Why is everyone so upset? The NMPA is already doing exactly what every Slashdotter would want, which is license multiple websites to provide lyrics for free to everyone who searches for them. They're just ensuring that unlicensed sites either get licensed or disappear so that those that are licensed can fully exploit those licenses.
The problem is that the US federal government does not have the authority to mandate states allow gambling inside their borders or restrict them from allowing it. The US federal government does not have the authority to allow gambling inside a state without that gambling following the state's laws to a tee. The US federal government does not have the authority to ban gambling inside a state. And this is not even bothering getting into the Indian reservations which complicate things a little more.
Sorry to be dense, but it seems to me that this has nothing to do with this dispute. The entire issue arose because gambling is legal in some places in the US. It's just that the US only wants US companies to provide gambling services to those places, and prevent Antiguan companies for providing a competitive service. This is contrary to the WTO treaty we signed.
What does this have to do with states allowing or being forced to provide gambling services? Nothing as far as I can see. It just means that wherever in the US gambling is legal, any country should be allowed to compete to provide those gambling services.
As a Verizon FiOS subscriber, I received an email telling me about this change, with a link to the opt-out page. Click, click, done. Would have preferred it was opt-in rather than opt-out, but it was very clear in the email what they were doing and how to opt-out, so I was only sorta miffed rather than really upset.
Reading the article, he more or less lays out why he settled - he figured out he was indeed in the wrong.
That's not how I read it. From the article:
"But this is important: the fact that I settled is not an admission of guilt. My lawyers and I firmly believe that the pixel art is "fair use" and Maisel and his counsel firmly disagree. I settled for one reason: this was the least expensive option available."
How does that translate to "he figured out he was indeed in the wrong?"
IANAL, but especially considering that the nature of the transformation spoke directly to the nature of the product it was attached to, I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that this could have been fair use. Certainly the commercial nature of it mitigates that legitimacy, but it doesn't totally undermine it.
I think everyone here has wanted to say this to at least a few people in their lives. It's a great rip on a Jim Steinman/Meatloaf-style track, and an important message the whole world needs to hear:
He could still get taken to court and have to fend off a lawsuit. He'd have to prove that it was a parody (taking the tune of a song and putting different words on it, by itself, does NOT make something a parody, although "Perform This Way" would almost certainly qualify as one), and there would be hurt feelings all the way around. I believe the compulsory royalty thing only comes into play when you simply cover a song, but putting in different words means it's not a cover.
Getting permission from the artist whose song is being used is the "right thing to do," and Al does things the right way. Cool cat.
Not in Canada, apparently. According to everyone's least favorite source of legal advice, it would appear that "[i]ntent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame."
Actually, they didn't "rip it off," they sampled it directly - for which they asked and received permission to do so, and allocated 50% of the royalties to Jagger and Richards. ABKCO (representing the Stones) later claimed that, while they did give permission for sampling in exchange for half the royalties, the Verve used more of the song than they had originally agreed to, and asked for (and got) 100% of the royalties.
And all of this happened contemporaneously with the popularity of the song, not 20+ years later.
...and that making copies for personal use and then playing them while your friends come over is illegal.
Actually, it doesn't say this at all. I'm guessing the summary is referring to this PDF (page 3) where this scenario is presented as one of four where students have to "spot the songlifters." While there's no answer key provided (as these scenarios are meant as jumping-off points for discussion), I believe it's safe to say that the intent is to show that 1 and 3 are songlifters, while 2 (the one referenced in the summary) and 4 are not.
And this doesn't even cover how they now send you tickets using data gathered by these systems. So now you don't even need to get caught by a live policeman. So much for due process.
The only ticket they send you "using data gathered by these systems" in MA is for speeding through the FastLane tollbooth. Can you cite a single example where someone got a speeding ticket in the mail using FastLane data for something other than that? You're implying that they average your speed across checkpoints and send you a ticket for that, but the fact is, they don't.
Also, the fact that you have to register the plate numbers of the cars using your transponder is very clear when you sign up. I'm sorry your friend didn't know this, but this has been true since day one and very clearly stated. I hope they were good enough of a friend to give you $25 for their mistake.
That may be, but it may also be that it's simpler to handle whatever cases they expected to handle if they're keyed per-song. Just because you can do it another way doesn't mean it makes the most sense to do so.
Robust design. Minimizing the impact of failure modes. The simpler the design, the more predictable the failure modes, the easier it is to plan around them or limit their impact.
