Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry 'trying to hijack EU data laws'
sebFlyte writes "The recording industry is trying to hijack the EU's data retention directive, which is being brought in to fight terrorism, to try and get their copyright battles fought for them. As previously reported, the EU may be making copyright infringement a criminal offence, and the Creative Media Business Alliance is lobbying hard to stop the European laws on data retention being restricted to cover terrorism and organized crime (as is currently proposed). In essence, they want to be able to get police to search through newly extended records from ISPs to look for evidence of illegal filesharing. In the words of the executive director of the Open Rights group, 'the music industry's attempt to hijack this legislation is a travesty and a gross affront to civil liberties and human rights.'"
Mabye people will start to realise the absurdity going on.
For some reason neither zdnet nor the submitter give a link to the site and article they are talking about:
an openrights.org blog entry.
The page has a cool link to WriteToThem where UK readers at least can quickly find out who their MEP is and how to contact them.
Just when the petition from http://www.dataretentionisnosolution.com/ closed.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
They think they can force everybody to use technology that will only benefit them (remember the hard-drives that were supposed to check if the data they copy is copyrighted?).
This arrogance only warrants one thing: that "industry" shall be pirated to the croporate death penalty. The slow one: diminishing into irrelevence and oblivion through gradually diminishing sales.
I'm in the same boat as you in that I benefit from this kind of legislation.
However, it does not sound reasonable.
It sounds profitable.
There is a difference.
Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
...insofar as corporations don't *always* manage to bully or bribe their way to getting legislation passed in their interest and against those of consumers, or citizens in general.
:)
Here in Europe, the success rate for such capers is only about 50%
So let's see what happens this time. Remember, if the EU Parliament doesn't immediately give in, it's still a feasible tactic to target individual countries, bring about some division and then see if the Überparliament has meanwhile changed their tune.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
For Canadians who aren't sure if the new Wiretap legislation or Copyright Act amendment Bill C-60 are good bills, we'll end up with the same push from the CRIA to obtain ISP logs that are supposed to be only available to the police in criminal investigations where they've obtained a warrant.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
So what you're saying is that you're for anything that will benefit you regardless of who it fucks over, and utterly unconcerned with anything that doesn't directly affect you regardless of who it fucks over?
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
'nuff said.
Havoc Video
"...the Army's attorney general, Joseph Welch, rebuked McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
"McCarthyism took place during a period of intense suspicion in the United States primarily from 1950 to 1954, when the U.S. government was actively countering American Communist Party subversion, its leadership, and others suspected of being Communists or Communist sympathizers. During this period people from all walks of life became the subject of aggressive "witch-hunts," often based on inconclusive or questionable evidence. It grew out of the Second Red Scare that began in the late 1940s and is named after the U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, a Republican of Wisconsin."
It's ironic that, especially Hollywood, and, the recording industry, so much a target of Joe McCarthy should now be at the forefront of an hysterical witchhunt intent on making criminals of all and sundry.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
You call "reasonable" breaking customer's computers by stealthily installing crippling software?
You call "reasonable" (sic) levying a special tax on blank media, "just in case" the media is used to "pirate" music?
You call "reasonable" blackmailing people who MIGHT have shared music into paying multi-thousand dollars "settlements" without any proof of wrongdoing?
You call "reasonable" (I'm not making this up!) trying to force all society to use specially-designed hard-disks that will check whether the data they are writing is copyrighted?
You call "reasonable" treating your customers like criminals?
You call all the abovementionned **ARROGANCE** "reasonable"?
I'd hate to see what you call "unreasonable"...
Who cares? All the copyright cartel needs to do is donate a bunch of CD's to the ISPs, then they can just go in and take whatever they want! I heard Sony is recalling a whole bunch of them (possibly just for this purpose?)
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
When you're done giving them an earful for the winter election, remember to give them an earful about this too. Canada has a tradition of "sane" copyright policy, and let those who want your vote know you have no interest in this insanity being perpetuated here.
..don't panic
After close to 100 years, the music industry is still just is a one-trick pony, isn't it?
You think it's reasonable to have police look through the records for them? At the expense of hours upon hours that should be going towards doing more important things, like... I dunno... ending crime? That would only make sense, and this IS am-- wait, no it's not! What the fuck?!
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
don't buy their content!
But you will, won't you. You attention-deficit, attention-seeking, aspirational, apple-loving, consumer media whores.
Also, in case the message wasn't clear, don't steal/borrow/"share" it either.
You wouldn't eat battery farmed eggs, even if they were free, would you! (would you? urgh).
Go back to riding your litle silver scooters, ipods and turtle-necks. You people make me sick.
In the spirit of the story topic, I'm gonna hijack this first post to make my point. Governments are concerned with politics and their constituents. The MP/RIAA are natural enemies to a lot of tax paying voters, plus they've made some major screw ups. For example, the recent Sony screw-up of course, and those false-positives in sending out mass subpoenas. I see governments, particularly on the local level (where there's less lobbying), siding with the people (IE the pirates).
So, in the spirit of the story topic, I'm gonna hijack this first post to make my point. Governments are concerned with politics and their constituents. The MP/RIAA are natural enemies to a lot of tax paying voters, plus they've made some major screw ups. For example, the recent Sony screw-up of course, and those false-positives in sending out mass subpoenas. I see governments, particularly on the local level (where there's less lobbying), siding with the people (IE the pirates) and legislating appropriately.
the industry bullies tech companies (who oddly enough make as much money in a day as the RIAA makes in a week) and keeps down and/or lockes any new tech innovations and somehoe gets to dictate exactly how they work.
The RIAA could litteraly stop all analog radio, CD sales, net streaming, napser, itunes and so on, and offer a propriatery DRM as the ONLY way to get music, and the consumers would just take it accept for the 2% that go rouge, one of which will get a 60 minutes interview from prison just to scare the rest.
