for you.

    Anyway, the real purpose of this bill is to prevent people from recording their own movies. Every camcorder made now will have to have DRM protection -- which will allow the movie industry to prevent you from recording independent films. With no independent films, the MPAA will be the only game in town for movies. Profit profit profit.

    I wish Congress would tell the MPAA and RIAA that if they keep lobbying for this shit they'll repeal copyright completely. That would be so hilarious that I think I'd cry.

    --
    My other car is first.
  53. Re:As a record store owner. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, as you focus on christian families and you've seen a drop in customers, does that mean that they are the biggest pirates?

  54. I am a monthly donor to the EFF; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please consider joining me. (They even give you a T-shirt or hat!)

  55. Re:As a record store owner. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahaha, you got trolled

    you must be new here

  56. The unpaid geek workforce just got more important by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like many people here, I maintain a fleet of boxes owned by my family and friends... keeping things patched, virus definitions up to date, logs checked and spyware purged. I do this voluntarily because these are people I care about. If I could fix cars, I'd be changing oil for people too (luckily I have a brother in law who can manage that).

    When it comes to DRM / copy protection circumvention, I see my role as unpaid geek in just the same way. It's my job to make sure that proper the DRM-defeating disc ripping tools are available and easy to use, no-CD game cracks are swapped in, and I tell people about the little disclaimers to watch out for when buying CDs.

    I see the concept of 'plugging the analog hole' as nothing more than exploitation of non-technical consumers. A year ago, timeshifting on VHS was a non-issue. If the cartels choose to make it one, I'll damned well react by spreading my techspertise across the widest possible consumer base I can. The more people who fall outside the 'casual copier discouraged by simple protection' category, the weaker their case for persisting with this rubbish.

    --
    "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
  57. they may close the analog hole... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but they'll never close my anal log hole, dammit!!!

  58. summary sucks by monkeySauce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In an effort to encourage consumers to embrace digital content, The Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting a bill that would restrict owners of analog devices from recording analog content. For instance, if a fan wishes to tape a Baseball game on his VCR, the VCR would re-encode the content of that game and convert it into a digital form, which would then be filled with right restrictions and so forth. The process would be driven by VRAM (Veil Rights Assertion Mark), a technology that stamps analog content with DRM schemes."

    Despite what the poorly written summary says, the EFF isn't doing the encouranging. This more accurately describes the situation:

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting a bill that would encourage consumers to embrace digital content by restricting owners of analog devices from recording analog content...

    Furthermore, a later sentence should read:

    ...filled with rights restrictions and...

  59. Pffft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Buy lots of VCRs/analogue TV tuners now.
    2. Wait for bill to be enforced, so no DRM-free analogue devices are available anymore.
    3. Sell old-style VCRs/TV cards on the black market.
    4. Profit!

  60. Re:As a record store owner. by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

    They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?

    So... War on Drugs, eh? Have we won that yet?

    Anyway, that's a nice little sob story what with including the 1984 references. Too bad it sounds like some bunch of bullshit.

  61. Thank heavens for HDTV... by andrewski · · Score: 0

    With the breakneck speed at which broadcasters are switching to 'all digital' I'll be lucky to be able to record my shows from an analog source for another thirty years.

    Besides, won't there be devices which will translate digital TV signals into a normal analog signal that travels over 75 ohm coax for backwards compatibility? What's to stop me from recording whatever I want simply by bypassing the digital domain completely?

  62. they are scared by idlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This isn't about retaping stuff or switching to digital. They are scared, not of copyright infringement, but of people being able to create content that's going to replace their on equipment that costs a few hundred bucks. The media, publishing, and entertainment industries are in trouble because all the stuff that is cheap to produce has become so cheap to produce that anybody can do it, leaving only the expensive and high risk ventures. It's the same thing that killed the dinosaurs of the computer industry.

    1. Re:they are scared by log0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow.. I think this is the first post from someone who gets it (the big picture). Yeah, there are implications for Tivo, DVR, timeshifting, P2P, etc etc etc in this bill, but it's mainly aimed at independent content creators.

      I run my own production house. It's a small business but it's very successful. My first impression (after RTFA) is that wow - if this passes I'm going to have to take out my first business loan ever when it's time to replace my existing gear. My second impression - I wonder if I'll be granted a license to continue working.

      They are scared. The industry is realizing that it's not how much money you throw at something (though that isn't always a liability) that determines [potential] quality, it's how much talent and desire/passion is put into all aspects of it. The technology to make a feature film is available for $700 at Best Buy (take my word for it - it is). Everyone has access to it. Not everyone can do it though - make the feature film - that's where the talent and desire/passion part comes in. But the technical hurdles have been eliminated. Everything I use professionally in my business comes from Best Buy or a similar store (mass availability) or I build it myself. It's not because I'm cheap (oh I loove spending the paycheck), but because I'm smart in what I buy. I know my gear inside and out: I know the flaws and compensate for, I know the strengths and take advantage of, I instantaneously adjust and react to circumstances, I'm dedicated/talented/passionate. If it wasn't for my abilities, yeah, I'd have to go out and spend the big $$$ to buy more expensive gear to compensate (or more likely, I probably wouldn't have had the desire to run my own show).

      That is what is scary to those who've invested $$$ into the existing system. It's no longer guaranteed that having a $50-100k Varicam or Cinealta setup will produce 'quality' or draw a crowd. Conversely, it's no longer guaranteed that a $3k MiniDV setup will be schlock and unwatchable. Hell, the darling posterchild of indy/Holly cinema everywhere: film (and its outrageous cost) VS. digital doesn't even really matter anymore - think of all the crap movies out there that *should* be good simply because they were shot on film or had huge insane budgets. The most important component in any production is the talent 1) behind the camera and 2) infront of the camera. The hardware simply doesn't matter like it used to. The money, while more helpful and important than the gear, is less important. Where there's a will, there's a way.

      This is just one more attempt by some greedy narrow-viewed 'only in the present' entity to yet again subject America (the land of potential, the land of chance and opportunity and fortune, etc) to the great averaging and Lowest-Common-Denominator compressing. They want to forcibly make the price of entry significantly higher - legalize away the chance of undiscovered greatness. Further seperate the haves from the havenots. More control where they otherwise wouldn't have it.

      It's the poor carpenter who blames his tools. What happens when the carpenter can't have any tools?

    2. Re:they are scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, the dinosaurs died, defeated by a new breed of badly (or even undesigned) software. Hell, who needs security or multitasking or backup in an operating system.

      Then 20 years later, everyone complains that their operating system doesn't have the features that used to be standard.

  63. Plug the Analog Hole by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd like to put my foot in the "Analog Hole" of anyone that votes for this.

  64. they are deadly serious by idlake · · Score: 1

    Come on, think about it--when I want to record my home movies, they're going to require that I only have a DRMed, digital copy?

