Slashdot Mirror


New RIAA/MPAA "Customary Historic Use" Plan

Random_Transit writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the EFF has dug up plans by the RIAA/MPAA to stifle the consumer electronics market by replacing it's "fair use" policy with something called "Customary Historic Use". This new policy would effectively keep anyone from inventing any new type of media device without the RIAA/MPAA's say-so."

21 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Bring it on! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Great, this is what I want to see from the RIAA. The more they restrict how people can use their commercial crap, the more encourage independants who'll value their listeners.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    1. Re:Bring it on! by MaelstromX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing the point. When the RIAA uses its influence in D.C. to regulate technological progress (or lack thereof), you're not going to be able to enjoy your independent music in the ways you'd like to (i.e. anything that doesn't fall under "customary historic use").

      Though now that I see it, you live in Australia, so please allow 6-8 weeks for the lunacy to reach your shores.

    2. Re:Bring it on! by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The RIAA or any other such organisation no longer offer us *anything*.

      <mode=cynical>

      No, but they offer the wannabe rock stars promises of fame, riches, pelt, and doing blow off hookers' asses. No matter how many bands give thier "it's all about rocking/the metal" spiel, it's very rarely about the music.

      Until we breed musicians who are immune to the cha-ching factor, the RIAA or it's replacement will continue to have us by the balls.

      </mode>

    3. Re:Bring it on! by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Great, this is what I want to see from the RIAA. The more they restrict how people can use their commercial crap, the more encourage independants who'll value their listeners.

      You think it's a good combination to have a state-granted monopoly (copyright) and at the same time let that monopoly gauge you any way they want? That is roughly the worst combination ever. For all the talk about independent music and movies, that doesn't matter to a fan because they're not interchangable. And the mainstream music does have a large fanbase, even though some slashdotters will get on their high horse like an art critic looking down on "The fast and the furious" or a porn flick. So simple, so crude, so stereotyped and yet so successful, so entertaining, so appealing to a broad segment of the population. That's almost a crime when it comes to art.

      My point is that this isn't something the market will "fix". If that was the case we could just wipe out all consumer protection laws, all anti-trust laws, all fair use and whatever. The only thing that would happen is that the customer would stay with mainstream media and get even more shafted than he is today. What we're seeing is nothing more than a gross invasion of the privacy and not least the soverignity of my home. They want to be able to tell me what my machines can do to my movies, my music in my living room. Not that anything except the living room seems to be mine anymore.

      I want to see LotR in HDTV. And that I'll probably have to pay a small fortune in a player, HDTV and the movie itself in that format is fine. Obviously I wish it was cheaper, but that is simple supply and demand, maximization of profit. I can live with that. What I don't want to live with is all the rest, and I don't see why I should have to or even have to boycott it. The law should restrict the number of latches, catches, hooks, limitations, restrictions, activations, verifications, crippling, self-destructability and so on a product can contain.

      One of the greatest evils is that you no longer seem to be purchasing anything, and the courts are ignoring it. Why would anyone sell you anything, if they can license it and unilaterally apply catches at will in the fine print, yet in every way it otherwise acts as a sale? You don't need to license it, copies of books have been sold for centuries without selling the copyright, music and movies are no different. If the courts had any balls, they would simply throw out the RIAA/MPAA/BSAs licenses and say "This has the characteristics of a sale, thus it is a sale. The sale is goverened by common law and your EULA is null and void."

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  3. One step forward (backward) by Southpaw018 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This isn't even in the same realm, is it? That's why I say one step...perhaps the better term would be "away" and not forward or backward. Our constitution doesn't cover the issue of fair use rights as far as I'm aware, but shouldn't legal precedent prevent anything this insane from being upheld on challenge?

