DeCSS and CD burners do the same thing. Right?
on
The DeCSS Haiku
·
· Score: 2
Okay, so DeCSS is considered a copyright circumvention tool. However, my understanding is that it was primarily designed to allow Linux users to play DVDs (which they already paid for) on their systems. But incidentally, the program will also allow a DVD owner to make a copy of the DVD, without permission. The latter is what has the MPAA so concerned.
How is this different from a CD burner? Sure, one could argue that it's primary use is for archiving one's own material, but the hardware and it's bundled software can also quite easily be used to pirate audio or data CDs. Why hasn't the RIAA gone after every manufacturer of CD burners, CDRs, CDRWs and burner software? I mean, come on, pirating a 4 minute song and distrubuting it over the net is a heck of a lot easier than pirating a DVD! Seems to me that pirated CDs (and MP3s that you can make with the bundled software) represent more of a threat to copyright than DeCSS does.
First of all, programs like EasyCD Creator make copying a CD child's play. Nearly any idiot can do this as the software gives you explicit instructions and does all the work for you. But to pirate a DVD using DeCSS is a much more complicated process and it's unlikely that Dick and Jane Jones are going to go to all that trouble or will even know how to do it. Second of all, audio and data CDs are far more common in the average consumer household than DVDs are. You can play audio disks nearly anywhere, and MP3s are not far behind. But a DVD can really only be used in a PC or your home theatre, not in your car, not in your discman, not on your cellphone, etc.
When the RIAA says it's trying to protect the artists, don't believe them. If a CD sells, the artist might get 3 or 4% in royalties. The record company will get over 80%, and the rest is retail markup. No artist makes as much on a record as the company that produced the record. That's simply not how the industry works. Record companies are a lot like venture capitalists - they'll front you the money to get going, but in return they want that capital back and they'll strive for controlling interest in your assets. So they're really protecting their own interests, not those of the artists. They're after Napster because it is a distribution system far superior to their own in many ways. But they've done nothing against the distrubution methods like CD burners and MP3 encoders. I don't understand why. Why hasn't Warner Brothers sued Panasonic and Acer for making burners that can be used to circumvent copyright and royalties on their releases? Why haven't they sued Maxell and others for producing the media that allows illegal copying of their CDs? Nobody has sued Adaptec for making software that allows any Joe to copy an audio or data CD.
If DeCSS is a copyright circumvention method, so too is a CD burner. If this is true, then why has the MPAA come out with their guns blazing at nearly everyone and the RIAA has gone after Napster alone?
This kind of thing makes me truly sick, it really does. But to be frank with you, I'm not the least bit surprised.
It's what I call the American Mentality: whenever there's any possible reason, chance or method to sue somebody, do it. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, and I'm not some Anti-American slander king. But if you look at how often this occurs, how much it is encouraged (even implicitly) you can't help but see this as predictable.
Whenever I watch American TV, I'm stunned by the number of law firm commercials with ads like: "Have you been in an auto accident or injured at work? Call Dick "The Ironfist" Jones, and he'll get you the money you deserve." They're full of testimonials like: "I broke my leg skiing and had to miss five weeks of work. Dick Jones got me $1.2 million, and now I'm set for life." Granted, I only get about 4 American stations (mostly from the Detroit area,) but I find it implausible that Detroit is the only place this occurs.
Now, I can understand big businesses having the right to protect their investments, but the tendency to go overboard is becoming remarkably commonplace. Look at the recent cases involving DeCSS and the MPAA. Look at how IDG books goes after the slightest mention of their most popular products. Before trying anything else, get a lawyer to send a few letters to whomever you find slightly annoying and then don't be afraid to sue the hell out of them. That's the American Way!!
This sort of thing makes me fearful of being in the States. The constant dread of knowing that at any minute, for any reason, a team of lawyers could descend upon me is absolutely frightening. That there is a large group of individuals and corporations who seek any opportunity to go after you financially for any excuse would be enough to keep me from ever leaving my home.
Perhaps it should be henceforth referred to as "The Land of Legal Opportunity." Marginal tax rate and Health Care burden be damned, I'm quite happy living in Canada.
Advertising is what makes this medium affordable. How else would a webmaster with a popular non-commerce website be able to pay for server space, bandwidth, application software and site maintenance? It's the same reason why magazines aren't $25 each, why newspapers are only a buck and why cable TV doesn't cost thousands a month. Let's put it this way: would you rather put up with a few easily ignored banner ads, or pay $3.00 each time you wanted to read your favourite website or do your email? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth - let's just keep quiet and let the advertisers pay the bills.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so DeCSS is considered a copyright circumvention tool. However, my understanding is that it was primarily designed to allow Linux users to play DVDs (which they already paid for) on their systems. But incidentally, the program will also allow a DVD owner to make a copy of the DVD, without permission. The latter is what has the MPAA so concerned.
