Well, that would be an incorrect restructuring of my argument. Linux is mostly architecture independent, unlike windows, so even had there been no windows, and no standardized PC hardware, that wouldn't preclude a standardized operating system like Linux.
My argument was that Microsoft was largely responsible for the existance of cheap, commodity hardware. Quite a different argument.
Quite why they are getting their panties in such a wad about casual use of DeCSS is a little beyond me anyway. How long will it be until DVD writers become affordable, and some hacker figures how to make straight bitwise copies of a DVD? CSS or no CSS it doesn't matter when you make a bitwise copy!
Motion picture DVDs store a decryption key in a special area on the disc. All writable DVDs will have that special area preburned to zeroes, so even a bitwise copy of a DVD won't work.
Unless you pre-decrypt the data with DeCSS.
Why CSS was bothered with in the first instance, I don't know. It's a bit like I always wondered why copy protection schemes were always tried on the Amiga (they were always cracked).
An excellent question.
In order to manufacture DVD players, you need to obtain a copy of the CSS decryption algorithm and a key from the DVD-CCA. Before they give you the algorithm and key, you have to sign an agreement that says that you will, among other things, never manufacture a DVD player that can output unencrypted digital video, or macrovision-free analog video.
Since a DVD player built on DeCSS would not require a license from the DVD-CCA, someone constructing a DVD player around DeCSS would not be bound by the requirement that the player only put out a degraded signal.
This would wreck the market for MPAA-crippled DVD players.
Hence, in order to prevent the appearance of DVD players on the market that are capable of putting out top quality digital video, the MPAA must fight to suppress DeCSS. Obviously they cannot eliminate it, but they can and are eliminating the possibility of circumventing their market control over what features are allowed in DVD players. In other words, their hidden agenda is succeeding, and all the talk here about making billions of copies of DeCSS completely misses the point. Copying is the red herring. It isn't what this fight is about.
because those other programs are hacks to licensed DVD player software. DeCSS is the only decryption method that is suitable for inclusion in an unlicensed player, because it's built from scratch.
The real agenda of the MPAA is to control the DVD player market. They have contracts with the player manufacturers where they say that, in exchange for access to the CSS decrypting algorithms, the player manufacturers promise to never build a DVD player that can output unencrypted digital video, or analog video without Macrovision degradation.
A DVD player based on DeCSS would not be subject to these restrictions, and would result in a better, more consumer-friendly product. This would destroy the market for MPAA-crippled DVD players, and end their player market stranglehold.
While I do not agree with many of M$'s practices nor do I particularly like there products, without Microsoft, how far would personal computing have evolved?
Hard to tell. They left quite a trail of wrecked competitors.
One thing that Microsoft definitely influenced though... Unlike the Apple II and most other hobby computers, DOS and Windows never came with an assembler, compiler, or interpreter. The result was an entire generation of people of programming-illerate users whose only idea of "using a computer" was running applications. I was able to "show my mom what programming is" on my Apple II, but I would be hard pressed to do the same on my PC. I spent a great deal of effort when I was a windows user in just keeping a working development environment on my PC. With Linux, the working development environment is right there, so if I need to write a quick & dirty program, I can do it in a few seconds, as opposed to a few hours using the Microsoft-based development tools.
M$ did bring PCs more into the mainstream.
One positive aspect of the Microsoft experience was that the dominance of the single Microsoft operating system led to the commodity PC -- and is the reason why you can go to a computer store, pick up a $400.00 PC, and install a real operating system on it. Without the Windows monopoly dictating hardware design, it is more than likely that hardware vendors would have continued to design and build incompatable hardware, which would be more expensive. The PC hardware model might suck, but at least it sucks consistantly and uniformly. Hardware compatability was the key point behind IBM's 40 year S/360 S/370 S/390 ESA mainframe hardware reign. (And I'd take the S370 architecture over the PC architecture in a heartbeat.)
Of course there's anti-trust issues. The MPAA is using their copyrights on motion pictures to enforce a monopoly on what consumer features DVD player manufacturers are allowed to build into their equipment. The real threat of DeCSS is not consumer copying of DVDs. The threat of DeCSS is that if it is legal, then player manufacturers no longer need to sign a contract with the DVD/CCA which forbids them from building players with digital outputs, macrovision-free analog outputs, the ability to skip commercials at the beginning of DVDs that the MPAA wants you to watch, etc.
There are plenty of other programs that can extract the contents of a DVD, but the MPAA never sued over them, and apparently does not care. The only difference between DeCSS and these other methods is that the other methods are merely hacks to existing licensed DVD implementations, and not suitable for manufacturing unlicensed players, like DeCSS is.
You'll notice that the MPAA is now targeting the livid project -- an open source DVD player, not a copier. Going after 2600 obviously did nothing to stop the distribution of DeCSS, but Kaplan's wildly overbroad injunction does give them legal ammunition to go after and try to kill any unlicensed players that include consumer-friendly features that the MPAA wants no one to have, like the ability to make any fair use whatsoever of materials on DVDs.
The letter the MPAA is currently sending out to sites mirroring DeCSS says:
DeCSS is a software utility that decrypts or unscrambles the contents of DVDs (consisting of copyrighted motion pictures) or otherwise circumvents the protection afforded by the Contents Scramble System (CSS) and permits the copying of the DVD contents
and/or any portion thereof. As such, DeCSS is an unlawful circumvention device within the meaning of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2),(3).
