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."
I've grown up in a country with a law defining the legal devices to replay recorded music. In this case it wasn't for home use though, but for public play like in a club or at parties. In this case it was probably to enable the state authorities to check the music for subversive content.
But the idea is the same: To control the situation, forbid any not yet controlled entity to enter it.
you're not going to be able to enjoy your independent music in the ways you'd like to
I won't be allowed to wander down to the pub and listen to them play?
Seriously though, the RIAA has already lost this. The cat's out of the bag, the worms are out of the can. Right now, they're playing a stall game to buy time for a response, but I think in the long run they'll be too fat and unwieldy to adapt, so they'll wither, if not die.
There's already too many ways out there that'll allow talented people to make and distribute music for the RIAA to retain their stranglehold on the market. We're already seeing that here (in Western Australia) where our remoteness meant local musicians have had virtually no chance of getting signed with a label. There's a great buzz of talent starting to realise they can do it all themselves with a few thou's worth of recording gear and a friendly web host.
I'm looking forward to it.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
...is a new technology that becomes hugely popular in Japan & Europe, but that is banned in the US because of some law introduced at the request of the *AA. Maybe then people will wake up to how these things really effect them.
Let the techno-war begin. Hackers (the good kind) on one side, Neo-Luddit RIAA/MPAA on the other. I think I know which will win (us), but it's going to be messy.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
How can RIAA/MPAA have any say in how electronic devices are made, and what they can support and can't? How can they even propose anything about it? They're just an organization, not owning electronics companies, and not a political party. I can understand *AA protecting their distributed discs as they have the rights to do so (because the record labels being so are members of *AA), and conversely they don't have any say in protecting discs where labels aren't members, but this is looking like power on a government level when not being part of the government.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
This legislation would allow record companies to receive money on ALL digital content and playback devices, whether they produce (via their phony "artists") or distribute it or not.
Further, if the "DRM" scheme requires periodically checking in with a remote database to verify a digital key, the entity in charge of the database could UNIVERSALLY disable any content they deem "inappropriate" any time they wish. The legislation may not explicitly state that, but in order for a scheme like this to work, these adjunct capabilities would have to be present. This legislation goes way beyond copy-protection.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
If I was a small manufacturer of electronic devices, and stupid rules like this were the law of the land. I'd make my devices with firmware that can easily be modified on a USB connection.
p perl?isbn=9781400050093&view=excerpt
I sure as hell would not officially make if open to all formats... but the day I started selling the machine, somehow would be the day the hacked firmware version was available on the internet.
I'd also not hold press conferences on exactly how to install and upgrade to this hacked version. That would be wrong. I'd probably yell at some consultant who used to work for us(and was paid handsomely) when he held the conference. I'd probably re-hire him at some point, because I am forgiving that way.
I'd denounce this hack publicly, calling it by its accurate name, so people wouldn't mistake it for some other, double-plus good firmware upgrade.
I'd even denounce my loyal and faithful software partners, who somehow seem to be giving this firmware upgrade away, in multiple formats for different operating systems, and with no spyware whatsoever... I'd make sure to expose exactly how this upgrade gets to the public. Of course, this bad behaviour by my partners would not interefere with future business relationships, all water under the bridge, really.
It would be an act of kindness of course, not to press charges on anyone who would hack their device in this way... and a demonstration of goodwill to pick up the legal tabs for anyone sued by some other party who didn't like what the consumer did to our device. Keep it in the family, as it were.
Or maybe something like Henry Ford's "lawsuit insurance" is an alternative plan. http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/catalog/display.
While fair use rights are not specifically in the Constitution, the US Supreme Court has ruled that they are implied. Free speech implies that you have certain fair use rights.
There is a lot of confusion about this, because fair use rights were detailed in the copyright act of 1976. Previous to this however, fair use rights were protected by Supreme Court rulings.
IANAL
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Automobile banned for violating historic customary use laws for the wheel.
Funny, yes, but also similar to a lot of real history.
In a lot of places, when autos started appearing, laws were passed that were attempts to ban them by making them useless. For example, there were laws limiting them to 4 or 5 mph, about horse speed. Some places had laws requiring that a motor vehicle be preceded by a rider on horseback.
Needless to say, these laws didn't last long (though it turns out that they are still on the books in some places). But for some years, they were a good way of collecting a bit of toll money in the form of fines from visitors.
Anyone have any good early anti-auto laws from your vicinity?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Cars were not permitted in city parks. They had to dump out all gasoline before going aboard a ferry. Still on some statute books are laws requiring a motorist to come to a halt, turn off the engine, and give whatever assistance was required to get a skittish horse to go by. Roads were pathetic. A motorist had to buy new tags and driver's licenses to cross a state line-in some instances, even a county line. Some states required registration fees in each county through which a vehicle passed. Missouri charged $30 to cross the state east-west and $50 north-south.
There were laws requiring a motorist to send a warning sentinel with a red flag one-eighth of a mile ahead of his vehicle. In Urbana, Ohio, vehicles were limited to a speed of four miles and hour when crossing another road, at the same time ringing a bell or gong. In Flint, Michigan, a law read: "It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile on the streets of Flint, Michigan, while being subjected to the embrace of any other person."
(NOTE: above work not mine. I found it in a discussion forum, poorly attributed as being "from an article")
Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
I have never heard anyone complain about mp3 quality, or even note it outside of Slashdot and similar sites. I don't notice a difference either. Now, I do realize that doesn't prove anything, but I think that it the opinion of the majority of average people. But are there any efforts to bring higher quality music download services? If there was much consumer demand I would think there would be. But your probably right in that expectations will change with new technology, or that people will just want what is better regardless of whether they can tell. I don't think taking up less space will ever be an issue. How much does it cost to fill up an iPod 60GB with music legally? ~$15000 . It might differ with mp3 rather than AAC or buying lower price CDs, but it would still be quite a lot. So with the new mp3 standard plus much bigger HDs the iPod 1TB with mp9 taking up one tenth the space you will be spending ~$3 million dollars to fill it up with music. Subscription services might change this but no one wants to wait 7 years to download all of the music on the music store and fill their digital audio player with it, even on their 1Tbps fiber optic internet connection. Especially when it will all stop working when they don't pay the monthly fee. At the risk of being "people will only ever need 64k"esque I think modern digital audio players already have all the storage that most people will ever need for music. Now digital audio/video players will need more storage space, and will probably replace DAPs.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
That just begs for the mother of all monopoly suits though.
I make a movie, and plan to distribute it free to increase buzz about my company before moving to the standard "pay for DVDs or theatre showings" on future movies. If the RIAA requires me to use copy protection, it's certainly hard to me to encourage sharing. Thus aren't they impeding a competitor's business in an unlawful way?
Millenniumman: Most people won't be able to notice higher fidelity [than MP3]
allelopath: O rly? mp3 is barely tolerable to me.
At what bitrate? LAME at bitrates close to 192 kbps produces MP3 files that are near transparent to most adult ears. Frankly I don't give a shit if your codec cuts off frequencies above 17500 Hz because at age 25, I am incapable of hearing them. And do you listen to music alone, or are you listening on top of house noise, car noise, or bus/train noise? Ambient noise can reduce the required bitrate for perceived transparency.