Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phone Owners Allowed To Break Software Locks
An anonymous reader writes "The library of congress approved many copyright exemptions today. Among the exemptions were new rules about cell phones, DVDs, and electronic books." From the article: "Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Other copyright exemptions approved by the Library of Congress will let film professors copy snippets from DVDs for educational compilations and let blind people use special software to read copy-protected electronic books.
All told, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington approved six exemptions, the most his Copyright Office has ever granted. For the first time, the office exempted groups of users. The new rules will take effect Monday and expire in three years.
In granting the exemption for cell phone users, the Copyright Office determined that consumers aren't able to enjoy full legal use of their handsets because of software locks that wireless providers have been placing to control access to phones' underlying programs."
I'm in ur cellphonez, breaking ur software lockz
first place and reversing the DMCA? Especially with crap that I buy and should be used in a manner I see fit short of mass distributing it to other anonymous people.
These exemptions are nice and all, and I know the Library of Congress does not have the authority to do more (only Congress itself or the SoC can repeal the DMCA) - but I feel I'm got punched in the face and the LoC is passing by and helpfully giving me a tooth back. What about all the other missing teeth?
turkey and some decent rules
what a good day
With copyright laws being so complicated and contradicting, people care less and less about them. Since it's virtually impossible not to break them, a general "I'm prolly guilty already anyway, who cares?" attitude is spreading.
The more laws you have, the more crime you create.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Namely, the precedent of whitelisting the allowed activity in terms of excercising the fair-use rights.
but I feel I'm got punched in the face and the LoC is passing by and helpfully giving me a tooth back. What about all the other missing teeth?
That pretty much sums it up. I was thinking of it more like you just got the shit kicked out of you by someone, and the LoC was too weak to do anything to help you, but now that you're lying facedown in a puddle of your own blood he'll helpfully get you an ice pack.
These concessions are great, but they're like the Warden giving you an extra ration of food, when you're not supposed to be in jail in the first place. We shouldn't have to have these concessions granted -- all the things mentioned in the summary are common sense, and ought not be protected by copyright in the first place.
Plus, these concessions are just three years. Since they're not permanent, if they're not renewed constantly, they disappear. That makes them hard to count on in the future. When the media lobby got its copyright extension last time, I can't help but notice that there wasn't an expiration or "lets revisit this in 5 years" date; it was permanent.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
In a purely technical point of view, what's the difference between being allowed to break the lock on your cell phone to enjoy its use to the fullest extent, and say, breaking the lock on your music to use it to its fullest extent? After all, you still paid for both.
Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors.
When you buy a mobile phone subscription with a locked-down handset bundled, you get the hardware at vastly reduced price and you undersign to stay with that carrier for N years. No matter what the Library says, if you hack the phone and use it with other carrier before N years expire, you owe the subsidy money back to the original telco. They funded you from their private property and you broke the contract. Private property is sancto-sanct or America is no more.
Without the cheap locked-down handset bundle, mobile telephony market could never take off in the first place, since handsets were truly expensive. I think Europe is smarter than USA and will not destroy the lock-down supported expansion of mobile telephony. Europe and its GSM system is much ahead of americans in mobile communications and cannot alow it to collapse.
Otherwise, I thought USA is governed by President, Representatives and Senate. The only Library that had government power was in the japanese anime "Read or Die" and that was the British Library. Who is a library to decide what can be hacked? That is a matter of legislation, reserved for the authority of elected officials only.
So now I can break software locks for cellphones?
Oh really?
I took this right for granted.
Once I bought something, it's mine and I can do whatever I want with it.
It'd be very interesting to see how this might affect smart phones which have data services tied to carriers(like the Sidekick.)
I hope this helps the US catchup with rest of the world in terms of cellular technology. Though it could make the handsets more pricey
Are not easily breakable except on earlier phones I'm afraid. SIM lock is not like DRM. It is possible to do it properly. For these kind of rulings to be meaningful they need to be backed up by regulation mandating that carriers give the key to unlock it (or not do it in the first place).
I'm here in China, and they busted my phone out from under Cingular in about 30 seconds. It's a newish RAZR (V3)... what phones are un-unlockable, and what's the difference between hacking the OS on a phone and a computer? Do cellphones have hardware restrictions on their usage?
If the only limit is that you can not mass distribute it, then you limit the ability of companies to offer products with more flexible and personalized limits.
Your business model is not a government entitlement program. The rest of us are not bound to rewrite our laws to support it.
Why exactly can't, for example, you and I come to some agreement that, for example, you write some song and I am allowed to listen to it exactly once since this we came to a mutually agreed upon price for which I agreed to listen to it only once?
You should certainly be able to do that under private contract law, but because your business model represents the grossest-imaginable violation of the Constitution's language authorizing copyrights, you should not be able to leverage Federal copyright law to enforce your terms.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Until now I don't think I have anything in my contract that stipulates I have to use the phone supplied to me by my carrier so I can use my hacked CDMA phone. With this law I can see the carriers mandating in the contract that you can only use phoned supplied by them and then start turning of non-branded phones.
From TFA:
"Other copyright exemptions approved by the Library of Congress will let film professors copy snippets from DVDs for educational compilations"
In my day, we called this "fair use", and were allowed to do this as an exemption from general copyright rules.
From TFA:
"let blind people use special software to read copy-protected electronic books."
In my day, we called this "use". It's why we buy the item in the first place - in order to use it. Not in order to sign a scarecrow EULA once the box is open.
Well done America - granting temporary rights to people that they should already have.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
Wow. What a load of crap. Here is the full extent of what the Constitution, which you cite, says about copyright:
"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."
Within this broad framework, it is the mandate of legislators to enact legislation and the judiciary to make ruilings that seek to best "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by balancing the needs for rightsholders to be motivated and the public's right to information. Some things, like national defense, are impractical or impossible to contract on a 1-v-1 basis. Likewise, it is impractical if not impossible to have a complete contract written every time any transfer or license of IP occurs. Therefore, much of what we think about IP is determined by judicious consideration of the balance. Now, you personally may not like where the balance was struck most recently. However, your statement of "grossest imaginable violation of the constitution's language" is hyperbole in the extreme, and, more to the point, absolute bollocks. Oh, I'm sorry, was I not actually supposed to cite the constitution and what it actually says? Was I supposed to take your bald assertion on faith?
Since when the fuck does anyone give two-shits what the library of congress says? Where'd they get this authority????
He's just opened up some pretty tough definition questions. Who counts as a "security researcher"? Who counts as a "film professor"?
Sign up now to be a faculty member in the film department of my brand new internet university!
That's the way we'd do it if you were a wandering minstrel and I was a local lord of the manor, five hundred years ago. So am I supposed to phone Paul McCartney if I want to play Mull of Kintyre?
A few giant media companies control copyright on most of what we listen to or watch. They don't "come to agreements" with us. They use lobbyists to get laws made to legalsie the conditions they want. There is no negotiation, unless you count "take it or leave it".
Oh, I'm sorry, was I not actually supposed to cite the constitution and what it actually says? Was I supposed to take your bald assertion on faith?
No, you were supposed to actually read what you were cutting and pasting. Specifically, the part about a "limited time."
Does your DRM scheme contain an automatic sunset provision to ensure that you actually live up to your end of the copyright bargain... the part that says your work must revert to the public domain upon expiration? If it doesn't (and let me take a wild guess here: it doesn't), then you are not operating within the bounds of copyright law as envisioned by the framers.
That's not to say that the deal you're offering is necessarily a bad one for consumers, but in any reasonable world, the minute you take steps to ensure that your content can never enter the public domain, you should no longer be entitled to legal monopoly protection. You're just another looter looking for a free ride at public expense.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
So if you "see fit" to distribute any number of copies that falls short of "mass" to "anonymous" people, or a "mass" quanitiy to people whose identity you know (including for money) then the law should specifically allow you to do so? That would undermine copyright law entirely. Is that what you want?
Seems to me you're so mad at the DMCA that you've lost your ability to see both sides of the issue.
Because this is the domain of copyright - limiting the right to copy to the copyright holder, except in cases of fairuse.
Copyright is not meant to limit what I can do, like circumvent hardware to get at that copy to make a backup or to make the hardware do as I please (like say put linux on my macbook), in the privacy of my own home.
That's like saying I can't legally use music sheets to scribble notes on if I like it.
Don't be ridiculous. DRM and the expiration of copyright are irrelevant to each other. This is the worst (and most popular) form of FUD with regard to DRM. When copyrights expire, there are any number of avenues for you to leave behind your DRMed file.
Most importantly, in 50 or 60 years when the copyrights actually expire, will you still even want your 128kbps mp3? Of course not. The public domain file will be provided in a superior format from a master recording.
Moreover, there's no fundamental reason why future DRM can't include a system which automatically disables DRM upon copyright expiration. But of course, any system which checks the validity of DRM licenses would be attacked as an invasion of "privacy."
This is a blow to FOSS, anti-copyright and anti-paten movement. Implicit in this examption is that the other kind of activities are not exampt. (or maybe it's not all that implicit after all, but I am not a lawyer...) Also, if they are beginning to exampt this and that group of people for various reason, where they will stop? This area of law is relatively young and not all things has been sorted out yet, and introducing these sort of complication at this point in time seems not in the best interest of public.
This smells like the very first step in becoming like US tax law: an unfair system benefitting mostly rent seekers that cannot even be fixed due to too much entanglement of too many different special interest groups.
And? When you buy a lamp, do you get to negotiate terms? No, but that's a purchase and not a license, you might say. You'd be right. But here's the rub: any transaction which takes place thousands or millions of times a year is not something which is negotiated on a case-by-case basis. It's impractical, not to mention pointless. Standard form contracts are the norm for most high-frequency business transactions.
Nobody's forcing you to listen or watch to anything. If you want access to the major media sources, you've got to play by their rules. That's the "free market" at its best--the owners and creators get to control the things they create.
The thing is that you get cellphones for free (or for a low price, depending on how fancy the phone is) if you're on a contract, so making it possible to switch to any provider would mean you can get your phone for free - though presumably if you cancel your contract you'd have to give the phone back
which is totally what she said
will let film professors copy snippets from DVDs for educational compilations
Which you can only do by bypassing the copy protection. Does this make DeCSS legal, and the "no breaking encryption" clause of the DMCA void?
