I think the real issue is the nature of the service. The RIAA wants to treat this like a radio broadcast and charge for performance rights. mp3.com wants to treat it like a private offsite file storage for its users, and they have a good case for it.
For a few years now companies have been offering file backup services over the Internet (@backup is one of them). One of the ways they reduced network traffic was the way they handled applications. If someone had a common app like Office 97 the backup client would do a checksum on the files and upload a small token to the backup server saying "this user has this version of EXCEL.EXE" or whatever. Then if the user requested a backup the server would send the whole file. To do this they'd need to keep copies of Office 97, Photoshop and whatever else on their servers JUST LIKE HOW mp3.com keeps copies of the music on their servers.
AFAIK this is how mp3.com has been promoting their service: private network storage for YOUR music.
>As for privacy, this isn't that much different than buying CDs from a "club." They're not >grabbing financial information, email, Netscape history, etc. Them knowing what CDs I have is
Exactly, you give up more privacy buying from a club. Let's compare what info they get about you:
CD club: Real name, street address, credit history, and all the CDs you bought from them. All cross-referenced with whatever they bought from the direct marketing company that sold them your profile.
my.mp3.com: Email address, MAC address, IP address, and all the CDs that you choose to beam in.
If you're paranoid about privacy, use a throwaway email account from a free mail provider. The IP is probably a dynamic dialup IP. The MAC address is troubling, but not that many things record and cross-reference your MAC address yet (Windows 98 and Office 97 do). If they do, it's easy enough to replace. I have a closet full of old ethernet cards.
Oh yeah, and block cookies from mp3.com and their banner ad providers.
>"Simply put, it is not legal to compile a vast database of our members' sound recordings with no >permission and no license," Hilary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA, stated in the letter. "Obviously, you >are not free to take protected works simply because you want them."
And how is this different from a public library "compiling a vast database of sound recordings"? Do they need special permission from the RIAA?
Is the RIAA saying that mp3.com didn't pay for the CD's at $15 each or that they didn't buy public performance rights? It's not really clear from the CNN article.
Yes this is still possible, but you couldn't possibly distribute as many copies this way as you could by posting an mp3 to the Internet. The recording industry has lived with this level of borrowing and copying for years. Just like when friends borrowed and taped LP's and CD's in the olden days.
>With that said, I think they're in for a big shocker. The games business is notoriously >cutthrought and they'll have to go up against companies that have HUGE market share (Sony) and >ones that are even more propriatary and greedy than MS themselves (Nintendo).
Exactly! As much as we knock MS for being proprietary, the console makers are so restrictive with developers they make Bill Gates look like Linus Torvalds. Imagine having Visual C++ as the only development environment. Imagine having to submit your games to MS for approval before you can release it. This is what console developers have to do.
This (relative) openness would be a breath of fresh air in the console market. Nintendo seems to be especially zealous with allowing only kid and family-friendly games. Could you imagine seeing Carmageddon or Grand Theft Auto or even Fallout (which had some sexual themes) on a Nintendo?
>What makes you say this? From what I know of the two religions (I'm neither, thanks) they should be >able to coexist peacefully without too much trouble if both sides are willing to live up to the teachings.
He means logically incompatible. Each of those religions forms a logically consistent belief system (more or less). No teaching directly contradicts any other teaching in the religion. However the two religions contradict each other on certain points, so logically you could not simultaneously believe in both.
>Frankly, I believe MyCIO is behind this in a huge attempt to sell their product. But the 'facts' >that the article states are just plain wrong.
You're probably right. For./ers who haven't been to California, Computer Currents (print version) is a free advertiser supported publication like Microtimes. About 75% of the pages are ads, and the few articles they have are mostly fluff. Don't expect any serious reporting from them.