Copyright law is supposed to allow you to copy portions of works under certain legally defined circumstances. Kaplan's ruling says that no, sorry, but the parts of copyright law that benefit consumers of DVDs no longer apply. Only the parts of copyright law that benefit the MPAA apply.
Garbus dropped the line of defense because Kaplan would near none of it, not because there were no anti-trust issues.
If you can't see the anti-trust issues in this case, then I just don't think we're going to agree on anything.
First off, I was mistaken. It only took Judge Kaplan 51 pages to make the case that he shouldn't remove himself from the case.
Here, in Judge Kaplan's own words, from those 51 pages:
[Mr. Garbus claimed that] he had learned from his colleagues that a witness had testified the preceding day that Paul, Weiss,
the firm of which the undersigned was a member prior to his appointment to the bench in 1994, had represented Warner in 1993 "concerning DVDs"
Mr. Garbus introduced a 1996 deposition that drew out some details of this relationship. It reads, in part:
A.
Stuart Robinowitz at this time was a partner at Paul, Weiss who was advising us on DVD matters. And he is now a senior adviser to Time Warner. He's since retired from Paul, Weiss. And he's a senior adviser to Time Warner.
Q And what was he advising Time Warner about?
MR. COOPER: Just subject matter.
Q Just subject matter, not advice, the subject matter. In the areas of advice, as opposed to the specific advice.
A He advised us on-first of all, and primarily why we got him involved, was he's an antitrust lawyer. And there were all these meetings of-
Q Don't tell content, just tell me subject.
MR. COOPER: Antitrust is sufficient.
Q There were meetings that involved antitrust issues and you talked to him about-
A Yes, and he attended some of those meetings.
Judge Kaplan also admits, that a deposition introduced by Mr Garbus:
"makes clear, as the oral statements of July 11 did not, that
Mr. Robinowitz was consulted as an antitrust adviser, apparently in connection with meetings concerning Warner's relationship with Toshiba in the development of DVD.
Warner's relationship with Toshiba is completely at the heart of the case. Judge Kaplan left the law firm Paul, Weiss in 1994. This is right around the time that the intermediate company DVD-CCA was formed, insulating the Studios and player manufacturers from anti-trust allegations by inserting a "not-for-profit" organization between them. The DVD-CCA didn't spring out of nowhere. In fact, the DVD-CCA uses Toshiba-developed CSS technology. The entire legal framework for the Studio/DVD-CCA/Player manufacturer trust was created at that time, and Kaplan's law firm was advising Warner on how to avoid anti-trust problems in it's relationship with Toshiba with regard to DVDs!
Now, six years later, Judge Kaplan finds himself on the bench charged with deciding if the "antitrust-proof" legal framework that his own law firm, in which he was a partner, helped design in 1993 is valid! Judge Kaplan's answer was to completely dismiss any allegations that there were anti-trust issues to be decided in this case.
How convenient for the plaintiffs that Judge Kaplan was unable to find any anti-trust issues in this case. Of course, if Judge Kaplan had found anti-trust problems with the relationship between the Studio/DVD-CCA/Player manufacturers, then he would have bit the hand that had fed him from 1970 through 1994, including 16 years as a partner in the law firm, and would have embarassed his former Paul, Weiss colleague, Time-Warner senior advisor (as of 1996) Stuart Robinowitz.
That's the problem with Judge Kaplan deciding this case.
And yes, I would consider two fellow partners in the same law firm to be "colleagues."
In the Connectix case, the judge had no connection to either party.
In the DeCSS case, the judge was deciding the legality and enforcability of a player market control scheme that his own law firm -- his colleagues -- personally designed for the MPAA.
What a fortunate coincidence for the MPAA!
It seems to me that if it takes a judge 91 pages to make the argument that he should not recuse himself from a case, something is wrong.
Napster indexes copyrighted works which are illegally shared.
Not according to the appeals court that threw out the Napster injunction. The appeals court found:
The court reached its conclusion that Napster users were engaged in direct infringement in part because:
o it ruled (contrary to the section's express terms) that the immunity from suit provided by 17 USC 1008 only applied to actions under the AHRA.
o it ruled that 17 USC 1008's protections only applied to copying by specifically identified devices rather than, as this Court said in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Syst., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 (9 th Cir. 1999), to all noncommercial copying by consumers (1)
...
(1) The court relied on the fact that this Court in Diamond Multimedia had held (in the context of the AHRA s serial copying and royalty provisions) that digital audio recording device did not include computer hard-drives. The court below ignored, however, that 17 U.S.C. 1008 permits non-commercial copying by consumers using either analog or digital audio recording devices or such a device ; that the legislative history makes clear that Congress intended by that language to immunize all non-commercial copying of music by consumers; that the same Diamond Multimedia Court expressly said that 17 U.S.C. 1008 protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings (180 F.3d at 1079); and that throughout the Diamond Multimedia opinion the Court discusses copying of music using computer hard-drives as AHRA protected activity.
17 U.S.C. 1008 Prohibition on certain infringement actions.
No action may be brought under this title[Title 17, copyright law] alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Since Napster's users are not infringing copyright when they share their files, Napster is not contributory infringement. There's no such thing as contributing to a crime when no crime has taken place!