    --
    ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
  4. Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood by advocate_one · · Score: 4, Insightful
    don't use teabags... I know what you're getting at, but , instead, chuck DRM'd CDs and DVDs into a furnace... in public, with the media present, and explain to them exactly why your NOT gonna take it anymore...

    reminds me of the movie Tommy, where the disciples were made to wear earplugs, blindfolds and put corks in their mouths and told to play pinball... in the end, the disciples told him where to shove the cork...

    we, the consumers, have the ultimate power... we can just stop buying or watching their crap... don't pirate it though, just don't buy it or subscribe to stations which force this on you...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  5. Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood by BrynM · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I can't wait for these dinosaurs to kick off and shut the f*sk up.
    People have been saying this for 30 years. It's not going to happen. It's a system. It won't just up and die one day, it has to be changed (which you also note). Young, ambitious people can be greedy too. Especially when they have teachers.

    I think we're seeing the stranglehold on music being shaken, but there will always be greedy bastards trying to pull one over. For now it's an arms race between legislative gaming ("them") and consumer education ("us"-ish). Sadly, consumer education isn't as easy as it sounds in a media based nation like the US. I personally have almost given up on spamming congresscritters. I'm afraid it's white noise to them by now. What worries me more than these individual battles is the signs of democracy being injured in the process. As a whole, we're not long-term fighting very much. We're putting out legal fires where/when/if we can.

    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  6. 20 years or bust by mrshowtime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Customary Historic use" Something only a lawyer could come up with. Really, in 10 years everthing will be able to be downloaded relatively instantly and there ALWAYS will be rogue countries that will allow copyright infringement. Sites like Allmymp3.com will become a one stop shop for downloading media. Then, legislation will be introduced banning or making "unapproved" websites illegal to access. Heck, I would not even be surprised for the RIAA/MPAA to use whatever leftover version of the Patriot Act to stop people from downloading movies/music/media from "unapproved" countries in the guise of national security.

    In a way, I don't blame the media companies for freaking out. In 10 years physical media will almost be on it's way out. You will see much more use of "keys" and "rights mangement" built into EVERYTHING. Valve's Steam network is a good example of things to come. I would go as far to suggest that there will be one world standard coming in the next 10 years for rights management. You won't be able to buy hardware that won't connect to the internet to verify the intergrated rights mangement.

    The way they will get ya, is the "You can download -ANYTHING- now if you accept the new rights management built into everything." This sounds good, but the RIAA/MPAA are greedy a-holes as evidenced by the DIVX (the dvd player, not the codec) debacle; you won't own anything except limited rights that can always be revoked or blocked at any time. Let's say it's 2020 and you want to buy "A Clockwork Orange" only to find out it's blocked by your country for being subversive or obscene (like England did) Pretty much you will have no recourse, no bootlegs, no nuttin, except maybe that old dvd on ebay (if that has not been outlawed by reverse customary historic use).

    I guess with the world going to a cashless society in less than 20 years, I can forsee an "all in one" digital rights card/chip that you carry around with you that will not only get you into the movie theater, but buy downloadable movies/games/music/books/etc. Find a chip/card too cumbersome to carry around? well don't worry the new ruler of europe, Anthony T. Christ, just decreed you must have a RFID chip implanted in you, for -ALL- Commerce and as a bonus will throw in digital rights mangement for free!

    --
    "Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
  7. Quote from 1984 anyone? by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So they want total control over the next generation?

    "And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed--if all records told the same tale--then the lie passed into history and became truth.

    You will study a RIAA/MPAA approved course, work in a RIAA/MPAA approved media job and get your pension from a RIAA/MPAA approved company.

    No lost 'clips' from the past - just one RIAA/MPAA view of the past - as they will have the only keys to all the press archives.
    Political parties and families can be assured that all the bad stuff is locked away for good now.
    No ghosts from the past to upset any political party 20-30 years on.

    Images of young men and woman before the courts as minor officials will just not exist away as they move up the ladders of power.
    Images of your now top leaders shaking hands with friendly dictators, giving testimony about arms deals or military excesses
    will now all be encrypted.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  8. Prevent Americans, not anyone by jemnery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, but the article refers to American trade associations. I live in a country (the UK) that used to rule a large part of the world, and be by far the most advanced in industry and technology. This is no longer true. If the US wants to go the same way, just keep on stifling innovation in this way. There's nothing to stop China, India, Sweden etc etc from innovating with complete freedom.