    They don't care about home movies. Their vision of the future is that there shall be no devices that permit this. Now, if you hack your device to permit this for home recording, nobody is going to go after you.

    But should someone actually publish content that doesn't use the expensive, heavily patented, and ever-changing DRM systems, then they'll go after them. And that's easy to enforce because non-DRM'ed content that becomes popular, well, is widely visible by its very nature.

    All this copyright infringement and P2P stuff is a smokescreen--they are afraid of free and open content because it's going to kill their business, and they know it.

  65. It *is* related by scsirob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With this technology your are not allowed to have any *memory* of any broadcasted event. Please stay home tonight, someone will stop by to erase *your* memory too..

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  66. Fees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just love how they want to charge $500,000 and 5 years for the first offense. I think everyone just might as well rape people before they try stealing anything analog.

  67. Stop watching by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems to me that they (The networks) seem to place a higher value on their content than I do. I think years of having a captive audience have spoiled them to the idea that they are entitled to be able to use a public resource to beam their content to anyone who will still watch it, and still control how it is viewed.

    Personally, I think that the price of having to watch nine minutes of commercials for every twenty one minutes of programming is too high, especially considdering the volume of really crappy shows on T.V. (there are good ones, they are just a rarity.) That I cannot tape it and watch it when I have free time is too much. I'm not organizing my life to fit their schedule.

    Don't devote energy fighting them. Let them waste all the money they want buying politicians and lobbyists. They can rule their twisted little corner of the airwaves with an iorn fist. (Insert obligatory princess Leia line from SW here.) I just quit watching TV. It's amazing how much other stuff there is to do in life when you stop watching TV, and how much free time you have to do it.

    (For example, you can go post frothing neo-luddite rants about 'killing your tv' on your favorite internet discussion board...)

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Stop watching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivilous sig!

      Bastard!

    2. Re:Stop watching by orasio · · Score: 1

      First they came for the communists,
      I did not speak out
      because I was not a communist.

      When they came for the social democrats,
      I did not speak out
      because I was not a social democrat.

      When they came for the trade unionists
      I did not speak out
      because I was not a trade unionist.

      When they came for the Jews
      I did not speak out
      because I was not a Jew;

      And when they came for me,
      there was no one left to speak out.

      ----------

      I don't watch a lot of TV, either, but these guys are restricting your freedom to do lots of other things, to protect their TV stuff. While you are not watching TV, you might lose more than you think.

    3. Re:Stop watching by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is really as applicable in this case, but I do disagree with the parent poster on one point -- you *need* to continue fighting against laws like this, because unless someone does, the lawyers and lobbyists of The Industry will have zero impediment in implementing their draconian information schemes.

      You should also stop supporting them while you fight them; e.g., don't watch TV, go to movies, buy CDs or DVDs, or buy film-related merchandise. Used good are okay, of course, and you'll likely be supporting a small business in doing so, but new stuff is out.

      While you are doing all this not-consuming, let both the companies, and your congresscritters, know how you feel. Put pen-to-paper and send them an actual letter; few people do this anymore, and it makes a real statement.

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
    4. Re:Stop watching by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      For anyone that would like to know, that was written by Martin Niemoeller.

    5. Re:Stop watching by SlashSquatch · · Score: 1

      Is it not a part of free speech to encode information in any form you wish? It is my gut feeling that free flow of information is better for the economy, but I can't show that. It's based on the whole division of labor thing. The better access to information, the better you can do your job. Entertainment is a sidelight. It always will be. Let the hyenas fight over the spoils. Who cares? It really is simple to make money from programming. 95% of the population just accepts the rates demanded by providers of television programming. It seems they have no idea there could be a choice. I view it as opportunity cost. What could I be doing that's more productive than watching Homer's antics (sadly the answer is usually not much)? "just about as useless as jpegs to Hellen Keller"

      --
      Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
    6. Re:Stop watching by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      The entertainment industry is pushing these projects to protect the perceived faults in their business models and future business opportunities.

      By fighting their projects, we risk successfully saving them from themselves without them realizing how close they came from falling off their own cliff. If that happened, they would most likely become even more arrogant than they already are. Letting them have their dumb laws and alienate their customers to the point of causing a market implosion will forcibly hammer some much needed sense into the entertainment airheads.

      Letting them do as they want may not be pretty but trying to prevent it will only make things worse for a longer time by delaying the inevitable. They will keep acting like spoilt kids until they get clubbed by reality. The sooner they get clubbed, the sooner sanity may be restored.

      Let them waste their money and resources for futile fixes for problems that do not exist. Let them alienate their customer base by creating unnecessary complexities and complications. Help them commit technical suicide so we can start with a clean slate as soon as possible.

    7. Re:Stop watching by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 1

      You miss my point. They will get their dumb laws *easily* without any opposition. Make them work for their own demise!

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
    8. Re:Stop watching by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      I did not miss it.

      The sooner they get their dumb laws through, the sooner they will make their market implode. The faster gizmo companies are forced to comply with the *AA's rules, the sharper the blow on Joe Public will be. If we fight each and every of the *AA's dumb laws, we give them more time to plot their next move and contingency plan. The more gradual these moves due to opposition, the more likely the restrictions are of going unseen by Joe Public.

      Any sudden move that disrupts Joe Public's routine will directly hit the studios' bottom lines in the near future. Any attempt at cushioning the blows through oppotition will turn disruptive changes that could shake the industry into progressive changes that may be acceptable for a larger percentage or possibly a large majority of the public.

      We need disruptive changes to make Joe Public pick up arms against the entertainment industry and this is not going to happen if a minority successfully/partially/incrementally delays the *AAs's plans. The only thing that can cause the greedy bastards to wake up is the menace of a total market collapse by letting them alienate their customer base and the fastest way to get there is to let them lock us in/out, causing Joe Public to revolt due to the sudden disappearance of interoperability accompanied by generally unacceptable restrictions imposed by DRM.

      The average person does not react to non-disruptive changes - "I do not do (or think I am doing) anything illegal therefore this stuff should not affect me". Let the studios blanket us with incompatible or otherwise non-interoperable DRM and disrupt people's habits, things should become much livelier when protests scale up to a few milion people. Only then will some of those overpaid execs realize that assaulting customers with DRM ultimately is the greater evil.

      It may not be the path of least inconvenience but it does look like the only definitive way out. Until we let them get what they want and burn themselves with it, they will relentlessly pursue it. The sooner this happens, the sooner they will STFU and (maybe) give up.

  68. This will spoil your breakfast by adnonsense · · Score: 1

    In South Korea... only old people have analog holes.

    --
    This Slashdot meme was brought to you by a bunch of Luddites

  69. Luddites by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    "Sometimes I think that people feel that the MPAA is a bunch of Luddites," Brad Hunt, chief technical officer of the MPAA, said in an interview Wednesday afternoon. "In this case, we are trying to incent the consumer to embrace the digital conversion, the digital connection...and that's why we need to drive this technology forward."