DRM and the expiration of copyright are irrelevant to each other. When copyrights expire, there are any number of avenues for you to leave behind your DRMed file.
Really? How so? Are you aware that rightsholders are no longer required to deposit a copy of their work with the Library of Congress? That requirement was established precisely to ensure the eventual availability of protected works to the public domain, and it didn't actually go away until 1976, I believe. Without the requirement to deposit a copy in an accessible form, all of your suggested "avenues to leave the file behind" are entirely voluntary.
But I'm sure that almost everyone who takes advantage of the DMCA's anti-circumvention protection has deposited unprotected copies for release to the public domain at the appropriate time... right?
Most importantly, in 50 or 60 years when the copyrights actually expire, will you still even want your 128kbps mp3? Of course not. The public domain file will be provided in a superior format from a master recording.
Um. OK, I guess, if you say so.
Moreover, there's no fundamental reason why future DRM can't include a system which automatically disables DRM upon copyright expiration.
Then there's no fundamental reason why future laws can't be passed to take that into consideration.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Most importantly, in 50 or 60 years when the copyrights actually expire, will you still even want your 128kbps mp3? Of course not. The public domain file will be provided in a superior format from a master recording.And where, pray tell, would this recording come from? All would be fine and dandy if the original master recording is still around. But for all we know, the company having done such recording may long have gone bust, or they might still be around, but unwilling to provide it for whatever reason. So, the only way to keep companies honest would be to force them to deposit an DRM-unencumbered copy at the Library of Congress. But, AFAIK, there is no such law. And even if there were, who's gonna check that all those zillions of media deposited daily are indeed compliant? Moreover, there's no fundamental reason why future DRM can't include a system which automatically disables DRM upon copyright expiration. But of course, any system which checks the validity of DRM licenses would be attacked as an invasion of "privacy."Such a system would have to rely on an online server in order to be reliable. This would, as you rightfully point out, carry the potential of privacy invasion. But most importantly, who would operate such server once the copyright expires? Companies go under, you know, or they might simply claim that it is an unreasonable burden to operate such a server without economic benefit to them.
Hi all,
:) ?
I don't really follow the bit about being allowed to copy snippets from a DVD. How exactly are you allowed to do that legally? Does that mean it's okay to use DeCSS for such a purpose? Can decss now be legally shipped with distros "for the express purpose of only copying snippets" ?
If cracking a DVD is still illegal, then does is this kinda like the right for a man to bear children. We can't actually do it, but we now have the right
I unlocked my Sony Ericsson T610 by replacing tmobile's branded firmware w/a newer generic version. This was done via a special program and cable you can find online. That said, I had it done at an authorized dealer rather than doing it myself
The reason I chose and continue to use T-Mobile incidentally is that their policy is to send you unlock keys for your phone (via email) once you've had the phone for something like six months upon request so that when travelling abroad (europe and asia use the GSM network) you can buy a local phone SIM chip and use it in your phone. I know T-Mobile will unlock the phone firsthand. Before the T610, I had a motorola phone and they emailed me the unlock code for it as well.
When I got to Europe, I purchased a local phone (vodaphone was the company) SIM card for 10 euro and was able to make local calls with my regular cell. When I returned to the states, I just popped the old SIM card back in and was back in business.
Without having unlocked the phone, the european SIM card would not have worked.
If you have T-Mobile, call them and tell them you are travelling and would like to unlock your phone. They will email you the password. Unless their policy has changed. This is the #1 reason I recommend T-Mobile to people deciding on a cell service and I think it's pretty cool of them to allow this. (I mean, I think it should be the NORM, but kudos to them for doing it anyway).
Note I don't work for T-Mobile, etc. Call and ask before you sign up if this policy is still in effect and any details (required usage before they'll send you the code, etc.)
And where, pray tell, would this recording come from? All would be fine and dandy if the original master recording is still around. But for all we know, the company having done such recording may long have gone bust, or they might still be around, but unwilling to provide it for whatever reason.
Heh... stick around, and someone will eventually trot out the tried-and-true, "B-b-but there's no such thing as unbreakable protection. A friendly hacker will eventually come along and deprotect the work!" argument, using lofty-sounding language worthy of Madison himself.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
I think this was enacted for a few reasons, the one that most specifically has to do with me is the cell phone section. I recently subscribed to Verizon for my cell phone service. I bought a Motorola V3M as a friend of mine (with another carrier) had one. Well, much to my chagrin many of the things he could do with his I could not (such as take a snippet of music I own and use it for a ring tone) due to the cripple ware they installed with there phones. They actually removed functionality in an effort to make me have to purchase ring tones and wallpapers from them. I personally am getting sick and tired of having to pay over and over again for the same song/video/etc, and hopefully this will go a long way towards fixing the problem.
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
What happens when your laptop gets stolen? What happens when someone implants a trojan on your computer that allows him free access to your data?
There are so many opportunities for (and cases of) data theft that being liable for the leaking could well be a can of worms you don't even want to think about opening.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
On the other hand, if all works protected by the scheme are out of copyright, it would theoretically be legal to crack the scheme, but with so much fewer people interested in the works by then, there will be too little motivation (glory) to do so...
...or actually the rest of the world, it's generally neither illegal or impractical to unlock a mobile for use on any network. AFAIK, the only UK networks who still SIM lock their phones are Orange and T-Mobile (and maybe 3, I forget), and you can get most phones unlocked for about a tenner.
I did so recently with an old SonyEricsson from T-Mobile when I discovered that my Orange Windows Mobile powered PDA was useless as a phone.
The mobile market in the US seems a bit peculiar generally.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
Vodafone at the very least, disabled the Bluetooth OBEX protocol on my Motorola V3 to make it harder to copy objects to and from the phone.
This is done firstly to encourage sales of their third-party phone management software, and secondly to increase their revenues from the likes of reverse SMS services for ringtone purchases and the like.
Telcos are only interested in giving you a feature rich handset in so far as they benefit from your use of those features. Features that allow you to enjoy the phone without their financial participation are less well supported.
I guess the cell phone companies didn't get their checks in to their congresscritters' campaigns in time.
[ home ]
"And where, pray tell, would this recording come from? All would be fine and dandy if the original master recording is still around. But for all we know, the company having done such recording may long have gone bust, or they might still be around, but unwilling to provide it for whatever reason."
Where would the master go? Are you really worried that something is going to disappear overnight? How many works of art or entertainment do you know in the modern age that are made with a single copy of a master? (Almost none) How many defunct companies have come and gone while we still retain masters of all of them? (Almost all of them). If someone won't provide a DRM-free version of a public domain work, sue them. That's actually one of the good causes for a lawsuit--it's public domain, the old rightsholder has no right to withhold it once copyright expires.
I think you grossly overestimate both the probability of loss and technical difficulty of keeping even the DRMed copies accessible into the future. Preserving interoperability with major DRM schemes is just one of many facets of digital archiving
It doesn't say anything in the above about the public domain. It says that congress helps protect the works for authors for a limited time. Whatever happens after that is undefined. In practice, works that lose their protection are in the public domain, but you'd be a fool to think that this was a primary consideration of the framers. Why? Because the statement itself states that the purpose is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. In other words, after the copyright period is over, the author or inventor loses the exclusive right, and thus needs to author or invent more. The system works exactly as the clause says it should: protection is afforded for a limited time. You may think that the time is too long, and you are welcome to debate this, but your basic argument that because DRM-enabled items are not somehow magically placed into some public park known as the "public domain" after their terms expire is just plain grasping at straws by you.
But why should this be our problem? You can buy a prefectly good mobile phone quite cheaply. Even if you couldn't, the networks are under no obligation to offer subsidised phones. Even if they were, they get their money back through long lock-in periods. Not the inability to reuse the phone. The lock-in is just a means to increase the cost for other companies to compete for their business when the contract expires.
There were few enough copies of the original star wars movies around that extensive restauration was needed when a re-run was done in the nineties... Other such cases abund. Thing is, after the initial rush, companies have very little motivation to invest in conservation of works which are no longer major money makers.
If someone won't provide a DRM-free version of a public domain work, sue them.
If they're still around by the time the incredibly long copyright terms expire...
the old rightsholder has no right to withhold it once copyright expires.
He'll just claim that he's lost it... Who's gonna prove the contrary? And it may very well be that they really lost their master (either deliberately, or accidentally due to poor care)
It doesn't say anything in the above about the public domain.
Cool! I'll just head over to Oak Ridge National Laboratory and buy some plutonium, because the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about that, either.
"There were few enough copies of the original star wars movies around that extensive restauration was needed when a re-run was done in the nineties."
That had nothing to do with the number of copies; it was the condition that was a problem. Preservation is a global concern--how many albums from 50 years ago have been kept in good archival quality? It's not limited to masters or reproductions or consumer prints, and as filmmakers transition to keeping digital copies, condition of the physical masters will be less of a concern.
"If they're still around by the time the incredibly long copyright terms expire..."
If they don't exist, then they can't withhold anything from you, so it's a moot point.
"He'll just claim that he's lost it... Who's gonna prove the contrary?"
Again, if "he" refuses to provide a copy, then sue him. It's not refusal if you don't have it to give. If you mean to imply that companies will claim "oops, we lost it!" rather than turn it over to the public domain, there's no reason to believe that this behavior will increase in the future to an extent more than it happens today. If the copyright expires, there's no money to be made with it anymore, but there is still money to be lost by appearing to hinder access to public domain works.
thats called radio
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
That's no free market.
Copyright is a "temporary" monopoly. Free market rules do not apply.
They are not forcing you to play, but they have as a common rule, the custom of forcing you to pay for content you do not desire to use, when you want some particular content for which they are the sole suppliers.
Were there a free market, you would be able to buy just the stuff you want, and nothing else, even if it was expensive.
I'm thinking pop albums where you get 10 filler songs and pay for 12 to listen to 2, cable subscriptions where you pay for 80 channels to watch HBO, stuff like that.
Free market doesn't apply.
