Your faith in the recording industry to willingly accept any "fair-use" is unnerving and naive. I sincerely doubt that the same industry that has so many times lied to congress and consumers, arbitrarily inflated prices, maliciously sued small companies, and removed practically all rights from the actual content creators will create anything in the near future that promotes any use beyond their own preferred use. I would suspect the more likely new model is "rented" media which you can never truly own. I think Disney's Padden said it best, "There is no fair use. Fair use is defense against infringement."
The media giants are under no obligation to produce media that is copyable. The only reason thay haven't used a closed version so far is that (thankfully) the market presented a better alternative, which consumers naturally flocked to. Also thankfully, Sony vs. Betamax permitted such alternatives to be legal, much to the ire of meida conglomerates, even though they still made mountains of cash.
But the Supreme Court's decision is not protection from new technology that disallows fair-use copying. With the advent of the DMCA, and the conglomeration of the RIAA and MPAA, a single new format is poised to emerge which will literally be "forced" upon consumers. It is only a matter of time.
One can only hope consumers *really* boycott this, but I don't see apathetic losers who won't even vote for the presidency of their country giving a rat's ass.
That doesn't make any sense. I don't think you are addressing the same issue at all. Yes, under current law, copyright attaches itself to anything you create, be it an anti-gravity belt or a doodle on a post-it note. However, all copyrights expire after a certain (although unreasonable) length of time. The question is, if you use DRM technology, and couple it with the DMCA, how does a work ever *really* end up in the public domain? When you copyright a work, you agree to be the sole person to benefit from it for the stated length of time, after which the copyright no longer exists (provided it isn't extended or passed along etc.). This is an apparent contradiction. How can a work be both in the public domain, yet still wrapped in DRM technology the DMCA makes illegal to remove?
Well, my first inclination is to debate the "perpetual" standing you give DRM schemes. Given time, there is nothing you can do to protect anything heard or seen from being copied, DRM notwithstanding.
I realize also, however, that thanks to the DMCA, such tactics are now illegal. However, if I remember correctly, fair-use rights imply nothing about tha actual feasability of making said legal copies. I.e., if Sony wants to release musc and movies in a totally new "in-house designed" format which is almost totally impossible to copy, they are welcome to. The problem with that sheme is that past expierience with such products has only lead to miserable failure on the market. No one wants to buy such items.
It gets worse. Since the majority of the public does not care about the proceedings of this type of legislation/technology, the possiblity of such DRM schemes resurfacing is very alarming. Not necessarily because of the technological implications, but because no one would resist it, thereby leading to its grudging acceptance in the market.
Your point with regards to copyright protection vs. perpetual protection is well-taken, and I believe you are correct. But I seriously doubt that congress or the courts would make the same distinction with the lobbyists breathing down their necks...
"The solution exists, it's just that the transition to the solution will be painful, so we're desperately trying to avoid it."
Yes, this is what I was getting at in my original post. The transition could have been done years ago, but getting a switch to take place is not easy to do. Another post addressed this as well.
But he dismissed legal solutions altogether, saying that measures like anti-spam legislation are completely ineffective. "This has to be solved technically, not legally," he warned. "If we can't solve these problems, we'll see less and less services."
I am unsure if here he is saying that anti-spam legislation will be ineffective, or if the "right to spam" should not be outlawed by lawmakers. I would imagine the former is what he meant, since obviously, having the U.S. outlaw spam will do nothing to stop spammers in other countries, and probably do little to stop spammers here in the states either....
Solving the spam problem technically seems to be impossible though. People have been trying to do that forever. I find it very poignant that in the same passage he says that spam could kill off services if it continues to be unstoppable.
I think the truly important part of this article has nothing to do with M$ (readies flame-retardant suit...).
The truly important bit is regarding "trademarking of common phrases". I think it absolutely ridiculous that companies can trademark any common word or phrase. Reference a similar suit to this one, Mastercard suing Nader over "priceless" to see this kind of silliness in action. (feel free to find a better article, I just pulled the first item off google)
Basically, I do not condone the use of language "exclusivism". Language, as a whole, does not lend itself well to patentability. Satire, documentaries etc. are protected speech regardless of trademark, although occasionally (as usual) the courts can get confused. In this case it is even more bizarre. Suing over a name sounding the same? Poets beware!
Not quite as well put as Lessig put it, but very enlightening all the same. The issue really is fair-use vs. piracy. CURRENT MEDIA COMPANIES HAVE NO IDEA WHAT FAIR-USE IS. period. If it was up to Disney and the RIAA, everything not bought at exorbitant prices continually (i.e.:rented media) is piracy. The Sony vs. Betamax case doesn't exist in their cosy little world, and the mountain of legalese supporting fair-use is an apparent myth of popular culture from their perspective.
There are intentional limitations to the power an author holds over his/her respective copyrighted works. These limitations exist to encourage other individuals or companies to expand and build upon those copyrighted ideas/works, thereby increasing innovation and promoting scientific development for the benefit of the public. The most important limitation on author control is the "fair use privilege". This right of the people specifically addresses the ability of an individual to use copyrighted works without consent of the owner to a reasonable degree. In Sony v. Universal City Studios; the U.S. Supreme Court stated that, "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." This "doctrine of fair use" was initially created via judicial review, but has since been intentionally written into copyright law. Although this principle may seem to be counterintuitive to the overall premise of copyright, it is an extremely important link between the inventor who wishes to recieve payment for his work, and the public that wishes to access and make use of it. The U.S. Supreme Court remarks, ""the fair use doctrine exists because copyright law extends limited proprietary rights to copyright owners only to the extent necessary to ensure dissemination to the public." This is directly correlated to the goals of the constitutional explanation of copyright.
The obvious issue associated with this doctrine is how exactly to detirmine what is fair use as opposed to copyright violation. The law is not at all clear as to how a process is to be determined "fair use", but over the years many examples have surfaced. In general, criticism, comment, parody, new reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or personal use such as time of format shifting are considered to be within the guidelines of fair use. Companies have in the past been relatively acceptant of the fair use clause within copyright law. As of late though, the tide has shifted as corporate profits have taken an ever increasing priority over public relations and proper customer satisfaction. Older ethical standards for customer rights have become less important to business executives then their efforts to increase profit margins and market domination.
Just how exactly media corportions lost site of the usefulness of this doctrine is beyond me. Think of video rental stores: They facilitate piracy. With two VCRs I could own every movie under the sun for about 5 bucks a pop. I don't. Both is it not worth the time to pirate, but it is also easier to pay the extra coin to ensure a good copy. People will pay to support media they like and to ensure good quality fun. They will NOT pay for over-priced crap forced down their throats.
Likewise (and perhaps more importantly), it is idiotic of the RIAA to assume that every person downloading an MP3 is a "diehard" pirate. Since the media companies have not ventured into this new market (digital music) they facilitate the piracy better than any P2P network could.
This argument (which is overused, IMHO) seems to always avoid the issue. What constitutes child-porn is a very delicate and not-at-all trivial debate. However, declaring it impossible to define something as child-porn due to differences in cultural perceptions of adulthood is a rather trite defence. You propose no real intuitive solution to the problem. Instead you basically declare the entire point of anti-child-porn laws moot due to differences in perception. Be glad the consitutional framers were wiser than you. If they had your point of view, laws would not exist at all, and you would have no rights whatsoever, including the right to disagree with me again:)
So I disagree. Child-porn laws are necessary. Whether or not they are prefect according to cultural or ethnic borders is irrelevant. Some people enjoy stealing, but it is still against the law regardless of your cultural viewpoint. I fail to sympathize with producers of child-porn strictly due to unfair regulation. It's not as if they aren't aware that many people find the idea offensive...
Before I get flamed to a complete toasty crisp, allow me to briefly clarify my position. The intent of my post was to debate the bill as a whole, not necessarily the specific article. Furthermore, I feel that it is fruitless to debate that anti-censorship must be a conviction which is all-encompassing. Child-porn is a crime that preys on those hapless to defend themselves. It is not censorship in this case, but protection. My statement "I am anti-censorship and anti-child-porn" is not a contradiction, rather it is a distinguishment between the fundamental right of free expression and the protection of innocents.
For those of you flaming me mercilessly with regards to my apparent disregard for subject matter pertaining precisely to the submitted article, get over it. The article (yes I did read it--thank you) was fairly dull. I am not being "offtopic" by remarking on the bill itself (COPA), specifically because my point was that the judges are pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place. Anyhow, thanks to you guys for making me write a virtual disclaimer for my opinion, I find nothing more disgusting.
For the sake of argument however, I will remark briefly on the submitted paper now for continued clarification: It is silly. The constitution is designed not to protect the majority's viewpoint, rather it is designed precisely for the opposite position! You cannot have a sheep and four wolves vote on what is for dinner...
I think that the judge's here (regardless of you personal opinion on censorship) are facing a rather tough challenge. The majority of people do NOT support child-porn, no matter what the circumstance (thankfully). However, it is not really within the realm of judges, IMO, to decide what constitutes offensive material.
The crux of the problem lies in just how much "censorship" they should support, while at the same time retaining some amount of control over what is morally acceptable. If they censor too much, they set a dangerous precedent which future generations of pro-censorship "moralists" may use as a weapon. If they don't support it at all, you leave some portions of the populace (children, in this case) defenseless against a heinous and perturbing crime. Worse, because of its ambiguous nature, any substance akin to child-porn is under fire. Not only must the judges weigh in the protection of children and censorship issues, they must ensure that no solution is too extreme.
My point? This is a tough call, so one should not rant to vigourously against the judges. I am anti-censorship but also anti-childporn...where does the line get drawn? ----------rhad
I hate to burst your bubble, but i cannot think of any good reason to code in a word processor. That is about the most ridiculous thing I have heard of in a long time, to tell you the truth. I really don't think it was designed for coding...duh.
Write letters and papers and documentation in a word processor, and code in an editor or development suite.
Again, sorry--but that was just a complete waste of a complaint. If I had mod points at the moment, I would mod you -1, silly.
Nevermind the fact, esteemed "Moron of the Year" Hilary Rosen, that CD-burners are not MANUFACTURED by Gateway, but *cough* REAL BIG COMPANIES with deep pockets that would laugh you all the way home if you tried to sue them.
but wait, you have noticed. Thats why you only sue small internet start-ups with no capital or government support.
Have you ever heard of "FAIR USE" or "BETAMAX VS. SONY"?
Yes, you have, but that won't stop you from pretending that fair use rights don't exist. Good God she is such a hypocritical idiot.
Sorry about this, but I am a poor college student with no "phat pipe" to place this on.
