I can't believe that internet piracy - even at much higher levels - would encourage broadcasters or producers to abandon the free terrestrial TV market. They make more money than they lose through piracy. Other countries have successfully switched to free terrestrial digital services and there is no sign of this "reluctance" amongst producers. Does a higher resolution display really make that much difference?
In fact, very few people do upload broadcast TV shows to the internet. Those that do are usually of a lower quality to improve download speeds, but even if they do simply upload a copy at broadcast quality, the hassle of doing this is too great for most people to be bothered with. The people who actually do this will find a way to circumvent the broadcast flag.
So the broadcast flag would fail to stop a small monority from an act that actually causes a fairly trivial amount of actual damage.
Are we to believe that companies support something but their employees (whould would benefit from the additional revenue by keeping their jobs) somehow do not support the idea? How long could any of us stay at a company if we consistently opposed our bosses ideas?
Yup. I work for the software industry, and quite honestly, I want them to stop adding the ineffective over priced copy protection mechanisms, region lockouts on consoles, and irritating licence agreements. I presume a lot of people who work for other media companies are the same.
The actual cost to me of piracy is not that great. My job is fairly secure whether we have piracy or not, as long as it stays at manageable levels. Any sales related bonus is really fairly insiginificant. As a consumer as well as a producer, anything anti-consumer affects me too.
They're allowed to tack on whatever restrictions they want. We should be able to ignore them if we're not breaching the law by doing so. The GPL offers this right. The broadcast flag will not.
We have the right to record the episode according to a decision the supreme court made in the 1970's regarding the legality of video recorders.
It does occur to me that this will not be the first console where supply is unable to meet demand. And it certainly makes it sound more popular when people are extremely desperate to get hold of one.
I think they will. But other people have pointed out a more likely problem is that many companies will have to pay the licence fee twice for most of the same technology.
Sometimes you need to make things work fast at the start. Some optimisations can be retrofitted (e.g. loop unrolling), but the basic efficiency of algorithms is something that should be in the design.
But, no matter how many times you say it is a myth and how hard you try to create a new perception, the FACT is that people's real-world experience, no matter how anecdotal, consistently demonstrates that Java is MASSIVELY slow than similar apps in C or C++.
I wonder if this could be because the faster coders write in C++. On average, C++ programmers are more experienced and a lot more likely to have written performance critical code. Some of the code I see from younger programmers is terrible in terms of efficiency. We have searches of stl vectors when a map would work so much better, no reuse of searched for values, and passing large structures as parameters when a const reference would work.
It's just like DVD+RW and DVD=RW. Seems everyone was having the same arguments and fears about formats when these two formats came out.
As an aside, I think this was a pointless frear as well. The market can easily handle multiple blank media formats. For as long as I've known there have been a handful of film types for cameras, and several types of camcorder tape. Even today, there are at least 4 different types of digital camera memory and none of them seem to be going away any time soon.
Blu Ray and HD-DVD have the same physical dimensions, the same tracking systems, the same video output, the same codecs and pretty much the same copy protection mechanisms. Even the lasers are the same frequency. 90% of the internals of the box will be identical. All they need are two lasers, or switchable optics, and even the cost of this will go down. Building a dual format player will not be that great a technological challenge.
Depending on people not to digitally copy and electronically distribute just doesn't work. See Napster. They will, if given 1/2 of a chance.
Yes they will. So you use legal means to prevent them. Not technological means that also punish legitimate users. Even better, you work the assumption that people are going to make copies into the copyright system, and make sure that there are adeqaute measures to accomodate that.
Your model will simply lead to a continuation of the current RIAA lawsuit situation. Why? Because it'll be the only tool that content providers have to go after copiers. Is that what you want?
It's not a choice of one or the other. There are other mechanisms. Make distribution a minor misdemeanor. Make it so that the fine is sufficiently large to become a deterrent, large enough to justify going after the infringers but small enough that people don't feel sympathy for the infringer.
