It depends mostly on whether or not you have protected the access to your files. If you haven't, then it's considered making those files public, which is illegal under copyright law. Even more interesting: those that COPY the music will most likely NOT violate copyright law, since the law in most countries states that you have the right to copies for your own use WITHOUT owning the original (this is not valid for software btw). That's what the extra price paid on blank media is for.
I don't know the US law on this matter, but I suspect it's similar to most European laws. When home copies (for personal use) were discussed, they felt it was impossible to check for audio/video if one owned the original or not. As such it was decided that both types of copies would be legal, and a price would be payed for the carriers (cassette/VHS tapes, CDs, etc.). As such, downloading of audio/video is legal, while uploading (distribution) is not.
I believe that some technology company (was it MS?) already made a threat to Valenti to buy the MPAA companies. If you look at the wealth in the electronics/IT sector, they could probably do it. If Hollywood continues their attacks in Congress, the tech sector might just follow up on their threat...
Btw: has anyone ever thought about DRM? It's a weird system isn't it? A system designed to keep itself safe from its owner...
My VCR must be a hyper modern one, because it has this exact same feature: forwarding through commercials. To avoid missing anything it even allows me to forward while viewing the picture so that I know exactly when the movie starts again i.s.o. having to rely on 30 second skipping.
My computer with TV-IN has the same capabilities, but with the great editing options to remove the commercials permanently from my recordings.
On the other hand: I tend to watch TV when a show is on. It's rare that I tape a show. Perhaps if there are more suckers like me, the commercials will still be skipped the old fashion way: by taking bathroom brakes, and getting a soda from the fridge.:)
No, it just means that the lawmakers felt that the copyright owners were entitled to some compensation, even for a copy for personal use (not that I agree with them, but that's a different topic:). That a personal copy doesn't cost the same as a store bought one does not imply that the store bought one is overpriced (IMHO it is, but that's a different matter again:). The store bought copy also carries the price of packaging, advertising, manual, intermediate person's cost, etc.
I'd have to recheck American copyright law for your second issue. Under Dutch copyright law you are only entitled to a small number of personal copies, but I don't know if such limitations exist under American copyright law.
This is a misunderstanding I believe. The 6 Euro is not for the CDs you may copy illegally. It is for the CDs that you may copy legally. European copyright law states that you have the right to a copy for your own use, provided the copyright owners are properly compensated. The 6 Euro on the CD writer, and the 'taxes' on empty CDs are determined to be 'proper compensation'.
This also explains another phenomenon: Politicians here in the Netherlands have stated that if strong DRM comes into existence (where the copyright owner controls all through DRM), those 'taxes' will be taken away, since one should not be forced to pay twice for the same copy.
Yes, you will get bitched at, and legally you are in a precarious position. It's called publication of a copyrighted work, and it is illegal. Selling that copy (and only that copy) however is legal in the US as far as I know.
Unless it is a file containing something other than the Metallica song, it is considered copyright infringement I'm afraid. Publication of copyrighted material that does not belong to you is illegal under the law. Whether that law is a good thing is another matter of course...
I'm sorry, but this is something completely different. If the MS license does not hold up in court, MS cannot stop this product. If the GPL doesn't hold up in court, MS using GPL in Windows is still illegal under normal copyright law. The MS license goes beyond copyright law, while the GPL diminishes the rights gained by copyright law.
Yes, all that is to be added to the video signal is an rc_descriptor stating that this is broadcasted content. In itself, that amounts to no protection at all. However....
The BPDG requirements state that electronics/software capable of receiving this video signal must check for this flag, and if found it must only allow the data to be sent to an output in a protected format, degraded format, or analog format (yes, the analog hole is still a problem they are not able/allowed to solve since it lies outside the scope of the BPDG).
Of course, these requirements would not be a problem by themselves. It is the intent of the MPAA to have these requirements be set into law, and make all other implementations (HW and SW) illegal. Yes, this is indeed as bad as you think it is. Check the EFF website to get a better vision of what this means (and read the requirements documents on there to fully understand the horror).
The biggest problem the MPAA has at this time is that many organisations (EFF, FSF, DigitalConsumer.org, VOSN, Philips, Thomson, Zenith, Sharp, Microsoft (yes, indeedio), etc.) have voiced disagreement with several provisions in the documents. Hence the only true agreement in the BPDG is that there's a lot of disagreement, and a lot of work to be done for a next discussion/concensus group.
Although I resent the idea of spyware in the software I may use, there is a fundamental difference between the file sharing programs and the spyware free sharing programs.
File sharing programs can be used by users for copyright infringement, but are by themselves not a form of copyright infringement. The spyware free programs however, are by themselves a form of copyright infringement. In order to make it legal, their programmers should consider writing spyware remove installers for the programs they wish to see spyware free. That way there is no case of copyright infringement, and the same end result is being achieved.
True perhaps, but you also use the assumption that people still wish to buy CDs in their current form. I think one of the biggest problems for the entertainment industry is that they try to force the market to follow their business models in stead of the other way around like normal businesses do.