I am writing to express my serious concern and dismay in regards to the potential passing of the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), formerly known as the SSSCA (Security Systems Standards and Certification Act), introduced by Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina. This law is a horrible obstruction to individual freedom, economic growth, and technological and artistic innovation. In the following paragraphs, I will layout a specific and detailed listing of all the reasons why this legislation is the pinnacle of a bad trend started by the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
WHAT IS THE CBDTPA?
The CBDTPA is more or less an addendum to the DMCA. The DMCA made it illegal to circumvent any encryption placed around copyrighted works. This is, simply put, a large loophole around fair-use rights. If a copyrighted work is encrypted, you are forbidden to break the encryption in order to make a legal backup of the media. For the sake of "preventing Internet piracy" (which has yet to be proven to hurt sales), the honest consumer is being treated as a criminal, and denied rights to items he/she legally bought and owns. For a fantastic explanation of the effects of the DMCA on the customer of digital media, read Damian Yerrick's plain English explanation at:
http://pineight.evilpigeon.net/rant/dmca/
The basic premise of the CBDTPA is that eventually any hardware capable of storing or playing digital media should have built in copy protection or "Digital Rights Management" (DRM). The bill so broadly defines hardware as to be laughable. Hardware ranging from calculators and watches to supercomputers are susceptible to this bill. Additionally, the proposed bill and it's supporters hint at the eventual demand for mandatory DRM in all software. For the sake of clarity, hardware refers to the physical parts of a piece of electronic equipment; for instance, in a computer the hard drive and the processor are considered hardware. Software is the coded applications that run on the hardware, such as operating systems and word processors.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CBDTPA
I have divided this segment into four issues. First, I reiterate the constitutional goals of copyright and the proposed CBDTPA's dismantling of them. Next, I remark upon the current power of the media conglomerates in support of this bill, their lies, and their selfish motivation. Thirdly, I point out the cultural and ethical implications of this proposed legislation. Lastly, I remark on the CBDTPA's effect on an already economically struggling computer and IT industry.
THE ORIGINAL GOALS OF COPYRIGHT
Copyright was started in England via the passage of the Statute of Anne in 1710. This statute encompassed the first legal protection for consumers of copyrighted works, the first written record of an author's copyright, and more importantly, the creation of the "public domain". Accordingly, the United States followed this statute very closely when its own initial version of copyright law was passed in 1790. However, the United States version was naturally more federalized then its English counterpart: "The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries." This excerpted phrase from Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution is the cornerstone of my argument, and I urge you to read the entire clause over again.
Naturally the current state of copyright law has been continually revised and updated according to the demands of a changing worldwide information structure, technological innovation, and new means of expression; major changes in copyright law occurred in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976. However, the underlying premise has not been altered; that is, the constitution's outline for copyright policy has not been changed (at least within the constitution itself). Obviously, this is not to say that the motivation behind copyright has maintained consistency or true harmony with the lofty goals of the constitution. In fact, I would venture to say that the current state of copyright is in direct contradiction with the premise it is ironically built upon. The CBDTPA is the nail in the coffin for traditional copyright, as it seeks to obliterate the use of copyright for any purpose beyond a form of corporate weaponry against private citizens and competing companies.
ISSUE 1: THE DISMANTLING OF FAIR USE RIGHTS
There are intentional limitations to the power an author holds over his/her respective copyrighted works. These limitations exist to encourage other individuals or companies to expand and build upon those copyrighted ideas/works, thereby increasing innovation and promoting scientific development for the benefit of the public. The most important limitation on author control is the "fair use privilege". This right of the people specifically addresses the ability of an individual to use copyrighted works without consent of the owner to a reasonable degree. In Sony v. Universal City Studios; the U.S. Supreme Court stated that, "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." This "doctrine of fair use" was initially created via judicial review, but has since been intentionally written into copyright law. Although this principle may seem to be counterintuitive to the overall premise of copyright, it is an extremely important link between the inventor who wishes to receive payment for his work, and the public that wishes to access and make use of it. The U.S. Supreme Court remarks, "the fair use doctrine exists because copyright law extends limited proprietary rights to copyright owners only to the extent necessary to ensure dissemination to the public." This is directly correlated to the goals of the constitutional explanation of copyright.
The obvious issue associated with this doctrine is how exactly to determine what is fair use as opposed to copyright violation. The law is not at all clear as to how a process is to be determined "fair use", but over the years many examples have surfaced. In general, criticism, comment, parody, new reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or personal use such as time of format shifting are considered to be within the guidelines of fair use. Companies have never been to comfortable with the fair use clause in copyright; it represents a significant loss of control. As of late, corporate profits have taken an ever increasing priority over public relations and proper customer satisfaction. Older ethical standards for customer rights have become less important to business executives then their efforts to increase profit margins and market domination. Take for instance, the Disney Company's stance on copyright and fair use. The Disney company is an unabashed supporter of the DMCA and the upcoming CBDTPA. For instance, Disney has helped in donating over 200,000 dollars to Senator Fritz Holling's (D-South Carolina) campaign. At a one day workshop entitled "Understanding Broadband Demand: Digital Content and Rights Management", Preston Padden, head of government relations for Disney, remarked, "There is no right to fair use. Fair use is a defense against infringement." Indeed, the motivation for Senator Holling's bill is blatantly motivated by corporate donations rather than public interest. But just for the sake of proof, here are some wonderful examples denoting where Senator Holling's true motives lie:
from http://www.publicampaign.org/press_releases/pr6_29 _99.html
"This past May, Senator Hollings cast a most unusual vote, as the only Democrat to support the Financial Modernization Act (FMA) of 1999, S. 900. Hollings' vote regarding this bill is difficult to explain, given his pro-consumer voting record. But when considered in the context of the over $250,000 the Senator received from industries that would most benefit from the legislation, additional light is shed on his decision.
The Golden Leash Award is a modern incarnation of former Senator William Proxmire's legendary Golden Fleece, which highlighted government waste and abuse. "Senator Hollings' vote is an ideal example of how campaign contributions appear to influence strongly the way a Senator votes. What else would explain his puzzling anti-consumer position on this important bill from a senator who has a long history of pro-consumer stands?" said Ellen Miller, executive director of Public Campaign."
from http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/21830 . tml
"As the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, one of the most important committee chairs on Capitol Hill, Hollings has attracted quite a stable of high-profile donors over the years. According to Federal Election Commission data presented by campaign contribution watchdog Open Secrets, there are five major media and entertainment companies in the top 20 list of Hollings' most generous campaign donors. They include AOL Time Warner ($33,500), the Murdoch-owned News Corporation ($28,224), Viacom's CBS ($16,632), the National Association of Broadcasters ($22,000), and Walt Disney Co. ($18,500).
The individual donors from those companies include a flock of high-ranking executives from various News Corp/Fox subsidiaries, Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone, and Ted Turner from AOL Time Warner. Since 1995, employees from companies producing television, movies, music, and other media content have sent Hollings $287,534, making the entertainment industry his second most generous supporters. Those individual donations look like small potatoes, especially when you find out that they cover the past five to six years of campaign contributions."
The attitude highlighted by Padden is heavily endorsed by Jack Valenti, President of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). Basically, corporations such as Disney and industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) cannot seem to fathom the existence of a customer who is both honest enough to not steal, yet smart enough to not let him/herself be ripped off. This assertion is further examined within issue 3 below.
The CBDTPA seeks to eliminate any rights to fair use in the digital spectrum. The popular digital music format MP3 would overnight virtually cease to exist. The CBDTPA, as written, makes "ripping" a CD to MP3 illegal. Not only is making a legal backup suddenly illegal, the DRM clause would cause your hard-drive to potentially no longer store the media unless authorized, the operating system to no longer allow you to move or copy media files, and the media player to no longer play "unauthorized" files. If these changes are made, my desire to own a computer diminishes considerably, and I would wager that most people use their computer for far less than I do.
ISSUE 2: THE INFLUENCE AND POWER OF THE RIAA AND THE MPAA
Ever since the introduction of the DMCA, copyright law has become less and less motivated by the rationale of protecting the consumer and more motivated by the lobbying groups of various companies. With regard to copyright law, the offenders are almost entirely made up of the major media companies. In particular, the RIAA, the MPAA, and the Disney Company have been prime supporters of legislation such as the aforementioned DMCA and Sonny Bono Act (which incidentally kept Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain again - see the references). These company's tactics have been completely insidious and purposely misleading. For instance, the RIAA blamed Napster Inc. for falling CD sales. Napster of course, is the most famous of the song-swapping services formerly available on the Internet. What most major stories neglected to mention was that the demise in sales was with regard to CD singles, not CD albums. RIAA president Hilary Rosen also managed to "forget" to mention this important point when she candidly remarked "Napster hurt record sales." There is a very important difference in CD singles and CD albums. I have never personally purchased a CD single in my life and I cannot think of anyone I know who consistently does either. The fact is that singles were a "mainstay of the industry in the 1950s and 60s", and have since "fallen out of favor as a tool to inflate sales figures and influence radio programming", according to Roy Lott, president of EMI Group's Capitol Record Label. The point is that CD singles are a markedly unpopular form of media that have been gradually declining in sales for the past three years, even before the 39 percent downturn in 1999. To claim that the RIAA suffered "irreparable" harm from this downturn in sales is completely false. CD singles constitute less than one percent of the RIAA's total profit. They lost 36 percent of 1 percent of their total profit. However, the spin put on this news by the RIAA and the media made it seem as though total sales had fallen 39 percent. Even more damning, the RIAA as a whole curtailed CD single production in order to increase album sales, which of course generate more profit than a single. Furthermore, the advent of Napster in 1999 was followed by an overall increase in record sales by the RIAA for the next two years! The RIAA sold 10.8 percent more CDs that year even after increasing the price on those discs by over 12.3 percent. In 2000 this trend continued with another increase in CD price (from $13.65 to $14.02 on average) and an increase in sales again by over 3,600,000 CDs. It is worth noting also that in the last nine years the RIAA has tripled their annual income during a supposed economic downturn. For the years 1999 and 2000 the total profit made by the RIAA went from 14,584,500,000 dollars to 14,323,000,000 dollars. However, they lost 579,500,000 dollars on vinyls, cassettes and music videos, areas that Napster cannot possibly have an effect upon! In the formats Napster can trade, the RIAA made 318,500,000 more dollars than before!
Still think this is just clever accounting on my part?
Read the RIAA press release: http://www.riaa.org/PR_story.cfm?id=374
and compare it with the actual numbers: http://www.riaa.com/pdf/year_end_2000.pdf
Note how the press release makes the actual numbers seem far more terrible than they really are.