And you can't say that nobody is forcing you. Of course, I can choose not to pay for Cinemax, but then I wouldn't be able to use HBO, that I want. If this was a free market, I wouldn't be forced to make that choice.
You missed the point. If this were a free market, copyrights would never expire. If this were a free market in the asinine libertarian sense, there'd be no antitrust restrictions, either, except those imposed by consumers.
Most importantly, in 50 or 60 years when the copyrights actually expire, will you still even want your 128kbps mp3? Of course not. The public domain file will be provided in a superior format from a master recording.
Because no one uses those old records and record players anymore...
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
When you buy a lamp, do you get to negotiate terms?
You don't have to keep paying for the lamp. And you can do what you want with it. There's no EULA for lamps, IIRC - of course, I haven't been in the US for a while, things may have changed...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If they don't exist, then they can't withhold anything from you, so it's a moot point.Obviously, that was my point. So the public would still be robbed of a work that would otherwise be in the public domain. With non-DRM'ed consumer copies, the public could rely on any of those to keep the work alive. If the copyright expires, there's no money to be made with it anymore,Availability of old works might seem to compete with newer works. See the abandonware phenomenon in the gaming industry. Whether companies actually "lose" money that way is irrelevant; it's enough that they believe it would lose them some in order to push them into that direction. Of course, availability of DRM-unencumbered public copies would make any such act moot, encouraging companies to pony up the master (because withholding it wouldn't gain them anything...) but there is still money to be lost by appearing to hinder access to public domain works.There is no money to be lost if the company can plausible deny that it still has a copy (or make sure that it really no longer has one...)
In practice, works that lose their protection are in the public domain, but you'd be a fool to think that this was a primary consideration of the framers.
Let me point you back to the first clause in your sentence, specifically: "In practice, works that lose their protection are in the public domain". Then you go on to create a hypothetical argument to justify yourself, because apparently YOU know what the framers intended, and WE don't. Again - In practice, works that lose their protection are in the public domain. This wasn't any different back then. They knew that, otherwise an amendment would have been tacked on really quickly - when the first copyrights began to expire.
We're talking about DVD's and music and other DRM'd stuff here anyway. I doubt very much that everyone wearing a Jar-Jar T-shirt with an image illegally ripped from a Star Wars DVD is going to stop Hollywood from "innovating" and making movies, so the progress argument is mostly moot in this case. Still-
You think that copyright promotes progress - this is not true. Oh, it promotes progress for the author in terms of advancing the bank account. This does not guarantee, however, that this author is the best person to take a "next step" with that invention and create something else, however. The more information is shared (a great example being education, where knowledge is shared) the more likely you are to stimulate more individuals who have the potential to have their own stroke of genius.
Copyright law as it currently stands exists to protect revenue streams. Not "progress in science and the arts". It's logical that a copyright owner wants to maximize this revenue. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing for society. A lot of us would love to know how certain things are done - at a software level for example - out of curiosity. But if we know how to do 'X' efficiently, some of us might be able to come up with Y, Z, or even a whole different alphabet. We're called criminals now, however. How dare we 'reverse engineer' stuff...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
or they might simply claim that it is an unreasonable burden to operate such a server without economic benefit to them.
Oh, that's easy. You sign up and pay a monthly fee in order to keep your un-DRM'd works "free"...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"However, if the public only gets sold DRM'ed albums (which might be unusable once the making company has gone...)"
This is still a non-issue. There are hundreds of reproductions and multiply redundant copies of major works. CDs aren't going anywhere; reproductions of masters used by radio stations and satellite/XM/cable music feeds are scattered all around the globe. Cinema prints used by theaters cover videos. All of this is physical media. Digital media will be even easier to preserve. If a company folds, someone inherits their property. Many major and minor studios and labels have come and gone. Their content was nearly all acquired by someone else. There's no reason to assume that this won't continue.
"Obviously, that was my point. So the public would still be robbed of a work that would otherwise be in the public domain."
No. The "he" you introduced was the company, not the work. If the company no longer exists, that does not mean that the work no longer exists.
"There is no money to be lost if the company can plausible deny that it still has a copy (or make sure that it really no longer has one...)"
Sure there is. If people notice that a company is never providing public domain works, that would certainly be grounds for an investigation and sanctions (including potential loss of all registered copyrights) for intentional destruction of works to bypass copyright limits. The negative media attention alone would scare most big companies.
I don't understand this story. Can someone give a car analogy please?
Exactly. The cell carriers double-dip into the "subsidized phone" excuse. First, you have to sign a contract to make sure you're with them long enough for them to make a return on the phone subsidy. Then, after the contract is up, you can't take the phone with you to a new carrier, because they subsidized it.
Neither would pixie dust, and for the same reason.
The issues are too "complicated" for the commoners to understand, so they basically don't care while they are being fleeced.
Most importantly, in 50 or 60 years when the copyrights actually expire, will you still even want your 128kbps mp3? Of course not. The public domain file will be provided in a superior format from a master recording.Oh - like on Usenet now? ;)
Technically it's not the fall itself that kills you, but the rapid deceleration experienced at the end of it... Of course, once the fall commences you're inevitably screwed unless you had the foresight to save your own ass by packing a parachute.
Wow, finally a Slashdot analogy that fits the situation! I never thought I'd see the day...
Okay, I knew I had slept long...but I didn't think it would be April Fools Day, yet. They're actually _decriminalizing_ limited circumvention of draconian DRM? What a joke!
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Why exactly can't, for example, you and I come to some agreement that, for example, you write some song and I am allowed to listen to it exactly once since this we came to a mutually agreed upon price for which I agreed to listen to it only once?
Sure, why not. In fact, that's what happens when you go to a concert - the musician(s) perform(s) the song once, you enjoy it, and you're not allowed (usually) to make a bootleg copy. If I subscribe to certain music services, for example, the agreement I have is that I can listen to the music as long as I'm a subscriber, and I've agreed not to make copies of music from that source outside the agreement. The penalty for violating the agreement is that my service gets terminated, at which point I have to destroy all the copies I've made so that I'm not violating copyright laws also.
The thing is, that's not what happens when you buy music on a CD or a movie on a DVD. The copy you buy is intended to be limited for use by copyright law, which forbids things like playing it for the public or making copies for other people. The "arbitrary limit" you describe is essentially proscribed by law.
The problem is that DRM prevents (or attempts to prevent) us from doing legal things like watching a DVD on a computer using the software of our choice, or ripping a DRMed CD to our iPod, or any of a number of other uses of things we buy and should (but somehow don't) have free access to for personal use.
``How about not treating me like a criminal in the first place and reversing the DMCA?''
Exactly. Nothing against rights holders protecting their rights, but if the DRM scheme prevents me from exercising my fair use rights, and I circumvent the scheme in order to exercise those rights, I don't feel _I_ should be the criminal.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
As far as DRM is concerned, once copyright on a work expires there are presumably no rights left to enforce. Even under the DCMA (given that this is a USA-centric discussion), is it permissable to circumvent a measure which is not actually protecting anything?
Spend some time around some big corporations. Negative media attention is a HUGE factor when it shows up on their radars. It may not have an apparent effect on their status, but that's mostly because they're quite successful at mitigating the impacts. It is very costly for a big company to endure a pummeling in the press, and they spend a great deal of money to fix the problem.
Just because it's business as usual on the outside doesn't mean that tens of millions of dollars weren't spent to make it look like business as usual.
"When you buy a lamp, do you get to negotiate terms? No,"
Actually yes.
Or do you mean you pay list price wherever you're asked? That can't be true!
When I buy a car or house or most items great than a few dollars, I generally either negotiate with the seller or make sellers compete against each other to get a lower price.
A perfect example... some people complain that $18-20 is too much for a CD. So I've joined the Sony/BMG record club, where Sony regularly sells me CD's for under $7 or I buy them used from many places. I've effectively altered the terms of the deal. [incidentally, don't you love that Sony and others basically screwed Tower records by selling CDs directly to consumers at a cheaper price than they'd sell them to Tower? I'm sure all the Tower owners and employees loved that too].
In the magical digital world, there is only one supplier, he charges what he wants and he's made it technologically difficult and legally impossible to buy used. So the wonderful future of the digital world is only magical for producers who (as always) have a monopoly on supply, but also control the distribution and secondary market as well.
All for the common good... keep telling yourself that. Congress doesn't even understand what they've given the record companies... all for the sake of a few dollars in campaign contributions. Who would have thought they'd give consumers rights away all for just a handful of millions of dollars in total. Amazing.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I assume the "subsidy code" is what they are referring to. There is a bigger issue at hand which is being missed. Cellular phones are provided "subsidised" by the cell phone companies, in other words they shove you on a contract, you pay a certain amount up-front for the phone and the rest is paid for across the term of the contract. At the end of said contract *YOU* own the phone. I have for years fought will cell phone companies as each cell phone I owned became mine... At the end of the contract they should be unlocking the phone. However most companies will unlock the phone for a $250 or so fee. hah.
So during the term of your contract where your phone is being financed, it should be locked to your carrier, but upon termination of that contract they should unlock it for free.
Why do they need a law forcing consumers to use clay tablets when all digital content can be used on a device smaller than your hand?
CDs and DVDs are the past, and forget the blue ray junk too - Seagate is about to make blue ray look like a 8" floppy disk.
If you pay for 1 copy of it, you should be able to do what you need to do to view it.
Copy to an iPod, dvx encode it for your portable video player, take that downloaded iTunes Pirate movie and burn it to a DVD so you can actually watch it on the big screen TV (though it will look awful on a 60" screen, now you know why you need to buy the HDTV DVD player and up-converter...)
Content producers should just find a way to make buying content more desirable & affordable (how about $9.99 instead of 19.99?).
CD's with paper booklets or DVDs with special casings and non-digital extras are a good start.
Remember the little statues packaged with Lord of the Rings DVDs? That 'freebee' was a toy surprise to get you to buy the happy meal, and it worked.
The no-talent business types once again should turn to the creative people to save their butts.
Such little 'extras' usually cost under $1 but can increase sales ten fold.