>Personally, I think we might start to see more of this - people just getting fundamentally fed >up and choosing whole new careers. I don't know any of the reasons JWZ has made the switch,
You know, even when your career is in computers, you're allowed to get out once in a while. I'm sure JWZ has been into the clubbing scene for a while now. I have hobbies and interests not related to computers, and if I had the stock option millions, I'd find a non-computer use for it too.
>Your "cp" and "cat" commands cannot copy CSS encrypted files off a DVD disk by themselves. >Until the disk has been "unlocked" (authentication via CSS), not one damned bit can >be read from the disk.
The encryption is not in the filesystem. It's in the VOB files. As long as your OS will read the filesystem, cp and cat WILL copy an encrypted VOB. The copy you make will be an exact copy and it'll still be encrypted. All DeCSS does is create a decrypted copy of the VOB files.
>Your supposition that you are entitled to "use" (whatever that means) a work merely because you >own a copy, is in error. The Copyright owner who has sold you a copy retains complete exclusive >rights to
Why do you accuse me of being vague when I've given you specific examples? "Use" means reading a book, watching a movie, and executing code. For books and VHS movies, use does not require making a copy, and you are correct to dismiss that as inapposite (whatever that means). However I gave you an example where use does require making a copy.
To display a DVD movie the player must decode to RAM and make a volatile copy. DVD movies don't have a license agreement granting me permission to do this. Just for kicks here some more examples. I have a portable CD player with the anti-skip feature. It buffers 40 secs of music in RAM. Music CDs do not have a license agreement granting me permission to make that copy. If I do not agree with the GPL, I can still execute GPL'ed code if I acquired it legally, i.e. received it from someone who did agree with the GPL. I am just not allowed to distribute or modify it.
I know you're just informing us about the current state of copyright law, and I'm just pointing out a few inconsistencies in the law. BTW, what's with the blanket statements about copying==infringement. Don't know much about Fair Use, but even I know that I can quote and publish excerpts for the purposes of review and literary criticism (among others).
I looked up first sale and this is the best plain english explanation I found:
"The First Sale doctrine provides that the copyright owner's right to control distribution of copies only extends to the "first-sale." It is the basis for standard practices such as used book markets, library lending, and exchanges of copyrighted works between friends and family."
Can explain how this applies to my example of purchasing a copyrighted work, and using it myself for its intended purpose? i.e. executing code, reading a book, or watching a movie.
By your logic, any copyrighted content which requires an intermediate step of making a volatile copy would be illegal to use without a license to copy for that purpose. So explain this. I happen to have a DVD of the Replacement Killers (excellent movie BTW). In order to display it, my player has to decode the data to RAM (disk to RAM copy). I looked through all the fine print in all the packaging, and there is no EULA- only the usual FBI copyright notice.
>(very broad) conditions. You must have a license to use software. If the GPL didn't say "The act >of running the program is unrestricted..." then you wouldn't be able to run it at all.
Are you forgetting about copyright law? You do not absolutely need a license to use software. If you legally acquire a copyrighted work whether it's a book, movie or software, copyright law gives you the right to use it. If a publisher wants to impose further restrictions on use, that is when they make you agree to a license. Most books and music CDs have no license agreement. Most home videos have a license forbidding rental and public showing.
The GPL gives you additional rights beyond what you get from copyright law, but if you do not agree with it, copyright law still applies.
Name one device driver that Dell has developed for their hardware, either open source or binary-only. I have a Latitude CPIA, and pretty much all the hardware is supported by the open source Linux drivers (no USB and not using IRDA).
There's been a lot of speculation about where the money goes, but driver development is not it. If they're gonna certify a system for Linux, it's much easier to spec compatible hardware than to write new device drivers.
>People believe in their rights. If your grandma got scalded severely from coffee >and had to have 40,000 dollars worth of skin grafts and medical treatment... >Would you call her stupid for not knowing that the coffee was hot? Or would you
If she was in a moving car and removed the cover on a cup of scalding hot coffee and set the open cup in her lap, YES I would consider that stupid. DUH!