The fact is that Napster's popularity appears to have spurred CD sales to new levels. This makes sense, if you think about it: The large majority of people are not on fast broadband connections to the Internet. On a 56K modem, downloading an MP3 can take some time, certainly enough to make downloading an entire album seem like a lot of effort. Then, more time is required to get the songs onto the CD. Common sense says that if people using Napster liked a song enough on MP3, they would probably go out and buy the album, just as if they heard it on the radio. Napster gave people the chance to experience music they otherwise might have been loathe to pay money for, only to find out that the music wasn't something they particularly enjoyed. Need more proof? In 2000, CD sales were up 8 percent, even with Napster usage at an almost all-time high. At the same time in 2001, CD sales were down 8 percent, but the RIAA's lawsuit had all but halted Napster usage. See the correlation?
Napster increased the plausibility of individuals being exposed to new music genres, thereby increasing music sales through new or expanded markets.
So what exactly does this have to do with the issue of fair use rights and copyright? In a word, everything. The RIAA sued Napster because it was "violating copyright", and the judge eventually agreed with the RIAA. Before I go to far, however, it is important to illustrate how exactly Napster worked. Napster's technology is a form of Internet protocol known as a peer-to-peer network (P2P). In a P2P network, computers not locally connected communicate directly to each other through a specialized piece of software that "simulates" a local area network (LAN), like the kind most companies have at work. Through this P2P technology, computers that otherwise would not be able to share files can communicate very easily without some other form of communication such as HTTP, (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) which is used by all Internet web sites, or FTP, (File Transfer Protocol) used mostly in the past for remote data servers. Both of these forms of communication are much more archaic when it comes to massively interconnected file sharing schemes. P2P networks by definition are completely decentralized, that is, they have no "main server" that one must log onto in order to access the network. Security and permissions are handled at each node individually. Unfortunately, this is also the bane of P2P networks. As more and more machines are added onto the network, locating the appropriate file on the network can become a time-consuming process, especially as more people with slower connections join the network. To offset this, Napster slightly centralized there architecture: Central servers kept a listing of which shared files were stored on each computer of the P2P network. This of course opened them up to litigation. Although Napster was not directly breaking copyright, they were facilitating it to a degree that the judge felt outweighed the opposing arguments. Let me reiterate that: Napster did not ever copy and redistribute copyrighted works. However, Napster was aware of the abuses due to its central server architecture. Modern P2P schemes do not rely on central listings, and are virtually uncontrollable. Which is the point. The RIAA and the MPAA cannot grasp the concept of an uncontrollable medium. They believe that an uncontrollable medium will result in the breakdown of the industry. This would be a legitimate fear, except that CD sales have increased! People are willing to support their favorite artists and are willing to pay extra to get an "official CD" that is guaranteed to work and sound "perfect". In fact, a study compiled by the Yankelovich Partners surveyed 16,000 Americans between the ages of 13 and 39 who say they listen to more than 10 hours of music a week and have spent at least $25 on music in the past six months. Among the findings: 59 percent of those who said they heard a certain piece of music for the first time while online ended up purchasing that music as a CD. I am certainly not defending Napster or proclaiming the outcome of the trial unjust. However, it is plainly obvious that the RIAA consistently and intentionally convoluded the truth to further its own ambitions.
The reason the RIAA and MPAA's lawsuits strike me as suspicious is that the motivation is strictly corporate profit, not public welfare. Suddenly a company can be held liable for another company's dead or dying business model, leaving the public entrenched in an antiquated and expensive system. Consider a few things: First and foremost, Napster quite obviously helped CD sales, as the data above suggests. Second, it is quite devious that the cohorts of the RIAA and MPAA continually litigate against small Internet start-ups such as Napster but refuse to engage the manufacturer's of CD-burners, which create an exact, full-quality copy of a CD in minutes, as opposed to the individual downloading of songs in lesser quality MP3 format. The fact of the matter is that the RIAA and MPAA know that their strong-arm tactics and current stance on copyright could not hold up against a vigorous and equally well-funded enemy such as the information technology hardware and software firms that actively market CD-burners and CD-burning software. Also, copyright compliance in this regard is already quite clear via the 1984 Betamax case resolved by the Supreme Court. In that instance, the movie industry attempted to block the distribution of VCRs. The court rejected the industry's claims that VCRs would ruin their business. The Supreme Court stated:
"The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses. The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses."
The movie industry should thank the court's for this decision as well. Think of all the money made on VHS sales since their introduction!
Fourth, copyright law and fair use cases in the past make it quite obvious that copying a CD, whether to another CD or a compressed digital format such as MP3 is legal. Fair use doctrine allows any individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted works as long as the motivation is personal use. Legitimate and legal copying provides for increased consumer convenience, an enlarged market for the copyright holder, and a natural defense against future media failure. P2P software then has an obvious myriad of noninfringing uses, both to consumers and artists. In fact the artists have the most to gain.
Which might be what has scared the RIAA into action.
The RIAA is composed of five major labels that control collectively almost 90 percent of the total industry's output. Of the members of this oligopoly, four of them are not even U.S. companies but subsidiaries of foreign-based media giants. This combined power is totally detrimental to artists rights. The RIAA's policies with regard to artists include routinely stripping them of all copyright to their own works as part of the recording contract. Think about that. This is akin to you or I writing a book and then being told that, in order to publish it, you or I must rescind all rights to owning and exploiting that work. Recently, the RIAA almost convinced congress to never let the artists regain control of their own copyrights by rewriting copyright law so that all sound recordings were classified as "works for hire". Only an extremely outraged artists coalition managed to persuade congress to see the detrimental aspect of what the RIAA claimed to be a "mere technical classification." The RIAA and the MPAA are in effect, just middle-men. The only way they can continue to make money off of the actual workers (the artists) is by continuing to control the means of production and publicity. The Internet threatens the RIAA's strangle hold on media outlets. Faced with an almost insurmountable challenge, the RIAA and MPAA have basically turned to buying laws to protect their profit margins.
The Internet could provide for artists an alternative to the contractual and extortionist policies of the RIAA. Imagine if the works that an artist created were produced and directly sold via the Internet, without the middle-men of the production company. To understand the current plight of artists, read the revealing editorial in the 18:23 edition of SBI:
What the RIAA does not want you or I to realize is that they most certainly do NOT represent the artists contracted to their labels. They represent nothing more than a coalition of companies milking copyright to its fullest extent. For the sake of time, I will demonstrate further by paraphrasing user Iblack from slashdot.org in a user-moderated discussion on the CBDTPA, found at:
Think about video rental stores as a fantastic example. Imagine I rented a movie that I wanted to watch, took it home and then placed it in my VCR and turned it on. I then flip the record switch on my second VCR and create a copy of this tape, effectively pirating the medium for about 5 dollars, including the blank tape. Technically, with some moderately cheap equipment I could just as easily record the tape to a computer. Taking into account the past many paragraphs devoted to the MPAA's and RIAA's abhorration to pirating on-line, doesn't it seem very odd that these same groups would not be pointing out the immense amount of profit lost to people rent-pirating rather than purchasing their wares at video stores? Even more curious, it requires considerably less technical savvy to pirate a VCR tape-to-tape compared to a digitally encrypted medium such as a DVD. Furthermore, grabbing a blank tape is also very easy. Comparatively, downloading full-length movies takes a long time, even on broadband connections to the Internet, and they usually require a specialized media codec to be viewed. Why has the MPAA turned a blind eye to video rental stores?
Simply put, because they generate revenue. However, as should be expected, the movie industry did not see this potential until after the fact. The popularity of VHS was the only reason the industry ultimately accepted it. The easily controlled betamax was their preferred method. However, as common sense dictates, the increased functionality of VHS resulted in a much larger support base and an accordingly much larger market. With the Internet, the same line of thinking is emerging.
The MPAA, however, is convinced that the sheer size and speed of the Internet is a threat to its business method. The latest reports indicate that worldwide over 1 billion people are online. This statistic is read by the MPAA as "1 billion people can download and watch our movie for free unless we cripple their computers". The problem with this ideology is that the MPAA fails to realize that:
1) Very few people actually have the bandwidth/technical savvy to collect a horde of digital movies.
2) If they offered a service akin to a movie rental store, perhaps 10-20 percent would be willing to pay a 5 dollar service fee (including me!).
It makes sense. I am not going to sacrifice 4 hours of my time to pirate someone else's VHS tape, or 12 hours to pirate someone's DVD, when I can walk to blockbuster and rent it for 2 dollars. For 2 dollars I save time, and I am guaranteed a good quality copy.
The RIAA and the MPAA are trying to push their existing business methods on-line. The problems they are having stem from the fact that current technology provides for stiff competition from piracy. Media has been, and always will be, pirated to some extent. The Internet and formats such as MP3 audio and DIVX MPEG4 video have only made the work of the few die-hard pirates more available to the public. Which is the point. The RIAA and the MPAA have not made any serious ventures into on-line digital service, therefore stimulating piracy, since it is the only current method. All they have to do is make their service offering more attractive than theft.
You'd think it wouldn't be hard to do that, except that their service offering is, and has been for about 40 years now, theft. They overcharge, they price in a predatory fashion, they artificially increase demand and artificially decrease supply. They constantly reduce production costs and yet constantly raise price tags.
Look at the computer industry: Ten years ago a 386SX20 with a 20MB hard drive cost over a 1000 dollars. Now, I can buy a 1 gigahertz computer with a 40GB hard drive for that price. Or, I could buy myself a low-end budget PC for $300. An increase in production efficiency coupled with a decrease in production costs resulted in a decrease of the price-to-consumer. Basic economics.
Now compare that to CDs. Ten years ago, the album Stop Making Sense by the Talking Heads cost $18.99. Today, the album Strange Angels by Kristin Hersch cost $24.99. Not surprisingly however, CD production and material costs have decreased each year since their introduction. See the problem?
The problem is not the capability of the computer to facilitate "piracy"! The problem is the media industry's unwillingness to sell a reasonably priced and diverse digital medium without again attempting to convert the "customer" to a strict "consumer" as in the Betamax scenario. The problem lies in the industry's blatant greed.
ISSUE 3: CONSUMERS BY FORCE
The CBDTPA seeks to divide everyone into two categories: The content creators and the content consumers. To many people inside the corporate media sphere see themselves as the only suppliers of creative ingenuity, innovation, and art. It appears that for the sake of "protecting" their egomania and "intellectual property" anyone who owns a computer is going to be forced to have it turned into nothing more than a fancy TV.