The RIAA may not like it, but file sharing of music is absolutely legal, so long as it is non-commercial. Why? In 1992, in exchange for a royalty on all digital audio media (a surcharge on audio CDRs and digital recorders that has been collected for 8 years now and paid directly to the RIAA), Congress legalized all non-commercial copying of musical works. Bet you didn't know that. Well, the RIAA hasn't exactly been jumping up and down telling you about it.
As I've said before, if you want to know your rights, read the law yourself. Don't take the RIAA's word for it -- they will say anything -- they will tell any lie to suppress the knowledge of your right to share music.
Well, some of us thought that there was no reasonable way that this decision could apply to a search engine.
After all, nearly every web page on the internet was automatically granted copyright when it was written. How many search engines obtain the permission of the copyright holder before they index a web page?
None?
Then gosh, if Napster can be shut down for indexing copyrighted works, why not Google? Altavista?
I think they missed AIX/370 --> AIX/ESA. This was an extremely botched IBM port of AIX to the IBM 370 series mainframe processors. We tried it, but it made our mainframe run about as fast as a PC.
This was around 1994. I don't know what it was derived from, but it was an extensive rewrite, and deserves its own breakout in the chart.
And on top of that, the architect has the right to install secret locks in your house that lock you out permanently at his command. And yes, it would be illegal for you to circumvent those locks.
I would say it's more like driving someone across the border into Mexico (or Canada, or wherever) so they can purchase tools with which to burglarize the home.
But what you left out is that the home that they want to pick the lock on ("burglarize") is their own. When Valenti accidently locks himself out of his house, he thinks he should have to get authorization from the lock manufacturer before he's allowed to pick his own lock.
It's worse then that. He thinks that he needs to get authorization from the architect who designed his house. In Valentiville, the architect is free to say, "No", in which case, Jack is forbidden by law from ever entering his house again.
After reading about mp3.com's $20,000,000 out of court settlement with Sony, it is clear to me that the big money with internet music distribution isn't in actually distributing the music -- the major labels can't seem to do that successfully. The big money these days is in suing people who actually are able to distribute the music. mp3board.com just wants to get in on the action while the getting is good.
This appears to be a problem... according to the article, these missiles can only really travel in a straight line.
Perhaps the shock wave caused by the collapsing vacuum behind the torpedo ripped open the sub...
... Anyone notice how this technology makes surface ships obsolete? One submarine equipped with these missiles could sink an entire fleet of warships in a few minutes, from miles away, and no one would even know who did it... shocking!
Actually, no, a hard drive is not considered a "digital audio recording device for royalty purposes" The computer industry wanted no part of this scheme, so they were not included in the law.
Interestingly, in reversing the injunction against Napster, the appeals court rejected the theory that because hard drives are not taxed, the AHRA does not protect activities using hard drives. The appeals court said that Congress clearly intended to exempt all non-commercial copying, not just copying on 1201-taxed media and equipment. If you read the law, you'll find that only certain digital equipment is subject to the royalty tax, but the exemption from infringement applies both to analog and digital recorders and media.
If you want to read the entire law, do a web search on the "Audio Home Recording Act." It's worth the read and critical if you want to understand what is going on with Napster's defense.
The injunction reversal is very enlightening reading also. There is a complete media blackout of the actual content of the reversal, probably because the appeals court basically told the judge that she was completely wrong, and that the law is completely on Napster's side. You have to read it yourself. It isn't part of the media coverage.
Napster is for sharing music. That in itself is not a bad thing. But when people systemically use the system to infringe on copyright, then I think Napster has *some* responsibility.
You're contradicting yourself. Is sharing music a good or a bad thing? Is it a good thing when it is done quietly, behind closed doors, by a few people, but a bad thing when it is used "systematically"?
Napster isn't fair use anyway. Music sharing is explicitly authorized by the copyright laws. In 1992, the RIAA went to Congress in a state of hysteria -- Digital Audio Tape was about to destroy the entire recording industry! The RIAA wanted, among other things, to receive a "royalty" on all digital recorders and media to compensate for the loss of sales due to personal, non-commercial copying.
Congress said, "Ok... but if we give you royalties for non-commercial copying, then you have to agree that non-commercial copying is legal."
The RIAA, more concerned with destroying the DAT format, agreed, and both Congress and the RIAA released announcements that an agreement had been reached that would break the legal gridlock, and bring digital recording to the masses. The result of this little insider lovefest is known as Title 17 Chapter 10.
Title 17 Chapter 10 is a nice little exercise in dirty lawmaking. Let's go through it.
Section 1001 defines all the terms.
Section 1002 says that all consumer digital audio recorders must include SCMS -- which prevents second-generation copies of DAT tapes.
Section 1003 says that anyone manufacturing digital audio recording equipment or media, including audio CDRs, has to make "royalty" payments.
Section 1004 says how much the royalty payments are.
Section 1005 says that the royalty payments are to be deposited in an account controlled and managed by the U.S. Treasury.
Section 1006 specifies how the loot is to be divided up. It's basically a list of the sponsors of the bill.