We have NO power as long as consumers continue to suck the Industry conglomerates' collective tits, and as long as they are the only place to get the milk...
You say that as if Hollywood is the first group ever to suffer persecution, and then turn around and do it to someone else.
**AA is trying to change the laws in Sweden so they can go after Bittorrent users and thepiratebay admins. Something to be aware of.
Copyright infringement should be an offense punishable by law. Even Creative Commons relies on the basic idea of Copyright. Read this from the Collective Commons Legal Text:
"License THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED. BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. "
So even Creative Commons is bound by the idea of Copyright Law.
This is not a bad thing
What is the bad is abuse of Copyright law on both sides.
Either record labels are going to have to get a clue about the digital universe that is expanding and growing around us, or continue to persue Draconian methods of enforcement, and strict Copyright legalities on thier IP.
If they do so, i imagine that the online world will continue its move in another direction, that being more Creative Commons artists, and contributers across a wide spectrum.Releasing works under lisences with terms that we can sleep with at night.
So undermining Copyright law is not a good idea. What is is releasing works that don't punish the consumer/listener for wanting to share.
Thats the labels problem. Not ours.
IANAL,
D
Anyway, insofar as there is any hope for the future (of America or of the world?), the solution is a new and improved legal principle. The default case for data retention should be "No", with an occasional "Hell, no" thrown in. The basic principle is not really all that new, but we need to make it explicit that "we, the people," should own our own personal data, and no one, and especially not private companies like the members of the RIAA should have ANY right to retain our personal information without OUR permission and without telling us what they want to know and what they are going to do with that information.
The natural solution is for the information, even including our personal business records, to be stored on OUR own computers. They can encrypt it and sign it and whatever to protect it, but possession is nine points of the law, and if they have possession, we have nothing to defend. If we are to have any semblance of privacy in the future, we better start thinking NOW about where it is going to be defended.
The next part needs a bit more thinking, but I suspect there is some intrinsic link between privacy and human dignity... However, regardless of those complexities, I'm certain I don't want the RIAA and f[r]iends meddling in my personal life.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I'll make this simple for you:
It's reasonable to let people protect their copyrights and how work they own is used.
Piracy is stealing. Period.
People pirating software/music/movies are NOT customers. They are stealing. They have NO RIGHTS to take other people's property. They're criminals, and should be treated that way.
Finally, I hope that one day all these people advocating striping other of their rights have the very same thing done to them. Maybe then those people will understand how very wrong it is.
Copying music is not always stealing. For instance, here in Canada it's perfectly legal. In many countries, it's perfectly legal to copy music for your own use, for the car, to a media server etc.
Copying music just to avoid paying for it, is illegal in many countries, however.
Whatever the rights and wrong of copying music, some of the "solutions" are worse crimes than the problem - ie, crippling people's computers and making them open to hackers, or taking away people's privacy.
Of course, piracy, is not schoolyard copying, but commercial copying of music, and of course, that is illegal everywhere, and could be stamped out as soon as enough effort is put into it. Commercial piracy needs pressing plants, needs sales outlets and you can track these places down and shut them down.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
If you disagree with this, e-mail the EU representatives (MEPs). Complaining at slashdot won't help. Here's a list of all the email addresses from http://www.europarl.eu.int/ .
List of emails
I have already e-mailed and called my countries. You should do the same.
You heard me right: I said reasonable, and by the way none of the examples you mentioned have anything to do with the article, which I have read and you did not.
You can't handle the truth.
You are factually correct.
You can't handle the truth.
Sounds odd but that's where I think they're headed.
The music industry needs new artists to keep making money but how to promote this new talent? Spitzer and other AGs are watching over their payola schemes making it harder to get radio airtime. Concerts are good, but getting to be very expensive undertakings. So how does the public get to hear the next great bands?
One way, even though they don't want to admit it, is by P2P networks. It is easy to listen to a song by some new artist you heard about. Very few people have enough money to just go out and buy CDs all the time and the risk of a lot of duds is too great, but downloading has much less adjusted risk, even with the much-publicized lawsuits.
There is a balance that must be achieved: all P2P downloading and no buying means no income for the publishers and artists, yet no downloading cuts off a very vital marketing channel.
With draconian copyright laws it is becomming a more serious offense to make a digital copy than to steal the CD from a store. Worse yet, governments seem all too willing to abdicate enforcement and police powers to these corporations. When the government and RIAA/MPAA have control of our computers and own all our data, it will be too late, the battle will have been lost, and we will enter a new historical period of information slavery.
All attempts to equate P2P with international terrorism must be soundly rebuffed. A threat to failing business models is *NOT* the same as the threat of killing innocent people. How bad to these proposals have to get before the RIAA/MPAA are kicked the hell out of these legal processes?
I guess you're right about the idiots who voted for Dubya...
I think that you are putting words in his mouth. It is reasonable to expect the music industry to try to make what they see as theft illegal. It is not reasonable for them to impose restrictions on the hardware of their legitimate buyers, but I doubt that that was what the gpp was suggesting, and certainly there is no reason to *assume* that that was his intent.
It would be good to stop putting words in people's mouths.
This may sound a little off topic but whenever some other country is trying to manipulate your laws or your reputation and have sent liaison/lawyers/hijackers to make you see things their way, don't back down! Get up and fight!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
50% of the population can't support the other 50% in prison.
I honestly firmly don't care about music, songs, movies and enterntainment in general. But I do care about things like biological/technical/scientific advances. But for those advances I am against patents, not copyrights. In fact I am pro-copyrights because they let me control how my work is distributed. So for me what music industry is doing sounds reasonable.
Just remember how reasonable you think they are when they come knocking on your door for downloading a study of Mars called "The Red Planet" or a treatise on metamorphisis called "The Butterfly Effect".
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
The totalitarian UK Government already has unlimited access to ISP records, courtesy of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
RIPA also can force ISPs to install mass surveillance equipment.