The word consumer, as a whole, is also a source of aggravation. It implies a notion of being fed, of being given content that you don't necessarily desire. And this is precisely what the CBDTPA is demanding of you. Sit down in front of your computer, pay an exorbitant fee, and watch the same old boring content and advertisement barrage over and over again. The great thing about the current computer is its ability to allow for the construction of content, not its ability to supply it. This is further amplified by the Internet, and the accompanying ease of distribution and immense audience. For instance, a musician could record a song onto his computer and sell it via the Internet, or a graphic artist could market his art. In the future, perhaps even an independent film company could market it's wares online. A future dictated by the CBDTPA allows only a few select companies to digitally "watermark" their media in a manner which the now-crippled computer can read. Does anyone honestly believe that these same companies that desire such immense control will relinquish it in the future to independents desiring to sell to the same market?
Suddenly a person is no longer an individual, but a forced consumer of multiple mega-corporations. The prospect is as disturbing as it is possible. The myth of "intellectual property" is curbing and inhibiting the free expression of ideas and content, precisely what copyright law was intended to promote.
ISSUE 4: ECONOMIC CONCERNS AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR OPEN SOURCE
The CBDTPA, perhaps unwittingly to Senator Hollings, poses an extremely large threat to the economic lifeblood of a sprawling computer and IT industry. The expectation that the average user has when purchasing a computer is that the machine will allow for the creation of content, the viewing and enjoyment of content, and the storage of content. The CBDTPA, as currently written, effectively changes the operational power of a computer to creating limited content, displaying only "allowable" content, and storing only a limited amount of content. In effect, the CBDTPA turns a computer into little more than a high-priced and crippled TV/radio/typewriter. It is absurd to assume that the average consumer will have any motivation to upgrade their existing "normal" computers to the crippled version, nor is it at all reasonable to assume that computer users as a whole will find these changes appealing. The United States Association for Computing Machinery (USACM) wrote an informative letter (link available in the references section) to Senator Hollings regarding these issues, and I quote them below:
"We would ask that you carefully consider the issues of cost, liability, and government interference in technology standards-setting that would be imposed by this legislation. We can think of many objections to the legislation, based on our reading of the draft bill.
Here is a small sampling:
* Colleges, universities and trade schools throughout the U.S. would no longer be able to teach advanced computer science and computer engineering.
* The acts of writing basic operating system software or assembling simple computer systems in classes or as assignments would be against the proposed law.
* Research in computer security and protection would be further curtailed,as any such research would be required to be done on (and not interfere with) whatever technology is imposed by this law. However, malicious actors do not need to be so concerned. This has significant national security implications.
* Researchers and hobbyists seeking new uses for innovative technology might well find their experimentation and prototypes to be criminal under this law.
* Devices as disparate as electronic cameras, wrist watches, electric pianos, televisions, ATM machines, cell phones, home security systems, and medical equipment (among many examples) all process and display information electronically. Under the proposed legislation, all would be required to support anti-copying protocols. In most such cases, this is absurd and will raise costs unnecessarily. Inclusion of anti-copying technology in general purpose equipment -- including real-time computing devices used in traffic control, air flight control, medical equipment, and manufacturing -- adds to their complexity and potential for failure. Unexpected interactions with other code, and accidental activation of protection protocols cannot be ruled out in every case, and in many venues the potential for damage is extreme.
* Photocopy machines, telephones and VCRs are now digital in form and can copy information. Forcing adoption of anti-copying protocols on those machines will change accepted modes of use, at best, and may render them unusable for their intended purposes.
* Other countries will not have similar requirements in their laws and may actively fear the imposition of anti-copy technologies; this will put U.S. products at a competitive disadvantage with other products manufactured elsewhere in the world. At a time when electronics manufacturers in other countries are seeking an advantage over U.S. firms, this could be catastrophic for the U.S. electronics industry. In addition, the draft version of CBDTPA would have significant negative impacts on foreign technology imports, such as the Linux operating system, in direct violation of our obligations as a participating member of the World Trade Organization."
Intel Executive Vice-President Leslie Vadasz was recently present at a CBDTPA hearing as well, and he was one of the lone dissenters to the plan, bravely facing a torrent of insults and accusations from Hollings himself. To completely clarify his position, Vadasz later wrote a letter to Hollings, in which he states:
"Another major point of misunderstanding is our differing perspectives on the role of the PC in the hands of the consumer. Mr. Eisner's [CEO of Disney] characterization of the phrase "rip, mix, burn" as emblematic of our industry's perspective on piracy is utterly false. What the content community fails to recognize is that these utilities, [which allow] the ability to copy content, remix and manage it and port it to other storage media for personal use in a protected fashion, are features that consumers have come to expect. The ability to rip, mix and burn in a protected manner is not piracy, it is simply fair use of content as permitted by law."
The phrase "that consumers have come to expect" is critical to this argument. What the CBDTPA proposes is not what the consumer, and therefore the public, desires. What the public desires is nothing more than what they have always had: The right to do whatever they please (within fair use) with media they legally obtained. This bill basically rubber-stamps the media industry's procrastination to extending their services online and aggravation at the prospect of alternative companies filling the void. The IT industry as a whole will suffer an incredible burden if this bill passes. One of America's largest industries (considerably larger than the media business) is going to be handicapped so that Disney and the MPAA/RIAA can stop "piracy". This rhetoric is:
1) A falsehood. As has been previously shown, The actions of the MPAA and RIAA are motivated entirely by profit and control.
2) Impossible. Digital protection measures and laws will never stop the "die-hard" pirates.
A common misconception (illustrated wonderfully by DVDs) is that digitally encrypted mediums are secure. They are NOT. Put simply, digital encryption/watermarking schemes rely on one weakness: Somewhere along the way, the media stream must be decrypted in order to play. Wherever this occurs, the media is subject to all sorts of attacks to decipher the encryption mechanism, or emulate the decryptor. The hassle associated with this scheme is immense for the ordinary non-pirating consumer. For instance,
*The new Windows XP registration feature makes setting up the software an immense headache. Additionally, more than two changes to your hardware configuration require you to reactivate the OS again. All to prevent piracy. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/piracy / roductactivationfaq.asp
*New encryption standards being discussed by the MPAA for HDTV (High Definition Television) will obsolete all sets bought before 2002. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_1/feature- article-digital-home-video-2-2002.html
To sum up, this legislation intends on preventing free market forces from being allowed to shape the economic growth of these industries by creating artificial barriers intended to maintain the current balance of power/wealth held by the copyright holders. This is very similar to the competition felt by the railroad industry from the automobile, in that both the railroad and record/movie labels depended upon their absolute control over all major distribution channels for their sources of revenue (the record industry receives 94% of total revenue from CD sales). The PC/internet is like the automobile/highway system in that it frees the masses from having to rely on a bulky, inefficient, and tightly controlled distribution channel.
The economic impact of this bill is twofold: First, it forces the PC to become considerably less valuable in that it significantly decreases its functionality and usefulness to the consumer. Second, it retards innovation in that the computer no longer can grow out of current technology to produce better experiences for the consumer, dooming it to become another fixture of antiquated media distribution. Both of these truths will result in a large reduction in PC sales.
As a last addendum to this letter, I would like to express my concern towards the CBDTPA with respect to the Linux operating system. The Linux OS is an open-source project driven by millions of contributors around the world. The Linux OS is a robust and stable operating system, routinely outperforming Windows in a variety of computing applications. Due to its open-source nature, Linux would be outlawed in the US if software ever is forced to include DRM. To demonstrate, since Linux is open-source, any code used to employ DRM could be easily circumvented or erased, thus causing the illegality. While Linux certainly has its advantages to Windows in terms of stability, virus-prevention, interoperability, cost, and functionality, it is also a huge business within and without the U.S. IBM alone invests over 1 billion dollars in Linux each year. Linux is seen as one of the biggest competitors to Microsoft Windows, and damaging it's already fragile market-share could keep the proven monopoly, Microsoft, bigger and more powerful than ever.
Furthermore, even if the Linux OS is somehow immune to the CBDTPA's forced DRM, one needs to note that as of now, Microsoft holds a patent on a Digital Rights Management OS. If the U.S. Government passes a law requiring DRM in all software, they in effect make it illegal to use any OS other than Windows, and basically write a Microsoft monopoly into law.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I quote Robert Heinlein's "Life-Line":
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Thank you for your time. I hope that in light of this letter you seriously consider all of the ramifications to this bill from a moral, economic, and constitutional perspective. Vote down this legislation.
Sincerely,
REFERENCES
For an incredibly in-depth analysis of the implication of this type of legislation, the best choice by far is:
Lessig, Lawrence. "The Future of Ideas". Random House, New York, NY: 2001.
The rest of my sources are from the Internet. For great discussions on these topics, some good sites are:
http://www.eff.org
http://www.linux.org
http://www.anti-dmca.org
Individual facts and citations were garnered from the following sites:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/24262.ht ml
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:uVMlxVS8tj8 C: www.cbsnews.com/now/story/ 0,1597,274651-412,00.shtml+RIAA+blame+napster&hl=e n
"IMO Blizzard has always done a good job differentiating the races. In Starcraft, for example, you could not play the Protoss and Humans in the same way. They were so different that a new strategy was required for each. I can't see them taking a step backward with their flagship product in that respect."
I disagree. In every blizzard game I have ever played that was coined "strategy" what it came down to was just your ability to rush. Whether human or protoss, for example, all you needed to do was build up quicker, regardless of how the races were differentiated. No matter what race you choose, the only difference is the units and style. The overall premise is the same:
It always astounds me how everywhere I go, no matter who I talk to, there is a general consensus that Microsoft has done wrong. Even from people who are not necessarily "technologically inclined". Nevertheless the government, after finding them guilty, continues to plea-punish them. ("Microsoft, will you please accept this punishment?") How can people acknowledge there insiduous behavior, see it all around them, then watch their representatives blow it off for the sake of campaign contributions, AND NOT CARE?
I totally agree. I do not understand why people are constantly aggravated by this or surprised by it anymore. I stopped using those instant messenger programs quite some time ago and I have not missed them. If it really bothers you, write a friggin' email. If idiotic wars between vendors and annoying amounts of advertisements don't bother you, go on with your life and quit complaining. Heck, you signed up for it--you had to have known what you were getting yourself into...