    Actually I think hes a retard and that whole paragraph is the biggest pile of PR bullshit i've read today.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  70. Re:As a record store owner. by unitron · · Score: 2, Funny
    " My horseless carriage business faces ruin. We should outlaw these new-fangled "automobiles"."

    The difference between automobiles and horseless carriages being what, exactly?

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  71. Re:As a record store owner. by John+Nowak · · Score: 1

    Mmmm... I like your signature. Clever.

    Go ahead, mod me offtopic! I like it!!

  72. Damn **AA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're always trying to plug my A-hole. As if I'm not already bending over and giving it to them whenever I buy music. My god, they're relentless!

  73. Analog hole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plugging the analog hole?? I thought sodomy was still illegal in some states.

  74. Future by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Why do I get the feeling that one day in the not too distant future there will be a massive police operation to confiscate all non-compliant equipment, analog VCRs etc and that by that time everyone will have been so brainwashed into the DRM 'empowers' you mantra that people will actually think this is good.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  75. Okay Hollywood, think your content is so special? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then I won't buy it. You people can legislate all you want to rule every aspect of how we watch your material, and I will reject you. I will shun you. Because I don't want a world where I am policed by my own home theater equipment, which thanks to you, will never be up front and truthful from me because you have filled their ROMs with the ultimate evil paranoia. I buy a DVD or CD to watch it the way I want to and I'll make a backup copy whether you like it or not! It's not like your mindless crap is worth anything anyway!

    FUCK HOLLYWOOD!

  76. Analogue to Digital 101 by ajs318 · · Score: 1
    How to Convert an Analogue Signal to Digital

    There are two basic kinds of A-D converter. TYPE ONE, the slow type, works by "guessing" and consists of a D-A converter feeding into one input of a comparator, which indicates whether the voltage from the D-A is greater or less than the voltage at the other input. A suitable external circuit is used to generate "guesses", and we can determine the two points between which the comparator changes state. This type of converter is slow since it takes at least as many guesses as bits in the output, but uses fewer components.

    TYPE TWO, the fast type {sometimes called a "flash converter"} uses as many comparators as there are states in the digital output -- i.e. 2 ** [the number of bits]. The input signal is compared simultaneously to voltages corresponding to each step. A logic array is used to determine where in the chain the comparator outputs change state. There is no requirement for successive "guesses", the only time constraint being due to the propagation delay in the decision logic. However, for large numbers of bits, flash converters become unwieldy.

    There is also a "half-flash" converter. This uses two flash A-to-Ds, a D-to-A and an op-amp. The first A-D digitises the signal to half the desired resolution, giving the higher-order bits of the result. The D-A converts this back to analogue; but there will be a difference, since the conversion is not exact. The op-amp amplifies this "error" signal and the second A-D digitises it, giving the lower-order bits of the result. Think of it as a number with a fraction: the first converter deals with the digits before the point and the second converter deals with the digits after the point. Half-flash converters depend more than most on circuit quality.

    Any kind of analogue-to-digital converter requires a well-regulated power supply, tight tolerance resistances and above all, low noise components. All connections must be sound - dry solder joints and loose or dirty mechanical contacts introduce noise. However, it is just about feasible to construct an 8-bit, half-flash converter on copper strip breadboard. For video, you will require three such converters; one each for the red, green and blue signals {which you can often get from a SCART socket; but note that domestic VCRs often don't generate RGB outputs, so you may need some kind of PAL to RGB converter}. You will also need to extract the timing signals -- the LM1881 does all this in a single 8-pin package.

    Audio has a narrow enough bandwidth to be digitised using a "guessing" type converter. The CD standard is to sample to 16 bits {originally 14 bits but left-alighned in a 16-bit word with the lowest order 2 bits set to zero}, 44100 times a second.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  77. strange definition of "illegality" by idlake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As an example, Miller described a scenario where a consumer might hook a playback device into the input ports of a recorder. "Those inputs and outputs serve a purpose, but they might not know that they're creating an illegal act," Miller said.

    They are? In what way? If I record something on Hi-8 and later want it on VHS, I can do that, and I have paid for it. I have paid for it with the fees I paid for blank media.

    The question we should be asking is the legality of asserting copyrights on content that cannot be copied and can never fall into the public domain; technological restrictions on copying and copyright ought to be mutually exclusive.

    1. Re:strange definition of "illegality" by 4of12 · · Score: 1
      ...but they might not know that they're creating an illegal act," Miller said

      If a large number of intelligent people don't have an immediate instinctive reaction to the moral outrage of copying a CD, then there are 2 courses of action we can take

      1. Use stronger measures at an earlier age to reinforce to children the abhorrent nature that is replication of copyrighted material. Making analogies to other recognized Bad acts (such as "piracy") might work; perhaps adding an eleventh commandment might help.
      2. Legislation affecting analog and digital copying could be re-examined and the criminalization removed.
      It looks like we're still adopting the first approach.

      The problem with prohibitive laws that are not immediately recognizable as sound reasonable restraints on behavior is that the lessen respect for the law in general. I'll replicate a couple of fine sigs I've collected here over the years...

      "To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt."
      --E.C. Stanton

      "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    2. Re:strange definition of "illegality" by mpe · · Score: 1

      They are? In what way? If I record something on Hi-8 and later want it on VHS, I can do that, and I have paid for it. I have paid for it with the fees I paid for blank media.

      Anyway it's perfectly possible that you have the permission of the copyright holder. There is no way the machines can know that this is not the case. Nor is there any way to be sure that any levy on the media is going to the copyright holder. e.g. you might well be the copyright holder of the content you want to copy.

    3. Re:strange definition of "illegality" by mpe · · Score: 1

      If a large number of intelligent people don't have an immediate instinctive reaction to the moral outrage of copying a CD, then there are 2 courses of action we can take

      Use stronger measures at an earlier age to reinforce to children the abhorrent nature that is replication of copyrighted material. Making analogies to other recognized Bad acts (such as "piracy") might work; perhaps adding an eleventh commandment might help.


      This relys on the assumption that young people are stupid. Which can backfire very effectivly. There's also the problem that children can be more able to spot and less able to accept hypocracy.