How is this different from a CD burner? Sure, one could argue that it's primary use is for archiving one's own material, but the hardware and it's bundled software can also quite easily be used to pirate audio or data CDs. Why hasn't the RIAA gone after every manufacturer of CD burners, CDRs, CDRWs and burner software? I mean, come on, pirating a 4 minute song and distrubuting it over the net is a heck of a lot easier than pirating a DVD! Seems to me that pirated CDs (and MP3s that you can make with the bundled software) represent more of a threat to copyright than DeCSS does.
First of all, programs like EasyCD Creator make copying a CD child's play. Nearly any idiot can do this as the software gives you explicit instructions and does all the work for you. But to pirate a DVD using DeCSS is a much more complicated process and it's unlikely that Dick and Jane Jones are going to go to all that trouble or will even know how to do it. Second of all, audio and data CDs are far more common in the average consumer household than DVDs are. You can play audio disks nearly anywhere, and MP3s are not far behind. But a DVD can really only be used in a PC or your home theatre, not in your car, not in your discman, not on your cellphone, etc.
When the RIAA says it's trying to protect the artists, don't believe them. If a CD sells, the artist might get 3 or 4% in royalties. The record company will get over 80%, and the rest is retail markup. No artist makes as much on a record as the company that produced the record. That's simply not how the industry works. Record companies are a lot like venture capitalists - they'll front you the money to get going, but in return they want that capital back and they'll strive for controlling interest in your assets. So they're really protecting their own interests, not those of the artists. They're after Napster because it is a distribution system far superior to their own in many ways. But they've done nothing against the distrubution methods like CD burners and MP3 encoders. I don't understand why. Why hasn't Warner Brothers sued Panasonic and Acer for making burners that can be used to circumvent copyright and royalties on their releases? Why haven't they sued Maxell and others for producing the media that allows illegal copying of their CDs? Nobody has sued Adaptec for making software that allows any Joe to copy an audio or data CD.
If DeCSS is a copyright circumvention method, so too is a CD burner. If this is true, then why has the MPAA come out with their guns blazing at nearly everyone and the RIAA has gone after Napster alone?
This kind of thing makes me truly sick, it really does. But to be frank with you, I'm not the least bit surprised.
It's what I call the American Mentality: whenever there's any possible reason, chance or method to sue somebody, do it. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, and I'm not some Anti-American slander king. But if you look at how often this occurs, how much it is encouraged (even implicitly) you can't help but see this as predictable.
Whenever I watch American TV, I'm stunned by the number of law firm commercials with ads like: "Have you been in an auto accident or injured at work? Call Dick "The Ironfist" Jones, and he'll get you the money you deserve." They're full of testimonials like: "I broke my leg skiing and had to miss five weeks of work. Dick Jones got me $1.2 million, and now I'm set for life." Granted, I only get about 4 American stations (mostly from the Detroit area,) but I find it implausible that Detroit is the only place this occurs.
Now, I can understand big businesses having the right to protect their investments, but the tendency to go overboard is becoming remarkably commonplace. Look at the recent cases involving DeCSS and the MPAA. Look at how IDG books goes after the slightest mention of their most popular products. Before trying anything else, get a lawyer to send a few letters to whomever you find slightly annoying and then don't be afraid to sue the hell out of them. That's the American Way!!
This sort of thing makes me fearful of being in the States. The constant dread of knowing that at any minute, for any reason, a team of lawyers could descend upon me is absolutely frightening. That there is a large group of individuals and corporations who seek any opportunity to go after you financially for any excuse would be enough to keep me from ever leaving my home.
Perhaps it should be henceforth referred to as "The Land of Legal Opportunity." Marginal tax rate and Health Care burden be damned, I'm quite happy living in Canada.
Advertising is what makes this medium affordable. How else would a webmaster with a popular non-commerce website be able to pay for server space, bandwidth, application software and site maintenance? It's the same reason why magazines aren't $25 each, why newspapers are only a buck and why cable TV doesn't cost thousands a month. Let's put it this way: would you rather put up with a few easily ignored banner ads, or pay $3.00 each time you wanted to read your favourite website or do your email? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth - let's just keep quiet and let the advertisers pay the bills.