Same here in Houston. I use SouthWestern Bell DSL, and although it is expensive, it certainly is reliable, and the installation is fairly quick (about a month usually). I am glad I went with southwestern bell as various other providers are dead and gone while the phone company remains impervious to market fluctuation. My roomates and I recently upgraded to 5 static ips with 768kb downstream and 384 upstream. all for about 70 bucks a month. Split between 3 people this is a great deal. With the addition of a router, we have close to 20 machines buzzing along, permanently online.
Interestingly, if you were actually inclined to send them an email, you can only contact them via forms from the website, rather than sending an email. However, since the site supposedly "requires" IE, those who wish to "comment on the site" with regards to the lack of other browser support can't. What a way to minimize complaints! (oh and don't make fun of me. I am at work, and therefore am forced to use IE...)
isn't mplayer headed in this direction? You can play quicktime, most mpegs, and some windows formats i think, although I am not sure as I haven't played with the software too much as of late due to the piss-poor documentation and asshole developers.
Of course, to get linux on a DELL, you first had to 1) know it was even offered, 2) go through a ungodly mess to find the web page that discussed the option, 3) call and personally demand it from a salesperson who had no idea they even offered it.
my point? It wasn't really "offered". It was more of a sleazeball maneuver to gain support from the linux community without really endangering or changing anything with regards to Microsoft's OEM domination.
Long ago I gave up trying to be "legal" with reagrds to mp3s and "copyright". Copyright was a good thing, until corporations got greedy and listened way TOO much to there lawyer-types. Now it is a joke. If a company wants to control all access to a service (music in this case) and them overcharge for it, disable it unless you use their system (hello copy-protected CDs) etc. I see no reason to not rip them off in return. Add in to this now that they want to help me be "legal" by deleting and editing my personal computer for me and i say to them:
a) go ahead and try (laff)
b) oh jeez, now my mp3 box is off the network...
c) ever heard of backups
d) go jump off a cliff
well anyhow, it is like Scott Adams said in regards to sales in the dlibert principle. "The optimal group to market to is the stupid rich. They will buy anything no matter what the price. Overcharge the smart rich and they will buy your company and fire your ass, overcharge the stupid poor and they cannot buy your product, overcharge the smart poor and they will find a way to steal it."
Clearchannel owns almost all the stations here and I don't really care if they ban (quietly remove) songs. They already play the worst songs over and over and over again, bombarding you with every shred of "pop" you can take. I doubt you would ever hear "walk like an egyptian" or "99 red balloons" anyway as they are not in the current top 40. My point? If you listen to radio still on a regular basis, you are already a victim of censorship on a scale that makes this list look so small as to be completely insignificant. Get an Aiwa MP3 deck in your car and never turn on KKFM-"ALL POP ALL DAY EVERY DAY" again.
Slashdot Mirror
The media giants are under no obligation to produce media that is copyable. The only reason thay haven't used a closed version so far is that (thankfully) the market presented a better alternative, which consumers naturally flocked to. Also thankfully, Sony vs. Betamax permitted such alternatives to be legal, much to the ire of meida conglomerates, even though they still made mountains of cash.
But the Supreme Court's decision is not protection from new technology that disallows fair-use copying. With the advent of the DMCA, and the conglomeration of the RIAA and MPAA, a single new format is poised to emerge which will literally be "forced" upon consumers. It is only a matter of time.
One can only hope consumers *really* boycott this, but I don't see apathetic losers who won't even vote for the presidency of their country giving a rat's ass.
---------rhad the informed cynic
--------rhad
I realize also, however, that thanks to the DMCA, such tactics are now illegal. However, if I remember correctly, fair-use rights imply nothing about tha actual feasability of making said legal copies. I.e., if Sony wants to release musc and movies in a totally new "in-house designed" format which is almost totally impossible to copy, they are welcome to. The problem with that sheme is that past expierience with such products has only lead to miserable failure on the market. No one wants to buy such items.
It gets worse. Since the majority of the public does not care about the proceedings of this type of legislation/technology, the possiblity of such DRM schemes resurfacing is very alarming. Not necessarily because of the technological implications, but because no one would resist it, thereby leading to its grudging acceptance in the market.
Your point with regards to copyright protection vs. perpetual protection is well-taken, and I believe you are correct. But I seriously doubt that congress or the courts would make the same distinction with the lobbyists breathing down their necks...
We might be doomed here.
--------------rhad
Yes, this is what I was getting at in my original post. The transition could have been done years ago, but getting a switch to take place is not easy to do. Another post addressed this as well.
Or we could just nuke all the spammers :)
----------rhad
I am unsure if here he is saying that anti-spam legislation will be ineffective, or if the "right to spam" should not be outlawed by lawmakers. I would imagine the former is what he meant, since obviously, having the U.S. outlaw spam will do nothing to stop spammers in other countries, and probably do little to stop spammers here in the states either....
Solving the spam problem technically seems to be impossible though. People have been trying to do that forever. I find it very poignant that in the same passage he says that spam could kill off services if it continues to be unstoppable.
---------------rhad
The truly important bit is regarding "trademarking of common phrases". I think it absolutely ridiculous that companies can trademark any common word or phrase. Reference a similar suit to this one, Mastercard suing Nader over "priceless" to see this kind of silliness in action. (feel free to find a better article, I just pulled the first item off google)
Basically, I do not condone the use of language "exclusivism". Language, as a whole, does not lend itself well to patentability. Satire, documentaries etc. are protected speech regardless of trademark, although occasionally (as usual) the courts can get confused. In this case it is even more bizarre. Suing over a name sounding the same? Poets beware!
-------------rhad
There are intentional limitations to the power an author holds over his/her respective copyrighted works. These limitations exist to encourage other individuals or companies to expand and build upon those copyrighted ideas/works, thereby increasing innovation and promoting scientific development for the benefit of the public. The most important limitation on author control is the "fair use privilege". This right of the people specifically addresses the ability of an individual to use copyrighted works without consent of the owner to a reasonable degree. In Sony v. Universal City Studios; the U.S. Supreme Court stated that, "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." This "doctrine of fair use" was initially created via judicial review, but has since been intentionally written into copyright law. Although this principle may seem to be counterintuitive to the overall premise of copyright, it is an extremely important link between the inventor who wishes to recieve payment for his work, and the public that wishes to access and make use of it. The U.S. Supreme Court remarks, ""the fair use doctrine exists because copyright law extends limited proprietary rights to copyright owners only to the extent necessary to ensure dissemination to the public." This is directly correlated to the goals of the constitutional explanation of copyright.
The obvious issue associated with this doctrine is how exactly to detirmine what is fair use as opposed to copyright violation. The law is not at all clear as to how a process is to be determined "fair use", but over the years many examples have surfaced. In general, criticism, comment, parody, new reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or personal use such as time of format shifting are considered to be within the guidelines of fair use. Companies have in the past been relatively acceptant of the fair use clause within copyright law. As of late though, the tide has shifted as corporate profits have taken an ever increasing priority over public relations and proper customer satisfaction. Older ethical standards for customer rights have become less important to business executives then their efforts to increase profit margins and market domination.
Just how exactly media corportions lost site of the usefulness of this doctrine is beyond me. Think of video rental stores: They facilitate piracy. With two VCRs I could own every movie under the sun for about 5 bucks a pop. I don't. Both is it not worth the time to pirate, but it is also easier to pay the extra coin to ensure a good copy. People will pay to support media they like and to ensure good quality fun. They will NOT pay for over-priced crap forced down their throats.
Likewise (and perhaps more importantly), it is idiotic of the RIAA to assume that every person downloading an MP3 is a "diehard" pirate. Since the media companies have not ventured into this new market (digital music) they facilitate the piracy better than any P2P network could.
I will not support corporate theivery.
-----------------rhad
So I disagree. Child-porn laws are necessary. Whether or not they are prefect according to cultural or ethnic borders is irrelevant. Some people enjoy stealing, but it is still against the law regardless of your cultural viewpoint. I fail to sympathize with producers of child-porn strictly due to unfair regulation. It's not as if they aren't aware that many people find the idea offensive...
----------rhad
Before I get flamed to a complete toasty crisp, allow me to briefly clarify my position. The intent of my post was to debate the bill as a whole, not necessarily the specific article. Furthermore, I feel that it is fruitless to debate that anti-censorship must be a conviction which is all-encompassing. Child-porn is a crime that preys on those hapless to defend themselves. It is not censorship in this case, but protection. My statement "I am anti-censorship and anti-child-porn" is not a contradiction, rather it is a distinguishment between the fundamental right of free expression and the protection of innocents.
For those of you flaming me mercilessly with regards to my apparent disregard for subject matter pertaining precisely to the submitted article, get over it. The article (yes I did read it--thank you) was fairly dull. I am not being "offtopic" by remarking on the bill itself (COPA), specifically because my point was that the judges are pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place. Anyhow, thanks to you guys for making me write a virtual disclaimer for my opinion, I find nothing more disgusting.
For the sake of argument however, I will remark briefly on the submitted paper now for continued clarification: It is silly. The constitution is designed not to protect the majority's viewpoint, rather it is designed precisely for the opposite position! You cannot have a sheep and four wolves vote on what is for dinner...
Thanks for the replies, and I invite more...
-----rhad
I think that the judge's here (regardless of you personal opinion on censorship) are facing a rather tough challenge. The majority of people do NOT support child-porn, no matter what the circumstance (thankfully). However, it is not really within the realm of judges, IMO, to decide what constitutes offensive material.
The crux of the problem lies in just how much "censorship" they should support, while at the same time retaining some amount of control over what is morally acceptable. If they censor too much, they set a dangerous precedent which future generations of pro-censorship "moralists" may use as a weapon. If they don't support it at all, you leave some portions of the populace (children, in this case) defenseless against a heinous and perturbing crime. Worse, because of its ambiguous nature, any substance akin to child-porn is under fire. Not only must the judges weigh in the protection of children and censorship issues, they must ensure that no solution is too extreme.
My point? This is a tough call, so one should not rant to vigourously against the judges. I am anti-censorship but also anti-childporn...where does the line get drawn?
----------rhad
Write letters and papers and documentation in a word processor, and code in an editor or development suite.
Again, sorry--but that was just a complete waste of a complaint. If I had mod points at the moment, I would mod you -1, silly.
but wait, you have noticed. Thats why you only sue small internet start-ups with no capital or government support.
Have you ever heard of "FAIR USE" or "BETAMAX VS. SONY"?
Yes, you have, but that won't stop you from pretending that fair use rights don't exist.
Good God she is such a hypocritical idiot.
Sorry about this, but I am a poor college student with no "phat pipe" to place this on.