I mentioned some of the Govt's other totalitarian laws earlier today.
This is nothing more than an opinion. Period. Factually, piracy is not stealing, but either infringement of copyrights or the sea related kind, which I am too arsed to pull up right now. Piracy = copyright infringement = COPYING and DUPLICATING against the wishes of the copyright holder copyrighted works. Unless you can prove otherwise through coherent reasoning and logical arguments, you are only a RIAA parroting troll.
Hmmm... talk about black and white reasoning... so by your logic, if I pirate something and then buy it later (Don't give me the "buy why would you buy it if you have it for free already..." Fuck you I bought it anyways, sorry it bursts your narrow RIAA logic... ^_^), I am not a consumer by definition just because of the pirating? I consumed the product, so how am I not a sconsumer given the example of what I do?P>
You are only saying this and haven't backed it up with reasoning... you are starting to sound like a troll, and I think you should go to back up your opinion with reasoning right about now.
I don't even know how to properly rebute this one it is quite lame (granted my attempted rebute would be even lamer). Take VS copy arguments anybody? Especially since you apply physically limitative statements to "objects: (1's and 0's, DATA) that can be copied infinitely without property loss to that person.
Not only do you make parritive statements that are unbacked up by fact or otherwise wrong, but you also make sweeping statements that don't accurately portray a good proportion of those posting in this topic. I do not think that most people (except for the DIE-HARDS) think that all copyrights should be abolished.. As for your reasoning about it happening to those who don't live in your fantacy world... How does copying something illegally strip somebody of their rights when they have the powers ("rights") to stop it or try to control it? If you ask me, it is those who are sitting on their asses whining that are loosing their rights because they are not using them.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
The truth is that the copyright system incentivizes a media system that promotes hype over substance. Terrorists exploit that hype to gain dominance and attention in a way they wouldn't be able to otherwise. By themselves, terrorists have no possibility of military dominance, but with the copyright system - they at least have the chance of political dominance.
So in truth, the copyright industry reeks with blazing hypocracy and I wouldn't be supprised if some were doing this simply to hide their own dark role in the matter.
As usual (like all the other steps RIAA/MPAA has taken in the US and abroad) most people won't give a crap, it'll be under-publicized, and politicians will keep worrying about their job as opposed to the will of the people.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
I guess I didn't make myself clear: I don't download any movies or music from P2P or any other networks. When I want to watch something (on my computer, since I have no TV,) I'll buy it on DVD.
You can't handle the truth.
I guess I didn't make myself clear: I don't download any movies or music from P2P or any other networks. When I want to watch something (on my computer, since I have no TV,) I'll buy it on DVD.
And I guess your missing the point. Suppose in your pursuit of gaining scientic knowledge you come upon a freely distributable file about Mars called "The Red Planet", download it, view it, and sometime later delete it to save disk space. Then a month later, after reviewing your ISP's records, the copyright police come knocking at your door to arrest you for infringement. Now just how are you going to prove to them you were innocent?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
If they want to stop looking like a bunch of greedy fools once in a while they might try donating some of their excess cash to a "good cause" in the last month cnn.com has had: " EBay founder gives $100 million to university" and " Gates loses 'top philanthropist' title" On the list of the top 50 people who have donated the most, not one is connected to the MPAA or RIAA, either they don't have that much donatable cash laying around or they really are that greedy. Now they're even lazier, first they wanted the government to pick up the tab for their "people(RIAA) v possibly suspected music pirate" lawsuits, now they want governments to spend the money, time and effort investigating, prosecuting and imprisoning/executing people who they don't like. That's hundreds to thousands in legal fees a day for the trial and a few hundred for the prison, the governments probably prefer fines so they can get some money out of it, but the industry likes the sound of up to 5 years in federal prison. Even when they were forced to "donate" CDs to public libraries they sent dozens to hundreds of copies of the same unpopular disk.
Here's another one against "Intelligent Design" if the word was intellegently designed the RIAA wouldn't exist or wouldn't be as greedy.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
I guess it's important to talk about it(Score:-1)
/. Since I am not new here I understand that it is not acceptible to express your own opinion on /. if it differs from the major line of thinking here.
I honestly firmly don't care about music, songs, movies and enterntainment in general. But I do care about things like biological/technical/scientific advances. But for those advances I am against patents, not copyrights. In fact I am pro-copyrights because they let me control how my work is distributed. So for me what music industry is doing sounds reasonable. - it is interesting that a statement (gp), which simply expresses a belief or a point of view is moderated down as to 'protect' the sensitivities of certain population of
You can't handle the truth.
"Just remember how reasonable you think they are when they come knocking on your door for downloading a study of Mars called "The Red Planet" or a treatise on metamorphisis called "The Butterfly Effect"."
"I guess I didn't make myself clear: I don't download any movies or music from P2P or any other networks. When I want to watch something (on my computer, since I have no TV,) I'll buy it on DVD."
Roman, I think he's referring to infringement notices filed against people who had downloaded or possessed files with names identical or similar to popular movie and music titles for which the RIAA/MPAA are on the lookout for. This has already happened, though I don't have a link handy to the slashdot article where this was discussed.
If you wish to continue being able to watch DVDs on your computer, let's hope others that have an interest in preventing you watching DVDs on your computer aren't able to influence lawmakers who share your blind self-interest.
If you think the music industries' actions are reasonable, let me make you a reasonable proposal: I'm a musician, and I have a CD of my work. I'll give it to you for free. Unlike Sony, I will tell you I'll be installing a rootkit on your computer.
Do you trust I'll not take advantage of anything I might learn from all your data and communications, or not turn your computer to perform unethical or illegal tasks? Are you ok with having an open door for any script-kiddie or other more evil-intentioned person to do the same?
If not, why should we be ok with the same deal? Minus of course, the notice I gave, and oh yeah..Sony would have you pay for the priveledge of being "0wn3d".