Slashdot Mirror
I think the real issue is the nature of the service. The RIAA wants to treat this like a radio broadcast and charge for performance rights. mp3.com wants to treat it like a private offsite file storage for its users, and they have a good case for it.
For a few years now companies have been offering file backup services over the Internet (@backup is one of them). One of the ways they reduced network traffic was the way they handled applications. If someone had a common app like Office 97 the backup client would do a checksum on the files and upload a small token to the backup server saying "this user has this version of EXCEL.EXE" or whatever. Then if the user requested a backup the server would send the whole file. To do this they'd need to keep copies of Office 97, Photoshop and whatever else on their servers JUST LIKE HOW mp3.com keeps copies of the music on their servers.
AFAIK this is how mp3.com has been promoting their service: private network storage for YOUR music.
>As for privacy, this isn't that much different than buying CDs from a "club." They're not
>grabbing financial information, email, Netscape history, etc. Them knowing what CDs I have is
Exactly, you give up more privacy buying from a club. Let's compare what info they get about you:
CD club:
Real name, street address, credit history, and all the CDs you bought from them. All cross-referenced with whatever they bought from the direct marketing company that sold them your profile.
my.mp3.com:
Email address, MAC address, IP address, and all the CDs that you choose to beam in.
If you're paranoid about privacy, use a throwaway email account from a free mail provider. The IP is probably a dynamic dialup IP. The MAC address is troubling, but not that many things record and cross-reference your MAC address yet (Windows 98 and Office 97 do). If they do, it's easy enough to replace. I have a closet full of old ethernet cards.
Oh yeah, and block cookies from mp3.com and their banner ad providers.
>"Simply put, it is not legal to compile a vast database of our members' sound recordings with no
>permission and no license," Hilary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA, stated in the letter. "Obviously, you
>are not free to take protected works simply because you want them."
And how is this different from a public library "compiling a vast database of sound recordings"? Do they need special permission from the RIAA?
Is the RIAA saying that mp3.com didn't pay for the CD's at $15 each or that they didn't buy public performance rights? It's not really clear from the CNN article.
Yes this is still possible, but you couldn't possibly distribute as many copies this way as you could by posting an mp3 to the Internet. The recording industry has lived with this level of borrowing and copying for years. Just like when friends borrowed and taped LP's and CD's in the olden days.
>With that said, I think they're in for a big shocker. The games business is notoriously
>cutthrought and they'll have to go up against companies that have HUGE market share (Sony) and
>ones that are even more propriatary and greedy than MS themselves (Nintendo).
Exactly! As much as we knock MS for being proprietary, the console makers are so restrictive with developers they make Bill Gates look like Linus Torvalds. Imagine having Visual C++ as the only development environment. Imagine having to submit your games to MS for approval before you can release it. This is what console developers have to do.
This (relative) openness would be a breath of fresh air in the console market. Nintendo seems to be especially zealous with allowing only kid and family-friendly games. Could you imagine seeing Carmageddon or Grand Theft Auto or even Fallout (which had some sexual themes) on a Nintendo?
>What makes you say this? From what I know of the two religions (I'm neither, thanks) they should be
>able to coexist peacefully without too much trouble if both sides are willing to live up to the teachings.
He means logically incompatible. Each of those religions forms a logically consistent belief system (more or less). No teaching directly contradicts any other teaching in the religion. However the two religions contradict each other on certain points, so logically you could not simultaneously believe in both.
>Frankly, I believe MyCIO is behind this in a huge attempt to sell their product. But the 'facts'
./ers who haven't been to California, Computer Currents (print version) is a free advertiser supported publication like Microtimes. About 75% of the pages are ads, and the few articles they have are mostly fluff. Don't expect any serious reporting from them.
>that the article states are just plain wrong.