Booklets, Collector Packaging, and Limited Edition collectable extras toys, statuettes, posters, coupons, special offers, club memberships. - All great things to increase profit margin, none of which involve expensive recalls of computer harming Sony Root Kit CDs.
... can anyone tell me where I can find code generators for the new Nokia BB5 phones like the E61?! :P
You DO own the CD and contents.
Of course it is. That was my whole point. The post I was replying to advocated this, take issue with him.
If you want access to the major media sources, you've got to play by their rules.
Didn't I say that? Yes, I did. So what is your point again?
That's the "free market" at its best--the owners and creators get to control the things they create.
A) It's not a free market. It's a cartel.
B) Owners and creators are not the same, just thought I'd point that out. What did Rupert Murdoch create?
C) It's quite antithetical to the whole reason copyright and intellectual property law was introduced -- not to enrich media moguls, but to enrich the culture by encouraging creation AND DISSEMINATION of new ideas.
"Or you can learn to entertain yourself. Thats how I learned to play my instruments...my family was poor and we didn't have access to many worldly items growing up. A 12" Black and White TV was LUXURY and it was given by the neighbors down the street"
You had a street you lived on? Oh man, we dreamed of having a street. My family was forced to watch people doing hand puppets behind a bare light bulb casting a shadow on the wall for entertainment. My father couldn't actually come home because we were so far from civilization that there was no real way to get there. Large carnivores would eat my brothers and sisters and eventually my mother. We couldn't afford instruments to play, so we learned to whistle for a while... but it attracted the carnivores and we have to stop after my little sister Cindy was ripped limp from limb by a pack of the animals attracted by my whistling. People offered to help us, but we knew wouldn't accept the help. We were proud and we got by.
So when I hear people like you claiming gas is a necessity, and then complaining about only have a black and white television set, it makes me sick that whiners like you are on here complaining about your life. Even today, I force my kids to live outside the house. I tell them "we had it much worse, and I do let you come in to use the bathroom". Damn kids, always wanting it better.
There are 2 kinds of cellphone locking, there is the locks that prevent you using any other network and there are the locks that disable features such as the abillity to load MP3 files directly from a PC for use as ringtones or the abillity to read camera pictures back from the phone without going through per-pay services (Verizon mobile is notorious for this kind of locking crap). It would appear as though this copyright office ruling only covers the first kind (network locks) and not the second kind (feature locks).
...that the DMCA anti-circumvention laws only apply to copyrighted content, not public domain works. Still, it is illegal to distribute circumvention technology. Will we have to wait for the DVD to go the way of the projector before we can distribute libcss?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
This is probably great news for Apple and Apple investors. I do believe I read somewhere that they (Apple) were partnering up with AT&T for the iPhone. That would have limited the number of potential customers (skipping over Verizon which I believe is still the largest carrier in the US). Apple puts out cool products and all but hoping everyone will switch providers based on the phone alone...I don't know. But this...this could be huge. Now EVERY cell phone user in the US can buy the iPhone and have fun. Hmmmm...time to buy some Apple stock.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
What about flashing your cell phone to get previously crippled features back? Is that legal? Like flashing your V3 to make it able to capture video.
Of course I didn't RTFA so apologies if this is clearly specified in the FA's text
"And you can't say that nobody is forcing you. Of course, I can choose not to pay for Cinemax, but then I wouldn't be able to use HBO, that I want. If this was a free market, I wouldn't be forced to make that choice."
Bull fucking shit.
You think that entertainment is being FORCED on you???
No.
I said that the choice of buy-what-I-want-or-get-nothing was forced on me.
In a free market, there would be a possibility for more suppliers of the stuff I wanted.
As it is, copyrights don't allow for a free market. They are exactly the opposite.
Copyright is not an inherent right of the author. The whole idea is to give them something to motivate them to do something for everybody else. It's an arrangement between governments and authors, but the arrangement seems to be getting out of proportion, and the public is getting screwed. I think the whole arrangement could use a reevaluation, especially taking into account that the public is supposed to be the one to decide what is best for them.
I don't love free markets themselves, but I resent when people say there is a free market, and there is not.
Do not equate "free market" with "infinitely granular market".
A free market exists when producers can sell their wares whenever, however, and to whomever they wish, with a view towards maximizing profit. Maximum profit often means bundles, bargains, wheeling, dealing, coupons, loss-leaders, lock-ins, etc. etc. etc.
Everyone ultimately benefits because the incentives to produce are maximized. That would not be so in your infinitely granular market, which could not profitably support certain bundles, package deals, and loss leaders.
The ultimate freedom is, of course, still yours: you can sit at home, buy nothing, trade nothing. To ask for more is to ask to have a private right to unilaterally dictate terms to any who are guilty of the crime of production.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The exception looks to be granted specifically to allow you to use your handset with other providers, not to allow you to play games/ringtones, etc.
More to the point, Verizon's phones have no ability to be hooked to other carriers since their basic radio technology, so Verizon will argue that you can't legally hack their phone because the narrow exemption granted by the library of congress can't be used for the purpose mentioned.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The problem with the DMCA is that this exact situation is illegal.
According to the DMCA
1) Circumventing any copy prevention technology is illegal. The fact that 'fair use' would allow you to make the copy is no defence. You couldn't be charged with copyright infringment, but you could still be charged with violating the DMCA with much harsher penelities.
2) Creating a tool that can circumvent any copy prevention technology is illegal. Again, the fact that 'fair use' would allow you to make the copy is no defence.
But of course, any system which checks the validity of DRM licenses would be attacked as an invasion of "privacy."
If you have to validate the licence by contacting a remote server, not only is it an invasion of privacy, but if the remote server is inaccessible you lose the ability to use the content that you have licenced. So if the licensor goes out of business, you have ultimately lost access to everything you have paid for. I've brought up this comment with regards to DRM schemes like iTMS before, and invariably I get a comment like "There's no way a big company like Apple would go under" - what a naive claim. Big companies go under all the time, you only have to look at Enron for a recent example.
For me, this is the big deal - if my entire music library that I have *paid* for suddenly stops working, I'm going to be pretty pissed off.
Also, the ability to use DRM'd content *now* is a big deal. If I have paid for some content, why must I also be required to pay a licence fee to the owner of the DRM technology? This is usually going to either tie me to specific hardware (e.g. I'd have to buy a commercial BluRay player and HDCP capable TV), cost me an infeasable amount of money (wanna try asking Microsoft for a licence to decode WMP's DRM in your personal project?) or tie me to a specific operating system (why should I be required to buy Windows - an operating system that is completely useless to me - and a new computer to run it on, just so I can play some Microsoft DRM protected content? Seems rather anticompetetive to me - what we effectively have is a cartel of corporations who are doing their level best to lock anyone else out of the market.
Here is a real world example: I use MythTV as my PVR with a DVB-S card. I cannot use this system to pick up much of the satellite programming here in the UK because it is broadcast using NDS-Videoguard encryption. The *only* way you can use such broadcasts with a PVR (without going through the analogue hole) is to buy Sky's own Sky+ PVR system. Sounds anticompetetive doesn't it? Sky have a monopoly on satellite enabled PVRs in the UK because noone else can legally produce a PVR system that can receive many of the satellite channels. This doesn't just apply to Sky's own channels either - many channels that are touted as "free" are still encrypted using this system and you still have to buy Sky licenced equipment to receive these channels. (And before anyone suggests that Sky own the satellite, they don't - SES own the Astra 2 constellation.)
http://blog.nexusuk.org
"As it is, copyrights don't allow for a free market. They are exactly the opposite."
of course they do. what you ment to say is that copyright doesn't give you the freedom to do whatever you want with what others produce. there's nothing but your own will stopping you from becoming a content creator and having copyright applying to your works ala free market.
"Copyright is not an inherent right of the author. "
so you'd rather "force" (slashdots favourite word apparently) authors to chose not to releasing their works or give into your demands no matter how unreasonable or illogical they may be? apparently your version of a free market's no better than the one you complain about.
"It's an arrangement between governments and authors, but the arrangement seems to be getting out of proportion, and the public is getting screwed."
so you all chose to not exercise your civic duties, and this is the fault of content creators, how?
"The whole idea is to give them something to motivate them to do something for everybody else."
which should be a big clue that society can't force a kind of intellectual slavery onto one group so another group "the right to be entertained" group is satisfied.
"I think the whole arrangement could use a reevaluation, especially taking into account that the public is supposed to be the one to decide what is best for them."
so content creators are not public now? I seem to remember the same being said about a certain minority.
I was recently watching Babilon 5 and thought that from time to time the image quality was crap.
A quick look in wikipedia told me that the production team lost the original 3d model and was stuck reusing the NTSC version in some scene for the DVD release. (see Mastering problems in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5)
Off course they didn't loose the master but we are talking about a *succesfull* serie made only 10 years ago. Just imagine what could happen to a not so successful serie after 50 years. My bet is that often the only trace left will be the DRMed file.
Don't grossly underestimate the probability of things going wrong.
Moreover, there's no fundamental reason why future DRM can't include a system which automatically disables DRM upon copyright expiration.
I'd like to see how that would work. Is the media itself going to have a built-in Atomic clock time receiver? Or does the media need to trust the date that is set on the hardware reading it? Anything that relies on an outside system won't last the length of the copyright term (such as a phone-home type system.)
The "locks" Cell phone providers put on phones is completely legitamete. They buy the exclusive rights for the model they cell.
Cell Phone carriers OFTEN (almost always) heavily discount the phones, and its not uncommon for a phone to vary in pricing from carrier to carrier. Also some phones are only available under 1 provider, because of partnerships. Its outrageous that this guy has the power to waltz into an industry and essentially void multi-billion dollar contracts on the mis-guided notion of "fairness".
This guy is starting to tread into waters he obviously knows little about. This isn't about user choice, its about corporate investments. This decision on cell phones could easily lead to carriers NOT discounting phones and cell phones pricing to go through the roof. Or worse, cell phone carriers stop using CDMA or GSM, and they start creating their own breeds of signals... what a nightmare.
I say follow the money. I'll bet any of you this guy has ties to small phone carriers, or some lobbying group related to them...