Failure to grasp larger, longer-term implications of short-sighted self-interest is self-defeating to an individual or buisiness, and harmful to society as a whole.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Roman, I think he's referring to infringement notices filed against people who had downloaded or possessed files with names identical or similar to popular movie and music titles for which the RIAA/MPAA are on the lookout for. This has already happened, though I don't have a link handy to the slashdot article where this was discussed. - that much was clear to me and my answer doesn't change: I don't download anything from any networks that are used to illegally distributed copyrighted materials, so it doesn't matter to me.
If you wish to continue being able to watch DVDs on your computer, let's hope others that have an interest in preventing you watching DVDs on your computer aren't able to influence lawmakers who share your blind self-interest. - as far as I understand I am not prevented from watching DVDs that I buy.
If you think the music industries' actions are reasonable, let me make you a reasonable proposal: I'm a musician, and I have a CD of my work. I'll give it to you for free. Unlike Sony, I will tell you I'll be installing a rootkit on your computer. - free cheese is found in a mousetrap. I am not interested in anything like that, the same way I am not interested in getting a free computer with ads running on the screen, so the rest of the argument is pointless.
You can't handle the truth.
For some reason neither zdnet nor the submitter give a link to the site and article they are talking about:
:)
an openrights.org blog entry.
Hello. You must be new here.
Did you think somebody would actually RTFA and notice that the submitter posted the wrong link?
This space left intentionally blank.
What about stuff that you might want to watch that hasn't been released on DVD and most likely won't be released? About the only way to get those would be via downloading.
This space unintentionally left blank.
If the stuff that I want is public domain, I'll find a way to get it. Otherwise I won't touch it with a 5 meter pole.
You can't handle the truth.
There's a lot of stuff that isn't public domain that I will download (Voltron, the Dungeons and Dragons cartoons, Quack Pack, Police Squad, Quark, and Logan's Run, for example). I would add The Mysterious Of Gold to the list, but I have that entire series on tape, and am in the process of archiving them to DVD.
However, even though I will download these, I would gladly buy these if the copyright owners would release them commercially. I personally do like having professionally produced boxed sets of old shows that I like. In other words, if they make them, I will buy.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Roman, I think he's referring to infringement notices filed against people who had downloaded or possessed files with names identical or similar to popular movie and music titles for which the RIAA/MPAA are on the lookout for. This has already happened, though I don't have a link handy to the slashdot article where this was discussed. - that much was clear to me and my answer doesn't change: I don't download anything from any networks that are used to illegally distributed copyrighted materials, so it doesn't matter to me.
Either english is your second language, or you are purposely misunderstanding to prevent being refuted..you wouldn't have to download anything, have any protected material in your possesion, or have any P2P/filesharing app installed or running.
If you wish to continue being able to watch DVDs on your computer, let's hope others that have an interest in preventing you watching DVDs on your computer aren't able to influence lawmakers who share your blind self-interest. - as far as I understand I am not prevented from watching DVDs that I buy.
Again, you've failed to read the phrase above: "continue being able to" and throw up a strawman argument by attempting to redefine what was said.
if you think the music industries' actions are reasonable, let me make you a reasonable proposal: I'm a musician, and I have a CD of my work. I'll give it to you for free. Unlike Sony, I will tell you I'll be installing a rootkit on your computer. - free cheese is found in a mousetrap. I am not interested in anything like that, the same way I am not interested in getting a free computer with ads running on the screen, so the rest of the argument is pointless.
OK...I'll charge the same price you can find the CD on sale for at your favorite source for CDs. Does paying for the privilege of having a rootkit installed change the facts of the discussion? A reasonable person would say it doesn't.
It's apparent and obvious you cannot logically argue my points. You resort to strawman arguments to the point of one reading your statements having to assume you either have no reading and comprehension skills, or are deliberately avoiding and/or altering the argument until you can knock it down.
I have a new phrase for you: "intellectual honesty". Adhering to its' principles will help your arguments to be taken seriously. It's apparent you are in desperate need of learning its' meaning.
Cheers, and good luck with the whole reading and honesty thing.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If "piracy" should be a criminal offence, then infecting hundreds of thousands of computers with rootkits/trojans should be worth a death sentence. SONY/BMG and 1st 4Internet CEOs report to the nearest wall & bring your own blindfold. Virus writers, ditto. How about life sentences for spammers and those who contract for their services? Too expensive, send them to the wall, too. Corporate assholes are quick to demand their customers be jailed, but how they lie and whine when they get caught.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Either english is your second language, or you are purposely misunderstanding to prevent being refuted..you wouldn't have to download anything, have any protected material in your possesion, or have any P2P/filesharing app installed or running. - English is my fourth language, which does not prevent me from understanding you perfectly. The original sentence was: "Just remember how reasonable you think they are when they come knocking on your door for downloading a study of Mars called "The Red Planet" or a treatise on metamorphisis called "The Butterfly Effect"." - he said for downloading, not just for 'having' this material on my computer. And you are accusing me of using straw-man? Ha!
Again, you've failed to read the phrase above: "continue being able to" and throw up a strawman argument by attempting to redefine what was said. - oh, how interesting. I thought I mentioned it previously that I BOUGHT DVDs that I watch. In fact I did mention it. So what does your phrase 'continue being able to' means in this case? In case where I paid for my copy of a DVD? To me it means exactly this: I buy a DVD, I can watch it on my DVD player. You on the other hand are insisting that my right to watch material that I pay for will be taken away from me. What are you even talking about?
OK...I'll charge the same price you can find the CD on sale for at your favorite source for CDs. Does paying for the privilege of having a rootkit installed change the facts of the discussion? A reasonable person would say it doesn't. - it is up to me whether to buy or not to buy a CD from anyone. If the copyright owner decides to only sell CDs with such 'root-kits' on them, I simply won't buy. But it doesn't give me a moral/legal or any other right to download copyrighted material without the copyright holder's permission, does it?
