Garage Band is based on Logic Audio, which Apple took over when they bought Emagic. Logic Audio is about the deepest DAW software around, and has about the crappiest, most out-of-date manual you can imagine. So even the true pro software has all types of hidden tricks, and other obvious features, none of which are documented adequately. Blame Emagic, the original developer.
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
Seems clear that the whole copyrighted work is a substantial amount of itself.
One of the problems with a combination of long copyrights and aggressive, indiscrimiate lawyering is that they do not distinguish between freeware/abandonware and, say, ISOs of brand-new games. Therefore it makes it more difficult for a copyright holder to distribute software on their own terms, if those terms are "give it away...I can't sell a C64 game anymore".
The minority makes a lot of great points about why Congress should not have passed the copyright extensions in the first place. But unfortunately the majority was correct that it is within the discretion of Congress to set the terms of copyright.
The battle needs to be fought in the legislative branch.
Unfortunately, Congress seems to have forgotten about the term "authors" as well twisting the term "limited times" nearly to a breaking point. However, it is not the Court's job to overturn a harmful law, only to overturn an unconstitutional one.
I am not one to defend Corporate America, but if you were Eisner, wouldnt you do the same? If one of the cornerstones of your business were to all of a sudden become freely reproducible, wouldnt you try to stop that from happening?
The earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons are surely not "one of the cornerstones of [their] business". It is not as if they would lose all rights to everything Mickey Mouse. They would lose exclusive rights to copy and distribute the earliest cartoons (at first, with subsequent titles to follow). They could continue to copy and distribute them. It's just that others could also copy and distribute them.
Add others could copy and distribute the ones Disney might like to suppress. If there's a "Mickey Mouse Kills the Dirty Yellow Bucktoothed Nips" cartoon, for instance....
Mickey Mouse, the character, if I understand correctly, has a different legal status than that of a specific story and animation.
Weird Al releasing "Amish Paradise". Coolio did not authorize that song at all, and was very upset about it - but it still remained on the CD, Coolio got nothing for it
Coolio's track is based on a Steve Wonder tune called "Pastime Paradise"...
Liquid Audio has offered for a long time what the major labels want to do with music on the 'net. The codec sounds alright, they have a flexible DRM scheme, it's not too terribly difficult to recover a license, etc. But consumers do not want what they are offering, because they do not want a restricted format. You would think the major labels would take a lesson from this.
Some people think it is stupid and pointless to make your own creative edit of a Star Wars movie. Some people on Slashdot think it is stupid and pointless to edit out brief nudity.
A recording artist intended a CD to have 12 tracks in a particular order. You should still have the right to make a mixtape CD with one of those tracks on it and give it to your friend.
Similarly, someone who wants to edit out brief nudity on the copy of the movie they bought should be able to do so. A company should be able to offer a service to make the desired edits.
These are pretty simple principles based on fair use and right of first sale. In one context you say it's nobody's business what you do with a DVD you bought -- such as play it on a Linux box -- despite the wishes of the copyright holder to restrict any use not explicitly permitted. In another context you say they have the right to stop you from using the product in a certain way. Which way do you want it to be?
I was shopping for a 1080i/480p display recently. I looked at a Sony HDTV set with a tuner built in. Very soon they are putting out a basically equivalent model without the tuner, and it will sell for $500-$700 less. For other brands, HDTV-compatible sets without tuners sets go for $500-$1000 less than the equivalent sets with tuners. I don't know where they get the $200 figure.
The plasma sets are monitors only. If you wnat to tune television -- SDTV or HDTV -- you buy a tuner. Many tube and projection sets come with SDTV tuners but require a separate tuner for HDTV if you want it. The tuner would plug into the TV through the component video inputs -- i.e. a so-called "analog hole".
The government should stay out of decisions that people must spend extra money to have what they neither want nor need.
These digital protections are in place to protect artists and creators from having their work stolen. Region coding in particular prevents China, e.g., from flooding the US markets with their pirated DVDs and undercutting the whole industry.
How is it stealing from an artist or a content company if you purchase a legitimate Region 1 DVD and play it in Europe? Or a Region 2,3,4,5,6 DVD in the USA?
Region codes do nothing to prevent Chinese companies from flooding the US markets with region-free DVDs.