    4. Re:strange definition of "illegality" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The act of connecting an output to a recorder is illegal? Great!
      Apparently so is getting video streams off a DVD. I got one of the new DVD camcorders for a present, recorded a few mini-DVDs worth of content, then learned that it's just about impossible to use the material that I recorded. I just wanted to bring the video into a common editing program. But I can't because media player software doesn't allow getting at the digital video. Since, somehow, that might be an illegal act, so it's generally prohibited or not even offered as an option. I learned it's called ripping.
      The software that would allow me to get at my own video is third-party, or shareware. I have to download shareware to edit my video tracks? Do you know how expensive DVD cameras are, and I need to shareware to make it work properly?
      I realized, too late, that there are already too many technological barriers, and I can't currently make a copy of my own video to share. The outputs are limited, no DVD player wants to make a copy, no software wants to allow access to the contents. Crap.
      And so this camcorder is pretty much worthless to me. The poor DVD camera sits unused because I'm not interested in recording a DVD that can play back in a player but do absolutely nothing else. I'm happy I didn't eBay my Digital-8.
      I get the feeling I'm going to be relying on older analog devices as the new ones make it harder and harder to do what you want to.

  78. Another MS story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I speed read the headline and expected a juicy article on Bill Gates. Alas.

  79. The time, the near future by hey! · · Score: 4, Funny

    the place, a city in the US.

    You sit at a cluttered bench in a darkened back room, a single reading lamp illuminating a riot of ciruits and gleaming mechanical assemblies. Old stuff. Valuable. Practically priceless, since they cut off the Malaysian pipeline. A wisp of smoke caresses your face, carrying the scent of vaporized resin, molten tin, and lead. A bead of sweat rises on your forehead. This work is delicate: this piece is old, and if the traces lift that would be just too bad.

    The sharp clang of a brass bell and the slam of the door break your concentration. "Damn," you mutter, "who the hell can that be."

    You slip through the curtain, careful not to reveal any of the very incriminating goods back there, and let out a low whistle. It's a dame, and what a dame.

    "Can you help me?" she asks.

    "If you're looking for baseball cards," you reply, indicating the dusty glass cases. "Can I interest you in a Roger Clemens, he's real meat."

    "Meat?"

    "Yeah, you, know, pre-virtual." You watch her closely. She's hard to read, but one thing is certain, no broad ever strolled through this neighborhood at a eleven at night shopping for a goddam baseball card.

    "A friend sent me," she says, a bit nervously.

    "Oh, yeah, what's his name." Your eyes narrow suspiciously.

    "Maybe you'll recognize him," she say, reaching into her purse.

    You suck your breath involuntarily through your teeth. "Ipod," you whisper, "old by the looks of it."

    "Original firmware" she purrs.

    Original firmware. Easier to penetrate than a bus station ho. But this whole situation stinks bad. You're practically the only one left; better guys than you didn't last because they coudn't smell a setup. This lady may not know about the syndicate takover of baseball in '10, but she's very au courant about stuff she has no business being.

    "Lady, you must have me confused with somebody else. Monkeying with one of those things is very illegal. I don't know where you found it, but I suggest you turn it into the Department of Free Expression right away."

    "Oh, I don't think I have the right man," she purrs, a glint of steely amusement in her eyes, which flick down toyour right hand.

    Suddenly you become aware of the smell of hot lead. Idiot! You never put down the damned soldering iron. If she had be DFE you'd be iced by now. You'd be lucky to be iced, instead of declared "illegal information operative" and put on a plane to one of their offshore IIO interrogation facilities.

    "OK, lady, we can talk, but it's gonna cost ya." After all, that stunt you just pulled on the soldering iron took ten years off your life. Retirement is looking really attractive.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:The time, the near future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear hey!

      Your recent slashdot comment is infringing on my patented storyline. I will sue you for 100 BEELLION dollars.

      Regards

      A bunch of ludites

    2. Re:The time, the near future by klang · · Score: 1

      That's very "Man in the high castle" that .. I liked it :-)

    3. Re:The time, the near future by hey! · · Score: 1


      Your recent slashdot comment is infringing on my patented storyline. I will sue you for 100 BEELLION dollars.


      Oh.

      This isn't going to turn into one of those desperate races to unravel a web of deceit, skirting an apparently respectable but morally rotten deminmonde before plunging into a dank criminal labryinth, on the other side of which lay a grisly but satisfying fate for one of us? Because if it is I didn't wear the right shoes. These ones squeak.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:The time, the near future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! You have a knack for writing. Now, can you make this a 5,000 word story and publish it in a magazine as a short story? It'll be a lot of work, but you'll get paid for it. Wait! With the way everyone is copying copyrighted work left and right, you might not get paid for it. Are you willing to make this a 5,000 word story for free?

  80. Where is the bill from? by rfunches · · Score: 1

    It hasn't been introduced in the House by anyone based on LoC's THOMAS and there's no trace of a bill on the House Judiciary Committee website (judiciary.house.gov). One witness refers to the act but I don't see it anywhere. Is it just me or is this some sort of crap that a legal team threw together and hasn't been introduced to the House yet?

  81. A Million voices by RedNovember · · Score: 1

    I feel a great disturbance in the Web, as if millions of dupes suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. ...Or I would, if Slashdot would stop posting dupes...

    --
    "MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
  82. DRM-Free Analog will NEVER go away by MECC · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is pretty much an irrefutable fact of life, and the RIAA and MPAA after 30+ years of trying to stop unrestricted private recording and utterly failing should just let the market take its course. Neither the music or the movies industries has floundered.

    My parents bought one of the very first model VCRs ever made, and at over 20+ years old, it *still* records and plays. Unrestricted analog will NEVER go away. Even if, one day many decades from now, the last unrestricted analog device finally breaks and can't be repaired, people will smuggle them in from other countries.

    They may as well try to license and restrict water, air, sunlight, addition, subtraction, and english grammer along with D/A conversion.

    There will always be a market for freedom. Always.

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
  83. Keep your old vcr running. by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

    Keep your old VCR in good shape. Also you can use hackable
    PVR cards. I've got a PVR-250 and use Linux with it. I primarily bought it to encode my old family videos that are on VHS and Hi-8 video tape. I'm using Linux to create the mpeg2 streams and the DVDs.

  84. Uh... I don't think they understand by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To plug the analog hole, they're going to have to cover TV screens with lead plates, and speaker cones will have to be filled with cement. Why is our legislature so clueless?

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Uh... I don't think they understand by J.R.+Random · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand. This bill requires analog watermarking, an in-band distortion of the signal that will be reproduced by any competent speakers and thus detected and blocked by a "legal" analog recorder. This is a more sophisticated version of the infamous "copynotch" proposal from the 80s. I presume the analog video watermarking works similarly, so would block your "legal" camcorder from recording.

  85. DRM derivatives - A threat to national security by ozsynergy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Imagine some one films some terrorist training activity using one of these super desirable DRM crippled video cameras with the do-not-broadcast switch on. The camera breaks... The content could becomes useless... Lots of people die....
    But it was worth it... the MIAA made an extra million dollars profit that year and the executives could afford to refit out their private jets.
    The MIAA/RIAA want to label the general public as pirates and 'supporters of terrorism'... but perhaps the technology their trying to force on us will end up supporting terrorism instead!