When someone figures out how to unlock Sanyo phones for carriers other than Sprint PCS let me know...
Wow, that blows the door wide open. The major three DRM ripping scenarios are: DVDs, computer games and ebooks. For each one, there is now a legal ability to create and distribute the software in the US. You still can't legally use the software in most cases but the software can be legally created and once it exists it'll get used.
Better yet, the use of MAME in commercial settings where a non-working obsolete copy of the game board has been purchased is now totally vindicated: 100% legal.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
ArsenneLupin wrote as part of a post:
The concern of the loss of the original recordings is not an unreasonable concern. In the mid-1980s I remember reading in a magazine that when the music of Simon and Garfunkel was first released on CD the producers had to use second-generation tapes because the original master tapes had been lost (the tapes may have been found by now). At the time this would have been less than 25 years after the original recordings were made.
Another concern is: Will there be equipment still able to play those recordings once they enter the public domain? For example, how many people can actually play an 8-track tape now? (Per the movie "So Wrong They're Right" there is still interest in the 8-track format but the number of available players will decrease as they wear out). I doubt the holders of the original tapes will release them to the public once they fall into the public domain.
Forgive me for possibly horrifying you, but it's quite possible that in 50 years nobody will care about reruns of Babylon 5.
Yes, I know, I know. I just tore the cover off Action Comics #1 in plain view at a comix convention.
For most of the 'fair use' purposes as originally envisioned by many of the parties involved in the establishment of the 'fair use doctrine,' a less-than-perfect 'through the analog hole' copy is perfectly adequate, and does not constitute 'defeating copy prevention technology.' For instance, a professor of Music Appreciation can record snippets off a copy-protected recording using a microphone and produce perfectly usable excerpts for use in his lectures.
The fact that 'digitally perfect images' of a recording cannot be produced without violating the DMCA has nothing at all to do with fair use rights. Remember, 'fair use rights' is printed on a sheet of rubber than various entities tend to stretch this way and that to suit their purposed. But in a legal sense, it is a concept established as agreed on at the time by the parties involved. There wasn't anybody in the room at the time demanding the unlimited right to make digitally perfect copies of entire works.
"Also, the ability to use DRM'd content *now* is a big deal. If I have paid for some content, why must I also be required to pay a licence fee to the owner of the DRM technology?"
You must because it is a part of the business model. If you buy a DRM-free CD, a licence fee is paid to the inventors of CDs. As with any cost of business, this is passed along to the consumer. If you buy a car, a number of licence fees are paid to inventors of technology within that vehicle. This isn't "unfair" or "injustice", it's business. If you don't like it, don't buy. If the number of sales drops, then the business model will change. If the number goes up, the status quo remains.
"why should I be required to buy Windows - an operating system that is completely useless to me - and a new computer to run it on, just so I can play some Microsoft DRM protected content? Seems rather anticompetetive to me - what we effectively have is a cartel of corporations who are doing their level best to lock anyone else out of the market."
The point is you don't have to play their content. You can choose not to care about that product. Your caring so much about it is what makes it valuable. If tomorrow, similar restrictions were placed on Oranges, I'm willing to guess many people would simply stop eating oranges. Why are movies and music so damned important? More specifically, why are corporate music and movies so damn important?
Every time a copyright or DRM article comes up on slashdot, there are endless comments asking "why do I have to...?" Nobody has to; it's entertainment; it is 100% want, not need. Look for alternatives to pass your idle time. Corporate-approved entertainment is not a basic human right, nor is it required for human survival.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
And I hate that we are not allowed to give out lock codes. This doesn't stop me. If someone can tell me how I can use this as an excuse to get around company policy if caught, someone please tell me how. Mods, mod this up. I know I am not the only one.
No, they play the same four songs over and over again on radio just as the RIAA tells them to do.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Dang it. My hopes were momentarily raised when I read the summary. Thanks for reading the article. I wish I could switch to a provider that was not Verizon, but they are the only ones whose coverage includes my area - the mountainous cell-tower blocking Poconos in NE Pennsylvania.
I even wrote a post about this feature blocking. I e-mailed the text to Verizon and got a response that was basically, "sorry, not gonna do it."
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
In Canada at least, perhaps they even triple-dip: if I go buy a phone outright from them, they still try to lock it up. And if I bring my own phone to the table, I still have to pay the same monthly rate on the contract as the guy who has three years of subsidizing built in. Why doesn't my contract rate go down as I pay more up front for the phone. Sure, there might be a bit of a premium if I am signing a month-to-month contract because the company has no guarantee that I'm going to stick around, but shouldn't I get a bit of a break? Why can't I sign a year contract at a rate that doesn't include the subsidy? Makes me wonder if you really are better off going to someone else, they aren't actually giving me anything to switch to them, they are probably making more from switchers because they haven't provided a phone, but are still collecting money as if they had.
Now just when am I going to see something like this up here in Canada? I have unlimited web use on my contract plan, but I can't use opera mini because of the subsidy locks on my phone. It's not so much the actual task of unlocking it that bothers me, it's the fact that I have to go about all this trouble even though I'm not breaking any rules. I already pay for the internet and I would probably be saving the phone company bits by using the opera proxy rather than trying to load page after page in normal html.
Yes, all of these explicitly-authorized activities arguably fall in the domain of fair use, and should have been allowed to begin with, and most of the exceptions seem like they don't directly affect most people, but they create a huge crack in the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions.
See, the big problem for consumers isn't so much that the DMCA outlaws circumvention, but that it outlaws circumvention *tools*. If you read the text of the law, it actually doesn't prevent you from circumventing copy protection (because it specifically allows Fair Use). What it does is prevent you from creating or distributing anti-circumvention tools.
But with these explicit exceptions in place, the tools needed to achieve the allowed circumvention become legal. It's possible, for example, that allowing DVDs to be ripped for educational purposes makes libdvdcss legal, because it now has a legal use. And if you can legally acquire a copy of the tool needed to break DVD encryption, you can then legally exercise your full Fair Use rights.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It's a sham. You can imagine that means all the "exemptions" are only allowed through non free tools. The big dumb companies are still able to change the law with their software at will, so the tools will soon make the exemption impossible without specific permission. No one in the US will be able to distribute DeCSS and you don't really have the ability to use your media as you please. The copyright warriors, on the other hand, will all point to it and claim that "legitimate" fair use exists and that content is being archived and all the other criticism of the DMCA are bogus.
Bottom line: only big dumb companies like those that vend cell phones may break the DMCA because their activity was not supposed to be restricted in the first place.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Not with the extremely long copyright timespans we have today (IIRC 95 years in case of a Work For Hire).
For example, if a company is (intentionally ?) sloppy in keeping the original of a Work For Hire recorded in 2000, it will become obvious when someone wants a DRM free copy in 2096. That is 90 years in the future. Such a distant threat is easily discounted by the average manager in favor of a short term cost improvement. After all, he will not be around to be punished when the negative media attention occurs.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Are you aware that rightsholders are no longer required to deposit a copy of their work with the Library of Congress?
So you want to be forced to send a printed copy of every comment, every blog posting, every email you ever write?
There's a reason that provision was dropped - because it was fucking stupid in the first place.
Your email will eventually enter the public domain, have you taken steps to ensure it will be publicly accessible?
Ridiculous is the word. Your position is exactly that.
First, copyright is AT LEAST 50 years PMA in most countries, which means that the copyright will not expire for at least 50 years after the DEATH of the author. So if you create a copyrighted material at age 20 and live until you are 80, the copyright will expire 110 years after you created the work.
Second, there is no legal requirement to place expired matierals into the public domain, nor any requirement to have DRM release the material once the copyright has expired. The materials simply fall into the public domain. The Berne Convention gave copyright protection to everything created without requiring registration. This created millions of copyrighted works without a mechanism for anyone else to know who holds the copyright. The result is that there are millions of orphaned works unavailable for either preservation or use by the public, and certainly not being used by the creator or rights holder. There is also no legal requirement for the creator or rights holder to preserve the work for the duration of the copyright. Thus, it is very likely that the vast majority of copyrighted works will be lost to the public domain simply through neglect. Unless there is a compelling financial reason, most of the copyrighted works will vanish, simply because no one is going to create that "superior format from a master recording," if no one has bothered to keep the "master recording." Example: There are thousands of old movies rotting away because right now because the rights holder doesn't care enought too spend the money necessary to preserve the master recording. Digital files are a lot easier to destroy. DRM'd files that are hard to access because the technology has changed are very likely to simply be deleted, and expecting a DRM system to survive a hundred and ten years is absurd.
Given the fact that copyright was designed in the era prior to the creation of digital works, the designers thought that the surviving printed matierals would be fine and so there was no need for requirements that the copyrighted works be preserved. Also, the original term was 28 years from the time of creation. With the fast pace of change in the digital world, it is very likely that in 110 years, what ever digital file you create will be not only obsolete, but impossible to read. As for some DRM created now, that mechanism will likely be unusable by the end of the copyright and further, the people who created it are very likely to be dead.
As far as DRM being invasive, I would recommend you check out the Sony rootkit DRM as an example of why trust is so very limited. Computers contain confidential information whether this is for a corporation or a family business. Some of this information would allow other people and organizations to take advantage of your current situation and mostlikely to your detriment. Having a root kit secretly installed to "protect" some record label's interest in a twelve dollar music album is a grotesque violation of my privacy. In fact, if it was done by a teenager from the Phillipines using an email virus, the same actions would be considered a crime.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
This story seems to indicate that a librarian has the power to write or alter laws. None of the Americans posting seem to think this is in any way odd or inappropriate, but I'm sitting here in Britain thinking 'wtf?'
I'm used to the US governing system being a bit impenetrable (Gore getting more votes than Bush but still losing, for example) but this one really is rather perplexing to an outsider, could anyone explain what's going on here?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
They couldn't even hang onto and keep track of the freaking moonshot vids master tapes and supposedly even if they did have them there was only oneold machine thaty could view them. And no telling how much private sector video and stills have been lost because someone's precious was kept locked up and people couldn't make copies and keep transferring it as tech improved. We've already lost a ton of golden age of TV for example-just gone, unobtanium. If anything in the rapidly changing digital world, copyright terms should be drastically shortened, so that archieving human knowledge can be spread out in a much wider fashion, hopefully so that at least some records remain that are readable. All the eggs in one basket approach is the suxorz.