It surprises me that the government does not even seem to be asking themselves: will these changes in the law really help us? Do you really believe that a terrorist who's willing to commit suicide by flying himself into the WTC will care whether he'll also be charged with using an encryption method that does not have a backdoor for the American government? Aside from that: why would he/she use plain English? Just use codewords for everything, and no encryption backdoor will do you any good.
The only people affected by these laws are the common (American?) citizens, who suddenly cannot rely on their rights to privacy anymore. If a backdoor exists, then crackers will find it, and all that information you'd like to keep private will be open for all to read...
Because the services he offers are not webrelated, but he still needs a domainname for his machine. It will cost him to register a new domainname, and notify all his users of the new location. More effort will go into finding all sites with references to e.g. his IRC channels, and have them change their references. _That's_ where his costs will be coming from, and I think he's put down a pretty small amount for all that effort.
As a frequent viewer of your "BattleBots" program, I am highly disappointed to have read about your dispute with Mr. Lyon over his ownership of the www.battlebots.org website. With this you have already gathered quite a bit of bad PR, as you can view at
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/09/02/0143234.shtml.
Since it will cost Mr. Lyon a considerable amount of time, effort and money to start a new site, and move all the services he offers to the public to this new site (making all his users aware of the new location) I sincerely hope that you will consider the two options Mr. Lyon has offered you in his email. They seem more than reasonable to me. A third option was provided by Mr. Burke in an email to you (quoted from Slashdot):
"In my opinion, the best thing you could do would be to request that the current owner of BATTLEBOTS.ORG place wording on his website to the effect of "This website is not affiliated in any way with the television show BattleBots. Their website is located at www.battlebots.com." Then quietly drop the matter, and the negative press will most certainly vanish almost overnight. "
I must agree with Mr. Burke that handling this matter in a friendly and acceptable manner will save you a lot of bad press. I for one will boycott this program for as long as this matter is not amicably solved.
Although I'm highly opposed to the CPRM proposals, I wonder if it has more influence on Linux than on other operating systems. The only problem I can see is the license needed for the CPRM complient drivers, but I wonder if IBM (considering their interest in Linux) will have any problems spending the money on such license so they can provide the drivers needed to protect their investment.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends mostly on whether or not you have protected the access to your files. If you haven't, then it's considered making those files public, which is illegal under copyright law. Even more interesting: those that COPY the music will most likely NOT violate copyright law, since the law in most countries states that you have the right to copies for your own use WITHOUT owning the original (this is not valid for software btw). That's what the extra price paid on blank media is for.
I don't know the US law on this matter, but I suspect it's similar to most European laws. When home copies (for personal use) were discussed, they felt it was impossible to check for audio/video if one owned the original or not. As such it was decided that both types of copies would be legal, and a price would be payed for the carriers (cassette/VHS tapes, CDs, etc.). As such, downloading of audio/video is legal, while uploading (distribution) is not.
I believe that some technology company (was it MS?) already made a threat to Valenti to buy the MPAA companies. If you look at the wealth in the electronics/IT sector, they could probably do it. If Hollywood continues their attacks in Congress, the tech sector might just follow up on their threat...
Btw: has anyone ever thought about DRM? It's a weird system isn't it? A system designed to keep itself safe from its owner...
My VCR must be a hyper modern one, because it has this exact same feature: forwarding through commercials. To avoid missing anything it even allows me to forward while viewing the picture so that I know exactly when the movie starts again i.s.o. having to rely on 30 second skipping.
:)
My computer with TV-IN has the same capabilities, but with the great editing options to remove the commercials permanently from my recordings.
On the other hand: I tend to watch TV when a show is on. It's rare that I tape a show. Perhaps if there are more suckers like me, the commercials will still be skipped the old fashion way: by taking bathroom brakes, and getting a soda from the fridge.
No, it just means that the lawmakers felt that the copyright owners were entitled to some compensation, even for a copy for personal use (not that I agree with them, but that's a different topic:). That a personal copy doesn't cost the same as a store bought one does not imply that the store bought one is overpriced (IMHO it is, but that's a different matter again:). The store bought copy also carries the price of packaging, advertising, manual, intermediate person's cost, etc.
I'd have to recheck American copyright law for your second issue. Under Dutch copyright law you are only entitled to a small number of personal copies, but I don't know if such limitations exist under American copyright law.
This is a misunderstanding I believe. The 6 Euro is not for the CDs you may copy illegally. It is for the CDs that you may copy legally. European copyright law states that you have the right to a copy for your own use, provided the copyright owners are properly compensated. The 6 Euro on the CD writer, and the 'taxes' on empty CDs are determined to be 'proper compensation'.
This also explains another phenomenon: Politicians here in the Netherlands have stated that if strong DRM comes into existence (where the copyright owner controls all through DRM), those 'taxes' will be taken away, since one should not be forced to pay twice for the same copy.