  86. If these bastards get their way... by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 1


        Someday I will be sitting at home trying to make a home movie DVD of my child and as I hit the burn button on my computer, it will say-

        *Please wait while an authorized MPAA representative watches a sample of your work for confirmation of any copyright infringement, we regret any inconvenience this may cause you*

        You think I'm joking. I'm not. They're not.

    1. Re:If these bastards get their way... by DannyO152 · · Score: 1

      And the follow-up:
      Flagged Broadcast Denial:
      A review has determined this to be an illegal copy of
      [x]Dennis the Menace
      [ ]Please Don't Eat the Daisies
      [ ]The Courtship of Eddie's Father
      [ ]Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom

  87. At risk of losing Karma... by Tavor · · Score: 1

    I'd say the only "analog hole" the RIAA wants to plug would require us emptying our wallets then bending over...

    --
    Windows has detected an undetectable error.
  88. Re:As a record store owner. by cyberkreiger · · Score: 1

    A horseless carriage doesn't move by itself.

    I think that's the "auto" part of "automobile".

    --
    Stumbling in the dark
    I hear slavering of jaws
    Eaten by a grue.
  89. Expense? by curtvdh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And who is actually going to foot the bill for adding this stuff to new hardware? The content providers? Fat chance. Hardware manufacturers? Yeah, I can just see them falling over themselves to pay for sinking their own business. Consumers? Maybe. But it won't be long before the non-techies start wondering why they're paying more for hardware that does less.

    Reminds of a time back in the days of yore when I happened to overhear a Circuit-City aisle monkey trying to persuade an elderly couple to buy a DivX DVD player instead of a cheaper, regular unit. Somehow they just couldn't grasp the concept of paying more for the privelege of being able to watch time-restricted media. Needless to say, they left without buying *anything*.

  90. Next: in order to breath air, you have to pay. by master_p · · Score: 1

    How long before we need to pay for the oxygen we breath?

    The wars of the 21st century will be truly devastating: the poor masses against the few rich. What we see in Paris right now is going to explode within this century in every major city. We can only be saved by the presence of an alien race like the Vulcans: wise, calm and in science.

    1. Re:Next: in order to breath air, you have to pay. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      How long before we need to pay for the oxygen we breath?

      Not that fucking long, at all. After all, many places are charging you for the WATER you consume. Isn't water a requirement for life? Why the fuck are we being charged for something we NEED to have to live? Why not someone call RICO on the water companies, because it basically comes down to "You pay us for water or we cut off your valuable life-giving fluid." racket.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  91. No Content! by ckokotay · · Score: 1

    Pretty soon you will buy a CD and not be able to listen to the content, or buy a movie without being able to watch it. Because, after all, if you can see/hear the content - then you just might be able to record it.

    xxAA should just sell blanks if they don't want anyone re-recording the content.

    --
    It does not matter what you do, it's wrong.
  92. Just and angry rant really... by digitalmonkey2k1 · · Score: 0

    This is really a waste of money, to be sitting back and continue beating that dead horse. Considering the fact that a near complete digital overhaul is going to be going on within the airwaves in the not so distant future. This has already been decided, why keep fighting? Fair use covers the recording of media for private/non-profit viewing. We arent talking about John Doe here goes on limewire and downloads 5gigs of copyrighted material. No, we are talking about the people who for some reason cant be home, so they set the vcr to record for them.

    --
    My sausage tree didn't grow, does that make me a bad mommy?
  93. "Luddites" by KwKSilver · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Sometimes I think that people feel that the MPAA is a bunch of Luddites," Brad Hunt, chief technical officer of the MPAA, said
    Luddites? Not at all. Fascists? Most definitely. cf. here.
    --
    If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
  94. Beg Pardon, did you say boycott? by gelfling · · Score: 1

    We really need to stop paying these people. We really need to stop going to movies, buying CDs, ringtones and whatnot. We really need to boycott them.

  95. Blah by danpsmith · · Score: 0

    The cat is out of the bag and they hate it. DRMs are crackable, anything digital is pretty much breakable into a free format that can be easily distributed and I don't understand why they waste their time trying to battle hackers many of which are smarter, more resourceful and have more time and dedication towards their goal. Someone cracked region encoding with one line of Perl code, which begs the question, why have region encoding to begin with? Why present the already righteous feeling hackers with a sense of purpose or need? I say every CD should come with a copy of the CD in high-quality MP3 format on the disc. I don't understand why corporations want us to keep using an outdated technology (CDs for audio) when an already far superior technique exists. Do what ITunes did and charge stupid...

    --
    Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
  96. Re:As a record store owner. by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    If a troll is genuinly funny, should it be modded troll or funny?

    If the troll is original, Funny. If it's the same damn Christian Record Store troll that gets pasted into every single thread mentioning the RIAA, Troll.

    In this case, definitely Troll. With lashings of Redundant.

    The general case is quite interesting, though. From what I see with my own posts, the difference between +5 Insightful and -1 Flamebait is all in the opinion of the first moderator.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  97. Re:Copyright FYI (from US Copyright Office) by mnemotronic · · Score: 1
    From US Copyright Office web site:

    WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
    Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works....

    • Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.
    • In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration.
    • A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  98. Re:As a record store owner. by heinousjay · · Score: 1

    Every damn time someone has to make a terrible car analogy.

    It would fit more if the carriage industry went down because people took the introduction of the automobile as license to take carriages, but that didn't happen.

    It's in my sig, but I'll copy it here for posterity - The Slashdot credo: Entertainment wants to be free.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  99. I dearly HOPE the **AAs win. by crovira · · Score: 1

    That would kill them. Let 'em commit sepuku.

    You do realize that the **AAs ara made up of humorless lawyers who are bemused (and raking it in) that the are suing and arresting they clients' very own customers.

    When somebody comes up with a business model that works for production and distribution over the internet (can you say the iTMS?) with the asynchrony (non broadcast, content only,) that is inherent in the internet (distribution of content and 'aggregation' of meta content.)

    I,ll have more musings on my upcoming podcasts.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  100. Yesterday's Judiciary subcommittee hearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I listened to most of the testimony in yesterday's hearing in front of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, and I have to say the surprising thing to me was that most of the committee members appeared to be very well informed on many of the issues involved here. Someone has been helping these folks with background - I'm assuming lobbyists from both sides are providing backgrounders on the issues. They asked intelligent, on-point questions of the presenting lobbyists. They were not (for the most part) baffled by the concepts involved.

    I do think that the "freedom to tinker, freedom to design and develop" issues were not really brought to the fore. The committee was focused on shutting down piracy, and committee members found that a worthwhile goal. One congressman pointed out that the restriction on fair use that the bill would bring about would prevent his own staff from grabbing opponent political ads and emailing them to him while he was on the road - so it's clear these folks see some of the ways in which they'll be affected.