I am writing to express my serious concern and dismay in regards to the potential passing of the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), formerly known as the SSSCA (Security Systems Standards and Certification Act), introduced by Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina. This law is a horrible obstruction to individual freedom, economic growth, and technological and artistic innovation. In the following paragraphs, I will layout a specific and detailed listing of all the reasons why this legislation is the pinnacle of a bad trend started by the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
WHAT IS THE CBDTPA?
The CBDTPA is more or less an addendum to the DMCA. The DMCA made it illegal to circumvent any encryption placed around copyrighted works. This is, simply put, a large loophole around fair-use rights. If a copyrighted work is encrypted, you are forbidden to break the encryption in order to make a legal backup of the media. For the sake of "preventing Internet piracy" (which has yet to be proven to hurt sales), the honest consumer is being treated as a criminal, and denied rights to items he/she legally bought and owns. For a fantastic explanation of the effects of the DMCA on the customer of digital media, read Damian Yerrick's plain English explanation at:
http://pineight.evilpigeon.net/rant/dmca/
The basic premise of the CBDTPA is that eventually any hardware capable of storing or playing digital media should have built in copy protection or "Digital Rights Management" (DRM). The bill so broadly defines hardware as to be laughable. Hardware ranging from calculators and watches to supercomputers are susceptible to this bill. Additionally, the proposed bill and it's supporters hint at the eventual demand for mandatory DRM in all software. For the sake of clarity, hardware refers to the physical parts of a piece of electronic equipment; for instance, in a computer the hard drive and the processor are considered hardware. Software is the coded applications that run on the hardware, such as operating systems and word processors.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CBDTPA
I have divided this segment into four issues. First, I reiterate the constitutional goals of copyright and the proposed CBDTPA's dismantling of them. Next, I remark upon the current power of the media conglomerates in support of this bill, their lies, and their selfish motivation. Thirdly, I point out the cultural and ethical implications of this proposed legislation. Lastly, I remark on the CBDTPA's effect on an already economically struggling computer and IT industry.
THE ORIGINAL GOALS OF COPYRIGHT
Copyright was started in England via the passage of the Statute of Anne in 1710. This statute encompassed the first legal protection for consumers of copyrighted works, the first written record of an author's copyright, and more importantly, the creation of the "public domain". Accordingly, the United States followed this statute very closely when its own initial version of copyright law was passed in 1790. However, the United States version was naturally more federalized then its English counterpart: "The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries." This excerpted phrase from Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution is the cornerstone of my argument, and I urge you to read the entire clause over again.
Naturally the current state of copyright law has been continually revised and updated according to the demands of a changing worldwide information structure, technological innovation, and new means of expression; major changes in copyright law occurred in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976. However, the underlying premise has not been altered; that is, the constitution's outline for copyright policy has not been changed (at least within the constitution itself). Obviously, this is not to say that the motivation behind copyright has maintained consistency or true harmony with the lofty goals of the constitution. In fact, I would venture to say that the current state of copyright is in direct contradiction with the premise it is ironically built upon. The CBDTPA is the nail in the coffin for traditional copyright, as it seeks to obliterate the use of copyright for any purpose beyond a form of corporate weaponry against private citizens and competing companies.
ISSUE 1: THE DISMANTLING OF FAIR USE RIGHTS
There are intentional limitations to the power an author holds over his/her respective copyrighted works. These limitations exist to encourage other individuals or companies to expand and build upon those copyrighted ideas/works, thereby increasing innovation and promoting scientific development for the benefit of the public. The most important limitation on author control is the "fair use privilege". This right of the people specifically addresses the ability of an individual to use copyrighted works without consent of the owner to a reasonable degree. In Sony v. Universal City Studios; the U.S. Supreme Court stated that, "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." This "doctrine of fair use" was initially created via judicial review, but has since been intentionally written into copyright law. Although this principle may seem to be counterintuitive to the overall premise of copyright, it is an extremely important link between the inventor who wishes to receive payment for his work, and the public that wishes to access and make use of it. The U.S. Supreme Court remarks, "the fair use doctrine exists because copyright law extends limited proprietary rights to copyright owners only to the extent necessary to ensure dissemination to the public." This is directly correlated to the goals of the constitutional explanation of copyright.
The obvious issue associated with this doctrine is how exactly to determine what is fair use as opposed to copyright violation. The law is not at all clear as to how a process is to be determined "fair use", but over the years many examples have surfaced. In general, criticism, comment, parody, new reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or personal use such as time of format shifting are considered to be within the guidelines of fair use. Companies have never been to comfortable with the fair use clause in copyright; it represents a significant loss of control. As of late, corporate profits have taken an ever increasing priority over public relations and proper customer satisfaction. Older ethical standards for customer rights have become less important to business executives then their efforts to increase profit margins and market domination. Take for instance, the Disney Company's stance on copyright and fair use. The Disney company is an unabashed supporter of the DMCA and the upcoming CBDTPA. For instance, Disney has helped in donating over 200,000 dollars to Senator Fritz Holling's (D-South Carolina) campaign. At a one day workshop entitled "Understanding Broadband Demand: Digital Content and Rights Management", Preston Padden, head of government relations for Disney, remarked, "There is no right to fair use. Fair use is a defense against infringement." Indeed, the motivation for Senator Holling's bill is blatantly motivated by corporate donations rather than public interest. But just for the sake of proof, here are some wonderful examples denoting where Senator Holling's true motives lie:
from http://www.publicampaign.org/press_releases/pr6_2
"This past May, Senator Hollings cast a most unusual vote, as the only Democrat to support the Financial Modernization Act (FMA) of 1999, S. 900. Hollings' vote regarding this bill is difficult to explain, given his pro-consumer voting record. But when considered in the context of the over $250,000 the Senator received from industries that would most benefit from the legislation, additional light is shed on his decision.
The Golden Leash Award is a modern incarnation of former Senator William Proxmire's legendary Golden Fleece, which highlighted government waste and abuse. "Senator Hollings' vote is an ideal example of how campaign contributions appear to influence strongly the way a Senator votes. What else would explain his puzzling anti-consumer position on this important bill from a senator who has a long history of pro-consumer stands?" said Ellen Miller, executive director of Public Campaign."
from http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/2183
"As the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, one of the most important committee chairs on Capitol Hill, Hollings has attracted quite a stable of high-profile donors over the years. According to Federal Election Commission data presented by campaign contribution watchdog Open Secrets, there are five major media and entertainment companies in the top 20 list of Hollings' most generous campaign donors. They include AOL Time Warner ($33,500), the Murdoch-owned News Corporation ($28,224), Viacom's CBS ($16,632), the National Association of Broadcasters ($22,000), and Walt Disney Co. ($18,500).
The individual donors from those companies include a flock of high-ranking executives from various News Corp/Fox subsidiaries, Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone, and Ted Turner from AOL Time Warner. Since 1995, employees from companies producing television, movies, music, and other media content have sent Hollings $287,534, making the entertainment industry his second most generous supporters. Those individual donations look like small potatoes, especially when you find out that they cover the past five to six years of campaign contributions."
The attitude highlighted by Padden is heavily endorsed by Jack Valenti, President of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). Basically, corporations such as Disney and industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) cannot seem to fathom the existence of a customer who is both honest enough to not steal, yet smart enough to not let him/herself be ripped off. This assertion is further examined within issue 3 below.
The CBDTPA seeks to eliminate any rights to fair use in the digital spectrum. The popular digital music format MP3 would overnight virtually cease to exist. The CBDTPA, as written, makes "ripping" a CD to MP3 illegal. Not only is making a legal backup suddenly illegal, the DRM clause would cause your hard-drive to potentially no longer store the media unless authorized, the operating system to no longer allow you to move or copy media files, and the media player to no longer play "unauthorized" files. If these changes are made, my desire to own a computer diminishes considerably, and I would wager that most people use their computer for far less than I do.
ISSUE 2: THE INFLUENCE AND POWER OF THE RIAA AND THE MPAA
Ever since the introduction of the DMCA, copyright law has become less and less motivated by the rationale of protecting the consumer and more motivated by the lobbying groups of various companies. With regard to copyright law, the offenders are almost entirely made up of the major media companies. In particular, the RIAA, the MPAA, and the Disney Company have been prime supporters of legislation such as the aforementioned DMCA and Sonny Bono Act (which incidentally kept Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain again - see the references). These company's tactics have been completely insidious and purposely misleading. For instance, the RIAA blamed Napster Inc. for falling CD sales. Napster of course, is the most famous of the song-swapping services formerly available on the Internet. What most major stories neglected to mention was that the demise in sales was with regard to CD singles, not CD albums. RIAA president Hilary Rosen also managed to "forget" to mention this important point when she candidly remarked "Napster hurt record sales." There is a very important difference in CD singles and CD albums. I have never personally purchased a CD single in my life and I cannot think of anyone I know who consistently does either. The fact is that singles were a "mainstay of the industry in the 1950s and 60s", and have since "fallen out of favor as a tool to inflate sales figures and influence radio programming", according to Roy Lott, president of EMI Group's Capitol Record Label. The point is that CD singles are a markedly unpopular form of media that have been gradually declining in sales for the past three years, even before the 39 percent downturn in 1999. To claim that the RIAA suffered "irreparable" harm from this downturn in sales is completely false. CD singles constitute less than one percent of the RIAA's total profit. They lost 36 percent of 1 percent of their total profit. However, the spin put on this news by the RIAA and the media made it seem as though total sales had fallen 39 percent. Even more damning, the RIAA as a whole curtailed CD single production in order to increase album sales, which of course generate more profit than a single. Furthermore, the advent of Napster in 1999 was followed by an overall increase in record sales by the RIAA for the next two years! The RIAA sold 10.8 percent more CDs that year even after increasing the price on those discs by over 12.3 percent. In 2000 this trend continued with another increase in CD price (from $13.65 to $14.02 on average) and an increase in sales again by over 3,600,000 CDs. It is worth noting also that in the last nine years the RIAA has tripled their annual income during a supposed economic downturn. For the years 1999 and 2000 the total profit made by the RIAA went from 14,584,500,000 dollars to 14,323,000,000 dollars. However, they lost 579,500,000 dollars on vinyls, cassettes and music videos, areas that Napster cannot possibly have an effect upon! In the formats Napster can trade, the RIAA made 318,500,000 more dollars than before!
Still think this is just clever accounting on my part?
Read the RIAA press release: http://www.riaa.org/PR_story.cfm?id=374
and compare it with the actual numbers: http://www.riaa.com/pdf/year_end_2000.pdf
Note how the press release makes the actual numbers seem far more terrible than they really are.