It's apparent and obvious you cannot logically argue my points. You resort to strawman arguments to the point of one reading your statements having to assume you either have no reading and comprehension skills, or are deliberately avoiding and/or altering the argument until you can knock it down. - really? I can't argue your points on logic alone? If you think so, don't argue with me. In terms of honesty - I am honest with myself, what about you? I respect copyrights because I want my copyrights to be upheld. Period.
You can't handle the truth.
At least, that's what I thought..
So then, when I downloaded the Ladyhawke soundtrack, which has been out of print for years, who was I stealing from? Who did I deprive of income by downloading it?
And how about when I downloaded four Jean Michele Jarre albums: Oxygene, Equinoxe, Rendezvous, and Magnetic Fields (which I already had in cassette format)? How can that be stealing if I already paid for them years ago? Granted, I do plan on buying those on CD soon. I really like Jarre's work, and want to have the original CDs in my collection.
Also, do you think the ghost of Strauss is going to care that I recently downloaded a complete production of Also Sprach Zarathustra?
This space unintentionally left blank.
What's more, the european commission and the council of the EU are considering to make patent infringement a criminal offense, too.
Since the european patents office granted 173000 applications last year, it means we basically get 474 new laws each day. This does not take into account the national patent offices.
ok 1. The EC cannot define criminal offenses only the members can do that. 2. In germany the Supreme Court is currently deciding if the log files of ISPs and carriers can be used at all (apart from investigations into criminal organizations ) if the court decides that all communication logs are specially protected, which is likely ... it doesn't matter what the EC does.
german article:
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,3865 15,00.html
*an infinite number of monkeys wrote this sig
Would that bring the punishements into a sensible alignment and the enforcement into sensible hands? At the moment seeing the big sign in the cinema "Copying this film is worth a 10 million pound fine or 10 years in prison" it's just a joke. You think "How much does the average bank robber get? Is this really in proportion to the crime? Something's wrong here". (In fact many people start whispering to each other obviously loudly things like "Have you remembered to switch the camcorder on" and "Save me a copy will you.")
If it was government enforced then the fines would have to drop to something sensible, and the enforcement would have to fit into the normal priorities of things. Given the amount of minor driving offences and similar that are ignored because there are bigger criminals to go for - perhaps things like breaking the copy protection on CDs would be just ignored. If the police started doing raids on ordinary people for such minor offences then the politicians would see no end of bad press.
I honestly firmly don't care about music, songs, movies and enterntainment in general.
The moderator probably found that line unbelievable. Depends on your definition of entertainment I guess.
it is interesting that a statement (gp), which simply expresses a belief or a point of view is moderated down as to 'protect' the sensitivities of certain population of /. Since I am not new here I understand that it is not acceptible to express your own opinion on /. if it differs from the major line of thinking here.
Nonsense. /. hosts a variety of pro- and anti-copyright opinions with moderations on both from -1 to +5.
A false dichotomy by the way, pushed by vested interests; copyright could vary continuously from zero time to forever. Personally, given current conditions I favour copyrights but only for fairly short periods and varying depending on the class of item.
---
DRM = Total Customer Control = Ultimate Customer Lockin = Death of the free market.
If you think that is reasonable, then I am against copyright beause it doesn't let me control how I distribute work that I can.
GP Just said "I like it because I profit". Bank robbers profit from robbing banks...
I thought I mentioned it previously that I BOUGHT DVDs that I watch. In fact I did mention it. So what does your phrase 'continue being able to' means in this case? In case where I paid for my copy of a DVD? To me it means exactly this: I buy a DVD, I can watch it on my DVD player. You on the other hand are insisting that my right to watch material that I pay for will be taken away from me. What are you even talking about?
You can watch it on any DVD player that's been approved by the DVD CCA, true. But legally you're not allowed to watch it on anything else due to the DMCA (or local equivalent, if there is one).
Oh, and have you got a multi-region DVD player? Use it? Be thankful that they failed to enforce regions this time around. The next time, regioning will be so tightly tied into the copy-protection scheme you won't legally be able to have a multi-region player.
The other thing to wonder is how long will it be before they try to pass a bill requiring all record labels to back them or something similar. They've already tried to make analog content illegal, how long before they assert rights over music that isn't their own? How long before we have each label using their own DRM program that eats 5% of your CPU. So i'd want one for my ipod, i'd have to have the apple version. Then i'd want one for my media center, i'd need the microsoft version. Then i'd want a copy i could play on my sony stereo system that only supports ATRAC, well that would require a sony system. Thats 15% of my cpu before we even go into what i'd need to play it in my car etc. It's ridiculous and people have to see it. And if you don't want to get rootkitted, you download the track through p2p and the industry comes chasing after you even if you bought the DRMed CD already.
you can't win under this system, but you can put up a good fight to stop it taking over
~HTP~ Hug that tux
Sorry, but a quick look back at the last four or five Slashot articles on the copyright topic proves you wrong. I see many sides of the argument being expressed and moderated *according to their interesting points* and not just knee-jerk anti-copyright attitudes. I'm afraid your own statement falls into the category you are placing others in.
I'll make this simple for you:
Piracy is not stealing. Period.
Piracy is copyright infringement. Period.
Learn this simple fact, and you won't have to look like a fool in public.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
"But ... a group of media companies .. has lobbied the EU to allow this data to be used to investigate all crimes, not just serious offences such as terrorism."
... Oh look, we can use it to enforce parking tickets too, let's make it. standard operating procedure".
Yes, that seems about right: "We need this extreme measure to fight terrorism. OK, you agreed to that out of fear.
Can you say "erosion of liberty"?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Ok, since most visitors of /. are in the US, a couple of things need to be cleared up. I'm American but live in Hamburg Germany.
The EU, as an establishment, have very little power over the member countries. It's much like the UN, which is a totally lame organization and always has been, but that's not the point.