    There was discussion of preventing the Broadcast Flag from being applied to news and public affairs content - and while I think this is a good start, it fails to take into account that fair use covers ALL content.

    One frighening thing: Dan Glickman (MPAA) has the ability to look and sound like he's a rational human being with reasonable points to make. That is clearly not the case, but the smooth exterior makes him a dangerous weapon. Couldn't quite say the same for the RIAA guy (forget his name, but he couldn't maintain an air of reasonableness).

    Sad to say most of the committee members seemed quite well disposed to the idea of both broadcast flag legislation AND A-hole plugging. If you haven't written your congressmen, your senators, it's time to do so.

  101. Here we go again. by David+Webb · · Score: 1

    The first order of business. right my reps and senators AGAIN. I'm not sure how effective that is as I just get canned form letters back in responce. If this passes? well I know alot of good hackers. I'm tired of stressing unduly over this stuff.I know alot of intelligent free-thinkers that are tired of all of these new levels of oppresion. Go ahead. act like thugs,people like myself will be the ones stranding behind you, working stealthily in the shadows to help end your reign of terror on the american consumer. word to the lame corporations. If it can be created? it can be destroyed and it can and will most definantly be HACKED! Let's start a revolution. whos with me??

  102. Just call it the Anal Plug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and the problem will solve itself. Nobody will vote for a mandatory Anal Plug, and it will finally convey the intent of the **AA screwing the audience.

  103. I don't see how this would work anyway by humphrm · · Score: 1

    "For instance, if a fan wishes to tape a Baseball game on his VCR, the VCR would re-encode the content of that game and convert it into a digital form, which would then be filled with right restrictions and so forth. "

    Maybe I'm missing something, but in order for this to work, wouldn't all of our existing VCRs have to be replaced? And retailers don't really even sell standard VCRs anymore because of DVDs... so the retailers are effectively killing the market now for any new DRM-enabled VCR that might come on the market later.

    --
    -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
  104. Can't boycott for fear of being sued by the RIAA! by Loc_Dawg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Boycott seems like a goood idea. However, I'd be willing to bet that if there was a mass boycott and these guys started to see a decline in sales/profits, they would promptly point their collective finger at the consumer and claim that it's due to piracy.

    --
    _signature creation failed.
  105. Heheh. He said 'hole.' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll plug your analog hole, all right.

  106. The author of the bill is Sensenbrenner by COredneck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is interesting reading that the author of the bill is Francis James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Thanks to him, the states are saddled with the expensive Real ID Act of 2005 that goes into full effect 5/11/2008. He needs to be voted out of office. He also is behind the Patriot Act. Republican or Democrat, someone with totalitaritan ideas need to be out of office.

    I am sure as a part of the DRM on the devices, you will not be allowed to skip commercial advertisements.

  107. I can't hear you; I've got a banana in my ear by mactari · · Score: 1

    Look folk, there will [for the foreseeable future] always be a clean break point for recording sound, video, whatever -- the human body. As an earlier posted Orwelled, until the listening device is implanted into your ear, you can always stick a microphone-as-ear-proxy in front of whatever audio device the companies create. Voila.

    --

    It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
  108. Extras / Computer Games by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    Or apply it to computer games. The Infocom games came with all kinds of neat whatsits like the Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses and the Microscopic Space Fleet in the Hitchhiker's Guide game. For that matter, Bethesda sent out an authentically burnt map with Redguard and a very nice looking map of the continent for Morrowind. *sigh* With so many games shipping in those tiny WalMart boxes, I fear for the future of said goodies, but it was always nice to get them. Heck, just give us a comprehensive and well-written manual!

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  109. Re:As a record store owner. by kyouteki · · Score: 1

    A horseless carriage is an automobile.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  110. Didn't we settle this a long time ago? by TomRC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Recording off the air was settled a long time ago, when VCRs started coming out. So now they want to change the rules?

    OK. So let's change the rules.

    Add an ammendment to the bill, requiring that the "broadcast flag" may only be applied to content that is aired without commercials - i.e. where the content provider foots the entire bill for broadcasting it, in the hope of charging people later for copies. Otherwise, free TV is free TV - if you don't want your content recorded, don't broadcast it through my airspace.

  111. The Attack Plan if this passes by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

    OK folks, here's what we do when this thing passes.

    1) Someone buy a recorder with DRM, then record something pricelessly funny. Maybe some sort of amateur movie or stand-up or something.
    2) Attempt to distribute it for free.
    3)When DRM stops you, sue someone for interfering with your business model.
    4)????
    5)Profit!!!

    Seriously, though, if you do that, then they are sticking DRM on your stuff when you don't want it. They have to at least figure out a way to remove it if you demand it.

  112. First they came for my TV by orim · · Score: 5, Funny

    First they came for my TV. But I didn't care much cause I had TiVo, and a lot of the programming was crap anyway.

    Then they came for my games... outrageous in-game commercial placements, interrupting game play to see the latest offers in entertainment. But I didn't care too much because after the first 15 versions of Civ, the gameplay tends to blend together anyway.

    Then I tried to go to the movies, but they took that away too. In-movie commercials, and quarter-time commercial breaks while they "change the digital reels upstairs". But I didn't care cause I've seen enough cars blow up to last me a lifetime. Even the Simpsons parody of that got old already.

    Next was my cell phone. Every two minutes, my phone calls were interrupted by a 15-second product slogan. My cell phone Pacman turned into the Pepsi sign overnight. But I didn't care cause I hate phones anyway.

    When all the indoor entertainment was taken away and I hate to face the daylight, they came for that too. Huge billboards sprung up everywhere, they started painting the roads with Ford logos, the traffic lights were hung from McDonald's arches, and no building was left untouched without a product placement (Informed Consumer Act of 2015). I had nowhere to go to escape.

    Finally, when they came to tattoo corporate logos on my family, I could do nothing. I couldn't even call for help, for I had already tossed my cell phone.

    --
    "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
    1. Re:First they came for my TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When all the indoor entertainment was taken away and I hate to face the daylight, they came for that too.
      Another basement dweller revealed by a careless slip of the tongue.

  113. Macromedia by John+Guilt · · Score: 1

    I was listening over the web to KPCC, an NPR that serves the Los Angeles area, and heard an "underwriting message" (commercial) from Macromedia indicating that they were your {one-stop}-shopping location for DRM.

    As previous posts indicated, they can take my access to the VBM when they pry it out of my cold, numbed-by-entertainment, hands.

  114. Thank you, thank you by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    I had quite a lot of fun spewing that out :-)

  115. Plug "Analog Hole" by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    Am I the only dyslectic here to perceive Plug "Analog Hole" in a perverted way?

    A dirty mind is a joy forever. A perverted mind is eternal bliss!

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  116. like power rangers fighting the evil of the day... by cpgeek · · Score: 1

    go go richard stallman! go go richard stallman! go go richard stallman!! YOU MIGHTY MORPHIN' RICHARD STALLMAN!

