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."

52 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 ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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."
    3. 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>

    4. Re:Bring it on! by pallmall1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      you're not going to be able to enjoy your independent music in the ways you'd like to
      Also, you won't be able to enjoy any personal recordings the way you'd like to. The hardware will only play the content if the content is tagged with explicit permissions, even if the permission is "unrestricted." So if I record something on my own equipment, much of it home-built from the chip-component level, I will have to include special "DRM" code if I want to play the recording back on ANY commercial device. And you can be assured that the "DRM" code will require a non-free license.

      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.
    5. 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
    6. Re:Bring it on! by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

  3. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Automobile banned for violating historic customary use laws for the wheel.

    1. Re:In other news... by jc42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:In other news... by AlterTick · · Score: 4, Interesting
      A list of "suggsted" automobile laws:
      "Rules of the Road" published in a bulletin by the Farmers Anti-Automobile Society included:

      "All motorists must carry sugar to make friends with the horse. When a horse approaches, the motorist must drive into the nearest meadow or forest and cover his vehicle with a camouflaged blanket."

      "If a car should cause a team of horsed to run away, the driver shall be fined $50 for first mile and $100 for each succeeding mile until the horses are stopped."

      "Cars at night must send up red rockets every mile and wait 10 minutes for the road to clear. Speed shall never exceed 5 miles an hour. And the motorist must proceed with caution, blowing horn and shooting off Roman candles."

      "Upon approaching a corner, the car must be stopped not less than a mile from the turn. To ascertain if the road is clear, the driver must sound his horn, rind a bell, fire a revolver, hallo, and send up three bombs at intervals of five minutes."

      "Cars must be painted to merge with the scenery-green in the spring, golden in the summer, red in the autumn, and white in the winter."

      "Speed limit on country roads this year will be secret and penalty for violation will be $10 for every mile the offender is caught going in access of it."

      "When a horse approaches, the driver of the vehicle must take the automobile apart and conceal the parts in the grass or bushes alongside the road until the horse has passed.

      Ridiculous, right? Not at the turn of the century, when the rules of the road condemned the motorist and pampered the horse! In the early days, the motorists were a beleaguered few, hemmed in by a variety of animosities and jealousies. Admirers of the horse, together with all industries that had grown up around horse-drawn transportation, and the diehards who wanted no change in the easy tempo of like, had little trouble persuading rural-dominated legislatures and city and town councils to adopt highly restrictive laws and regulations.

      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.
    3. 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.
  4. 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.
    1. Re:One step forward (backward) by j0nb0y · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?
  5. Is anyone here an Oregon voter? by MaelstromX · · Score: 5, Informative

    Please contact your lamebrained Senator to let him know what you think of the bill he's introducing.

  6. Will this eliminate Software Patents? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Funny
    Indeed, by definition, a patent describes something "new" (at least, in theory, it should...).

    If it's "new", it cannot be "customary historic". Thus, at least in the area of multimedia, this law will mean that from now on, no algorithms may be patented.

    Either they have to admit that their algorithms are not "new", and they should not be patentable. Or they must admit that they are "new", and thus cannot be "customary historic". Now settle that among you, RIAA and patent sharks!

  7. 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.
  8. Been there, seen that, bought the T-shirt by Sique · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  9. 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...)
  10. 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
    1. Re:20 years or bust by stud9920 · · Score: 5, Informative
      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)
      like england did not. Some copycat crimes happened in the UK, Stanley Kubrick, in no way linked to her majesty's government, retired the film in the UKuntil he died.
  11. Nerd Employment Preservation Act of 2006 by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny
    I'd like a law like this too. If technology ever makes my job obsolete, I plan to stay at home watching TV and receiving payments from my current employer, as mandated by a proposed law intended to preserve the status quo I enjoy today: the "Nerd Employment Preservation Act of 2006".

    If we scrape together some money we can easily have this done. Republican Senator Gordon Smith, for example, the genius behind this fair use bill, can be bought for pretty cheap:
    Between May 2001 and May 2002, Abramoff wrote three $1,000 checks to Smith, followed by a $2,000 check in June 2002 from one of his main clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaws. In late October 2002, right before Smith's reelection, while he enjoyed a large lead in the polls over Democrat Bill Bradbury, the senator accepted three more checks totaling $4,000, two from the Mississippi tribe and one from another Abramoff client, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in California. Since the election, Smith has received two additional checks from Abramoff's Indian clients, totaling $6,000.
    Why should record companies get all the status quo preserving laws? If everyone in this thread were to donate $10 to a special PAC, we could probably get the "Nerd Employment Preservation Act of 2006" passed easily. And we could make extra money by taking short positions on the stocks of all our employers before Wall Street finds out about our new law.
  12. Fair Use isn't an RIAA policy. by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a doctrine of copyright law, which the RIAA and its predecessors have always fought against.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  13. Lovely. by Jaazaniah · · Score: 5, Informative