This is a balancing act between content providers and content consumers. Content providers don't have the tools to distinguish effectively between "legal, reasonable, legitimate" copying vs. whatever the opposite is.
No they don't. However, I do. I know whether what I'm doing is legitimate use or unlawful copyright infringement. Since their technology can't make that determination, I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to circumvent it when it gets it wrong.
My challenge to you, and the "I bought it so I should be able to copy it" crowd, is to USE YOUR SMARTS to DESIGN TPM THAT WILL MEET YOUR NEEDS, yet also stop people from copying and mass distribution of protected content.
I have a mechanism. Nobody is interested. Much like security, copy protection is not a product or a device. It's a process. Unfortunately anyone I've approached with it can't understand this.
Since when have I been entering into a contract when I purchase a movie or music? I see the copy right on the packaging, as well as the Federal Warning that plays at the beginning of the movie.
Every time! You handing over money in exchange for goods forms a sale contract. (Yeah. This is a nitpick because it's Friday and I'm bored).
But the article seems to be deliberately mixing concepts. The are contracts (or usage agreements), there are leases, there are sales, there are rights management technologies, there are legal rights and there are legal agreements. These are all different. The bill could effectively eliminate rights management technologies for purchased media, but that's about all it would do. You would still be legally bound by any agreements made, and people manage to abide by these all the time without a digital guard dog.
If you bought a book, you do NOT have the right to do "anything you want with it". In particular, you can't republish that book and sell it, or even give it away, thousands of times. That violates the copyright law, and you'll be sued and/or thrown in jail.
Firstly, that's not doing something with the book though. It's doing something with a copy of the book.
Secondly - I guess I should have expected people to be over literal with their interpretation - obviously I can't break the law with it. I can't use it to club people over the head either.
So let's rephrase.
If I purchase something, then I expect to be able to use it in any legal manner. I expect the law not to restrict mefrom doing anything unreasonable (according to a "reasonable person" test). I do not want a party who is not part of the legislative process making such determinations for me. If they put barriers in the way to prevent me from using it in a legitimate manner, I expect to be able to remove said barriers.
More importantly (for this discussion), if the copyright law were revoked, why would anyone try to make money by publishing a book? If it's unsuccessful, you lose money. If it's successful, it'll be ripped off, and you lose money. Either way, you lose.
They wouldn't. Given that income encourages people to publish, and encouraging people to publish is beneficial to society, revoking copyright would probably be a bad idea. What's your point?
The bill definitely needs to distinguish between a sale and a loan. If I buy a CD, or buy a music file online, I don't want someone else dictating what I can and can't do with it. If I download a music file for a short term, I am quite happy with the concept that my right to use it will be revoked. If it's a rental, not only did I agree to it, but it's the entire point.
Yes it is an insane case. Nevertheless, it's the argument the RIAA makes.
And I for one say it's totally and utterly moronic! The purpose of copyright is not to control incidental copies that may or may not be created during transmission. It's to allow the copyright owner to control distribution.
The specific mechanism that the hardware uses to transmit should not be a matter for the courts to worry about. It's totally irrelevent. The record indistry has not lost a sale since there is no way to get separate the copy from the device until it is actually played. Once we're there it is indistinguishable from any other receiver.
A lot of people do simply want to import games because they can get them sooner or cheaper.
The mod chip allows people to do this. Since this is legal, then why should people not be allowed to do it? It's not good to ban doing something legal and legitimate simply because it allows you to also do something illegal.
We have our own. Its connected to yours through by some transatlantic cables. It would just be nice to have a little say in how its run.
Of course, whatever the EU thinks, this isn't a political matter, at least as far as national politics is concerned. Its an adimistrative matter for the various regional domain name authorities and ISPs
Are they going to come into the US and take all of the DNS/Registar servers?
