The companies WANT you to have the music; the Soviets didn't. The companies just want you to pay for it, as you should.
I think a more accurate statement would be "The companies just want you to pay for it, as they want you to pay for it." The conclusion that anyone who is anti-RIAA/MPAA only wants to get the content for nothing is often incorrect; these organizations are expanding copyright to prohibit uses that were earlier considered fair use, which I find objectionable.
They also like DRM technology because it enables new business models, like having content time limited, such that if you view a movie (that you BOUGHT) and want to see it again in a few months, you have to pay for it again. In essence, DRM lets them move from selling content to licensing it. You don't own the content in this scenario, you only pay for the right to use it, in whatever way the content provider decides (e.g. you can view it only once or twice, or only for a certain amount of time, etc.)
I think content providers know that a) these new models would be a Good Thing from their perspective, but b) most consumers would not like them, given that they make more money for the providers without providing anything extra or better for the consumers. In order to make these new models happen, they will use laws that make it difficult if not impossible to not play by their rules.
Of course, even if this new law (or one like it) passes, it won't be the end of the world (although you'll be able to see it from there.) Just because DRM technology has to be in digital devices, content providers won't have to use it. Some may feel they gain a competitive advantage doing things the old-fashioned way. This will last for as long as it takes the RIAA/MPAA to find a way to make non-DRM content illegal. I don't know if they can do that, but if they are hurt by non-DRM content they will do their best.
This sounds a lot like "we can neither confirm nor deny...."
Agreed. While reading this piece I kept wondering "What provision(s) bothered them?" and "What changes were made that they liked?" In essence, the piece said "There were parts of the bill that would interfere with plans we had made. We won't tell you what those plans are, or what parts of the bill would have interfered. Congress made changes. We won't tell you what those changes were, or how they made things all better from our point of view." Thanks, guys. Real helpful.
Although Sun's McNealy is one of the high-tech CEO's calling for a national identity card. At least Passport won't have your fingerprints stored in a database so that everyone can be "safe."
(Unfortunately, that's the only good thing I can say about Passport...)
Agreed. The terrorists of 9/11 would in all likelihood have been in possession of these kinds of cards if they had been issued before. Even if they hadn't, evidence suggests they did not actually bring any weapons on the plane (planted by associates), so the plan's provision for searches for those not showing ID cards would have accomplished nothing.
Anyway, even if this system worked as intended, it would do nothing to stop terrorists from hijacking foreign flights inbound to their target areas.
As for Supreme Court justices, they almost always take great pains to never discuss an issue that may reach them. It would be unwise to take their silence as an indication of how they'd rule.
Unfortunately, as posts in this thread and in earlier ones have pointed out, one Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, has not been silent; she has basically said that freedoms will be eroded, get over it. This from a Justice who has been a swing vote for civil liberties in previous cases.
As I see it, the logic behind this is to assume everyone is a potential threat until proven otherwise. That's a far cry from "presumed innocent until proven guilty."
While this may be a leap of logic, enacting this kind of thing makes the distance to leap somewhat shorter.
By the way, the ATA as originally proposed by the Bush administration did indeed provide for searches with only a court order (less difficult to get than a warrant), and these searches could be conducted while the person was not home. As I understand it, under the current system not only does law enforcement need a warrant, they need to serve it to you (i.e. you need to be at home) or else the search is illegal. Had the Congress rubber-stamped the ATA, these protections would have been chucked. So I don't really see it as that huge of a leap; the powers that be have already signalled their desire for this sort of thing.
Ah, but that would interfere with the "freedoms" of companies in those industries, and we can't have that now, can we? Exercising freedom in order to make money is sacrosanct; it's only when you want freedom to achieve the old fashioned things (life? liberty? pursuit of happiness? ring any bells?) that you should be restricted. After all, how can you send your congressman a donation of liberty?
I hate to sound like Katz, but that's the way I see it.
I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that the line-item veto would only apply to spending bills anyway. The principle is the same (insert controversial language into a bill that a politician would otherwise support) but the line-item veto would not apply even if it did exist, since this is not related to the Federal budget. I consider that a good thing, actually--if the President could go in and excise language from any bill before signing it, then he might as well write the thing himself; good-bye checks and balances. We have enough problems with congresscritters and presidents overreaching themselves without adding to the list.
Slashdot Mirror
The companies WANT you to have the music; the Soviets didn't. The companies just want you to pay for it, as you should.