I agree entirely. But there has to be fitness to purpose as well. I believe that, given everything that the DRM has to accomplish, it is reasonable to suggest that this might have been the best way to do it. One might argue that the DRM should accomplish fewer things in order to make the scheme less prone to failure, and that might be a good argument.
Besides, since no one (outside of Microsoft, and possibly within Microsoft) knows exactly what failed or how to fix it, it may be that it has nothing to do with song-level DRM at all. I own five DRM-encumbered songs from the Zune Marketplace (they were free, and yes, they've been burned to CD), from five different labels, and they all still play. Am I lucky, or is it actually a machine-level problem?
Do you believe Microsoft intended to allow labels to be able to revoke the license to permanently-purchased songs from the Zune Marketplace?
If someone in Microsoft hadn't considered that possibility and decided it was an advantage they're less imaginative and competent than I believe them to be. After all, Apple did: the exact same capability is built into the iPhone App Store...
There's a vast difference between apps and songs, though. Bad apps can damage the phone, or in the case of tethering, Apple's relationship with AT&T. But you can't do any harm with a song you paid for.
Another difference is that Apple's revocation list allows Apple to disable the app. It doesn't allow the third party who wrote it to do so. Further, Apple issues your cert; you can't revoke it yourself. What we're talking about here is Microsoft providing a way for third parties to disable the playing of a permanently-paid-for song. That's a different beast altogether.
Any DRM scheme that's flexible enough to implement both subscription and purchase should be flexible enough to support a per-target or per-computer key where appropriate.
That may be, but it may also be that it's simpler to handle whatever cases they expected to handle if they're keyed per-song. Just because you can do it another way doesn't mean it makes the most sense to do so. It might have avoided a pathological case such as this one, but it might also have allowed for some other kind of problem.
I was talking about a design flaw they should have tried to avoid.
You stated that Zune's DRM was "designed to allow the labels to pull music that the customer has bought and paid for." I would argue that goes beyond pointing out a flaw. Using the word "designed" in this context strongly implies intent, whether you meant to or not.
As for the difference between "blame" and "responsibility", google it.
Blame vs. responsibility isn't really the issue, though, and that's why I'm not clear on how your statement logically follows mine. My statement goes to your implication of intent. Do you believe Microsoft intended to allow labels to be able to revoke the license to permanently-purchased songs from the Zune Marketplace? Using the word "designed" implies that you do. If you don't believe that, then I would argue that you should have stated it differently. If you do believe that, then we're just disagreeing on the topic.
Besides, how is saying "It's Microsoft's fault" not casting blame?
it doesn't mean you should apply the same model to songs that are purchased.
So Zune should support two separate DRM schemes? That sounds like over-engineering to me.
The way you are writing this, you are suggesting that it was Zune's intention all along to allow labels to revoke permanently purchased songs at their whim by building that capability into the design of the DRM.
I'm not casting blame, I'm assigning responsibility.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
I'm taking issue with the tone of your post, because you're making it sound like Zune, as part of their business model, offered to the labels the capability of revoking permanent licenses from people who paid money for the music. And that just ain't so.
Yes, Zune is to blame for this fiasco, and they are responsible for fixing it. But there's a difference between screwing up and being nefarious. This is a case of the former, and you seem to be implying the latter.
That is the only reason to have the DRM granular to the song level: unless you intend to make it possible for a user to have the right to play a song, and just that song, pulled... there is no reason not to use the same encryption key for every song the user bought.
Sure there is. For instance, since Zune also offers a subscription model as part of its marketplace, you could have certain songs in your collection that you've purchased, and other songs that you're just renting with the subscription model. How are you going to enforce that if you can only revoke at the machine level? You have to be able to only revoke the subscription songs when the subscription runs out.
The Zune Marketplace's DRM was never designed with the idea that the rights to songs you purchased could be revoked. Those songs are granted permanent unlimited play and burn rights, and nothing is supposed to be able to take those away (barring the elimination of the rights server, which is one of the best reasons one should avoid this situation at all costs in the first place).
The way you are writing this, you are suggesting that it was Zune's intention all along to allow labels to revoke permanently purchased songs at their whim by building that capability into the design of the DRM. The fact that they're expending a lot of energy trying to get those songs working again for their customers belies that suggestion.
I didn't say that Microsoft took it away from him on purpose. I said that it was Microsoft's fault for designing the Zune DRM in such a way that this could happen.
Actually, you wrote:
It's Microsoft's fault that the Zune's DRM is designed to allow the labels to pull music that the customer has bought and paid for
It is not designed to allow that. You're right that it's Microsoft's fault that this could happen at all, but it was not "designed to allow" it. The fact that it did happen is a bug.