That wouldn't help a lot. They'd just put new computers in the same place and since all the routers will route ICANN's IP address to the same place rather than the actual machines, nothing would change.
Regional lockouts and restrictions always struck me as a potentially risky idea for the companies precisely because there is quite a reasonable argument that they prevent people from doing perfectly legal acts. Therefore circumventing them shouldn't be a crime.
It's nice to see the Australian court more or less agreeing with me.
I wonder if this may make them reconsider regional lockouts for the next version of their console. Piracy must cost them a lot more than grey imports. At least the grey imports count as a sale, and it's a lot more hassle to get hole of them than copying a disc from a friend.
Nice comments. However, I usually refer to a more practical justification for not using the term "theft".
"Theft" is a loaded term. It implies that all copyright infringement is wrong by overgeneralising. If one believes copyright infringement is wrong, then this should be justified on its own merits. Simply calling it theft is intellectually dishonest.
The law is totally screwed up for allowing such potential penalties for such a small amount of actual harm. The RIAA is abusing the legal system and using it for intimidation rather than justice.
Re:Waste of time and source of FUD for Microsoft
on
Dell Offering "Open" PC
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Microsoft spokesman "It's obvious to us that most PC buyers want Windows running on their machines yadda yadda yadda..."
Well - Let's be honest. Most buyers do want Windows on a PC they buy.
Allofmp3 seems to be working in a legal grey area. It's probably legal to do what they're doing in Russia. It may be (and probably is) legal to purchase songs from them and download to the US. They could be breaking US copyright law by allowing you to do this.
Balance of probabilities is that it's probably legal, but there's a possibility that it may not be. Design Technica wants to play safe and not advocate using a service that could potentially be illegal.
I said something similar in a slashdot post back in 1976.
"As a betamax owner, I don't feel "stuck" with Betamax. I find my Sony player is considerably better than any of the recently released VHS players and Beta is currently considerably more popular"
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe that internet piracy - even at much higher levels - would encourage broadcasters or producers to abandon the free terrestrial TV market. They make more money than they lose through piracy. Other countries have successfully switched to free terrestrial digital services and there is no sign of this "reluctance" amongst producers. Does a higher resolution display really make that much difference?
In fact, very few people do upload broadcast TV shows to the internet. Those that do are usually of a lower quality to improve download speeds, but even if they do simply upload a copy at broadcast quality, the hassle of doing this is too great for most people to be bothered with. The people who actually do this will find a way to circumvent the broadcast flag.
So the broadcast flag would fail to stop a small monority from an act that actually causes a fairly trivial amount of actual damage.
Are we to believe that companies support something but their employees (whould would benefit from the additional revenue by keeping their jobs) somehow do not support the idea? How long could any of us stay at a company if we consistently opposed our bosses ideas?
Yup. I work for the software industry, and quite honestly, I want them to stop adding the ineffective over priced copy protection mechanisms, region lockouts on consoles, and irritating licence agreements. I presume a lot of people who work for other media companies are the same.
The actual cost to me of piracy is not that great. My job is fairly secure whether we have piracy or not, as long as it stays at manageable levels. Any sales related bonus is really fairly insiginificant. As a consumer as well as a producer, anything anti-consumer affects me too.
They're allowed to tack on whatever restrictions they want. We should be able to ignore them if we're not breaching the law by doing so. The GPL offers this right. The broadcast flag will not.
We have the right to record the episode according to a decision the supreme court made in the 1970's regarding the legality of video recorders.
It does occur to me that this will not be the first console where supply is unable to meet demand. And it certainly makes it sound more popular when people are extremely desperate to get hold of one.
I think they will. But other people have pointed out a more likely problem is that many companies will have to pay the licence fee twice for most of the same technology.
Sometimes you need to make things work fast at the start. Some optimisations can be retrofitted (e.g. loop unrolling), but the basic efficiency of algorithms is something that should be in the design.