    This is not intended to start a flamewar; I've been to the US and enjoyed it, and I'd be the first to defend all the good things that have come from America (despite the current administration).

  9. There won't be any more analog outputs by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is covered, which is part of what makes this so evil:

    The "secure moving technology" ensures that whatever you do with the signal that leaves the digital broadcast receiver, it definitely won't be anything you can't already do right now. Furthermore, even some things that you can currently do will be outlawed if those things could facilitate piracy. This probably means that such devices won't have much in the way of hi-fi analog outs.

    In other words, since analog capture could possibly lead to piracy, new devices will be required to not have analog outputs any more.

  10. Obligatory Anti-copyright rant by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The slippery slope of government's renting of their monopoly on the use of force is being proven right here.

    Copyright can't work anymore. I'd say up until 1995 or so, you had copyright laws that were degrading but still were enforceable. It can't be done. It is time for everyone who creates content to find new ways to market it.

    My typical reply to "how?" is to move to live performances and tours -- with a push to sell official merchandise on top of it. Some other people in support of my No Copyright opinions have even thought up other great ways to promote art without copyright:

    1. You can charge your fans for access to your studio creation time via the web.
    2. You can record your live art performance real time, dump it to DVD and sell it to the fans that were at the performance.
    3. You can get a job with a larger company and be a salaried artist.
    4. You can contract out with local pubs to be a regular live performance artist.
    5. You can tour, often, using your cheap/free CDs or free MP3s to promote your music syle.
    6. You can play cheaply in order to promote your real job: teaching others to play an instrument.

    Copyright has one intent: to enable the cartels to retain control of the distribution. There is no other use for copyright enforcement longer than 3 years. I even think that 24 months sounds too long for me.

    I've been debating copyright in real life for 2 years now, and I'm working on opening No Copyright Studios in Chicago, IL this spring. If you have interest in beating down the RIAA, move away from the law that supports their cartel -- copyright. If you're a band, a painter, a web designer, a sculptor or any other artist, there are ways to sell your art face-to-face for a profit and skip turning over your rights to a cartel middleman.

    1. Re:Obligatory Anti-copyright rant by amper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Adam,

      I thought I'd mention that I've added you to my "Friends" here on Slashdot because I find you posts here, and some of the information on your web sites provocative. I disagree, however, with much of your content.

      In this particular post, you again assert the idea that, "Copyright has one intent: to enable the cartels to retain control of the distribution." You've made this assertion multiple times recently, and I have to tell you, you couldn't be more wrong. Copyright does indeed have "one intent", but that intent is, to quote the Constitution, "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."

      Unfortunately, this provision in the Constitution, which might I add, was developed by men who possessed a great deal of both insight and foresight, has indeed become polluted by moneyed interests to the point where the restrictions available to copyright holders outweigh the public interest in progress, but I wholeheartedly disagree that, as you put it, "Copyright can't work anymore." Copyright can work, and has served well for the past 200-odd years of the history of our nation. The problem we currently face for copyright is that the barrier to infringement of the copyright privilege has been dramatically lowered by the availablility of low-cost digital reproduction. People who would otherwise remain honest have, in the face of the pollution of the original intent of the copyright and dilution of moral priniciples in our society, begun to infringe upon the privileged grant of authorship because they can do so easily in a relatively anonymous fashion.

      Your assertion that content creators must find new avenues of revenue generation may be a prgmatic reaction to the situation, but the end result is the destruction of a viable way of life for many artists. I find that, in general, those who advocate such measures for artists, and particularly, musicians, as you outline above, are generally not themselves the sort of artists who will find their livelihood placed at a disadvantage. It is all very well for you to advocate a life of constant live performance when you yourself do not seem to engage in such performances. Who are you to dictate what my lifestyle, as a publishing musician should be? Do I agree that the "cartels" have a disproportionate amount of power in the music economy? Certainly, but the answer, in my opinion, is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and relegate my fellow musicians to "walk the long road".