Yes, you will get bitched at, and legally you are in a precarious position. It's called publication of a copyrighted work, and it is illegal. Selling that copy (and only that copy) however is legal in the US as far as I know.
Unless it is a file containing something other than the Metallica song, it is considered copyright infringement I'm afraid. Publication of copyrighted material that does not belong to you is illegal under the law. Whether that law is a good thing is another matter of course...
I'm sorry, but this is something completely different. If the MS license does not hold up in court, MS cannot stop this product. If the GPL doesn't hold up in court, MS using GPL in Windows is still illegal under normal copyright law. The MS license goes beyond copyright law, while the GPL diminishes the rights gained by copyright law.
Yes, all that is to be added to the video signal is an rc_descriptor stating that this is broadcasted content. In itself, that amounts to no protection at all. However....
The BPDG requirements state that electronics/software capable of receiving this video signal must check for this flag, and if found it must only allow the data to be sent to an output in a protected format, degraded format, or analog format (yes, the analog hole is still a problem they are not able/allowed to solve since it lies outside the scope of the BPDG).
Of course, these requirements would not be a problem by themselves. It is the intent of the MPAA to have these requirements be set into law, and make all other implementations (HW and SW) illegal. Yes, this is indeed as bad as you think it is. Check the EFF website to get a better vision of what this means (and read the requirements documents on there to fully understand the horror).
The biggest problem the MPAA has at this time is that many organisations (EFF, FSF, DigitalConsumer.org, VOSN, Philips, Thomson, Zenith, Sharp, Microsoft (yes, indeedio), etc.) have voiced disagreement with several provisions in the documents. Hence the only true agreement in the BPDG is that there's a lot of disagreement, and a lot of work to be done for a next discussion/concensus group.
Although I resent the idea of spyware in the software I may use, there is a fundamental difference between the file sharing programs and the spyware free sharing programs.
File sharing programs can be used by users for copyright infringement, but are by themselves not a form of copyright infringement. The spyware free programs however, are by themselves a form of copyright infringement. In order to make it legal, their programmers should consider writing spyware remove installers for the programs they wish to see spyware free. That way there is no case of copyright infringement, and the same end result is being achieved.
True perhaps, but you also use the assumption that people still wish to buy CDs in their current form. I think one of the biggest problems for the entertainment industry is that they try to force the market to follow their business models in stead of the other way around like normal businesses do.
It surprises me that the government does not even seem to be asking themselves: will these changes in the law really help us? Do you really believe that a terrorist who's willing to commit suicide by flying himself into the WTC will care whether he'll also be charged with using an encryption method that does not have a backdoor for the American government? Aside from that: why would he/she use plain English? Just use codewords for everything, and no encryption backdoor will do you any good.
The only people affected by these laws are the common (American?) citizens, who suddenly cannot rely on their rights to privacy anymore. If a backdoor exists, then crackers will find it, and all that information you'd like to keep private will be open for all to read...
Because the services he offers are not webrelated, but he still needs a domainname for his machine. It will cost him to register a new domainname, and notify all his users of the new location. More effort will go into finding all sites with references to e.g. his IRC channels, and have them change their references. _That's_ where his costs will be coming from, and I think he's put down a pretty small amount for all that effort.
Subject: Battlebots Trademark Issue battlebots.org)
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 09:43:14 +0200
From: Pieter Hulshoff
To: info@battlebots.com, press@battlebots.com
CC: blyon@theshell.com
Dear Sir/Madam,
As a frequent viewer of your "BattleBots" program, I am highly disappointed to have read about your dispute with Mr. Lyon over his ownership of the www.battlebots.org website. With this you have already gathered quite a bit of bad PR, as you can view at
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/09/02/0143234.shtml.
Since it will cost Mr. Lyon a considerable amount of time, effort and money to start a new site, and move all the services he offers to the public to this new site (making all his users aware of the new location) I sincerely hope that you will consider the two options Mr. Lyon has offered you in his email. They seem more than reasonable to me. A third option was provided by Mr. Burke in an email to you (quoted from Slashdot):
"In my opinion, the best thing you could do would be to request that the current owner of BATTLEBOTS.ORG place wording on his website to the effect of "This website is not affiliated in any way with the television show BattleBots. Their website is located at www.battlebots.com." Then quietly drop the matter, and the negative press will most certainly vanish almost overnight. "
I must agree with Mr. Burke that handling this matter in a friendly and acceptable manner will save you a lot of bad press. I for one will boycott this program for as long as this matter is not amicably solved.
Regards,
Ir. Pieter Hulshoff
Almere, the Netherlands
Hmm, if so (as noted by the Register): Why is CPRM written for ATA? Which devices should this work on that are going to be ATA based?
Although I'm highly opposed to the CPRM proposals, I wonder if it has more influence on Linux than on other operating systems. The only problem I can see is the license needed for the CPRM complient drivers, but I wonder if IBM (considering their interest in Linux) will have any problems spending the money on such license so they can provide the drivers needed to protect their investment.