But, no matter how many times you say it is a myth and how hard you try to create a new perception, the FACT is that people's real-world experience, no matter how anecdotal, consistently demonstrates that Java is MASSIVELY slow than similar apps in C or C++.
I wonder if this could be because the faster coders write in C++. On average, C++ programmers are more experienced and a lot more likely to have written performance critical code. Some of the code I see from younger programmers is terrible in terms of efficiency. We have searches of stl vectors when a map would work so much better, no reuse of searched for values, and passing large structures as parameters when a const reference would work.
It's just like DVD+RW and DVD=RW. Seems everyone was having the same arguments and fears about formats when these two formats came out.
As an aside, I think this was a pointless frear as well. The market can easily handle multiple blank media formats. For as long as I've known there have been a handful of film types for cameras, and several types of camcorder tape. Even today, there are at least 4 different types of digital camera memory and none of them seem to be going away any time soon.
Blu Ray and HD-DVD have the same physical dimensions, the same tracking systems, the same video output, the same codecs and pretty much the same copy protection mechanisms. Even the lasers are the same frequency. 90% of the internals of the box will be identical. All they need are two lasers, or switchable optics, and even the cost of this will go down. Building a dual format player will not be that great a technological challenge.
Depending on people not to digitally copy and electronically distribute just doesn't work. See Napster. They will, if given 1/2 of a chance.
Yes they will. So you use legal means to prevent them. Not technological means that also punish legitimate users. Even better, you work the assumption that people are going to make copies into the copyright system, and make sure that there are adeqaute measures to accomodate that.
Your model will simply lead to a continuation of the current RIAA lawsuit situation. Why? Because it'll be the only tool that content providers have to go after copiers. Is that what you want?
It's not a choice of one or the other. There are other mechanisms. Make distribution a minor misdemeanor. Make it so that the fine is sufficiently large to become a deterrent, large enough to justify going after the infringers but small enough that people don't feel sympathy for the infringer.
This is a balancing act between content providers and content consumers. Content providers don't have the tools to distinguish effectively between "legal, reasonable, legitimate" copying vs. whatever the opposite is.
No they don't. However, I do. I know whether what I'm doing is legitimate use or unlawful copyright infringement. Since their technology can't make that determination, I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to circumvent it when it gets it wrong.
My challenge to you, and the "I bought it so I should be able to copy it" crowd, is to USE YOUR SMARTS to DESIGN TPM THAT WILL MEET YOUR NEEDS, yet also stop people from copying and mass distribution of protected content.
I have a mechanism. Nobody is interested. Much like security, copy protection is not a product or a device. It's a process. Unfortunately anyone I've approached with it can't understand this.
Since when have I been entering into a contract when I purchase a movie or music? I see the copy right on the packaging, as well as the Federal Warning that plays at the beginning of the movie.
Every time! You handing over money in exchange for goods forms a sale contract. (Yeah. This is a nitpick because it's Friday and I'm bored).
But the article seems to be deliberately mixing concepts. The are contracts (or usage agreements), there are leases, there are sales, there are rights management technologies, there are legal rights and there are legal agreements. These are all different. The bill could effectively eliminate rights management technologies for purchased media, but that's about all it would do. You would still be legally bound by any agreements made, and people manage to abide by these all the time without a digital guard dog.
If you bought a book, you do NOT have the right to do "anything you want with it". In particular, you can't republish that book and sell it, or even give it away, thousands of times. That violates the copyright law, and you'll be sued and/or thrown in jail.
Firstly, that's not doing something with the book though. It's doing something with a copy of the book.
Secondly - I guess I should have expected people to be over literal with their interpretation - obviously I can't break the law with it. I can't use it to club people over the head either.
So let's rephrase.
If I purchase something, then I expect to be able to use it in any legal manner. I expect the law not to restrict mefrom doing anything unreasonable (according to a "reasonable person" test). I do not want a party who is not part of the legislative process making such determinations for me. If they put barriers in the way to prevent me from using it in a legitimate manner, I expect to be able to remove said barriers.