Microsoft didn't do this intentionally, but it did happen. While Rjak is right that his music doesn't work anymore, it is inaccurate to say that Microsoft or the labels took it away from him on purpose. Basically, there's a bug in Zune's DRM scheme that allowed bad data from a supplier to take away the rights to play a large swath of purchased music.
1. This is completely unrelated to the subscription option that the Zune Marketplace provides, Zune Pass.
2. This situation has been persisting for many months. It is inexcusable. Rjak bought the right to play this music. I have no idea what is taking Zune so long to fix it, but they are trying. Eventually Rjak will be able to play the music again.
3. Most (but not all) of Zune Marketplace's music content is now DRM-free 320kbps (or occasionally 256kbps) MP3s. They want to be completely DRM-free like iTunes, and they'll get there eventually, but why should you wait? If you can't get it DRM-free there, get it somewhere else. The Zune will play MP3s and unprotected AACs (like what you get from iTunes) just fine.
4. One lesson to be learned from this is to either (a) avoid DRM-encumbered music like the plague, or (b) burn any DRM-encumbered music to CD immediately. That way you can't lose it no matter what.
Knee-jerk reactions aside, the guy still has to pay the songwriter. ASCAP is not claiming that his parodies aren't legal, only that since he's using someone else's music, he has to pay for it. That's the way it works.
Weird Al pays the songwriter for the music in all of his parodies. And yes, he does have to pay. Provided he records a real parody ("Smells Like Nirvana" almost certainly is, "Like A Surgeon" not so much), fair use should protect him if he doesn't get permission to record it, but getting permission ahead of time avoids lawsuits, and that's a good thing. Either way, the songwriter is credited and gets paid.
Many posts here are confusing the issue of "parody is not a copyright violation" with the issue of "if you use someone else's music, you have to pay for it." You'll note that ASCAP never mentions copyright violation in its letters, and never asks that the songs be removed, only that the songwriters whose music is being used get paid.
If I were a lawyer, I would not take this case. He will almost certainly lose.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is everyone so upset? The NMPA is already doing exactly what every Slashdotter would want, which is license multiple websites to provide lyrics for free to everyone who searches for them. They're just ensuring that unlicensed sites either get licensed or disappear so that those that are licensed can fully exploit those licenses.
The problem is that the US federal government does not have the authority to mandate states allow gambling inside their borders or restrict them from allowing it. The US federal government does not have the authority to allow gambling inside a state without that gambling following the state's laws to a tee. The US federal government does not have the authority to ban gambling inside a state. And this is not even bothering getting into the Indian reservations which complicate things a little more.
Sorry to be dense, but it seems to me that this has nothing to do with this dispute. The entire issue arose because gambling is legal in some places in the US. It's just that the US only wants US companies to provide gambling services to those places, and prevent Antiguan companies for providing a competitive service. This is contrary to the WTO treaty we signed.
What does this have to do with states allowing or being forced to provide gambling services? Nothing as far as I can see. It just means that wherever in the US gambling is legal, any country should be allowed to compete to provide those gambling services.
What did I miss?
and think of how boned the Zune lifetime pass owners are.
Which would be funny if there was such a thing. Which there is not.
As a Verizon FiOS subscriber, I received an email telling me about this change, with a link to the opt-out page. Click, click, done. Would have preferred it was opt-in rather than opt-out, but it was very clear in the email what they were doing and how to opt-out, so I was only sorta miffed rather than really upset.
Reading the article, he more or less lays out why he settled - he figured out he was indeed in the wrong.
That's not how I read it. From the article:
"But this is important: the fact that I settled is not an admission of guilt. My lawyers and I firmly believe that the pixel art is "fair use" and Maisel and his counsel firmly disagree. I settled for one reason: this was the least expensive option available."
How does that translate to "he figured out he was indeed in the wrong?"
IANAL, but especially considering that the nature of the transformation spoke directly to the nature of the product it was attached to, I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that this could have been fair use. Certainly the commercial nature of it mitigates that legitimacy, but it doesn't totally undermine it.
I think everyone here has wanted to say this to at least a few people in their lives. It's a great rip on a Jim Steinman/Meatloaf-style track, and an important message the whole world needs to hear:
Stop Forwarding That Crap To Me
She was one of its four songwriters, so yes, it's "her" song.