(1.75%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Musicians, to be paid to "non-featured" musicians (studio musicians)
(0.92%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, to be paid to "non-featured" vocalists (backup vocalists)
(25.60%) of the royalties are paid to "featured recording artists", including such bands as Metallica. (38.40%) of the royalties are paid to "copyright owners" (the RIAA companies)
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to "music publishers"
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to music writers, including such bands as Metallica who write their own songs.
Section 1007 specifies procedures for distributing the royalties. Anyone interesting in sharing the loot basically reports their record sales to the Librarian of Congress, and the loot is divided up proportionally. Thus, the RIAA, which controls the vast majority of record sales, gets nearly all of the money.
Section 1008 is what makes Napster legal. This is what the general public receives in exchange for all this money being taken by the government and spread around the recording industry:
SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS, REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION
Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1009 specifies awards for damages
Section 1010 provides for binding arbitration -- a provision that allows a company to obtain legal assurance that they are selling a legal product before bringing it to market.
So, in conclusion, you are right... Napster is NOT fair use. Fair use does not even enter into Napster. Wholesale Non-commercial copying of musical works (only) is not a copyright violation, and has not been one since 1992. This is the point that the recording industry is trying to bury. But the fact remains, The RIAA has been collecting royalties on all blank digital audio recording devices and media since 1992, and has been (or is supposed to be) paying that money out to artists and writers. There is no need to wring our hands looking for a way to "pay artists." The "way" already exists, and the money is already being collected. The RIAA just doesn't want you to know that so that you will feel guilty and won't exercise the right that you are paying for, with real money, every time you buy an audio CDR.
Bottom line, if you want to find out what your rights are, don't expect the RIAA to help you find them out. Read the law instead.
As a musician ( I have no life, just three hobbies, Im sure you all can relate ), I KNOW when I sign with a label ( I am not signed ) that Im giving them SOLE rights to distribute my music. If I made the decision to sign, I gave THEM ( not YOU ) my music.
This was true prior to 1992. In 1992 Congress took away your right to control non-commercial distribution of your work, and gave it back to the people, in exchange for royalty payments to the RIAA on the sale of blank media. Some of us opposed the AHRA. Did you?
Title 17, Chapter 10, Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title [Title 17, copyright law] alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
So am I breaking the law if I wear my DeCSS shirt tomorrow?
You are if you happen to be one of the people specifically covered by the judgement:
The Remaining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise be and they hereby are permanently enjoined and restrained...
This is not true. In principle, any judge can rule any law unconstitutional, if they feel confident and correct in doing so, and have the courage. As a matter of practice, striking down a law as unconstitutional is a risky proposition for a lower court judge, who winds up looking foolish and/or reckless if his decision is promptly overturned by an appeals court.
That's why most lower court judges tend to bend over backwards to find a constitutional interpretation of even bad laws, but that doesn't mean that they aren't empowered to toss out an unconstitutional law.
Should MS apps be established on Linux it'd be like that only instead of dealing with a single point of development and control, MS would be dealing with little groups and individuals, threatening them that if they didn't stop work on their projects, MS would kill Office for Linux (and presumably blame said developer).
The correct answer to this is "KYOFB"; "Knife your own baby."
I think that most "little groups and individuals" would probably pay money to get Microsoft to kill Office for Linux. Threatening to kill Office for Linux isn't much of a threat. I know that if Microsoft came to me with that sort of threat, I'd laugh in their face and tell them to go ahead and kill Office. Would you do otherwise?
Some of us (mac people into development) have been able to watch this sort of thing going on in the real world for longer than you linux people have...
This says a lot about how "independent" Apple is... but not much about Linux. Apple made the fatal mistake of trying to get cozy with Microsoft, and like every other software company that has made the same mistake, Apple has paid the price. Actually, Apple's developers and users are the ones who have paid the price.
But Linux isn't going to Microsoft on hands and knees pleading, "Save our sorry asses by porting Office to our failing operating system", like Apple did. If anything, Microsoft is attempting to muscle in on Linux turf. Entirely different situations. Entirely different outcomes.
It's legal because thesis papers and the like are usually published into the public domain without expectations of any royalties. This has been the tradition of the academic community for well over 300 years.
Well, tradition aside, since the copyright laws were rewritten in 1978, everything anyone writes is automatically copyrighted the moment it is put down on paper, or disc. They have no right to publish those theses unless they sign contracts with the people who wrote them. Plain and simple.
Firstbrook objects to the very feature that most tout as Linux's number one asset--the fact that anyone can tweak the code--because it creates a situation in which an IT staffer may make changes that no one else knows about, and that probably go undocumented.... "Having somebody who can screw around with my operating system would make me very, very nervous"
Translation:
Hiring someone to build and maintain a custom system requires that you trust them. Better to keep your programmers like your software and hardware -- untrusted and disposable.
True, but the problem is that the record companies have for years placed a standard clause in all artist contracts stating that the artists are producing works for hire.
The artists' lawyers told them that that didn't matter, because it was unenforcable -- copyright law specifically lists the types of works that CAN BE works made for hire, and sound recordings weren't one of them.
By slipping in this little change to the copyright law, the RIAA would, in effect, be snatching every piece of music by every one of it's artists with a contract.
Yes. If you write a song, you have the absolute right to release the first recording of the song. After that, any other band has the right to "cover" your song on their album if they choose, or perform your song live, and they pay a royalty to you that is defined by law. You don't have the right to say "no."