More importantly (for this discussion), if the copyright law were revoked, why would anyone try to make money by publishing a book? If it's unsuccessful, you lose money. If it's successful, it'll be ripped off, and you lose money. Either way, you lose.
They wouldn't. Given that income encourages people to publish, and encouraging people to publish is beneficial to society, revoking copyright would probably be a bad idea. What's your point?
The bill definitely needs to distinguish between a sale and a loan. If I buy a CD, or buy a music file online, I don't want someone else dictating what I can and can't do with it. If I download a music file for a short term, I am quite happy with the concept that my right to use it will be revoked. If it's a rental, not only did I agree to it, but it's the entire point.
Now there's a thought...
Produce a neural network based recording device. Then it will not be storing a copy of music at all.
If the courts decide that it is a recording device, paint it purple and claim it's a totally different device as a result of this.
Yes it is an insane case. Nevertheless, it's the argument the RIAA makes.
And I for one say it's totally and utterly moronic! The purpose of copyright is not to control incidental copies that may or may not be created during transmission. It's to allow the copyright owner to control distribution.
The specific mechanism that the hardware uses to transmit should not be a matter for the courts to worry about. It's totally irrelevent. The record indistry has not lost a sale since there is no way to get separate the copy from the device until it is actually played. Once we're there it is indistinguishable from any other receiver.
A lot of people do simply want to import games because they can get them sooner or cheaper.
The mod chip allows people to do this. Since this is legal, then why should people not be allowed to do it? It's not good to ban doing something legal and legitimate simply because it allows you to also do something illegal.
We have our own. Its connected to yours through by some transatlantic cables. It would just be nice to have a little say in how its run.
Of course, whatever the EU thinks, this isn't a political matter, at least as far as national politics is concerned. Its an adimistrative matter for the various regional domain name authorities and ISPs
Are they going to come into the US and take all of the DNS/Registar servers?
That wouldn't help a lot. They'd just put new computers in the same place and since all the routers will route ICANN's IP address to the same place rather than the actual machines, nothing would change.
Regional lockouts and restrictions always struck me as a potentially risky idea for the companies precisely because there is quite a reasonable argument that they prevent people from doing perfectly legal acts. Therefore circumventing them shouldn't be a crime. It's nice to see the Australian court more or less agreeing with me.
I wonder if this may make them reconsider regional lockouts for the next version of their console. Piracy must cost them a lot more than grey imports. At least the grey imports count as a sale, and it's a lot more hassle to get hole of them than copying a disc from a friend.
Nice comments. However, I usually refer to a more practical justification for not using the term "theft".
"Theft" is a loaded term. It implies that all copyright infringement is wrong by overgeneralising. If one believes copyright infringement is wrong, then this should be justified on its own merits. Simply calling it theft is intellectually dishonest.
who should they target?
Nobody.
The law is totally screwed up for allowing such potential penalties for such a small amount of actual harm. The RIAA is abusing the legal system and using it for intimidation rather than justice.
Microsoft spokesman "It's obvious to us that most PC buyers want Windows running on their machines yadda yadda yadda..."
Well - Let's be honest. Most buyers do want Windows on a PC they buy.
Allofmp3 seems to be working in a legal grey area. It's probably legal to do what they're doing in Russia. It may be (and probably is) legal to purchase songs from them and download to the US. They could be breaking US copyright law by allowing you to do this.
Balance of probabilities is that it's probably legal, but there's a possibility that it may not be. Design Technica wants to play safe and not advocate using a service that could potentially be illegal.
I said something similar in a slashdot post back in 1976.
"As a betamax owner, I don't feel "stuck" with Betamax. I find my Sony player is considerably better than any of the recently released VHS players and Beta is currently considerably more popular"
Will it always be the most vertically integrated, the best populated, and the most featureful music store?