The fact is that Napster's popularity appears to have spurred CD sales to new levels. This makes sense, if you think about it: The large majority of people are not on fast broadband connections to the Internet. On a 56K modem, downloading an MP3 can take some time, certainly enough to make downloading an entire album seem like a lot of effort. Then, more time is required to get the songs onto the CD. Common sense says that if people using Napster liked a song enough on MP3, they would probably go out and buy the album, just as if they heard it on the radio. Napster gave people the chance to experience music they otherwise might have been loathe to pay money for, only to find out that the music wasn't something they particularly enjoyed. Need more proof? In 2000, CD sales were up 8 percent, even with Napster usage at an almost all-time high. At the same time in 2001, CD sales were down 8 percent, but the RIAA's lawsuit had all but halted Napster usage. See the correlation?
Napster increased the plausibility of individuals being exposed to new music genres, thereby increasing music sales through new or expanded markets.
So what exactly does this have to do with the issue of fair use rights and copyright? In a word, everything. The RIAA sued Napster because it was "violating copyright", and the judge eventually agreed with the RIAA. Before I go to far, however, it is important to illustrate how exactly Napster worked. Napster's technology is a form of Internet protocol known as a peer-to-peer network (P2P). In a P2P network, computers not locally connected communicate directly to each other through a specialized piece of software that "simulates" a local area network (LAN), like the kind most companies have at work. Through this P2P technology, computers that otherwise would not be able to share files can communicate very easily without some other form of communication such as HTTP, (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) which is used by all Internet web sites, or FTP, (File Transfer Protocol) used mostly in the past for remote data servers. Both of these forms of communication are much more archaic when it comes to massively interconnected file sharing schemes. P2P networks by definition are completely decentralized, that is, they have no "main server" that one must log onto in order to access the network. Security and permissions are handled at each node individually. Unfortunately, this is also the bane of P2P networks. As more and more machines are added onto the network, locating the appropriate file on the network can become a time-consuming process, especially as more people with slower connections join the network. To offset this, Napster slightly centralized there architecture: Central servers kept a listing of which shared files were stored on each computer of the P2P network. This of course opened them up to litigation. Although Napster was not directly breaking copyright, they were facilitating it to a degree that the judge felt outweighed the opposing arguments. Let me reiterate that: Napster did not ever copy and redistribute copyrighted works. However, Napster was aware of the abuses due to its central server architecture. Modern P2P schemes do not rely on central listings, and are virtually uncontrollable. Which is the point. The RIAA and the MPAA cannot grasp the concept of an uncontrollable medium. They believe that an uncontrollable medium will result in the breakdown of the industry. This would be a legitimate fear, except that CD sales have increased! People are willing to support their favorite artists and are willing to pay extra to get an "official CD" that is guaranteed to work and sound "perfect". In fact, a study compiled by the Yankelovich Partners surveyed 16,000 Americans between the ages of 13 and 39 who say they listen to more than 10 hours of music a week and have spent at least $25 on music in the past six months. Among the findings: 59 percent of those who said they heard a certain piece of music for the first time while online ended up purchasing that music as a CD. I am certainly not defending Napster or proclaiming the outcome of the trial unjust. However, it is plainly obvious that the RIAA consistently and intentionally convoluded the truth to further its own ambitions.
The reason the RIAA and MPAA's lawsuits strike me as suspicious is that the motivation is strictly corporate profit, not public welfare. Suddenly a company can be held liable for another company's dead or dying business model, leaving the public entrenched in an antiquated and expensive system. Consider a few things: First and foremost, Napster quite obviously helped CD sales, as the data above suggests. Second, it is quite devious that the cohorts of the RIAA and MPAA continually litigate against small Internet start-ups such as Napster but refuse to engage the manufacturer's of CD-burners, which create an exact, full-quality copy of a CD in minutes, as opposed to the individual downloading of songs in lesser quality MP3 format. The fact of the matter is that the RIAA and MPAA know that their strong-arm tactics and current stance on copyright could not hold up against a vigorous and equally well-funded enemy such as the information technology hardware and software firms that actively market CD-burners and CD-burning software. Also, copyright compliance in this regard is already quite clear via the 1984 Betamax case resolved by the Supreme Court. In that instance, the movie industry attempted to block the distribution of VCRs. The court rejected the industry's claims that VCRs would ruin their business. The Supreme Court stated:
"The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses. The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses."
The movie industry should thank the court's for this decision as well. Think of all the money made on VHS sales since their introduction!
Fourth, copyright law and fair use cases in the past make it quite obvious that copying a CD, whether to another CD or a compressed digital format such as MP3 is legal. Fair use doctrine allows any individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted works as long as the motivation is personal use. Legitimate and legal copying provides for increased consumer convenience, an enlarged market for the copyright holder, and a natural defense against future media failure. P2P software then has an obvious myriad of noninfringing uses, both to consumers and artists. In fact the artists have the most to gain.
Which might be what has scared the RIAA into action.
The RIAA is composed of five major labels that control collectively almost 90 percent of the total industry's output. Of the members of this oligopoly, four of them are not even U.S. companies but subsidiaries of foreign-based media giants. This combined power is totally detrimental to artists rights. The RIAA's policies with regard to artists include routinely stripping them of all copyright to their own works as part of the recording contract. Think about that. This is akin to you or I writing a book and then being told that, in order to publish it, you or I must rescind all rights to owning and exploiting that work. Recently, the RIAA almost convinced congress to never let the artists regain control of their own copyrights by rewriting copyright law so that all sound recordings were classified as "works for hire". Only an extremely outraged artists coalition managed to persuade congress to see the detrimental aspect of what the RIAA claimed to be a "mere technical classification." The RIAA and the MPAA are in effect, just middle-men. The only way they can continue to make money off of the actual workers (the artists) is by continuing to control the means of production and publicity. The Internet threatens the RIAA's strangle hold on media outlets. Faced with an almost insurmountable challenge, the RIAA and MPAA have basically turned to buying laws to protect their profit margins.
The Internet could provide for artists an alternative to the contractual and extortionist policies of the RIAA. Imagine if the works that an artist created were produced and directly sold via the Internet, without the middle-men of the production company. To understand the current plight of artists, read the revealing editorial in the 18:23 edition of SBI:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:cHwstL-QH2
What the RIAA does not want you or I to realize is that they most certainly do NOT represent the artists contracted to their labels. They represent nothing more than a coalition of companies milking copyright to its fullest extent. For the sake of time, I will demonstrate further by paraphrasing user Iblack from slashdot.org in a user-moderated discussion on the CBDTPA, found at:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/27/161
Think about video rental stores as a fantastic example. Imagine I rented a movie that I wanted to watch, took it home and then placed it in my VCR and turned it on. I then flip the record switch on my second VCR and create a copy of this tape, effectively pirating the medium for about 5 dollars, including the blank tape. Technically, with some moderately cheap equipment I could just as easily record the tape to a computer. Taking into account the past many paragraphs devoted to the MPAA's and RIAA's abhorration to pirating on-line, doesn't it seem very odd that these same groups would not be pointing out the immense amount of profit lost to people rent-pirating rather than purchasing their wares at video stores? Even more curious, it requires considerably less technical savvy to pirate a VCR tape-to-tape compared to a digitally encrypted medium such as a DVD. Furthermore, grabbing a blank tape is also very easy. Comparatively, downloading full-length movies takes a long time, even on broadband connections to the Internet, and they usually require a specialized media codec to be viewed. Why has the MPAA turned a blind eye to video rental stores?
Simply put, because they generate revenue. However, as should be expected, the movie industry did not see this potential until after the fact. The popularity of VHS was the only reason the industry ultimately accepted it. The easily controlled betamax was their preferred method. However, as common sense dictates, the increased functionality of VHS resulted in a much larger support base and an accordingly much larger market. With the Internet, the same line of thinking is emerging.
The MPAA, however, is convinced that the sheer size and speed of the Internet is a threat to its business method. The latest reports indicate that worldwide over 1 billion people are online. This statistic is read by the MPAA as "1 billion people can download and watch our movie for free unless we cripple their computers". The problem with this ideology is that the MPAA fails to realize that:
1) Very few people actually have the bandwidth/technical savvy to collect a horde of digital movies.
2) If they offered a service akin to a movie rental store, perhaps 10-20 percent would be willing to pay a 5 dollar service fee (including me!).
It makes sense. I am not going to sacrifice 4 hours of my time to pirate someone else's VHS tape, or 12 hours to pirate someone's DVD, when I can walk to blockbuster and rent it for 2 dollars. For 2 dollars I save time, and I am guaranteed a good quality copy.
The RIAA and the MPAA are trying to push their existing business methods on-line. The problems they are having stem from the fact that current technology provides for stiff competition from piracy. Media has been, and always will be, pirated to some extent. The Internet and formats such as MP3 audio and DIVX MPEG4 video have only made the work of the few die-hard pirates more available to the public. Which is the point. The RIAA and the MPAA have not made any serious ventures into on-line digital service, therefore stimulating piracy, since it is the only current method. All they have to do is make their service offering more attractive than theft.
You'd think it wouldn't be hard to do that, except that their service offering is, and has been for about 40 years now, theft. They overcharge, they price in a predatory fashion, they artificially increase demand and artificially decrease supply. They constantly reduce production costs and yet constantly raise price tags.
Look at the computer industry: Ten years ago a 386SX20 with a 20MB hard drive cost over a 1000 dollars. Now, I can buy a 1 gigahertz computer with a 40GB hard drive for that price. Or, I could buy myself a low-end budget PC for $300. An increase in production efficiency coupled with a decrease in production costs resulted in a decrease of the price-to-consumer. Basic economics.
Now compare that to CDs. Ten years ago, the album Stop Making Sense by the Talking Heads cost $18.99. Today, the album Strange Angels by Kristin Hersch cost $24.99. Not surprisingly however, CD production and material costs have decreased each year since their introduction. See the problem?
The problem is not the capability of the computer to facilitate "piracy"! The problem is the media industry's unwillingness to sell a reasonably priced and diverse digital medium without again attempting to convert the "customer" to a strict "consumer" as in the Betamax scenario. The problem lies in the industry's blatant greed.
ISSUE 3: CONSUMERS BY FORCE
The CBDTPA seeks to divide everyone into two categories: The content creators and the content consumers. To many people inside the corporate media sphere see themselves as the only suppliers of creative ingenuity, innovation, and art. It appears that for the sake of "protecting" their egomania and "intellectual property" anyone who owns a computer is going to be forced to have it turned into nothing more than a fancy TV.