He could still get taken to court and have to fend off a lawsuit. He'd have to prove that it was a parody (taking the tune of a song and putting different words on it, by itself, does NOT make something a parody, although "Perform This Way" would almost certainly qualify as one), and there would be hurt feelings all the way around. I believe the compulsory royalty thing only comes into play when you simply cover a song, but putting in different words means it's not a cover.
Getting permission from the artist whose song is being used is the "right thing to do," and Al does things the right way. Cool cat.
Or you save $70 by not being forced to buy the prequels to get the (bastardized) classic ones. Your call.
Not in Canada, apparently. According to everyone's least favorite source of legal advice, it would appear that "[i]ntent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame."
Actually, they didn't "rip it off," they sampled it directly - for which they asked and received permission to do so, and allocated 50% of the royalties to Jagger and Richards. ABKCO (representing the Stones) later claimed that, while they did give permission for sampling in exchange for half the royalties, the Verve used more of the song than they had originally agreed to, and asked for (and got) 100% of the royalties.
And all of this happened contemporaneously with the popularity of the song, not 20+ years later.
So, really, nothing like this case at all.
Actually, it doesn't say this at all. I'm guessing the summary is referring to this PDF (page 3) where this scenario is presented as one of four where students have to "spot the songlifters." While there's no answer key provided (as these scenarios are meant as jumping-off points for discussion), I believe it's safe to say that the intent is to show that 1 and 3 are songlifters, while 2 (the one referenced in the summary) and 4 are not.
And this doesn't even cover how they now send you tickets using data gathered by these systems. So now you don't even need to get caught by a live policeman. So much for due process.
The only ticket they send you "using data gathered by these systems" in MA is for speeding through the FastLane tollbooth. Can you cite a single example where someone got a speeding ticket in the mail using FastLane data for something other than that? You're implying that they average your speed across checkpoints and send you a ticket for that, but the fact is, they don't.
Also, the fact that you have to register the plate numbers of the cars using your transponder is very clear when you sign up. I'm sorry your friend didn't know this, but this has been true since day one and very clearly stated. I hope they were good enough of a friend to give you $25 for their mistake.
That may be, but it may also be that it's simpler to handle whatever cases they expected to handle if they're keyed per-song. Just because you can do it another way doesn't mean it makes the most sense to do so.
Robust design. Minimizing the impact of failure modes. The simpler the design, the more predictable the failure modes, the easier it is to plan around them or limit their impact.
I agree entirely. But there has to be fitness to purpose as well. I believe that, given everything that the DRM has to accomplish, it is reasonable to suggest that this might have been the best way to do it. One might argue that the DRM should accomplish fewer things in order to make the scheme less prone to failure, and that might be a good argument.
Besides, since no one (outside of Microsoft, and possibly within Microsoft) knows exactly what failed or how to fix it, it may be that it has nothing to do with song-level DRM at all. I own five DRM-encumbered songs from the Zune Marketplace (they were free, and yes, they've been burned to CD), from five different labels, and they all still play. Am I lucky, or is it actually a machine-level problem?
Do you believe Microsoft intended to allow labels to be able to revoke the license to permanently-purchased songs from the Zune Marketplace?
If someone in Microsoft hadn't considered that possibility and decided it was an advantage they're less imaginative and competent than I believe them to be. After all, Apple did: the exact same capability is built into the iPhone App Store...
There's a vast difference between apps and songs, though. Bad apps can damage the phone, or in the case of tethering, Apple's relationship with AT&T. But you can't do any harm with a song you paid for.
Another difference is that Apple's revocation list allows Apple to disable the app. It doesn't allow the third party who wrote it to do so. Further, Apple issues your cert; you can't revoke it yourself. What we're talking about here is Microsoft providing a way for third parties to disable the playing of a permanently-paid-for song. That's a different beast altogether.
Any DRM scheme that's flexible enough to implement both subscription and purchase should be flexible enough to support a per-target or per-computer key where appropriate.
That may be, but it may also be that it's simpler to handle whatever cases they expected to handle if they're keyed per-song. Just because you can do it another way doesn't mean it makes the most sense to do so. It might have avoided a pathological case such as this one, but it might also have allowed for some other kind of problem.
I was talking about a design flaw they should have tried to avoid.
You stated that Zune's DRM was "designed to allow the labels to pull music that the customer has bought and paid for." I would argue that goes beyond pointing out a flaw. Using the word "designed" in this context strongly implies intent, whether you meant to or not.
As for the difference between "blame" and "responsibility", google it.