    --
    May the coffee god Smile upon you!
  117. Re:Stop watching what? by slo_learner · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the proposed remedy is not precise. When the next generation of crippled hardware comes out, how much of it will not work in linux because it would be a violation of DMCA to openly publish software that interprets the signals from DRM hardware. Even unencumbered media might be unviewable except by the annointed devices from the anointed vendors.

    Then we're going to need DVD John to quit his legit reverse engineering job and crack the new stuff.

  118. Neener by panxerox · · Score: 1

    neener, screener screener. Plug that analog hole buttmonkeys.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
  119. DRM by Nonillion · · Score: 1

    "Sometimes I think that people feel that the MPAA is a bunch of Luddites," Brad Hunt, chief technical officer of the MPAA, said in an interview Wednesday afternoon. "In this case, we are trying to incent the consumer to embrace the digital conversion, the digital connection...and that's why we need to drive this technology forward."

    Actually I think hes a retard and that whole paragraph is the biggest pile of PR bullshit i've read today.

    I certainly would agree with you on this. I don't mind going digital, but I do object to the MPAA/RIAA buying laws to "protect" me for my own good. This is why I won't buy any new TV sets. Currently I use a 21" computer monitor and computer for my entertainment needs. I can rip mp3's, oggs and rip my DVD's onto the hard drive for convince (until the RIAA/MPAA force hard drive manufactures to make RIAA/MPAA approved versions). It's quite ironic that older analog TVR's, TV's, computer equipment and monitors offer more flexibility than the new DRM encumbered digital versions.

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
  120. DRM? you mean ARM.... by dave1g · · Score: 1

    Analog Rights Managment... never thouhgt I would see that one.

  121. I like your view - it is taxed tho' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the analog hole is plugged, this means that any device capable of recording open content will be taxed - for example by having to develop and license a protection IP or product into the recording and playback devices. Open content will be available, yes, but still taxed that supports the same evil forces. They win, they always do.

  122. Thank doG... by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1

    The information on my vinyl record collection doesn't want to be encrypted. I just hope they don't find a way to do this to new vinyl releases (and yes, you can get vinyl versions of most new popular music titles). Cheers

    --
    Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
  123. Plug which hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's all this about plugging anal[og] holes?

  124. We need a better copyright law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Copyrights started as a contract between the people (through the government) and the creators of content. For a limited time they got to make money from their work and then it became owned by the public (public domain). This limited term was 17 years from date of creation. This is identical to the limited term of a patent.

    As each new technology beyond books was added to this scheme, the (specialized) lawyers made this term longer in exchange for protecting the newer technologies. Currently, it is way too long by most outside observers.

    Many copies of older movies are in poor to nearly useless shape. The copmpanies want to charge and charge again for the same "copy", but refuse to keep the pristine copy from which they are based, in its pristine state. To have something to be given back to the public, the copyright holders must keep the copies in a pristine state else they are breaking their side of the agreement.

    We need to return to the basic limited term of 20 years, the same as the current patent. It should start at the begining of filming, recording or other well defined point. If you change it, the original must still be released after the original term expires. The altered version is given its own copyright seperate from the older version. Any changes in the law only affects new creations, the older ones still have their old expiration dates, unless the new terms would result in a earlier date.

    A copy is defined for the right to have the version in any form. If a newer release has a higher resolution, the owners of the older release can get the newer release, free of charge. So if you own the VHS tape of the movie, and the same version is released in HDTV format, you have the right to get the HDTV format free of charge. If they make it a new version, they must make the older version in the newer format for download available. If you bought "Stairway to Heaven" on a LP and still have it, you can download the DVD audio version to keep.

    You must maintain possesion of the original work to keep these rights. To allow for such things as fires, disasters, theft, etc., a licensing scheme should be made. The license of any one to a work must be tracked by some entity created by the government and supported by copyright fees paid by the copyright holders. Its only fair. Those that make money from this work, should pay to maintain those rights. If they can't pay, the work becomes in the public domain immediately.

    The copyright holders would also be required to keep 3 (or more) pristine copies in the highest resolution format available at the time at geographically seperate archival facilities. These facilities would be certified by the entity. The library of Congress would be one of those facilities. Once the works term expires, these facilities would release the work for downloading on the internet. That would likely be one of the qualifications for certification by the entity, having a high speed pipe into the internet for uploading released works. This prevents the work kept on film from cumbling into uselessness. Also, the creator or copyright holder can not destroy a work. The mere attempt will cause the work to be released into the public domain. That is because the work is basically owned by the public from the time of creation. The copyright holder just has the right to make money by selling copy licenses for the limited term provided.

    If a copyright holder sells the right to a broadcaster to broadcast the work by whatever means, all the recipients have the right to record for timeshift purposes. The recipients even have the right to strip away portions of the broadcast they don't want to watch, hear or otherwise. They don't have to watch or listen to commercials, public messages and the like. Such recipients do not have the right to license themselves as owners of a copy of the work. They still retain fair use rights however to the broadcast version, however.

    The license to a copy of a given work holder has responsibilities as w

    1. Re:We need a better copyright law. by mpe · · Score: 1

      We need to return to the basic limited term of 20 years, the same as the current patent. It should start at the begining of filming, recording or other well defined point. If you change it, the original must still be released after the original term expires.

      If we are going for a "back to basics" approach you require the copyright holder to deposit X copies with one or more "copyright libraries". With a fixed copyright term all a librarian needs to do is attach lable which says "public domain after ..." With current copyright terms the concept of the copyright library is completly broken. The reason for having such libraries is that even if the work is a complete commercial failure and anyone involved in it vanishes into oblivian it will make it into the public domain.

  125. Re:As a record store owner. by markana · · Score: 1

    >Anyway, the real purpose of this bill is to prevent people from
    >recording their own movies. Every camcorder made now will have to have
    >DRM protection -- which will allow the movie industry to prevent you
    >from recording independent films. With no independent films, the MPAA >will be the only game in town for movies. Profit profit profit.

    Absolutely correct. Oh, you'll be able to record little Johnny's baseball games (unless Little League slaps some restrictions on *that* - their logo's are (c), after all). But your consumer camcorder will be DRM-tied to a limited number of playback devices. Only the machines registered to you or your family will be able to play back the videos. And there will be a strict limit on the number of devices you can register.

    Want to produce indie films? You'll have to fork over big $$$ for "Professional" equiptment, *AND* get a content-production license. That will give you the ability to produce media that can be played back on consumer-grade devices.

    If the media-licensing organization approves you, that is...

    All this is possible *today*, and it's a media studio's dream. Given the right marketing, most consumers will snap it up.

    It could even be spun as a feature - no more embarassing celebrity "home videos" leaking onto the Net...