ArsenneLupin wrote and included with a post:
To me, the above would be a simple way to handle the DRM issue:
The above would protect the interests of the copyright holders for a period of time, but would allow works on formats they no longer support to enter the public domain in time. The copyright holders want to keep the format protected, they still have to support the format.
I tagged this noshit because:
- First sale doctrine already covers this
- Fair Use clause already covers this
- the Interoperability clause of DMCA explicitly allows this
So I fail to see what is newsworthy, other than that the people responsible for these idiotic laws are FINALLY acknowledging that we have these rights.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Like not being able to use an MP3 file as a ringtone unless it was purchased through the provider even though the actual hardware supports it? Or, sending and receiving files over bluetooth? I had 2 Nokia 6620 phones on Cingular that let me send and recieve files and set MP3 ringtones, one phone broke and had to be replaced under warranty. The new phone had a newer firmware and no longer could I used MP3's as ringtones. well I raise hell and got another replacement, same problem, raised hell again and finally got another phone with the older firmware that restored the functions that was the reason I spent extra money for that model in the first place. I got another phone added to my plan for a family member, a Motorola razor. Although the razor has bluetooth, you cannot recieve files over bluetooth presumable because they'd rather have you get your music for $2.99 a pop and have it expire after 90 days.
When my 6620 got lost, instead of getting another phone from my provider, I went to http://www.celluloco.com/ and purchased an unlocked Motorola A780 that let me do all the bluetooth mp3 ringing goodness that I wanted. It was a little harder to setup as Cingular doesn't support that model and settings won't automagically download from the network, but I was able to get network settings and voicemail number from tech suppport and it works fine now.
How about others here? what carrier and what features does your phone have turned off?
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> For me, this is the big deal - if my entire music library that I have *paid* for suddenly stops working, I'm going to be pretty pissed off.
And therein lies your mistake. You never paid for music. You paid for the revokable privledge to enjoy it on someone else's terms.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Not exactly.
I understand why HBO is bundled. I don't even mind that they do, I don't buy it if I don't like it, and that's it. I just don't like that being called free market.
It only works because of copyright, that is an artificial regulation on distribution.
You can't call something a free market when the distribution of stuff is restricted.
Music, no matter who produces it, is not the same thing as oranges.
The owner of copyrighted stuff is usually public domain, and what the original producers get is a monopoly on distribution.
If you want to watch a Star Wars film, there is no way you can get it from a provider that hasn't licensed it from Lucas.
In a free market, you would be able to get your Star Wars films, from different providers.
At least, it would not be forbidden to me, to make another Star Wars film, exactly the same as the original.
With physical stuff, that doesn't happen. If you sell oranges, and I don't like your face, I can buy them from the guy next door, who isn't regulated against producing oranges which taste exactly the same. Of course it could be difficult, but there's no regulation against it. Patents might be a problem, but they last less years, and you don't necesarily need to infringe on patents to get a functionally equal product. (Aside from that, patents have other practical problems, but not too aparent on physical stuff)
With copyright, this is not possible, so free market rules do not apply. When you deal with comeone who sells content, you are dealing with a monopolist, so it's their way or the highway.
Again, I agree that it's not much of a practical problem right now.
But the main issue, it that it's not a free market.
The only problem for me is that laws get changed, to keep a fundamentally flawed system, and that actually has consequences on people other than entertainment. Remember than books also get lumped in with entertainment.
People have gone to jail because of new and improved stupid "IP" laws. I think it's more serious than it seems.
Pot, meet kettle.
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
The *only* way you can use such broadcasts with a PVR (without going through the analogue hole) is to buy Sky's own Sky+ PVR system.
m l
I've not tried it, but apparently you can use a Dragon CAM module; check out this post: http://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/t277041.ht
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Really? I thought your heart stops during the fall. It can't take the epinephrine produced during the realization of you, well... dying. So it just quits. So people die before impact.
It's a very reasonable burden to operate such a server to gain the economic benefit of being allowed to legally DRM protect a piece of mass-distributed-for-profit media. Of course, this assumes that there is, indeed, an economic benefit to limiting the rights of your customers to exercise their fair-use rights. So, where is this law restricting the use of DRM in mass-distributed and for-profit media?
Then again, some customers like to play with their video and audio; cut clips from copyrighted works to which they have access and put together a little something for their own experimentation and enjoyment, or even to further their knowledge and abilities regarding the tools they are using before attempting to produce something of their own. If this isn't fair-use, it should be. Before anyone goes off about how this hypothetical customer shouldn't be allowed to distribute this derivative work, note that I never said they should; "for their own experimentation and enjoyment" was my exact wording; and, again, if doing so is not legal AND PROTECTED, it should be.
I hereby propose a *GASP* new branch of government; or, perhaps an extension to the duties of the LoC. The task being assigned is a simple one; maintain a server against which mass-distributed and for-profit DRM'd media will be validated. Use of the government-backed validation server should be denied for any DRM'd media if the work in question is not submitted to the LoC, in an accessible and unencumbered format. The applicable laws should also limit the use of DRM on such media to systems which use, and use correctly, the government-backed validation server. If the copyright on a particular piece of media has expired, this server should return a result not only allowing the media to be played, but decoded into an unprotected format.
Of course, in an ideal world, one would be allowed to do whatever they wish with copyrighted works, so long as they do not distribute them as their own. This could also be accomplished with DRM, perhaps using the same validation server. In fact, this could be accomplished quite easily, while maintaining the DRM in effect on the original works in the derivative work. If the DRM from each protected work used in a derivative work were to be applied to that derivative work (this could be done by the editing software; if they're eventually going to mandate that it include DRM anyway, this would be the way to do it; rather than it denying you the ability to create or distribute your derivative work, deny the ability of others who aren't licensed to play the media from which it was created the ability to play it). In this way, as each copyright expires, that layer of DRM would be removed from the derivative work, while still allowing the derivative work to maintain its own DRM protection, if desired, which would be removed, again, at the expiration of its own copyright (which would, of course, overlap the period during which the works from which it was derived were in the public domain). Of course, this would require an exception for derivative works; the LoC would have to accept derivative works in a non-unencumbered format, so long as it met the legal requirements for mass-distributed and for-profit DRM'd media.
In fact, if implemented and enforced in this way, DRM could actually bring the consumer more rights while protecting the rights of copyright holders. By allowing derivative works of copyright materials to be distributed to and played by others who have license to play the works from which it was derived, while, effectively, denying that right to those who do not have such license. That's a step or three beyond what we can legally do right now, regardless of what's physically possible; and it protects the rights of everyone involved.
I apologize for my longwindedness and if any part of this post is ambiguous. Before you flame or mod me down, request clarification AND allow me to clarify; if, after that clarification, you still feel the need to flame me or mod me down, go right on ahead. Thank you.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I find it rather funny that these new exemptions are going to be effective for only 3 years when the length of a copyright is 90+ years.
Well, if i want i can replay it in my head? Does that violate our agreement?
If it's a resturant then you buy an amount of food, ie all the food you can eat at the same time... If you want, but not recommended, is to puke it up and reuse it, but will probably not taste as good :
I cant understand why this is always compared to "stealing" or other types things that do have a cost for the reseller. A better thing here is then to compare this to making the same dish at home, ie making a copy...
If i want to make a copy a CD or crack some hardware that i have paid for why should i not?? It does not cost the manufacurer anything but gives me either more security with using dvd-backup disks instead of the original or give me some new functionality i want with the hardware.
Shure, it should not be permittet to first copy CD's and then sell the copies, but that's a totally different story than making PRIVATE copies or a making a mix-cd for a close friend.
*Ignore spelling errors. To tired to correct them*
I've not tried it, but apparently you can use a Dragon CAM module
You can, it's illegal, very expensive and may stop working at any moment if Sky decide to update the algorithm again.
I would like to see Ofcom order Sky to at least offer a reasonably priced CAM, or better - publish the decryption algorithm so that it could be implemented in software. Publishing the algorithm shouldn't risk their security since it would still require the smart card. This is certainly something they could require Sky to do under anti-monopoly laws, especially since both Channel 4 and Channel 5 (which are traditionally free) currently use VideoGuard (although Channel 4 is expected to move to the Astra 2D transponder and go free to air some time in 2007/8) and Ofcom are supposed to be promoting the move to digital.
Having to pay Sky to receive Sky channels is fine, but having to pay Sky to receive random other channels that are nothing to do with Sky is pretty poor.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Incorrect. Your quotation is out of context - it is not a mandate, it is part the enumeration of powers of Congress.
Congress has the authority to create copyrights and patents. It is not constitutionally required to exercise that power, any more than it is required to borrow money or declare war.
Note also that said power is to create artifical rights only for authors and inventors - not to their employers, heirs, assignees, or anyone else. Modern copyright law bears little relation to the actual legal power of Congress.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
sorry, you are right, id forgotten - i dont listen to it much now
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
A popular myth, but not true, as shown by survivors of extraordinary falls.
One woman survived a fall from 10 kilometers. (She was strapped into a seat and may have enjoyed some protection from that; however this guy jumped out of a plane at 18,000 feet, about 5.5 kilometers, and thanks to trees and snow cushioning his fall, suffered on a sprained leg.)
Ginsberg's Howl notes the story of Tuli Kupferberg (of the band The Fugs) who jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge and survived.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
For some reason the same people spouting their "free market" religion are the same people seeking subsidies and advantage. My ultimate point -- is that the real problem isn't DRM but the system that allows it to happen. If there wasn't collusion and anti-competitive behavior, it wouldn't be allowed to exist. We have to attack the root cause, not the symptom.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
It's also possibile that in a few hundred years people will study B5 the way we study the works of an popular, but not masterful (as considered in his own time), 16th century playright.
That's why it's vital to preserve everything; we lack the perspective needed to tell what (if anything) from our culture can survive the test of time to be considered great works.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
They're not that good. In my rejected submission of this story, I mentioned that the rootkit exception (which would allow you to break a Sony-style rootkit) only applies to CDs, not even to DVDs, let alone any other media.
Still, it's nice to see that they're at least granting some. And yet I tend to agree with the EFF that the whole DMCA should be repealed because they lack the statutory authority to remove enough of the DMCA's restrictions to be worthwhile, even if they were willing to do so.
They're not allowed to distribute tools at all. They were very clear that they could not grant any such exemptions if you read the FAQ they put up when they requested comments. So you can still bypass the access controls, but they can't do a damn thing if you run afoul of the prohibition on "trafficking" in such tools, even if your intended use of the tools falls under one of these narrow exceptions.
Or to put it a little more simply "It's not the fall, it's the sudden stop."
No sig for you!!
The fundamental reason to not keep passing more laws, is that existing law was good enough, and covered the topic sufficiently to protect content producers.
It was always copyright infringement to distribute music or movies over the internet in P2P channels. The new laws do not do a thing to stop that.
These additional laws give a distinct advantage to corporations, allowing them to circumvent "fair use" rights consumers have. The playing field is not even.
For instance, it's technically legal for a consumer to backup or format shift a DVD you own. But after the DMCA it's illegal to unencrypt that DVD, effectively nullifying the fair use right. Any why? To stop pirates? As if pirates will say, "oh, it's illegal to rip this now! Darn, I guess I'll stop." No all it does is makes Pastor Joe a criminal when he makes a backup copy of the Lion King, so his kids won't destroy the original. (All of my kids' DVD's are copies, they don't touch originals. I am a big sleazy criminal, right?)
And the music industry? Fucking retards. Music is not like movies, people do not just want to listen to a song one time, if they like it. They want to buy a copy of that song, and then listen to it at home, in the car, at work, while jogging, etc. And although it is legal to do this, the industry is hard at work finding new ways to make this illegal.
And nobody *I* know, will pay for a one-listen song. Sure, maybe there's a few, but that is not what most music listeners want, and they won't buy it. Just because you would love to force it down our throats doesn't mean we'll buy it, or have to accept it. The consumers will choose the format or model that will fulfull their needs.
I have also heard that a dream of falling off a cliff will result in death if you ever hit the bottom in the dream. Again, not true as I have hit the bottom in one of those dreams. I bounced on the rocks but it didn't hurt and I certainly didn't die, although in my dream I was sure I must be dead.
You think that's free?? They "give" me a $200 crippled phone if I sign an $1800 contract with them.
Read the contract sometime too. If you cancel your contract you don't have to give the phone back, but you have to pay a penalty.
If you DON'T sign a contract, and you pay for your phone outright... it's still locked.
Then there's the crippling of phones so the only way to get ringtones onto them (or in some cases even to get your pictures off!) you have to pay the carrier. All very shady.
By that logic, basejumpers, bungee jumpers, etc, would be dead before impact. No, it *IS* the impact that kills you. When you're falling at such speeds, your blood has problems flowing - sudden impact starts everything inside you into violent motion, causing very severe stress upon your internals and potentially causing shutdown - this is why we have airbags, parachutes, etc., to stop that impact.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Copyright holder's life plus 70 years is NOT a limited time. Not given the language of the clause: "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors". If the copyright lasts for the life of the author or longer, then from the perspective of the author, it is secured for an unlimited time; as long as the author is alive, he has the rights. Once he no longer is, he no longer does, regardless of the number of years the right exists after his life ends. Further, when the copyrights are continually extended shortly before or even _after_ they've expired, that's not a limited time either, from anyone's perspective. That's an unlimited time on the installment plan.
``For me, this is the big deal - if my entire music library that I have *paid* for suddenly stops working, I'm going to be pretty pissed off.''
So why did you pay for it?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hear hear. The fact is, I'm going to ignore DRM on music and video, software locks on phones, lock in on office documents, technology purposely limited by patent to have permanent lock in to certain vendor, and any other conditions I don't like on new technology. I will find a hack, crack, or work around for every barrier placed in front of me, whether provided by others or by myself. This is my civil disobedience: pissing on the rules that have been put in place to keep my use of technology under control.
You may put DRM on your product. I do not disagree with a company's right to do it. However, you may not put force of law behind that DRM. Copyright law already exists as a law to ensure the integrity of your "IP". You do not need a law preventing new and innovative technologies from popping up outside of your control. That stifles the progress of science, technology, and culture.
I ask that everyone here take up the same attitude and encourage others to have the same attitude. DRM (cell phone locking, DVDs, all of it) is not the problem, putting the force of law behind it is. As an amusing side note, my captcha is "brazen". How true...
More like get a $400 phone free and then pay an $800 contract, but it makes a lot more sense if you're talking about PAYG. With a contract at least you should do a bit of research before committing to a network.
which is totally what she said
So why did you pay for it?
Because failing to pay for it whilest still owning it would be illegal.
(and for the record, my entire music library is on CD and ripped to Vorbis so it's not going to suddenly stop working. But if I had purchased it from an online store doing DRM'd music then it's vary possible it could all just stop working one day)
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Now this really makes a big difference. I can now legally crack and transfer those old 5.25" programs to different storage. Unfortunately, it's for archival purpose, which means I probably can't legally run the old programs, but this is an important first step.
Regards,
--
*Art
You can't possibly be so stupid as to not recognize that your last two statements are mutually contradictory. In the first, you state (rightly) that congress has the authority to create structures (such as copyright and patents) to secure rights for authors and inventors. In the second, you seem categorigally discount the appropriateness that one of those structures might include the concept of transmission/assignment/sale of said rights to others, which anybody who has given the matter more than one second of honest thought will immediately conclude is a key component to truly promoting the useful arts, as without this, say, drug companies, who, for all their warts, have brought good to the word to the tune of, oh, say, 20 billion QOLYs (Quality of Life Years) to the world in general, would basically not exist or be a pale shadow of themselves.
Maybe where you live. The deal here is usually in the range of $200 phone (or $200 off the phone) with a three year, average $50/month contract. Not to mention there are plenty of places that sell the same phone wholesale (three or more) for half the price.
The point remains that if you need to switch providers for whatever reason you not only have to pay the cancellation penalty but you ALSO have a useless brick of a phone. Unless you unlock it, of course.
10 years is a limited time. 50 years is a limited time. "Copyright holder's life plus 70 years" is a limited time. The current state of copyright law in the UK and, as far as I can see, the USA clearly encompasses a limited time.
"Until the Sun becomes a red giant" is a limited time too, but one that obviously doesn't work within the scope of the intended purpose of copyright.
I think the main problem here is not that the U.S. constitution is vague, but rather that the legislature is inhabited by a bunch of non-thinking individuals who are too easily swayed by the arguments (and money) of large copyright holders with the result being laws that benefit said copyright holders at the expense of society in general - Congress has no sense of balance in this matter. I think such ridiculously long copyright terms are nothing more than theft of the public's intellectual property, actually work to hinder the "progress of the useful arts", and are an abrogation of their duty to "provide for the general welfare". If an IP owner can't figure out how to monetize his creation in a reasonable amount of time (and I think 28 years is *more* than reasonable), then why should that become society's problem?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
"Most importantly, in 50 or 60 years when the copyrights actually expire, will you still even want your 128kbps mp3? Of course not. The public domain file will be provided in a superior format from a master recording. "
People still want those old 78 RPM records, they still want those vax recordings from even earlier. So yes fifty years from now they will still want 128kbps MP3 by that artist that died and posthumously was recognized as a genius. Too bad they won't be allowed to listen to them.
evil is as evil does
There were many games that had copy protection in the 1980s. Those games should enter the public domain in the 2030's. Many of the companies that produced those titles are now defunct and there are no known "original works" for release. It would be interesting to hear proponents of DRM and such lengthy copyright terms provide an explanation for how these works will enter the public domain.
Personally, I think that software copyright terms should extend no longer than 10 years. Most 10-year-old software is obsolete, and the copyright holders do not gain from it in any meaningful way. This is particularly true of video games, which typically have lifespans measured in months, not years.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
The important part here isn't about cell phones -- after all, with cell phones, you DO have the alternative of buying a phone that's never been locked directly from the vendor. Sure it's more expensive, but at least you have the choice. Much more important, IMO, is the following from TFA:
I don't think you can get an unlocked phone in Canada. I'm under the impression that such a thing doesn't exist, unless you bring it in from a foreign country.
That's simply an example of poor archiving in the very early digital age. It's not really something that is a present problem. There are always going to be exceptions and losses in transitional periods, but that's completely inevitable. People tend to forget that all this digital storage crap is still really very new.
I don't understand this story. Can someone give a car analogy please?
:)
OK, how's this then.. You buy a car for a reduced price, but you have to use only the dealer's brand of fuel for 3 years. When your contract is up, you find that you're still stuck using that fuel because it won't run on anyone elses brand.
Yes, I realise you were joking, but I could't help myself
"Yes. And with that CDROM drive I can do what the hell I like with it. For example - I can install it in my own music playing device, or I could disassemble it or modify it - whatever.
With a DRM system that is usually not an option - the licence will restrict what I can do with the decoder, and the EUCD makes it illegal for me to reverse engineer it."
When it comes to software, copyright also applies, which does not exist when talking about hardware (for the most part), and so restrictions on modification of DRM software exist. Similarly, if you buy a CD, there are licencing restrictions on how you can use, modify and distribute the composition and the recording of the music contained therein. Read the back of your CDs.
"I suggest you look up the meaning of the word. boycott To abstain,either as an individual or group, from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some organisation as an expression of protest or as a means of coercion."
So you're suggesting that every product which I don't want and I don't buy, I am boycotting? I've been boycotting prunes all my life and didnt realise it!
RTFM; please, I beg you.
So you mean we won't have to use bump keys anymore?
That's what they want you to think, and apparently they're successful. Of course you can buy a phone directly from the manufacturer or retailer, and not from the phone company.
Also, they're not "unlocked", which means a phone that formerly was locked. An "unlocked" phone can still be crippled in functionality, as they're OEM versions that have had the provider lock-in removed. These are phones that never were locked in the first place, and have the full capabilities.