The word consumer, as a whole, is also a source of aggravation. It implies a notion of being fed, of being given content that you don't necessarily desire. And this is precisely what the CBDTPA is demanding of you. Sit down in front of your computer, pay an exorbitant fee, and watch the same old boring content and advertisement barrage over and over again. The great thing about the current computer is its ability to allow for the construction of content, not its ability to supply it. This is further amplified by the Internet, and the accompanying ease of distribution and immense audience. For instance, a musician could record a song onto his computer and sell it via the Internet, or a graphic artist could market his art. In the future, perhaps even an independent film company could market it's wares online. A future dictated by the CBDTPA allows only a few select companies to digitally "watermark" their media in a manner which the now-crippled computer can read. Does anyone honestly believe that these same companies that desire such immense control will relinquish it in the future to independents desiring to sell to the same market?
Suddenly a person is no longer an individual, but a forced consumer of multiple mega-corporations. The prospect is as disturbing as it is possible. The myth of "intellectual property" is curbing and inhibiting the free expression of ideas and content, precisely what copyright law was intended to promote.
ISSUE 4: ECONOMIC CONCERNS AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR OPEN SOURCE
The CBDTPA, perhaps unwittingly to Senator Hollings, poses an extremely large threat to the economic lifeblood of a sprawling computer and IT industry. The expectation that the average user has when purchasing a computer is that the machine will allow for the creation of content, the viewing and enjoyment of content, and the storage of content. The CBDTPA, as currently written, effectively changes the operational power of a computer to creating limited content, displaying only "allowable" content, and storing only a limited amount of content. In effect, the CBDTPA turns a computer into little more than a high-priced and crippled TV/radio/typewriter. It is absurd to assume that the average consumer will have any motivation to upgrade their existing "normal" computers to the crippled version, nor is it at all reasonable to assume that computer users as a whole will find these changes appealing. The United States Association for Computing Machinery (USACM) wrote an informative letter (link available in the references section) to Senator Hollings regarding these issues, and I quote them below:
"We would ask that you carefully consider the issues of cost, liability, and government interference in technology standards-setting that would be imposed by this legislation. We can think of many objections to the legislation, based on our reading of the draft bill.
Here is a small sampling:
* Colleges, universities and trade schools throughout the U.S. would no longer be able to teach advanced computer science and computer engineering.
* The acts of writing basic operating system software or assembling simple computer systems in classes or as assignments would be against the proposed law.
* Research in computer security and protection would be further curtailed,as any such research would be required to be done on (and not interfere with) whatever technology is imposed by this law. However, malicious actors do not need to be so concerned. This has significant national security implications.
* Researchers and hobbyists seeking new uses for innovative technology might well find their experimentation and prototypes to be criminal under this law.
* Devices as disparate as electronic cameras, wrist watches, electric pianos, televisions, ATM machines, cell phones, home security systems, and medical equipment (among many examples) all process and display information electronically. Under the proposed legislation, all would be required to support anti-copying protocols. In most such cases, this is absurd and will raise costs unnecessarily. Inclusion of anti-copying technology in general purpose equipment -- including real-time computing devices used in traffic control, air flight control, medical equipment, and manufacturing -- adds to their complexity and potential for failure. Unexpected interactions with other code, and accidental activation of protection protocols cannot be ruled out in every case, and in many venues the potential for damage is extreme.
* Photocopy machines, telephones and VCRs are now digital in form and can copy information. Forcing adoption of anti-copying protocols on those machines will change accepted modes of use, at best, and may render them unusable for their intended purposes.
* Other countries will not have similar requirements in their laws and may actively fear the imposition of anti-copy technologies; this will put U.S. products at a competitive disadvantage with other products manufactured elsewhere in the world. At a time when electronics manufacturers in other countries are seeking an advantage over U.S. firms, this could be catastrophic for the U.S. electronics industry. In addition, the draft version of CBDTPA would have significant negative impacts on foreign technology imports, such as the Linux operating system, in direct violation of our obligations as a participating member of the World Trade Organization."
Intel Executive Vice-President Leslie Vadasz was recently present at a CBDTPA hearing as well, and he was one of the lone dissenters to the plan, bravely facing a torrent of insults and accusations from Hollings himself. To completely clarify his position, Vadasz later wrote a letter to Hollings, in which he states:
"Another major point of misunderstanding is our differing perspectives on the role of the PC in the hands of the consumer. Mr. Eisner's [CEO of Disney] characterization of the phrase "rip, mix, burn" as emblematic of our industry's perspective on piracy is utterly false. What the content community fails to recognize is that these utilities, [which allow] the ability to copy content, remix and manage it and port it to other storage media for personal use in a protected fashion, are features that consumers have come to expect. The ability to rip, mix and burn in a protected manner is not piracy, it is simply fair use of content as permitted by law."
The phrase "that consumers have come to expect" is critical to this argument. What the CBDTPA proposes is not what the consumer, and therefore the public, desires. What the public desires is nothing more than what they have always had: The right to do whatever they please (within fair use) with media they legally obtained. This bill basically rubber-stamps the media industry's procrastination to extending their services online and aggravation at the prospect of alternative companies filling the void. The IT industry as a whole will suffer an incredible burden if this bill passes. One of America's largest industries (considerably larger than the media business) is going to be handicapped so that Disney and the MPAA/RIAA can stop "piracy". This rhetoric is:
1) A falsehood. As has been previously shown, The actions of the MPAA and RIAA are motivated entirely by profit and control.
2) Impossible. Digital protection measures and laws will never stop the "die-hard" pirates.
A common misconception (illustrated wonderfully by DVDs) is that digitally encrypted mediums are secure. They are NOT. Put simply, digital encryption/watermarking schemes rely on one weakness: Somewhere along the way, the media stream must be decrypted in order to play. Wherever this occurs, the media is subject to all sorts of attacks to decipher the encryption mechanism, or emulate the decryptor. The hassle associated with this scheme is immense for the ordinary non-pirating consumer. For instance,
*The new Windows XP registration feature makes setting up the software an immense headache. Additionally, more than two changes to your hardware configuration require you to reactivate the OS again. All to prevent piracy. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/pirac
*New encryption standards being discussed by the MPAA for HDTV (High Definition Television) will obsolete all sets bought before 2002. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_1/feature
To sum up, this legislation intends on preventing free market forces from being allowed to shape the economic growth of these industries by creating artificial barriers intended to maintain the current balance of power/wealth held by the copyright holders. This is very similar to the competition felt by the railroad industry from the automobile, in that both the railroad and record/movie labels depended upon their absolute control over all major distribution channels for their sources of revenue (the record industry receives 94% of total revenue from CD sales). The PC/internet is like the automobile/highway system in that it frees the masses from having to rely on a bulky, inefficient, and tightly controlled distribution channel.
The economic impact of this bill is twofold: First, it forces the PC to become considerably less valuable in that it significantly decreases its functionality and usefulness to the consumer. Second, it retards innovation in that the computer no longer can grow out of current technology to produce better experiences for the consumer, dooming it to become another fixture of antiquated media distribution. Both of these truths will result in a large reduction in PC sales.
As a last addendum to this letter, I would like to express my concern towards the CBDTPA with respect to the Linux operating system. The Linux OS is an open-source project driven by millions of contributors around the world. The Linux OS is a robust and stable operating system, routinely outperforming Windows in a variety of computing applications. Due to its open-source nature, Linux would be outlawed in the US if software ever is forced to include DRM. To demonstrate, since Linux is open-source, any code used to employ DRM could be easily circumvented or erased, thus causing the illegality. While Linux certainly has its advantages to Windows in terms of stability, virus-prevention, interoperability, cost, and functionality, it is also a huge business within and without the U.S. IBM alone invests over 1 billion dollars in Linux each year. Linux is seen as one of the biggest competitors to Microsoft Windows, and damaging it's already fragile market-share could keep the proven monopoly, Microsoft, bigger and more powerful than ever.
Furthermore, even if the Linux OS is somehow immune to the CBDTPA's forced DRM, one needs to note that as of now, Microsoft holds a patent on a Digital Rights Management OS. If the U.S. Government passes a law requiring DRM in all software, they in effect make it illegal to use any OS other than Windows, and basically write a Microsoft monopoly into law.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I quote Robert Heinlein's "Life-Line":
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Thank you for your time. I hope that in light of this letter you seriously consider all of the ramifications to this bill from a moral, economic, and constitutional perspective. Vote down this legislation.
Sincerely,
REFERENCES
For an incredibly in-depth analysis of the implication of this type of legislation, the best choice by far is:
Lessig, Lawrence. "The Future of Ideas". Random House, New York, NY: 2001.
The rest of my sources are from the Internet. For great discussions on these topics, some good sites are:
http://www.eff.org
http://www.linux.org
http://www.anti-dmca.org
Individual facts and citations were garnered from the following sites:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/24262.h
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:uVMlxVS8tj
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/27/154
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA/20020228_intel_holl
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA/20010926_usacm_holl
http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020308_eff_sssca_al
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03215.html
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2002news/copyright.htm
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,48625,00
http://www-sul.stanford.edu/cpyright.html
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,49201,00
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/rice.html
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17327
"IMO Blizzard has always done a good job differentiating the races. In Starcraft, for example, you could not play the Protoss and Humans in the same way. They were so different that a new strategy was required for each. I can't see them taking a step backward with their flagship product in that respect."
I disagree. In every blizzard game I have ever played that was coined "strategy" what it came down to was just your ability to rush. Whether human or protoss, for example, all you needed to do was build up quicker, regardless of how the races were differentiated. No matter what race you choose, the only difference is the units and style. The overall premise is the same:
Build up army quick.
Rush in and kill quick.
Repeat ad nauseum.
---rhad
it sucks.
--rhad
oh god. DUH.
----rhad
annoyed,
---------------rhad
jeez--talk about paranoia.
---rhad
----------rhad
--------------rhad
----rhad
my point? It wasn't really "offered". It was more of a sleazeball maneuver to gain support from the linux community without really endangering or changing anything with regards to Microsoft's OEM domination.
------------rhad
a) go ahead and try (laff)
b) oh jeez, now my mp3 box is off the network...
c) ever heard of backups
d) go jump off a cliff
well anyhow, it is like Scott Adams said in regards to sales in the dlibert principle. "The optimal group to market to is the stupid rich. They will buy anything no matter what the price. Overcharge the smart rich and they will buy your company and fire your ass, overcharge the stupid poor and they cannot buy your product, overcharge the smart poor and they will find a way to steal it."
----------rhad the college student
oh yeah--RIAA, you can BLOW ME
------------rhad
Fuck radio.
------------------rhad