Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Says "Don't Expect DRMed Music To Work Forever"
Oracle Goddess writes "Buying DRMed content, then having that content stop working later, is fair, writes Steven Metalitz, the lawyer who represents the MPAA, RIAA in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office. 'We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works.' In other words, if it stops working, too bad. Not surprisingly, Metalitz also strongly opposes any exemption that would allow users to legally strip DRM from content if a store goes dark and takes down its authentication servers."
They don't care. Providing product isn't in their business model anyway.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
... Fuck you.
Yes of course. But that's because the creative works should be public domain after a while. And I don't mean after 70+ years either.
Let's stop making such a big deal about this. The solution is simple. DO NOT BUY DRMed MEDIA! There's plenty of quality media available outside the recording industry. Articles like these need to go away IMO.
Yes it is. The point is DRM in general, not just DRM for your particular music in your particular format, from your particular vendor. The decisions made now about DRM will set precident for Movies, Books, Software, and technologies we don't even consider now, possibly including virtual worlds, 3d models for 3d-printers, and who knows what else.
The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?
Just start buying your CD's in bulk directly from the RIAA, with checks written in disappearing ink...
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
So, what he's basically saying is that there should be no expectation on the consumer's part that the product he's paying for should work at all (regardless of whether we're talking about "owning" said product, or acquiring a "license" to enjoy said product).
Um, maybe I'm being naive here, but isn't that, you know, against the law? They *could* have said, "we're selling you the _right_ to play this for X years, or until date Y", and that'd be fair if they just say this up front, I suppose, but this sounds like they want a free pass to sell you the illusion that you're buying the "right" to access certain content, when in reality they're just selling you a rental license -- one that expires at the sole discretion of the seller.
In essence, because a license is supposed to be a sort of contract, it's like saying they want to be able to not only dictate all the terms in said contract/license scheme (as they already do, one way or another), but they also want a couple of "open clauses" that they can fill in later on, essentially nullifying the other part's contractual rights, if, when and where they see fit.
This is exactly the kind of "fine print" bullshit that corps have been getting away with for far too long. Yeah, I know you're supposed to read every contract you sign, but when even a simple song purchase entails a multiple-page "Terms of Use" or whatever, which usually includes something along the lines of "this text is subject to change, new clauses can be added, rights terminated, changes are applied retroactively and there's no obligation to notify the user of any change, it's the user's obligation to consult the updated terms at link" -- it's time to tell these assholes to go fuck themselves, for crying out loud!
Except they're not the maker, they just licensed it first.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Ah, but a chair only has a finite lifespan. So if it falls apart after 3 years of normal use I would probably not be responsible for fixing it. Although you may tell all your friends that I make crappy chairs.
On the other hand YOU can buy a screwdriver at any hardware (or most dollar stores even) to fix the chair.
The real issue is that I have persuaded congress to make it illegal for you to buy the screwdrivers that fix the chairs I sell. And now I am saying that I should not be expected to keep any of the screwdrivers around either. And even if no one has the right tools to fix the chair YOU still can't build one.
In other words, "We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to receive a consumers' money".
I'll bite.
I in favor of backing up a CD to my harddrive. I am also in favor of being able to watch and listen to media files in the software of my choice.
Yes, I am also in favor of copying a loaned CD and to share the occasional music file on the internet, even if that means not supporting Copyright Owners.
I am all in favor of supporting Artists however, and will gladly pay to see them live, I'll buy their merchandise (if its attractive and reasonably priced) and generally try to support them in a way that does not imply having to buy "a license" to listen to their work a finite number of times...
No sig for the moment.
You are right on. As far as I'm concerned, this is a declaration of war against the people that pay them. This is the much touted 'free market' in action. They dictate the terms and if you don't like it, go without.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
...
Copyright was intended to as an incentive to create works which would eventually end up as public domain - it was intended to increase public domain. If you break that, don't you invalidate your copyright?
Some people complain about "piracy" as being theft, but given the original intent of copyright, isn't the entire history of the extensions of copyright AND DRM and the DMCA actually theft from the public?...
Right you are. The growing abuse of copyright that has been underway for four decades is in opposition of the express purpose and practice that is spelled out in no less a document than the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Powers of Congress):
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;
The whole notion of extending copyrights held by parties other than the originators indefinitely after the fact (and often after the originator is dead), clearly defies the constitutional basis of copyright in the first place.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
It's like buying a scratched DVD in a second-hand shop.
Except that it's *not* scratched, and it's bought *new* from the original "manufacturer" (or agent thereof.) And you can't physically examine it to check for "scratches" before you buy it, and the "scratching" is being deliberately done by the manufacturer after you get it home.
So, basically it's like buying a scratched DVD from a second-hand shop only if you define "like" as "completely unrelated and in no way similar in any way, shape, or form".