This law was created to break up the player piano roll monopoly. It's an old law.
Why is this law still important today?
Without that law, each band that wanted to perform or record someone else's song would have to obtain permission from the original songwriter.
This would seriously harm up-and-coming musicians. Most bands don't start out writing a suite of completely original material. A bunch of guys get together, and they pick a bunch of songs that they all know and like, and that they think will play well to an audience. They learn those songs, learn the craft, and play the local bar. The bar pays the compulsory licensing fees to BMI and ASCAP. Then, hopefully, the band gets good and starts writing their own songs, becomes famous, and other new bands start performing their songs, and paying BMI and ASCAP in return. It's an important part of the cycle of how musicians are developed.
The Beatles started out as a bar band playing covers -- other people's work. So did the Grateful Dead, Phish, and probably nearly every musician in the world. How many musicians can you find that have never performed a cover song?
Without compulsory licensing (not "Compulsive licensing" -- an interesting concept:), most amateur and semi-professional musical performances would be illegal. Your band could be sued for performing, for instance, "Satisfaction", without the express written consent of the Rolling Stones.
In short, Congress recognized that when the recording industry had the absolute power to pick and choose who was allowed to perform and record works, a destructive monopoly was created. This law has nothing to with Socialism and everything to do with preventing a destructive monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that would be an incorrect restructuring of my argument. Linux is mostly architecture independent, unlike windows, so even had there been no windows, and no standardized PC hardware, that wouldn't preclude a standardized operating system like Linux.
...
My argument was that Microsoft was largely responsible for the existance of cheap, commodity hardware. Quite a different argument.
I'm not having trouble dealing with anything
Quite why they are getting their panties in such a wad about casual use of DeCSS is a little beyond me anyway. How long will it be until DVD writers become affordable, and some hacker figures how to make straight bitwise copies of a DVD? CSS or no CSS it doesn't matter when you make a bitwise copy!
Motion picture DVDs store a decryption key in a special area on the disc. All writable DVDs will have that special area preburned to zeroes, so even a bitwise copy of a DVD won't work.
Unless you pre-decrypt the data with DeCSS.
Why CSS was bothered with in the first instance, I don't know. It's a bit like I always wondered why copy protection schemes were always tried on the Amiga (they were always cracked).
An excellent question.
In order to manufacture DVD players, you need to obtain a copy of the CSS decryption algorithm and a key from the DVD-CCA. Before they give you the algorithm and key, you have to sign an agreement that says that you will, among other things, never manufacture a DVD player that can output unencrypted digital video, or macrovision-free analog video.
Since a DVD player built on DeCSS would not require a license from the DVD-CCA, someone constructing a DVD player around DeCSS would not be bound by the requirement that the player only put out a degraded signal.
This would wreck the market for MPAA-crippled DVD players.
Hence, in order to prevent the appearance of DVD players on the market that are capable of putting out top quality digital video, the MPAA must fight to suppress DeCSS. Obviously they cannot eliminate it, but they can and are eliminating the possibility of circumventing their market control over what features are allowed in DVD players. In other words, their hidden agenda is succeeding, and all the talk here about making billions of copies of DeCSS completely misses the point. Copying is the red herring. It isn't what this fight is about.
because those other programs are hacks to licensed DVD player software. DeCSS is the only decryption method that is suitable for inclusion in an unlicensed player, because it's built from scratch.
...
The real agenda of the MPAA is to control the DVD player market. They have contracts with the player manufacturers where they say that, in exchange for access to the CSS decrypting algorithms, the player manufacturers promise to never build a DVD player that can output unencrypted digital video, or analog video without Macrovision degradation.
A DVD player based on DeCSS would not be subject to these restrictions, and would result in a better, more consumer-friendly product. This would destroy the market for MPAA-crippled DVD players, and end their player market stranglehold.
It's all about control
While I do not agree with many of M$'s practices nor do I particularly like there products, without Microsoft, how far would personal computing have evolved?
... Unlike the Apple II and most other hobby computers, DOS and Windows never came with an assembler, compiler, or interpreter. The result was an entire generation of people of programming-illerate users whose only idea of "using a computer" was running applications. I was able to "show my mom what programming is" on my Apple II, but I would be hard pressed to do the same on my PC. I spent a great deal of effort when I was a windows user in just keeping a working development environment on my PC. With Linux, the working development environment is right there, so if I need to write a quick & dirty program, I can do it in a few seconds, as opposed to a few hours using the Microsoft-based development tools.
Hard to tell. They left quite a trail of wrecked competitors.
One thing that Microsoft definitely influenced though
M$ did bring PCs more into the mainstream.
One positive aspect of the Microsoft experience was that the dominance of the single Microsoft operating system led to the commodity PC -- and is the reason why you can go to a computer store, pick up a $400.00 PC, and install a real operating system on it. Without the Windows monopoly dictating hardware design, it is more than likely that hardware vendors would have continued to design and build incompatable hardware, which would be more expensive. The PC hardware model might suck, but at least it sucks consistantly and uniformly. Hardware compatability was the key point behind IBM's 40 year S/360 S/370 S/390 ESA mainframe hardware reign. (And I'd take the S370 architecture over the PC architecture in a heartbeat.)