Some of the posters here do not seem to understand the evil absurdity of the idea that the US government, on behalf of Hollywood studios, might ensure that you do not watch Eyes Wide Shut as Stanley Kubrick intended, may not view Orson Welles' film MacBeth on DVD, and cannot see David Lynch's Lost Highway in its correct aspect ratio, backed with the threat of physical force.
If the movie industry insists that some obstacles must exist to keep movies in their intended market areas, or that companies must be discouraged from actively marketing and distributing copies of films in markets in which they do not have distribution rights, that makes some degree of business sense. What is offensive is the idea that governments may threaten physical force and detention of those who would work around the technical measures the movie companies use.
DVDs have 3 levels of access control in some sense:
1. CSS encryption
It's been ruled that this is an access control covered by the DMCA. However, not all DVDs are encrypted. DVDs that have some data encrypted do not always have all data encrypted. Perens could use an unencrypted DVD for his demo to bypass the CSS issue.
2. Region code
It still seems to be an open question whether region code is an access control covered by the DMCA.
3. Video standard
The USA, Japan, and much of Asia use NTSC. Other areas like Europe and Australia use PAL.
Some region-free or multi-region players will output NTSC for an NTSC disc, and PAL for a PAL disc. It is necessary to convert between video standards if the display cannot handle the video standard. Some players can also convert PAL discs for NTSC displays, and NTSC discs for PAL displays.
I would be completely astonished if video standard were considered an access control.
Assume for a moment that a disc has no region code, and you want to play it in a region 1 player. One player I own will refuse to play a PAL disc with no region, reporting it cannot play this type of disc. Since almost all displays in region 1 cannot handle a PAL signal, that restriction in the player makes some amount of sense. ("I tried to play this DVD and all it does is show a stretched out black&white picture!!!")
Say for a moment that a disc is from region 3, with NTSC video and no encryption. The only thing to restrict playing the disc in the USA is the region code. The big question now is whether the region code is "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the DMCA]", and whether instructions for how to play the disc are:
traffic[king] in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
* (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the DMCA];
* (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the DMCA]; or
* (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the DMCA].
The power of Mozilla, which got its name from Netscape's dinosaur-like mascot, is its open-source nature.
True, I suppose, almost. As I remember it, NCSA first developed the Mosaic browser, which was further developed into Mozilla and then Netscape Navigator.
I agree. Illegal aliens work jobs nobody else would want, at a wage nobody else legally could be paid. Yet they perceive themselves to be better off in the USA working for less than minimum wage. This is a case against minimum wage, and a case for making it easier for honest people to work in the USA legally.
The other big problem with the sweep of illegal aliens that was mentioned: They were mainly Mexicans. Last I heard the USA was not really worried about international terrorist organizations based in Mexico.
Software must be sold to get the money to make more software.
One service that Red Hat offers is technical support. You can get the software for free. You can get peer support for many issues, but sometimes that is not enough or not fast enough. If you need help for a production down problem, then a company can sell the service of letting you talk to a live person within X minutes. For example, IBM's HTTPD is essentially Apache with SSL and LDAP. IBM sells the features they added, and the service of technical support if you need it.
A couple years ago, I had some long discussions with the head of Jeepster records, home of the band Belle and Sebastian. He was willing to permit cassette copies to circulate of unreleased tracks, the then-unavailable Tigermilk LP, radio sessions, etc., among fans. But if anyone so much as mentioned a digital medium and one of those recordings in the same sentence, they received a legal nasty-gram by email.
He explained that cassette copies provided for limited distribution, such that only the hard-core fans could obtain the material -- an MP3 or CD-R can be duplicated any number of generations. I countered that only the hard-core fans had any interest, and that was the overriding factor in limiting distribution.
It is amusing, then, to find most of Belle and Sebatian's work on EMusic as unencumbered MP3s. Perhaps they finally saw that if people know about you, they might buy your records.
Still, films are different. It costs a large amount of money to produce a film as compared to a sound recording. It costs a large amount of money to produce prints of a film for screening, as compared to the cost of producing CDs for mass-distribution. It costs so much that often it is necessary to use the same prints for theatrical release in Australia as for the initial release in the USA. That is why they get so freaked out, even more than the recording companies.
Regardless, it is completely unjustifiable even to imagine that general-purpose technologies need to be squashed to protect these people's interests.
One other problem I see is that NOT being able to archive my own videos/music/whatever means that I am completely dependant on market demands to guarantee continued access to the pieces I enjoy. When the number of people interested in a particular piece drops too low, how many on demand services are going to continue offering access to it?