    When technology first came along and swept music into our lives, it did so en mass. Further broadening the broadcasts will cost someone, that's for sure, but locking codecs into laws, linking ridiculous software patents to laws that won't expire without being smited by a judge with common sense? Here's a funny story. When Phillips and Sony finalized Red Book in 1979, it was done based off another technology source, Laserdiscs. If someone tried that today, they would be swamped by roughly 30 letters of patent infringment warnings, and if this law passes a startup that builds it's own machine (and for arguement's sake avoids stepping on toes) based on HD broadcasts would get slapped with a violation of this new ridiculous bill. (by way of bypassing the Customary Historic Use hardware regulations) Not only is this a blatant slap in the face for creativity in business, but it is also a "Pay to use our patented broadcast flag technology in your hardware or get sued for not doing so anyways!"

    And just so I don't fire people up without giving them an outlet, here's some useful links. We need to hound the government EN MASS to get this proposal squashed.

    Contact List
    U.S. Chamber of Commerce - This law is anti-competitive for the above reasons (and likely more). Let them know.

    State-sorted contact list of state senators - Can you write effectively, and do you want to make a difference? Go here and DO it. There's no reason to sit idle if you, as a citizen here, have an objection. Get others to do it too. Send them the link. Mass email it, mail in an old fashioned petition. Senators don't read Slashdot, and don't consult geeks unless it involves upgrading computers. Go here.

  14. Re: Bucket. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    > Maybe it's time for **AA to kick the bucket...

    Sorry, but that's not a Customary Historic Use of buckets.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  15. 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"
  16. OK by me! by paiute · · Score: 3, Funny

    I still have all my old wax cylinders. That damn punk Rudy Vallee - I showed him at last.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  17. 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).

  18. Re:RIAA by d4nowar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah... it also lets you build houses/hotels on your property.

  19. What I Would Love To See... by s7uar7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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.

  20. 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.

  21. My Customary Historic Use by mcubed · · Score: 5, Funny

    For more than a year in the historical period of 1999-2001, I customarily used the original implementation of Napster to download and share audio files. Therefore, Napster or any service that models itself along those lines is a customary historic use.

    I'm fine with this. You go, Senator Smith!

    Michael

    --
    "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
  22. Directive 10-289, anyone? by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds a lot like Directive 10-289 from Atlas Shrugged...

  23. 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.

  24. Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I personally have almost given up on spamming congresscritters.

    Unless you're buying expensive dinners for them, or shuttling them around in your private jet or paying for travel to exotic locations, it's likely you're part of that pesky background noise your legislator's lobbyists are trying to shield them from. To them you're part of a well meaning but ultimately not very bright group of people called constituents who don't understand how things really get done.

    http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/na tion/epaper/2006/01/01/a2a_bellsouth_0101.html

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  25. 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
  26. Neo-Luddites by Decker-Mage · · Score: 4, Interesting
    So the scribes are going to go crying to mama-government to get a law passed to prevent Gutenberg from using his printing press. I do hope this bill never goes anywhere but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. They do have very deep pockets and it is an election year after all which means the politicians need lots of cash. If it does pass it will come down to the courts weighing fair use against historic use and I don't put much money on fair use as you can be sure the law will remove that privilege (it was never a right, just another provision of the law).

    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
  27. Re:RIAA by acariquara · · Score: 3, Funny

    Humor police

    You have made a bad pun. Go straight to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  28. How? by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!
  29. 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.
  30. Re:Oy by Metasquares · · Score: 3, Informative

    4b. Bill gets tacked on to other unrelated bill and is passed because everyone thinks they're improving hopitals or something by passing that second bill.

  31. Going around this by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    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.p perl?isbn=9781400050093&view=excerpt

  32. 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.
  33. 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
  34. post-mp3 by allelopath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree with you to a point, ie, after digital, no need to go further. However, I don't see mp3 as the ultimate in digital. Soon enough, there will be something with far more fidelity and occupying far less space.

    1. Re:post-mp3 by Millenniumman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most people won't be able to notice higher fidelity, and computer storage space is becoming larger and less expensive, so it will be hard to convince people to re-buy all of their mp3 music to get these things.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    2. Re:post-mp3 by Millenniumman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    3. 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.
    4. Re:post-mp3 by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  35. I have a better idea by penguin-collective · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why don't they stop publishing content altogether? Then nobody can steal it anymore, and the rest of us can go on with our lives. The independent stuff is a lot better anyway, and I'm happy to finance that by going to concerts.

  36. 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.