There are plenty of other programs that can extract the contents of a DVD, but the MPAA never sued over them, and apparently does not care. The only difference between DeCSS and these other methods is that the other methods are merely hacks to existing licensed DVD implementations, and not suitable for manufacturing unlicensed players, like DeCSS is.
You'll notice that the MPAA is now targeting the livid project -- an open source DVD player, not a copier. Going after 2600 obviously did nothing to stop the distribution of DeCSS, but Kaplan's wildly overbroad injunction does give them legal ammunition to go after and try to kill any unlicensed players that include consumer-friendly features that the MPAA wants no one to have, like the ability to make any fair use whatsoever of materials on DVDs.
The letter the MPAA is currently sending out to sites mirroring DeCSS says:
Copyright law is supposed to allow you to copy portions of works under certain legally defined circumstances. Kaplan's ruling says that no, sorry, but the parts of copyright law that benefit consumers of DVDs no longer apply. Only the parts of copyright law that benefit the MPAA apply.
Garbus dropped the line of defense because Kaplan would near none of it, not because there were no anti-trust issues.
If you can't see the anti-trust issues in this case, then I just don't think we're going to agree on anything.
Here, in Judge Kaplan's own words, from those 51 pages:
Mr. Garbus introduced a 1996 deposition that drew out some details of this relationship. It reads, in part:Judge Kaplan also admits, that a deposition introduced by Mr Garbus:Warner's relationship with Toshiba is completely at the heart of the case. Judge Kaplan left the law firm Paul, Weiss in 1994. This is right around the time that the intermediate company DVD-CCA was formed, insulating the Studios and player manufacturers from anti-trust allegations by inserting a "not-for-profit" organization between them. The DVD-CCA didn't spring out of nowhere. In fact, the DVD-CCA uses Toshiba-developed CSS technology. The entire legal framework for the Studio/DVD-CCA/Player manufacturer trust was created at that time, and Kaplan's law firm was advising Warner on how to avoid anti-trust problems in it's relationship with Toshiba with regard to DVDs!
Now, six years later, Judge Kaplan finds himself on the bench charged with deciding if the "antitrust-proof" legal framework that his own law firm, in which he was a partner, helped design in 1993 is valid! Judge Kaplan's answer was to completely dismiss any allegations that there were anti-trust issues to be decided in this case.
How convenient for the plaintiffs that Judge Kaplan was unable to find any anti-trust issues in this case. Of course, if Judge Kaplan had found anti-trust problems with the relationship between the Studio/DVD-CCA/Player manufacturers, then he would have bit the hand that had fed him from 1970 through 1994, including 16 years as a partner in the law firm, and would have embarassed his former Paul, Weiss colleague, Time-Warner senior advisor (as of 1996) Stuart Robinowitz.
That's the problem with Judge Kaplan deciding this case.
And yes, I would consider two fellow partners in the same law firm to be "colleagues."
Really, what's so different about the two?
In the Connectix case, the judge had no connection to either party.
In the DeCSS case, the judge was deciding the legality and enforcability of a player market control scheme that his own law firm -- his colleagues -- personally designed for the MPAA.
What a fortunate coincidence for the MPAA!
It seems to me that if it takes a judge 91 pages to make the argument that he should not recuse himself from a case, something is wrong.
Not according to the appeals court that threw out the Napster injunction. The appeals court found:
17 U.S.C. 1008 Prohibition on certain infringement actions.
No action may be brought under this title[Title 17, copyright law] alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Since Napster's users are not infringing copyright when they share their files, Napster is not contributory infringement. There's no such thing as contributing to a crime when no crime has taken place!
The RIAA may not like it, but file sharing of music is absolutely legal, so long as it is non-commercial. Why? In 1992, in exchange for a royalty on all digital audio media (a surcharge on audio CDRs and digital recorders that has been collected for 8 years now and paid directly to the RIAA), Congress legalized all non-commercial copying of musical works. Bet you didn't know that. Well, the RIAA hasn't exactly been jumping up and down telling you about it.
As I've said before, if you want to know your rights, read the law yourself. Don't take the RIAA's word for it -- they will say anything -- they will tell any lie to suppress the knowledge of your right to share music.
Well, some of us thought that there was no reasonable way that this decision could apply to a search engine.
After all, nearly every web page on the internet was automatically granted copyright when it was written. How many search engines obtain the permission of the copyright holder before they index a web page?
None?
Then gosh, if Napster can be shut down for indexing copyrighted works, why not Google? Altavista?
I think they missed AIX/370 --> AIX/ESA. This was an extremely botched IBM port of AIX to the IBM 370 series mainframe processors. We tried it, but it made our mainframe run about as fast as a PC.
This was around 1994. I don't know what it was derived from, but it was an extensive rewrite, and deserves its own breakout in the chart.
And on top of that, the architect has the right to install secret locks in your house that lock you out permanently at his command. And yes, it would be illegal for you to circumvent those locks.
That's how absolute the DMCA is.
I would say it's more like driving someone across the border into Mexico (or Canada, or wherever) so they can purchase tools with which to burglarize the home.
But what you left out is that the home that they want to pick the lock on ("burglarize") is their own. When Valenti accidently locks himself out of his house, he thinks he should have to get authorization from the lock manufacturer before he's allowed to pick his own lock.