      It may be that ultimately, it may become impossible for artists to make a living off of the proceeds of recorded works, whatever their form, but I predict that if this comes to pass, the end result will be a dramatic reduction in artistic output of all forms, with the added reality that under such a system of mandatory live performance, access to artistic works will very quickly become restricted to an elite subset of the population with sufficient means and lesiure time to enjoy them. Now, I'd like to examine some of your suggestions, specifically:

      1. You can charge your fans for access to your studio creation time via the web.

      Yes, I can, but this requires not only a large expenditure in equipment (as you yourself should know), but a large store of technical knowledge. This of course, does not take into account that artists may not wish to allow access to "unfinished works".

      2. You can record your live art performance real time, dump it to DVD and sell it to the fans that were at the performance.

      This suffers from all the same problems as #1, but adds the burden of live performance, plus fails to account for the ability of those DVD's to be pirated easily.

      3. You can get a job with a larger company and be a salaried artist.

      Do I really even need to dissect this idea? A salaried artist? I can imagine the societal and artistic value of the creations produced by such a system.

  11. Let the RIAA keep their music. by sticks_us · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some points:

    1) Of all the music being made out there, the standard industry practice guarantees you'll only ever hear an insiginficant fraction of what's available, and most of that is successful because it sounds like something else. What you get is the tiniest sliver of what's possible. Most of the greatest music being made will never make it to your ears.

    2) Until recently, music was a social activity (people used to be able to play instruments and entertain family and friends, for example, and they'd also leave the house at times to hear others make music). Take off the headphones.

    3) Enroll in a music class. Pony up the bucks, take some lessons, learn some techniques, and -- gasp -- make some of your own music. Music is OK when it's a passive activity (listening), but nothing compares to being able to make your own.

    Music is something you make, share, and become a part of. When it becomes something you buy (like cereal or beer), it's *always* going to be fettered by copyright laws, etc.

    Take it back, make it your own.

    --
    "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
  12. Re:RIAA by Heembo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The record company visionaries are seeing the end of the road. In the past, you bought a record. Then an 8-track (only if you were hip). Then cassette. CD. Some moved to DVD, but many are getting mp3s' and the road is at an end. I don't need to move to the next latest-and-greatest way of listening to music. My imperfect transportable mp3 collection will follow me til the end of digital time without need to buy again.

    --
    Horns are really just a broken halo.
  13. Re:They can't kill you, yet by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    True ... but taxes can be a form of oppression (probably the most common) with religious tyranny next on the list. Frequently both are simultaneously applied to a given population. Any way you look at it, one hell of a lot of people came to the New World to get away from what they considered "oppression" by their former government. Many took insane risks to do so: insane by our standards perhaps, but that's only because we take for granted that for which they were willing to risk everything.

    But that's what frontiers have often been all about: society's disaffected seeing both opportunity, and the possibility of escape from tyranny and persecution. What concerns me is that when America, indeed Western civilization itself, reaches the point that many of us will want to go somewhere else is that, well ... there isn't anywhere else. No new frontiers, no place to hide, no place to go for the chance of a better life. Unless we achieve some technological breakthroughs that open up space or the oceans for colonization on a massive scale there will continue to be no place to go.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  14. Silly, really... by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since it needs to be made into an analog signal, somewhere along the line it needs to be put to a speaker. From there, it can be tapped off the speaker or recorded with a microphone. They won't put DRM in microphones because of the danger factor (already covered numerous times on this site...).

    "Plugging the Analog Hole" can't. In order for you to be able to hear/see it, it HAS to go through an analog hole they can't realistically plug.