The EU can recommend all they want but can't "enforce" anything unless the member states choose to do so. The EU does not have any enforcement branch whatsoever.
Piracy is stealing. Period.
And IP protection is murder, and capitalism is slavery. Period.
Piracy is stealing if you sell illegal copies for money that would otherwise have gone to the record companies and artists.
But I wouldn't call sharing music with friends "piracy".
All the activist documents and webpages say that the European Parliament will be voting on this on the 13th of December.
However, I just had a look at the parliament's own pages, dealing with the plenary session in question (12th to 15th December 2005), and it looks to me like the matter will be up for voting already on the 12th. I'm no great genius at figuring out the (deliberately?) Byzantine structure of the EU's documentation, but that's what it looks like to me.
Draft agenda for the plenary session, 12 December 2005
- Peter Ravn Rasmussen
As for:
Granted, I do plan on buying those on CD soon.
I call complete bullshit on that.
Ok,
##You call "reasonable" breaking customer's computers by stealthily installing crippling software?
Technically, and I'm assuming you're referring to the Sony root kit, they didn't technically "Break" or "Cripple" anything. I hate the idea of some company installing something without my expressed permission on my equipment. But using the terms Break and Cripple are not accurate here.
##You call "reasonable" (sic) levying a special tax on blank media, "just in case" the media is used to "pirate" music?
There are only 2 absolute truths in the world: Death and Taxes. I'm a smoker and nearly half the retail cost of cigarettes is derived from taxes. Besides, media is so cheap, what's the difference?
##You call "reasonable" blackmailing people who MIGHT have shared music into paying multi-thousand dollars "settlements" without any proof of wrongdoing?
Wow, wrong again. They got the logs from the ISP, they got the search warrants for the contents of the PC, they got admissions from the perpetrators. Case closed.
##You call "reasonable" (I'm not making this up!) trying to force all society to use specially-designed hard-disks that will check whether the data they are writing is copyrighted?
Have to agree with that one. Forcing certain types of hardware is totally ridiculous!
##You call "reasonable" treating your customers like criminals?
If they break the law, Yes, that's reasonable. If you download music or movies and have never purchased the original retail version. You are stealing. Just because "everyone does it" doesn't mean it's Ok. Um, I may or may not have done this myself.
##You call all the abovementionned **ARROGANCE** "reasonable"? I'd hate to see what you call "unreasonable"...
Unreasonable is attacking someone when you haven't read the article or use arguements that don't make any sense.....
So, you don't use or download anything from the Internet?
ASSOCIATION = Appropriate recording industry association, such as RIAA, BPI, IFPI, SDMI, ARIA, ETC.
Indies need to label their albums specifically stating that they are not $ASSOCIATION members.
This sort of labeling was done in the US in the early 20th century to indicate non-membership in the various Trusts and cartels of the era.
You can watch it on any DVD player that's been approved by the DVD CCA, true. But legally you're not allowed to watch it on anything else due to the DMCA (or local equivalent, if there is one). - and you know what, I don't see a problem with that. Again, those DVDs, CDs are their products and if I want to use their products I just have to go by their rules (or I can break the rules of-course, like most people seem to do.) Here is an example for you: printer cartridges. If I buy a printer with very unique cartridge system that is incompatible with any other printer it is then my problem to buy those proprietary cartridges for that printer.
You can't handle the truth.
>Piracy is stealing if you sell illegal copies for money that would
>otherwise have gone to the record companies and artists.
No, it is still copyright infringement no matter how you look at it, twist it and tries to come up with examples.
It would be good to actually check out on not only copyright law but also laws dealing with "stealing" and theft and you would notice the difference and how they are not related.
>If you have something in your possession that you previously didn't, and
>didn't pay for, when you otherwise could have, it is stealing.
No, it is not, go read laws about stealing and theft and you will see it is completely false.
By the way, I just now have something in my possession that I did not a few minutes ago. I did not pay for it although I could have should I want to. In no way did I steal. What it is?
1) A drawing I just made
2) A book I took from the shelf here at work
3) A hammer I borrowed from a friend
4) A book I borrowed from a friend
5) All of the above and anything else you would like to come up with
I'm NOT specifically referring to the SONY rootkit, but to OTHER software SONY disks STEALTHILY installs on computers.
"Break" and "cripple" are the VERY TERMS that describe what the stealthily installed-software does. I spent 3 hours last week-end fixing a friend's computer who had the misfortune of having played a SONY CD which installed a DLL that, whenever the system read the raw music data from a CD, scrambled the said data, thus preventing the LEGITIMATE listening and COPYING (here, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL to copy music, and SONY has not been granted the privilege of making and enforcing IT'S OWN laws).
I am happy to announce that after removing the nefarious DLL, I was able to RIP the "protected" CD and make a copy for myself.
Perfectly legally, following the laws that OUR DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED parliament enacted, and thus BREAKING THE UNDEMOCRATIC, UNELECTED FASCIST LAW that SONY tried to shove down our throats.
There are elections coming in a few weeks, and I will make sure I won't vote for SONY by mistake.
The difference is that the GOVERNMENT is FORCING US to PAY a TAX which ONLY BENEFITS the record industry, whenever we use the media for copying music or data (even data I generate).
The flip side is that WE ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE COPIES OF MUSIC (what is unjustly called "piracy" in the United Croporations of Amerika)
You're a fucking hardass, aren't you? You're a goddammed media sockpuppet, aren't you? You must be a dubya-voting southern baptist asshole who drinks alcohol in a locked room to display such blatant cluelessness.
In all those cases, there have been no DUE PROCESS, but only blackmailing ("pay us now, or if we go to court, we'll bankrupt you with the procedural and defence lawyer fees!!!")
The absence of due process means that the case WILL NOT BE reviewed with the impartiality of a public tribunal, but rather by a kangaroo court that is owned and operated by the music industry.