It's worse then that. He thinks that he needs to get authorization from the architect who designed his house. In Valentiville, the architect is free to say, "No", in which case, Jack is forbidden by law from ever entering his house again.
After reading about mp3.com's $20,000,000 out of court settlement with Sony, it is clear to me that the big money with internet music distribution isn't in actually distributing the music -- the major labels can't seem to do that successfully. The big money these days is in suing people who actually are able to distribute the music. mp3board.com just wants to get in on the action while the getting is good.
- John
This appears to be a problem ... according to the article, these missiles can only really travel in a straight line.
...
... shocking!
Perhaps the shock wave caused by the collapsing vacuum behind the torpedo ripped open the sub
... Anyone notice how this technology makes surface ships obsolete? One submarine equipped with these missiles could sink an entire fleet of warships in a few minutes, from miles away, and no one would even know who did it
Actually, no, a hard drive is not considered a "digital audio recording device for royalty purposes" The computer industry wanted no part of this scheme, so they were not included in the law.
Interestingly, in reversing the injunction against Napster, the appeals court rejected the theory that because hard drives are not taxed, the AHRA does not protect activities using hard drives. The appeals court said that Congress clearly intended to exempt all non-commercial copying, not just copying on 1201-taxed media and equipment. If you read the law, you'll find that only certain digital equipment is subject to the royalty tax, but the exemption from infringement applies both to analog and digital recorders and media.
If you want to read the entire law, do a web search on the "Audio Home Recording Act." It's worth the read and critical if you want to understand what is going on with Napster's defense.
The injunction reversal is very enlightening reading also. There is a complete media blackout of the actual content of the reversal, probably because the appeals court basically told the judge that she was completely wrong, and that the law is completely on Napster's side. You have to read it yourself. It isn't part of the media coverage.
Napster is for sharing music. That in itself is not a bad thing. But when people systemically use the system to infringe on copyright, then I think Napster has *some* responsibility.
... but if we give you royalties for non-commercial copying, then you have to agree that non-commercial copying is legal."
... Napster is NOT fair use. Fair use does not even enter into Napster. Wholesale Non-commercial copying of musical works (only) is not a copyright violation, and has not been one since 1992. This is the point that the recording industry is trying to bury. But the fact remains, The RIAA has been collecting royalties on all blank digital audio recording devices and media since 1992, and has been (or is supposed to be) paying that money out to artists and writers. There is no need to wring our hands looking for a way to "pay artists." The "way" already exists, and the money is already being collected. The RIAA just doesn't want you to know that so that you will feel guilty and won't exercise the right that you are paying for, with real money, every time you buy an audio CDR.
You're contradicting yourself. Is sharing music a good or a bad thing? Is it a good thing when it is done quietly, behind closed doors, by a few people, but a bad thing when it is used "systematically"?
Napster isn't fair use anyway. Music sharing is explicitly authorized by the copyright laws. In 1992, the RIAA went to Congress in a state of hysteria -- Digital Audio Tape was about to destroy the entire recording industry! The RIAA wanted, among other things, to receive a "royalty" on all digital recorders and media to compensate for the loss of sales due to personal, non-commercial copying.
Congress said, "Ok
The RIAA, more concerned with destroying the DAT format, agreed, and both Congress and the RIAA released announcements that an agreement had been reached that would break the legal gridlock, and bring digital recording to the masses. The result of this little insider lovefest is known as Title 17 Chapter 10.
Title 17 Chapter 10 is a nice little exercise in dirty lawmaking. Let's go through it.
Section 1001 defines all the terms.
Section 1002 says that all consumer digital audio recorders must include SCMS -- which prevents second-generation copies of DAT tapes.
Section 1003 says that anyone manufacturing digital audio recording equipment or media, including audio CDRs, has to make "royalty" payments.
Section 1004 says how much the royalty payments are.
Section 1005 says that the royalty payments are to be deposited in an account controlled and managed by the U.S. Treasury.
Section 1006 specifies how the loot is to be divided up. It's basically a list of the sponsors of the bill.
(1.75%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Musicians, to be paid to "non-featured" musicians (studio musicians)
(0.92%) of the royalties are paid to the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, to be paid to "non-featured" vocalists (backup vocalists)
(25.60%) of the royalties are paid to "featured recording artists", including such bands as Metallica.
(38.40%) of the royalties are paid to "copyright owners" (the RIAA companies)
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to "music publishers"
(16.67%) of the royalties are paid to music writers, including such bands as Metallica who write their own songs.
Section 1007 specifies procedures for distributing the royalties. Anyone interesting in sharing the loot basically reports their record sales to the Librarian of Congress, and the loot is divided up proportionally. Thus, the RIAA, which controls the vast majority of record sales, gets nearly all of the money.
Section 1008 is what makes Napster legal. This is what the general public receives in exchange for all this money being taken by the government and spread around the recording industry:
SUBCHAPTER D. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS, REMEDIES, AND ARBITRATION
Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Section 1009 specifies awards for damages
Section 1010 provides for binding arbitration -- a provision that allows a company to obtain legal assurance that they are selling a legal product before bringing it to market.
So, in conclusion, you are right
Bottom line, if you want to find out what your rights are, don't expect the RIAA to help you find them out. Read the law instead.