    It's all friggin' stupid and we need to just remove from office all the twits pushing this BS as it's a waste of taxpayer dollars, etc. to be even discussing this as a law in Congress.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  15. Yes and what do we do about it? by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The corporations keep getting more powerful, and the average Joe keeps losing more, and democracy is vanishing down the tubes. What do you do about it? File a lawsuit? Really. When an administration can torture and spy on you with impunity, what good is the rule of law going to do you?

    The only thing that does any good whatsoever is to get together 5-10 friends, and go make a personal visit to your Congressman's office. Not Senators, mind you, since they all think they're little potentates and don't give a crap what you think. But House members can be influenced, especially by a motivated group of citizens in their district.

    Why is that? Because in the eyes of a politician none of us is just one person. Rather, we're a node in a network of an average of 150 friends, family, and acquaintances. They piss you off, and you become a message repeater to that network telling them not to vote for that politician, which in turn could echo from each of those 150 people in your network to the 150 people in their individual networks. That sort of math adds up quickly. Sure, it could be no more than a person two or three hops removed from you saying, "Yeah, I heard that guy was a real dickhead." But you'd be surprised how many people vote based on such vague hearsay. Definitely enough to cost someone an election.

    Then you throw in the possibility that you might be the niece of their biggest campaign contributor, or that you might be one of those people Malcolm Gladwell talks about who has a personal rolodex of 5,000 contacts, and suddenly the math takes off even faster. They don't know, so better for them to play it safe and not piss you off.

    House members have a much smaller pool of constituents than Senators, so they're much more vulnerable to the math. For state and city elected officials, even more so.

    And what happens if they do piss you off? You and your 5-10 friends make up a simple flyer, go out to the Walmart/supermarket/mall whatever for a couple hours on an weekend and hand them out like crazy. Guarantee you'll get action then. I did it with three friends for two hours on a Saturday outside a supermarket in Greenwich Village last year after a snotty state senator told us she wasn't going to support legislative reforms (like being required to actually vote) in Albany. Next day I got a nasty call from her Chief of Staff asking us what the f*ck we thought we were doing. Apparently they had gotten 2-300 phone calls from their constituents asking her to change her position. I asked her if I could quote the senator on that, and forward it to a friend at the Village Voice (a widely read paper in NY). I also said we were prepared to do the same every weekend until she changed her mind. We heard through the grapevine that the woman was so panicked that she complained to the chairman of the state party; the story pretty much reverberated throughout the state. Ultimately when the reforms came to a vote, she voted for them. 4 people, two hours, vote changed, reforms passed, worst legislature in country cleaned up.

    You can make a difference, but complaining about it on Slashdot doesn't do anything. Writing letters to congressmen does make more of a difference than you think, but it's still not much. Small groups of people can make a big difference if you do it right. I'm no expert, but I've been through lots of experiences like the one above and have some idea about what works and what doesn't. Drop me a line at dakong27 at yahoo.com.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  16. Re:post-mp3 by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What bitrate are you using? 320 bps sounds like source material on any consumer level equipment, and if you're the type that feels like flinging your money at 'audiophile' equipment, then you won't want any kind of lossy compression anyway - if for nothing else than bragging rights.

    Overall, given the general public's taste in music, wasting fidelity on their ears is pointless, in any case. They can't tell at all, and probably wouldn't care, as long as there was a beat.

    ----- under this line, I get catty. -----

    By the way, calling people 'sheep' exposes you as an asshole. Manually linebreaking your text in an inconsistent fashion so that it's impossible to read doesn't help. Appropriate capitalization is a favor to your readers. And mp3 doesn't mean the 3rd version of some nebulous 'mp' spec, so mp9 wouldn't mean what you think it would.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  17. Re:In other news... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I read it right, it's more like walking being banned because it's not customary historic use of a car*.

    *Available from all major auto dealers, starting at $10,000.

    Some of provisions cited in TFA sound like they could affect people's ability to play and record their own original compositions, even if there was no connection to any of the major record labels at all!

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.