Okay, you stupid numbskull yankee, put this in your sorry little excuse for a brain:
USA LAW DOES NOT EXTENDS BEYOND THE BORDERS OF THE USA!
IN SOME COUNTRIES (LIKE CANADA, NORTH OF THE BORDER), IT IS PERFECTLY ****LEGAL**** TO COPY CDS, DOWNLOAD MUSIC AND SHARE IT ON A P2P NETWORK.
I was disgusted when I watched a movie in the cinema and before it started they showed that copyright notice that said 'copyright theft helps terrorism'. I was so, so disgusted. Can we have enough of this bullshit?! It's becoming the norm that anyone with an unreasonable case to make only has to come up with a bullshit statement like "helps terrorism" or "hates America" for them to think that they've made the point without needing a proof. I can't have much respect for a rich organisation which propaganda resembles that of a stupid usenet troll. I'm also starting to feel a wish to shoot everyone who makes this "helps terrorism" bullshit to push their case.
But I wouldn't call sharing music with friends "piracy". - oh, sure it's not piracy if it is sharing with friends. I don't believe that any of the P2P people you share with are your friends though, so in my mind it is clear violation of copyright (and some people like to call it piracy, so be it.)
You can't handle the truth.
Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
Alice: "The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things."
Humpty Dumpty: "The question is, which is to be master -- that's all."
---
You can't handle the truth.
So, you don't use or download anything from the Internet? - for your information I use and download quite a few things from the internet. None of those things are distributed illegaly though, but that may be a revelation for you. Not the entire internet is about 'sharing' someone else's work illegaly.
You can't handle the truth.
The ORG are having a public meeting in London next week, so RSVP if you can make it.
The pledge drive is getting close to completion, so if you want to be one of the thousand founding donors, you need to hurry as there are 39 places left.
If you think that is reasonable, then I am against copyright beause it doesn't let me control how I distribute work that I can. - does not grok. You are allowed to distribute your own work in any way that you can come up with. Work that you do not own you cannot distribute without the original creator's consent.
You can't handle the truth.
Commercial piracy needs pressing plants, needs sales outlets and you can track these places down and shut them down.
That really depends on your definition of "commercial". To me it means "for money on an organised basis", with an undercurrent of "by a registered company", but that's not necessarily a requirement. By my definition, for example, someone running off copies of CDs and DVDs on their home PC and selling them at work, to friends and family, or even on eBay, etc, is involved in commercial copyright infringement. Commerce is taking place - goods are changing hands for money. No pressing plants required, very much harder to chase down (unless the guy does use something like eBay as an outlet, or a friend or colleague rats them out).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
oh, sure it's not piracy if it is sharing with friends. I don't believe that any of the P2P people you share with are your friends though,
Actually, the people I share with are my friends. But I'm not using p2p.
You call "reasonable" (I'm not making this up!) trying to force all society to use specially-designed hard-disks that will check whether the data they are writing is copyrighted?
Do you have a source for that? Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof and all that...
("All society"? *Most* of society doesn't even have access to a PC; I realise that you're upset about this, but a little less hyperbole wouldn't hurt...)
Incidentally, none of those things are even in the same league as attempting to get permission to use (supposedly) anti-terror legislation to spy on members of the public, if you ask me.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Wow, no matter what the topic it's still sad when people can't adequately express themselves and have to resort to personal attack. Quite redneck actually. Making a copy of your friends CD for yourself is NOT covered under fair use. That is, in effect, stealing. To set you straight again: "Fair use" was designed to allow a person to buy a CD, make a copy for the car cd player, and maybe rip it for their MP3 player. In all those cases, the property remains in the hands and for the use of, the person that paid for the original which all used to be legal. Note the "used to be". Then along comes the DMCA and it's now illegal to circumvent copy protection whether it's for your personal use or not. Since probably all music CDs made in the last few years have some type of copy protection, ripping it is illegal, plain and simple. I never said that I sided with the **IA or EU or any other agency, company, organization, etc... Which leads me to further believe that you didn't read what I wrote or can't comprehend it. I rip and copy and rip again just like everyone else. What I find most interesting is how some people believe that downloading or copying music or movies or whatever is not wrong or illegal. Of course there's the moral and legal opinions regarding this subject. Because people believe that they've been sandbagged into paying too much for music just to line the pockets of music industry executives, those people believe that it's somehow their right to do whatever they want with copyrighted works. Not so. I'm not saying stop copying music. I'm not saying the music industry are within their rights. I just would like a little honesty out of people when it comes to breaking the law. Just because Sony didn't fess up to doing something evil doesn't mean that you have to lower your standards and rationalize theft. Like me, I freely admit that I'm a thief on occasion. Just be truthful about it and don't whine and try to justify breaking the law because you feel like you got ripped off. For example, you kinda pissed me off because you don't seem to think your arguments through and resort to verbal attacks of a personal nature when I made no offense toward you whatsoever. Feeling that I've been wronged, I blow your head off. When I go to trial, I say, "Well, the guy damaged my feelings and crippled my brain because of the comments that he installed in my memory". Judge to me: You get the needle anyway because what you did was illegal! See my point?
When responding, I extend the courtesy of lowering myself to the level of the respondee.
It is perfectly legal in Canada.
It's perfectly moral and ethical, because WE PAY A TAX ON BLANK MEDIA specifically for this purpose.
No, it is copyright infringement.
We're not talking about "fair use", but outright copying the whole kit and kaboodle, which is, shall I say it again, PERFECTLY LEGAL IN CANADA.
Er, the DMCA does not apply outside of the USA, which is 95% of the world.
In the US. I am not in the US.
You wrote it from a yankeeish perspective, which does not apply to 95% of the planet.
HELLOOO? Have you thought that perhaps, elsewhere in the world (read: a 5 hour drive from New-York City) it IS LEGAL???
Damn right. Even better, the arrogance of the music industry in VANDALIZING our computers and demanding that the whole universe submit to their whims (hard disks that check if the data is copyrithted) have determined that they have to be put to death.
Oh, I must be very, very, very honest, because I DON'T BREAK THE LAW!!!!
I don't have to rationalize it, because it is legal.
What I rationalize, is the need to exterminate the music industry for it's unfettered arrogance.
I am not breaking any law.
What pisses me off is those yankees who act like asshat
It looks as though I owe you an apology. I thought your Canada references were just examples. I didn't realize you actually live there!
Since I'm American and lived there up until last year, I'm familiar with the laws in the US. Since I've been in Germany for just over a year, I am familiar with the laws here.
The difference between copyright violation and theft is simply semantics. The fact remains that they are both illegal in the US.
If you believe, morally, that it's Ok to copy music in Canada, that's a matter of opinion. If it's Ok legally then that's just the way it is.
One person buys a CD and makes copies for all of his friends, who then make copies for all of their friends, and so on and so on. That type of system would definitely make me seriously consider a career change if I were a musician. It doesn't seem fair but oh well.
Walk into a library and at any time, you'll see several people ripping CDs into their laptop computers.
...it seems that the RIAA and co. have hijacked the term 'piracy' to mean 'the creation/distribution of bootleg copies'. They are either uncaring or forgetful the original meaning of the word, even though reminders continue to make themselves known...
- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
...but it's a small price to pay to know that out there, many idiots like you are ruining their liver over false problems such as this one. Here's hoping that you smarten the fuck up, get over yourself and start looking around and seeing the _real_ problems around you. HTH, HAND.
Also, you're certainly nowhere near "insightful". Fucking mods better go back watch Hardball if this is your idea of well-expressed insight.
RIAA has just announce the successful conviction using the new law. Mary Elizabeth Johansen was just sentances to 135,439 years to be served consecutively after she "left a new peer to peer program running" over her Christmas break while traveling to to see family. Her father was hoping that she would not be charged as an adult, but the judge said his hands were tied and the law required it. RIAA helped out by sending a group to help talk about the new law to her 3rd grade class.
Typical shite for brains moderation, eh? An "off topic" mod would be justified by the focus of the article on the European aspects of the same problems. THe "troll" and "flamebait" mods are just "I disagree" mods from typical Bushevik maroons.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
> Making a copy of your friends CD for yourself is NOT covered under fair use.
Considering the topic is about EU, you might want to know that it is perfectly legal in many EU countries. There might in some be a provision that the friend do the copy, but it is not infringement.
> That is, in effect, stealing.
No, it would at most be copyright infringement. Going to a store taking a CD, THAT is stealing (or shoplifting actually, but lets take a whole bunch of CDs). Creating something new, a copy, is at most copyright infringement.
Also, since the "topic" in this case is the legal ness or illegalness, why not use the proper language? Which is definately NOT to call it theft, but copyright infringement? How hard can that be?
>To set you straight again: "Fair use" was designed to......
That depends a lot on which country you talk about. It is in addition implemented quite differently in different country. If you take Sweden for example, which happens to be in EU, there is a SPECIFIC exception to the copyright holders right to make copies so that others might make copies for personal use. There are other such exceptions as well that make an action non infringing. On the other hand there is no general "test" for a fair use such as in the, for example, US copyright law.
So don't just generalize and assume it is the same in all countries.
> Then along comes the DMCA....
Which is also a US specific law. Even though there is a smiliar directive in the EU, the implementation differs quite a lot. in addition, it does not cover "access". Basically you would have to first have an act of copyright infringement for which there is a protection to circumvent. So, if it is allowed to actually make personal copies, you are allowed to corcumvent protection do make such personal copies. Again, it differs with country.
>Since probably all music CDs made in the last few years have some type of copy protection,
Again not true. I would say that in many countries in Europe it is even less common than in USA.
>What I find most interesting is how some people believe that downloading or copying music or movies or >whatever is not wrong or illegal.
That can be legal in some countries, illegal in others. In general this would be illegal in most countries in Europe that has implemented the directive I mentioned above since it requires that copies for personal use for example, must have a legal original, or rather, one made available in a legal way. This rules out downloading from the net in many cases. it used to be legel in Sweden though up to last summer. In Canada though it still appears to be perfectly legal though although I believe the one making the copies available might be infringing on copyright.
>The difference between copyright violation and theft is simply semantics. The fact remains that they
>are both illegal in the US.
So is murder. So what is the point? Because two things are both illegal, we should mix and use whichever terminology we feel for? That is hardly productive or help understand. How hard can it be to use the proper word for things? No one is arguing that copyright infringement is not illegal, but it is quite different from stealing. This becomes obvious when people start to tell WHY something should allowed or not when it comes to copyrights. You (not you personally but many) also end up with a typical logical error arguingt that since one copying is semanitcally the same as stealing, any copying is illegal since copying was stealing. And since stealing means someone lost something, anytime where there can be a "loss", even such a silly thing such as no income, must hence be stealing and hence copyright infringement and hence bad. It just ends up with bad discussions, confusions and missunderstandings. So why not use the correct terminology when we are discussing the legality?
>Er, no. I CANNOT make a copy for a friend. That's illegal. But I can lend him a disk and he makes a
>copy of it, that's perfectly ok.
Which is in teresting, because in some European countries it is basically the other way arround. I can make a copy and give to a friend, but he might not be allowed to make a copy of my CD.
The http://digital-copyright.ca/ will be helping people to find their candidates as well as other people who are interested in these areas of policy.
While the SonyBMG RootKit scandal that the current Government wishes to legally protect won't be as well known as the Sponsorship Scandal, we should still do what we can to expose the problems.
Digital Copyright Canada forum
Dog through table and spleen seven tiles.
There, I just called you all sorts of bad names, using my own definitions for those words. Kinda hampers communication, doesn't it?
I'm just nitpicking. :P