As a musician ( I have no life, just three hobbies, Im sure you all can relate ), I KNOW when I sign with a label ( I am not signed ) that Im giving them SOLE rights to distribute my music. If I made the decision to sign, I gave THEM ( not YOU ) my music.
This was true prior to 1992. In 1992 Congress took away your right to control non-commercial distribution of your work, and gave it back to the people, in exchange for royalty payments to the RIAA on the sale of blank media. Some of us opposed the AHRA. Did you?
Title 17, Chapter 10, Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title [Title 17, copyright law] alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
So am I breaking the law if I wear my DeCSS shirt tomorrow?
...
You are if you happen to be one of the people specifically covered by the judgement:
The Remaining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise be and they hereby are permanently enjoined and restrained
This is not true. In principle, any judge can rule any law unconstitutional, if they feel confident and correct in doing so, and have the courage. As a matter of practice, striking down a law as unconstitutional is a risky proposition for a lower court judge, who winds up looking foolish and/or reckless if his decision is promptly overturned by an appeals court.
That's why most lower court judges tend to bend over backwards to find a constitutional interpretation of even bad laws, but that doesn't mean that they aren't empowered to toss out an unconstitutional law.
Should MS apps be established on Linux it'd be like that only instead of dealing with a single point of development and control, MS would be dealing with little groups and individuals, threatening them that if they didn't stop work on their projects, MS would kill Office for Linux (and presumably blame said developer).
... but not much about Linux. Apple made the fatal mistake of trying to get cozy with Microsoft, and like every other software company that has made the same mistake, Apple has paid the price. Actually, Apple's developers and users are the ones who have paid the price.
The correct answer to this is "KYOFB"; "Knife your own baby."
I think that most "little groups and individuals" would probably pay money to get Microsoft to kill Office for Linux. Threatening to kill Office for Linux isn't much of a threat. I know that if Microsoft came to me with that sort of threat, I'd laugh in their face and tell them to go ahead and kill Office. Would you do otherwise?
Some of us (mac people into development) have been able to watch this sort of thing going on in the real world for longer than you linux people have...
This says a lot about how "independent" Apple is
But Linux isn't going to Microsoft on hands and knees pleading, "Save our sorry asses by porting Office to our failing operating system", like Apple did. If anything, Microsoft is attempting to muscle in on Linux turf. Entirely different situations. Entirely different outcomes.
It's legal because thesis papers and the like are usually published into the public domain without expectations of any royalties. This has been the tradition of the academic community for well over 300 years.
Well, tradition aside, since the copyright laws were rewritten in 1978, everything anyone writes is automatically copyrighted the moment it is put down on paper, or disc. They have no right to publish those theses unless they sign contracts with the people who wrote them. Plain and simple.
Firstbrook objects to the very feature that most tout as Linux's number one asset--the fact that anyone can tweak the code--because it creates a situation in which an IT staffer may make changes that no one else knows about, and that probably go undocumented. ... "Having somebody who can screw around with my operating system would make me very, very nervous"
Translation:
Hiring someone to build and maintain a custom system requires that you trust them. Better to keep your programmers like your software and hardware -- untrusted and disposable.
Well, at least he's honest about his values.
True, but the problem is that the record companies have for years placed a standard clause in all artist contracts stating that the artists are producing works for hire.
The artists' lawyers told them that that didn't matter, because it was unenforcable -- copyright law specifically lists the types of works that CAN BE works made for hire, and sound recordings weren't one of them.
By slipping in this little change to the copyright law, the RIAA would, in effect, be snatching every piece of music by every one of it's artists with a contract.
Yes. If you write a song, you have the absolute right to release the first recording of the song. After that, any other band has the right to "cover" your song on their album if they choose, or perform your song live, and they pay a royalty to you that is defined by law. You don't have the right to say "no."
:), most amateur and semi-professional musical performances would be illegal. Your band could be sued for performing, for instance, "Satisfaction", without the express written consent of the Rolling Stones.
This law was created to break up the player piano roll monopoly. It's an old law.
Why is this law still important today?
Without that law, each band that wanted to perform or record someone else's song would have to obtain permission from the original songwriter.
This would seriously harm up-and-coming musicians. Most bands don't start out writing a suite of completely original material. A bunch of guys get together, and they pick a bunch of songs that they all know and like, and that they think will play well to an audience. They learn those songs, learn the craft, and play the local bar. The bar pays the compulsory licensing fees to BMI and ASCAP. Then, hopefully, the band gets good and starts writing their own songs, becomes famous, and other new bands start performing their songs, and paying BMI and ASCAP in return. It's an important part of the cycle of how musicians are developed.
The Beatles started out as a bar band playing covers -- other people's work. So did the Grateful Dead, Phish, and probably nearly every musician in the world. How many musicians can you find that have never performed a cover song?
Without compulsory licensing (not "Compulsive licensing" -- an interesting concept
In short, Congress recognized that when the recording industry had the absolute power to pick and choose who was allowed to perform and record works, a destructive monopoly was created. This law has nothing to with Socialism and everything to do with preventing a destructive monopoly.
No, that expression means,
"Nine-tenths of the laws on the books exist to specify who the rightful owners of things are in various situations."
Not,
"If you physically possess something, you have 90% claim to it."
A very different, and erroneous concept. After all, if a thief steals your car, he possesses it. Does that make him the rightful owner?