Blame vs. responsibility isn't really the issue, though, and that's why I'm not clear on how your statement logically follows mine. My statement goes to your implication of intent. Do you believe Microsoft intended to allow labels to be able to revoke the license to permanently-purchased songs from the Zune Marketplace? Using the word "designed" implies that you do. If you don't believe that, then I would argue that you should have stated it differently. If you do believe that, then we're just disagreeing on the topic.
Besides, how is saying "It's Microsoft's fault" not casting blame?
it doesn't mean you should apply the same model to songs that are purchased.
So Zune should support two separate DRM schemes? That sounds like over-engineering to me.
The way you are writing this, you are suggesting that it was Zune's intention all along to allow labels to revoke permanently purchased songs at their whim by building that capability into the design of the DRM.
I'm not casting blame, I'm assigning responsibility.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
I'm taking issue with the tone of your post, because you're making it sound like Zune, as part of their business model, offered to the labels the capability of revoking permanent licenses from people who paid money for the music. And that just ain't so.
Yes, Zune is to blame for this fiasco, and they are responsible for fixing it. But there's a difference between screwing up and being nefarious. This is a case of the former, and you seem to be implying the latter.
That is the only reason to have the DRM granular to the song level: unless you intend to make it possible for a user to have the right to play a song, and just that song, pulled... there is no reason not to use the same encryption key for every song the user bought.
Sure there is. For instance, since Zune also offers a subscription model as part of its marketplace, you could have certain songs in your collection that you've purchased, and other songs that you're just renting with the subscription model. How are you going to enforce that if you can only revoke at the machine level? You have to be able to only revoke the subscription songs when the subscription runs out.
The Zune Marketplace's DRM was never designed with the idea that the rights to songs you purchased could be revoked. Those songs are granted permanent unlimited play and burn rights, and nothing is supposed to be able to take those away (barring the elimination of the rights server, which is one of the best reasons one should avoid this situation at all costs in the first place).
The way you are writing this, you are suggesting that it was Zune's intention all along to allow labels to revoke permanently purchased songs at their whim by building that capability into the design of the DRM. The fact that they're expending a lot of energy trying to get those songs working again for their customers belies that suggestion.
I didn't say that Microsoft took it away from him on purpose. I said that it was Microsoft's fault for designing the Zune DRM in such a way that this could happen.
Actually, you wrote:
It's Microsoft's fault that the Zune's DRM is designed to allow the labels to pull music that the customer has bought and paid for
It is not designed to allow that. You're right that it's Microsoft's fault that this could happen at all, but it was not "designed to allow" it. The fact that it did happen is a bug.
Microsoft didn't do this intentionally, but it did happen. While Rjak is right that his music doesn't work anymore, it is inaccurate to say that Microsoft or the labels took it away from him on purpose. Basically, there's a bug in Zune's DRM scheme that allowed bad data from a supplier to take away the rights to play a large swath of purchased music.
You can read about it on the Zune forums here.
Four things:
1. This is completely unrelated to the subscription option that the Zune Marketplace provides, Zune Pass.
2. This situation has been persisting for many months. It is inexcusable. Rjak bought the right to play this music. I have no idea what is taking Zune so long to fix it, but they are trying. Eventually Rjak will be able to play the music again.
3. Most (but not all) of Zune Marketplace's music content is now DRM-free 320kbps (or occasionally 256kbps) MP3s. They want to be completely DRM-free like iTunes, and they'll get there eventually, but why should you wait? If you can't get it DRM-free there, get it somewhere else. The Zune will play MP3s and unprotected AACs (like what you get from iTunes) just fine.
4. One lesson to be learned from this is to either (a) avoid DRM-encumbered music like the plague, or (b) burn any DRM-encumbered music to CD immediately. That way you can't lose it no matter what.
Knee-jerk reactions aside, the guy still has to pay the songwriter. ASCAP is not claiming that his parodies aren't legal, only that since he's using someone else's music, he has to pay for it. That's the way it works.
Weird Al pays the songwriter for the music in all of his parodies. And yes, he does have to pay. Provided he records a real parody ("Smells Like Nirvana" almost certainly is, "Like A Surgeon" not so much), fair use should protect him if he doesn't get permission to record it, but getting permission ahead of time avoids lawsuits, and that's a good thing. Either way, the songwriter is credited and gets paid.
Many posts here are confusing the issue of "parody is not a copyright violation" with the issue of "if you use someone else's music, you have to pay for it." You'll note that ASCAP never mentions copyright violation in its letters, and never asks that the songs be removed, only that the songwriters whose music is being used get paid.
If I were a lawyer, I would not take this case. He will almost certainly lose.