  126. Re:As a record store owner. by Random+Destruction · · Score: 1

    Yeah, blacklist.. genius.. Ever clue in to the fact most cds get released on the internet BEFORE your sorry store sees them? nice try though.

    How many people on your list now? Do that many people honestly walk in and announce "I AM GOING TO POST THIS MUSIC ONLINE EVERYONE!". Can't say I ever have. To each their own.

    Oh, and as an aside.. seriously.. if you wanna make money.. you SURE that christian rock is the place? aside from the fact theyre less likely to pirate music, if your local laws prohibit such sharing, its not too popular. As a music lover, I hate the crap that is called popular music, but as a business owner one should realise that popular == sales. Just a thought.

    GL tho on that store.

    --
    :x
  127. Don't be so sure... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    Go ahead and store all the capture cards you like, in another ten years they won't be worth shit.

    I recently found (and purchased - I got so damn lucky) in an electronics junkyard here an Altair 8800. It needs a lot of work (very dirty and dusty, powersupply caps need reforming, everything needs careful disassembly and cleaning) before I can even think about switching it on (30 years will do that). I am already emailing others and discussing how I can get this thing to boot. I have a drive controller card (an old Northstar jobber), but finding drives (and the floppies - hard-sectored single-density floppies aren't easy to find, ya know) is going to be a pain. I would be happy if I can just get it perfectly cleaned up and working, even if I can't boot an OS. Just to see it come to life and blinkin' lights (ahem - LEDs) would be nice. I think if I try hard enough I will be able to find a way to get this machine running, in one form or another.

    I have no doubt that if I can do this with a machine that old (not to mention rare), then anyone in the future will be able to do the same with old video-capture cards. The only way I can see that it wouldn't be possible would be if the jack-boots kick down people's doors (ala COPS) and take at gunpoint any and all "non-approved" electronic devices and repair/construction equipment (they better have a big truck just for my stash alone).

    I hope we never have to see that day, but it seems like we are inching closer to it each month...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  128. DRM and you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read these things, and then get a little hot under the collar about it, then realize that its all a bunch of BS. Computer games have had years to perfect copy protection and console games even control the console hardware. Guess what? Both fail to produce copy protected content that can't be broken.

    Why is that? It is because anything that can be encoded in software can be decoded with software. Software can be revised. The design of digital computers is such that everything must get translated into a form that is readable at some stage in the process. So no DRM will ever be effective at stopping duplication for fair use and there will always be a grop of free-minded individuals who will take up the task of cracking it for those of us who don't have the intellect for it.

    So yes, you're going to find a bunch of DVR's and HDDVD formats that are protected in the hardware, but your also going to find protection free drives or drive-mods that allow you to read and decypher the content.

    So I wish they'd just give up on DRM and copy protection. Its a losing battle that they aren't going to win.

  129. Wait, are we talking about jews or tvs? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Your (often) over quoted reply isn't quite complete in it's relevance, as the media companies aren't jack booted facists bent on genocide. Yes, it is important to stand up for things before they go too far, but we are talking about media companies, not totalitarian governments. The big difference is that an amoral media entity will react to financial losses by falling back into line, where a facist government will send out some more secret police to torture and kill the dissenters.

    By no longer consuming their product, you are standing up to them. Money is oxygen to a coporation. Step on their throat if you don't like what they do.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  130. DRM this! by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

    Drags 8mm film movie camera out of closet, films concert/ballgame. Replays on home projector.

    Sometimes, low-tech is the best tech.

    --
    Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
  131. This is what happens.. by dadragon · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when you let Americans govern themselves. ;)

    --
    God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
  132. Going further off topic... by laughing+rabbit · · Score: 1
    You haven't put a dime in Social Security for you. You are putting in a dime for those who are drawing now. Make sure that the population that you and your generation whelp have jobs and contribute and you will get something.

    Remember, no one has ever said that all the retirement funds you need are covered by Social Security. It's there as a hedge against failing investment houses, market crashes, bankrupt employers scuttling their portion of the promise to save the execs and stockholders and other rogues that leave workers high and dry.

    Why leave anything to heirs? That class has few shining examples. Grandpa Bush makes a fortune selling oil to Hitler and now George has no concept of earning a living. Make 'em work for what they get.

    --
    No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
    Vote them out every term.
  133. What about the Sony Betamax suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever this comes up, I'm surprised more attention isn't drawn to the Sony Betamax case of the early 80's. It is largely the same issue. I would think that this case would be precedent, but I guess it doesn't matter if they managed to get the law changed.

  134. Re:As a record store owner. by unitron · · Score: 1
    " A horseless carriage doesn't move by itself."

    So, what, you have to use a buggy whip?

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  135. Analog^H^H Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is the **AA we're talking about. They'll plug your Analog^H^H Hole.

    Seriously though, let them. As long as my own IP is not required to be encumbered so, let them encrypt themselves into irrelevance. They're chasing revenue that does not exist. Stopping copying will not some how magically create sales. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Those on this website that make that argument time and again should agree. If there is no such thing as lost sales due to piracy, then there is no problem here. And don't start with fair use. The Supreme Court time shifting business was more about legality of hardware than the God give right to record. We all know it won't work in the end, but let them do it. When your enemy is in the process of hanging himself, you don't run over and set the stool upright again do ya? I'd be more concerned about OTHER provisions that might exist in the bill which have nothing to do with analog holes. Sorta like how that DMCA thing panned out.

  136. I don't think it will fly. But just in case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have the money, now might be a good time to buy a TV and a VCR or two, before they get all DRMed up.

  137. Freedom of the press by David's+Boy+Toy · · Score: 1

    A law which restricts printing presses or the equivalents, crippling them such that they can only be used by a select few seems like a clear violation of the constitution. By taking away my ability to make and distribute recordings, writtings, etc. you've taken away my right to free speech. I would like to see someone fight DRM requirements on first admendment grounds.

    Imagine a country where all printing presses where required to have locks on them, locks which could only be opened after a censor approved (after a fee far beyond ordinary means) the material to be printed. This is what mandatory DRM is. Its a huge chilling effect on free expression, since a musician will be unable to record his own music, a writer unable to publish his own works on an equal footing with those who have the money and influence to publish DRM encoded works.

  138. It'll never happen but... by xTantrum · · Score: 1
    However, HBO and its subsidiary channels have used CGMS-A to restrict users from making more than a single copy of its broadcasts,
    this explains why an episode of entourage i recorded on my panasonic hd wouldn't record to dvd, funny thing is i recorded it another day and it went to dvd fine. I wonder if this was the CGMS-A in action.
    According to the MPAA, the legislation is necessary to help shift the industry toward digital content, with the content restrictions such a format allows.
    This is pure Bull cause i still have superman 4 here on vhs and my panasonic can't record it to the hd so i can archive it to disk - because its copy protected. IT litterally says "this work is copy protected" !!
    --
    $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily