Slashdot Mirror
DRM Critique Airs On National Public Radio
An anonymous reader writes to point out that a critique of Digital Rights Management made it onto the mainstream media this morning. NPR's Marketplace Morning Report ran a piece noting that with the demise of the VHS format we risk losing fair-use rights since we now have only digital media. From the article: "As our country moves forward to regulate digital copying, I urge us all to bear in mind T. S. Eliot's famous saying. 'Good poets borrow; great poets steal.'"
Most people don't realize that even certain VHS tapes had DRM -- or at least a basic form thereof. Many years ago, for a high school video project, I wanted to splice a little scene from "Return of the Jedi" into our project. (The scene with the Ewoks bowing and scraping to Threepio, as a metaphor for the Aztecs greeting Cortez.) But when I tried to record it onto the family VHS video camera for splicing and transfer (we were using our VCR and the camera to create a very basic editing system; this was 1996!), the camera would quit recording after a few seconds, saying something about a "protected" video or something.
I forget how I got around it, but it was a pain in the ass. All for less than thirty seconds of fair-use footage for a damn high school project!
They have a podcast, so you can download the segment as MP3 (for now):
12/19/06 Marketplace Morning Report 2
The segment is at 5:40 if you want to skip directly to it.
After all, it's produced using taxpayer money, it better be publicly accessible.
Marketplace isn't an NPR program; the show is produced and distributed by American Public Media. Though many public radio stations air programs from both NPR and APM (as well as other orgnizations like Public Radio International), the two are distinct entities.
As for the Real Media encoding from what I remember it was the only useable and widely accepted option around when NPR first started offing audio content online. Still, much better options abound these days. They should at least transition to them over a few weeks or months time if they're woried about pissing off listeners who are unaware and set in their ways. -C
Only T.S. Eliot was really allowed to spell his name using lowercase for the T, S, and E. Anyone with an English poetry and literature background knows that the proper way to refer to him is as "T.S. Eliot", unless you're reproducing a work of his where he wrote his name as such. It's considered disrespectful for others to use his lowercase name when referring to him.
Well, for one, this isn't NPR content. It's American Public Media, which is part of Minnesota Public Radio. While their public radio stations usually play NPR content, and these shows are usually syndicated, they aren't NPR programs. On top of that, public radio only gets a small portion of its funding from tax payer money. The majority of funding comes through donations during the pledge drives.
First, that I am unaware of the actual legal standing of fair use.
Second, that it does not grant rights. It, in fact, does. I am allowed the *right* to copy copyrighted works, if my copying falls under fair use.
This *right* has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts.
Not in any generally meaningful way. While people do tend to misunderstand the details of fair use, the fact that it exists and allows for some rights for the consumer is both fact and law.
That doesn't count. The representation of Mozart contained on that CD has a unique, modern copyright.
Only 8% comes from government funding.
I don't know what you're talking about. Public radio offers nearly all of its broadcasts in unrestricted MP3 format.
Counterexample: I write stories. I make very little money at it so far, and I keep writing despite that fact, because it's something I love. In fact, I would like to devote more time to it, but so far I'm forced to earn money by doing something uncreative instead. If I were able to make a living as a writer, my time and therefore my output would be greater. So, the money does encourage creative production.
Revive the Constitution.
They don't pay taxes because they are a non-profit not because congress has a soft spot for Public Radio. To advocate taxing Public Radio would be to advocate taxing most non-profits. (This may be your opinion but to discuss why that's a bad idea is out side the scope of this topic) ." at the top and bottom of each show) I would guess that most commercial stations have budgets that far out strip you average NPR station (KJZZ's (the Phoenix AZ station) budget in 2004 was just over 3.1 mil)
I don't think NPR stations have an advantage when it comes to cash given that they don't run commercials. (Yes I know they do run "This program supported by a grant from. .
Good points all.
I would only add two mildly tangental comments.
1) They keep extending the length of copyright and somehow treat creative works as different than other inventions (patents have a much shorter period and may be much more valuable than a book).
2) The idea of copyright is changing. Up until 30 years ago it was very common for songs to "steal" melodies from each other (hell most of blues is based on a small number of stolen phrases and would not exist if the first song that invented them locked them down). Then suddenly they started suing over small sequences of notes. The net result is that an interesting set of (7? 11?) musical notes is basically locked down for over a hundred years now. It may be legal but I don't think it is moral.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.