You're probably right. For
>Personally, I think we might start to see more of this - people just getting fundamentally fed
>up and choosing whole new careers. I don't know any of the reasons JWZ has made the switch,
You know, even when your career is in computers, you're allowed to get out once in a while. I'm sure JWZ has been into the clubbing scene for a while now. I have hobbies and interests not related to computers, and if I had the stock option millions, I'd find a non-computer use for it too.
You forgot about my example of GPL'ed software where the end user does not agree to the GPL.
>Your "cp" and "cat" commands cannot copy CSS encrypted files off a DVD disk by themselves.
>Until the disk has been "unlocked" (authentication via CSS), not one damned bit can
>be read from the disk.
The encryption is not in the filesystem. It's in the VOB files. As long as your OS will read the filesystem, cp and cat WILL copy an encrypted VOB. The copy you make will be an exact copy and it'll still be encrypted. All DeCSS does is create a decrypted copy of the VOB files.
>own a copy, is in error. The Copyright owner who has sold you a copy retains complete exclusive
>rights to
Why do you accuse me of being vague when I've given you specific examples? "Use" means reading a book, watching a movie, and executing code. For books and VHS movies, use does not require making a copy, and you are correct to dismiss that as inapposite (whatever that means). However I gave you an example where use does require making a copy.
To display a DVD movie the player must decode to RAM and make a volatile copy. DVD movies don't have a license agreement granting me permission to do this. Just for kicks here some more examples. I have a portable CD player with the anti-skip feature. It buffers 40 secs of music in RAM. Music CDs do not have a license agreement granting me permission to make that copy. If I do not agree with the GPL, I can still execute GPL'ed code if I acquired it legally, i.e. received it from someone who did agree with the GPL. I am just not allowed to distribute or modify it.
I know you're just informing us about the current state of copyright law, and I'm just pointing out a few inconsistencies in the law. BTW, what's with the blanket statements about copying==infringement. Don't know much about Fair Use, but even I know that I can quote and publish excerpts for the purposes of review and literary criticism (among others).
I looked up first sale and this is the best plain english explanation I found:
"The First Sale doctrine provides that the copyright owner's right to control distribution of copies only extends to the "first-sale." It is the basis for standard practices such as used book markets, library lending, and exchanges of copyrighted works between friends and family."
Can explain how this applies to my example of purchasing a copyrighted work, and using it myself for its intended purpose? i.e. executing code, reading a book, or watching a movie.
By your logic, any copyrighted content which requires an intermediate step of making a volatile copy would be illegal to use without a license to copy for that purpose. So explain this. I happen to have a DVD of the Replacement Killers (excellent movie BTW). In order to display it, my player has to decode the data to RAM (disk to RAM copy). I looked through all the fine print in all the packaging, and there is no EULA- only the usual FBI copyright notice.
>(very broad) conditions. You must have a license to use software. If the GPL didn't say "The act
>of running the program is unrestricted..." then you wouldn't be able to run it at all.
Are you forgetting about copyright law? You do not absolutely need a license to use software. If you legally acquire a copyrighted work whether it's a book, movie or software, copyright law gives you the right to use it. If a publisher wants to impose further restrictions on use, that is when they make you agree to a license. Most books and music CDs have no license agreement. Most home videos have a license forbidding rental and public showing.
The GPL gives you additional rights beyond what you get from copyright law, but if you do not agree with it, copyright law still applies.
Name one device driver that Dell has developed for their hardware, either open source or binary-only. I have a Latitude CPIA, and pretty much all the hardware is supported by the open source Linux drivers (no USB and not using IRDA).
There's been a lot of speculation about where the money goes, but driver development is not it. If they're gonna certify a system for Linux, it's much easier to spec compatible hardware than to write new device drivers.
>People believe in their rights. If your grandma got scalded severely from coffee
>and had to have 40,000 dollars worth of skin grafts and medical treatment...
>Would you call her stupid for not knowing that the coffee was hot? Or would you
If she was in a moving car and removed the cover on a cup of scalding hot coffee and set the open cup in her lap, YES I would consider that stupid. DUH!