I bought my phone from Sony Ericsson, and phone service from T-Mobile. I pay a total of $26 per month, including unlimited web/email data access, and enough minutes to cover my needs. Other manufacturers that sell directly include Palm and Nokia.
Sure, the phone providers will give you a lot of crap about they not having any bring-your-own-phone plans. The sales people are lying, most likely because they've never been told about the non-advertised plans. If that's the case, and you use a GSM phone, just select a plan that comes with a "free" GSM phone and toss the phone once you take the SIM card out of it. If not using GSM, you may have to work harder and get to someone in the phone company that actually knows what you're talking about, and who can transfer the plan to your privately owned phone.
Buy the phone at market rates and you can.
Buy the phone at a MASSIVELY DISCOUNTED rate (because your network provider is footing the other 80%+ of the cost of the phone, and SUCK IT UP.
Seriously. "Wah, I can't buy a hugely subsidised piece of equipment, and then fuck the guy who paid the large part of the cost, and take it straight to his competitor."
In most jurisdictions, prior to the contract you must pay a fee to unlock the phone. That fee must be disclosed to you prior to signing the contract. Beyond the term of the contract you must be provided an unlock code for no charge (or at most a couple of dollars nominal charge).
In America, a program written in 1980 will not leave copyright until 2075. Thank Sonny Bono.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Yes. Copyright is an artifical creation of the government.
There are several theories of natural rights. Perhaps you've heard of the one about how human beings are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"? Of course that's something of a religious spin on things. I prefer Kerry Thornley's explanation myself:
An artifical monopoly on the making of copies is clearly not an "intimate functional need" of human beings. It is not a "right of the people" in the same way as the right to free speech or the right to be secure against unreasonable search an seizure.
That is why you see the creation of this artificial right listed as a government power, rather than seeing it as a listing in the Bill Of Rights along the lines of "The right of authors and inventors to exclusively copy and implement their creations, being necessary to the progress of the useful arts and sciences, shall not be infringed".
There is no contradiction at all. You are simply confusing what you think the Constitution should say, with what it actually does say.
It's not a question of whether it's "appropriate". Under our Constitution, the powers of the federal government are strictly enumerated, and any powers not so enumerated. They include securing to authors and inventors certain rights for a limited time. There is nothing in there about securing those rights to others, therefore the federal governmen does not legitimately possess such power - whether or not you or I think that such additional state power would be useful.
(I generally don't. And I certainly disagree with your apparent assumption that there is no better way to make progress in phamaceutical technology than the screwed-up system we have now.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
in 50 or 60 years when the copyrights actually expire
The fact that you pretend copyright terms are remotely this short proves you are a lying shit who will say anything to support the media distribution cartels (NOT the artists/authors). I hope your comment gets rated down.
That's actually a pretty good analogy. To take it one step further, it's not so much your car wont run on the other fuel, but you have a special opening in your tank filler, and you can only fit gas nozzles from one company in, keeping you from filling up at another companay's station.
Kinda like how they made unleaded nozzles are much narrower than "regular" leaded gasoline nozzles, making it much harder to accidentally fill your unleaded only car with leaded gasoline since the nozzle wouldn't fit.
Oh, Canada, do not hate us for our freedom! We cannot help ourselves, we were born beautiful...
Currently hooked on AMP
I think another problem is the fact that most rights-holders are not the actual creators, but corporations. This makes the life + 70 years valuable to them only, not to the creator of a work after he/she dies. (As a side note, how is a creator incented to create more if they have a lifetime copyright? One big hit and they could financially be "set for life".) I think it's a loophole that if a recording artist transfers the copyright to their songs to a record company (sometimes before the actual music is written) the record company can then still credit the artist as the creator and the life+70years rule still applies, where a "work for hire" situation would limit the copyright term to 95 years from publishing or 125 years from creation, whichever expires sooner. (not really much of a limit anyway).
"I forgot my mantra."
..Here in India, all the mobile phones are belong to us, as in us the users. You want a phone, you go purchase it like any other device, and then buy a connection from the provider of your choice. If you don't like their service- flip em a birdie, and replace their SIM card with another providers.
This has another advantage- people who travel frequently between cities can carry 2 SIM cards-one for each local city connection- to save on roaming charges,and having to carry 2 phones.
In the end- the phone you have is not linked with your provider in any way, and you're free to attach a cable and copy photos. (I read that some US providers block this ability to force you to send images via mail/MMS)
Rates are extremely competitive too..it being a volume driven market. I pay the equivalent of 2 cents a minute for all local and national calls, as well as SMSes ^^
Oh, and incoming calls are free.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
That's ridiculous. :-(
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
That's why it's vital to preserve everything;
A 'save everything' mentality, though, runs the risk of culture losing 'the good stuff' in a sea of drivel and garbage. There is a place for archiving and preservation. But there are also huge archives of absolute garbage, from an aesthetic point of view. There have been a lot of bad, bad, BAD works created throughout history.
I should talk, though. I have so many records hoarded up now that it's hard to know what is worth listening too. I mean old 78's, some of which I probably have the only copy of, or one of the only. Can't save everything, though.
Babylon 5 ain't Shakespeare. It's had plenty of exposure to be recognized as such. The notion that artists are 'completely missed during their lifetimes' definitely can't include stuff broadcast to millions of people. Modern Mass media stands on it's own.
Almost the only thing worth preserving from Television is 'The Prisoner.' In fact, if master episode tapes from 'The Prisoner' were backed up over the master tapes from most Star Trek episodes, it wouldn't be a bad thing at all. But there you have it: a strong opinion. Oh well.
Most importantly, in 50 or 60 years when the copyrights actually expire, will you still even want your 128kbps mp3? Of course not. The public domain file will be provided in a superior format from a master recording.
Who says? Sure, it'll be true for something like the soundtrack to Lord of the Rings, but what about things like small artists that distribute mainly through iTMS? It's very possible that in 50-60 years, their only legacy may be a few defunct DRM'd files that someone managed to save. It's only been a few years, and I've already got MP3 files that I would be hard pressed to replace if I ever lost them, from places like the old mp3.com site. It's possible that an old 128kbps file is all we'll have, much in the same way you hear stories today of people who have data trapped on archaic storage mediums that were obsolete 20 years ago.
In the Age of Perfect Peace the True People of Old lived in harmony equal to the rhythm of the seasons and the ebb and flow of tidal cycles. With no concept of law and order, they lacked occasion for crime and turmoil.
Wow. Just wow. Tom, thanks for reminding me of the cranks and loons that one meets on the Internet. You never quite sure who is behind that keyboard. Remember to bathe once in a while.
If I had points, you'd have earned one there.
Someone forgot to pay the patent office...
No, but everything you register....
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
How is a response to a farcical nonreality considered flamebait?
It's a legitimate question. What makes you, Slashdot hive-mind, believe that the masters will disappear? History doesn't support this conclusion. When one studio folds, someone else takes over the content. We still have all sorts of music and movies produced by defunct companies. Instead of modding down, did anyone consider actually answering the question?
Of course not. Why admit that "DRM will magically destroy original works terror" has no factual base? Silly me, thinking Slashdot might actually be composed of rational people.
For those that would like to read the actual "Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works" from the Library of Congress:
The Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)) during the next three years.
1. Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.
2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
3. Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
4. Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
6. Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works and create or exploit security flaws or vulnerabilities that compromise the security of personal computers, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing, investigating, or correcting such security flaws or vulnerabilities.
These exemptions will go into effect upon publication in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006 and will remain in effect through October 27, 2009.
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
Jeremy Butler
www.ScreenSite.org
www.TVCrit.com
Isn't that "falling with style"?
Why would there be no copyrights in a free market? The media companies would have no reason to abandon exclusive control over their content. There wouldn't be government copyrights, though, if that's what you mean.
(IANAL, but I love playing with this stuff).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Let's see here. You quote Thornley paraphrasing Lao Tzu - a philosopher whose works have endured for thousands of years, an man whose work is one of the great influences on Chinese culture - and then accuse me of being a crank because I used a completely different quote from Thornley.
Hmm. Sorry, but that's one of the greatest non-sequitors I've seen on line in at least the past year, and would seem to be indiciative of great confusion. Let me see if I can help.
If you want to dismiss Lao Tzu as a crank, you at least owe it to him and to millions of people influenced by Taoism to understand it enough to recognize it when you see it. I highly recommend Ursula K. Le Guin's interpretation of the Tao Te Ching and Raymond Smullyans' book The Tao is Silent . (Those aren't affiliate links or anything, by the way.)
Thornley may have been a crank on some subjects, a medium to heavy conspiracy theorist, but given that he got caught up in the weirdness vortex of the JFK assassination I think he deserves a little slack on that. His concept of Zenarchy is an inspiring application of Taoism and Zen concepts to politics, showing the connection with libertarian socialism (a.k.a. anarchy).
The fact that I may quote Thornley on some topic, because I like the way he explains something - or that I might similarly quote Lao Tzu, the Shakyamuni Buddha, Thomas Jefferson, Emperor Norton, Hunter S. Thompson, or whoever - does not mean I agree with the quotee on everything. That one may quote a crank, is non-informative on one's own crank-ness or lack thereof.
HTH. HAND.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
A copyright is a government-granted monopoly; in a free market it wouldn't exist. I don't know what a non-government copyright would be.
thanks for the response. I stand by my original assessment. The zenarchy link is absolute looniess. Since you seem to be rather engrossed by it, I suspect that any attempt to convince you otherwise would be futile, but, well, what can I say. Yes, I have read the whole thing. It's basically the socio-political equivalent of any number of new age quack "healing" treatments. It uses words that sound like science and fact, and makes allusions to all sorts of famous people and their ideas, but at the end of the day it's a snowball of nonsense.
Equally or more restrictive monopolies of companies over their products? No solution to antitrust issues? A free market would never produce freely accessible public works--you'd always be charged for them, and you'd have no guaranteed usage rights. That's what a non-government copyright would look like.
This may be the funniest post I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. What a sublime reference, what beautiful kind-of iambic pentameter! I write a haiku for you:
O Post on Slashdot,
Everything is bright now;
The moon before dawn.