I think a more accurate statement would be "The companies just want you to pay for it, as they want you to pay for it. " The conclusion that anyone who is anti-RIAA/MPAA only wants to get the content for nothing is often incorrect; these organizations are expanding copyright to prohibit uses that were earlier considered fair use, which I find objectionable.
They also like DRM technology because it enables new business models, like having content time limited, such that if you view a movie (that you BOUGHT) and want to see it again in a few months, you have to pay for it again. In essence, DRM lets them move from selling content to licensing it. You don't own the content in this scenario, you only pay for the right to use it, in whatever way the content provider decides (e.g. you can view it only once or twice, or only for a certain amount of time, etc.)
I think content providers know that a) these new models would be a Good Thing from their perspective, but b) most consumers would not like them, given that they make more money for the providers without providing anything extra or better for the consumers. In order to make these new models happen, they will use laws that make it difficult if not impossible to not play by their rules.
Of course, even if this new law (or one like it) passes, it won't be the end of the world (although you'll be able to see it from there.) Just because DRM technology has to be in digital devices, content providers won't have to use it. Some may feel they gain a competitive advantage doing things the old-fashioned way. This will last for as long as it takes the RIAA/MPAA to find a way to make non-DRM content illegal. I don't know if they can do that, but if they are hurt by non-DRM content they will do their best.
4. Don't email. They all heard about that Good Times virus, and are really afraid of getting it.
I bet if you made the subject line something like "Get campaign $$$ FAST!!!!!" that many of them would open it...
This sounds a lot like "we can neither confirm nor deny...."
Agreed. While reading this piece I kept wondering "What provision(s) bothered them?" and "What changes were made that they liked?" In essence, the piece said "There were parts of the bill that would interfere with plans we had made. We won't tell you what those plans are, or what parts of the bill would have interfered. Congress made changes. We won't tell you what those changes were, or how they made things all better from our point of view." Thanks, guys. Real helpful.
Although Sun's McNealy is one of the high-tech CEO's calling for a national identity card. At least Passport won't have your fingerprints stored in a database so that everyone can be "safe."
(Unfortunately, that's the only good thing I can say about Passport...)
Agreed. The terrorists of 9/11 would in all likelihood have been in possession of these kinds of cards if they had been issued before. Even if they hadn't, evidence suggests they did not actually bring any weapons on the plane (planted by associates), so the plan's provision for searches for those not showing ID cards would have accomplished nothing.
Anyway, even if this system worked as intended, it would do nothing to stop terrorists from hijacking foreign flights inbound to their target areas.
As for Supreme Court justices, they almost always take great pains to never discuss an issue that may reach them. It would be unwise to take their silence as an indication of how they'd rule.
Unfortunately, as posts in this thread and in earlier ones have pointed out, one Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, has not been silent; she has basically said that freedoms will be eroded, get over it. This from a Justice who has been a swing vote for civil liberties in previous cases.
As I see it, the logic behind this is to assume everyone is a potential threat until proven otherwise. That's a far cry from "presumed innocent until proven guilty."
While this may be a leap of logic, enacting this kind of thing makes the distance to leap somewhat shorter.
By the way, the ATA as originally proposed by the Bush administration did indeed provide for searches with only a court order (less difficult to get than a warrant), and these searches could be conducted while the person was not home. As I understand it, under the current system not only does law enforcement need a warrant, they need to serve it to you (i.e. you need to be at home) or else the search is illegal. Had the Congress rubber-stamped the ATA, these protections would have been chucked. So I don't really see it as that huge of a leap; the powers that be have already signalled their desire for this sort of thing.
Ah, but that would interfere with the "freedoms" of companies in those industries, and we can't have that now, can we? Exercising freedom in order to make money is sacrosanct; it's only when you want freedom to achieve the old fashioned things (life? liberty? pursuit of happiness? ring any bells?) that you should be restricted. After all, how can you send your congressman a donation of liberty?
I hate to sound like Katz, but that's the way I see it.
I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that the line-item veto would only apply to spending bills anyway. The principle is the same (insert controversial language into a bill that a politician would otherwise support) but the line-item veto would not apply even if it did exist, since this is not related to the Federal budget. I consider that a good thing, actually--if the President could go in and excise language from any bill before signing it, then he might as well write the thing himself; good-bye checks and balances. We have enough problems with congresscritters and presidents overreaching themselves without adding to the list.