Damn straight. This is among the biggest reasons why copyright is supposed to be of limited duration. Humanity has not merely the right but the need to benefit from the work of humanity. If it is enforced that "intellectual property" disappears into the mists of time, all possible future benefit is lost. That is why the ideas need to return to the public. And why should it be up to Disney, Universal, etc. to decide which creative works are permitted to feed the human soul, and for how long? Obviously I am not talking about Snow Dogs, but more like Fantasia in the case of Disney, or a true classic like Citizen Kane that will remain as alive and as relevant to the human struggle in 500 years as it is today.
The wheel was patented forever, and they are no longer licensing it. The Bible, I Ching, Tao te Ching, the writings of Plato, Socrates, and Nietzsche are under perpetual copyright and out of print. It is illegal to make unauthorized copies. Now that the society and culture have collapsed, how do your profit margins look, Disney?
I was somewhat offended that UMG are using the free LAME encoder rather than a commercial product such as Fraunhofer. Ain't that a slap in the face? They could be creating the fscking MP3-like files on Linux systems with that free-software tool, yet they want to block you from playing the resulting CD any which way on your Linux system.
UMG is incorporating copy protection into their CDs to assess its viability in protecting the rights of our artists and copyright holders by preventing CD copying and illegal Internet distribution.
This will not turn out to be commercially viable, and will not prevent very much copying or distribution. And exactly how do they expect to stop bootleggers this way?
The CD should automatically start playing in most PCs. If it does not start playing in yours, open the CD-ROM drive's window and click on the music player application. Once in the player you can "Play" or open the "Playlist", choose a track and click on it.
I have difficulty playing the audio from any multisession CD, e.g. one with a bonus music video. I'm sure part of the "protection" in each of these schemes is the simple fact that there is a 2nd session. And even though I have trouble playing the audio, I have no trouble ripping the audio. First thing to educate the public about is how to turn off auto-insert notification to stop their goofy player from starting automatically. That will remove the false impression that the CD can somehow make the computer do something all on its own.
don't think ppl who buys $10.000 DACs are gonna listen to n'sync crap
But the person with the $10,000 DAC will want to listen to CDs on Deutsche Grammaphon, one of the premiere classical labels which (to my knowledge) is owned by Vivendi-Universal.
If I were Philips, I would start a marketing campaign (as they may now be doing) for Compact Disc Digital Audio as a high standard of audio fidelity, and against these corrupted CDs.
It's poetic that Deutsche Grammaphon spends all sorts of R&D money to improve audio fidelity, and their parent company spends R&D money to corrupt those high-fidelity recordings.
a) With ownership of a DVD video, you have the right to access the video signal, but not the unencrypted digital data. (DMCA prohibits circumvention of an access control mechanism.)
b) Only the licensed DVD player has the right to decrypt the digital data. (Copyright holder has granted the consumer electronics company the right to build a device that can read and decrypt the data.)
c) Therefore, to gain access to the video signal for private home viewing, you must rely on the licensed player to decrypt the data and to change it to a video signal you can watch.
Without the encryption, and without the decryption being punishable under the DMCA or similar legislation, this argument would not work. So the MPAA and DVDCCA were very sneaky in making sure that one has to break anti-decryption laws in order to exercise fair use rights.
I don't think CSS has much to do with copying, but everything to do with access control. And then the law kicked in (in the USA) to make it illegal to gain access to content, even when you legitimately purchased media that holds the content.
I wonder how our rights are different for use of data on unencrypted DVDs, or unencrypted blocks on encrypted DVDs.
Related to the article more directly: Under the Norwegian law in question, it sounds like I could be prosecuted for accidentally typing "rm *log" rather than "rm *.log", if the company did not grant me the right to delete access_log. (And never mind that we will pull it from last night's backup -- they still lose a few hours of entries, and therefore I would have caused some harm.)
The SOA record is messed up. Get TOMORROW2.NET to correct it and update the serial. The root servers know who to ask, but TOMORROW2.NET has the zone messed up.
Also ns[1234].tomorrow2.net are confused amongst themselves -- ns1 doesn't know who ns3, and vice-versa, plus ns1 does not responsd but ns3 serves an SOA record that points to ns1.ocdns.com. They need to fix this too.
Once all this is fixed, they have to update the serial numbers so the zone transfers will happen.
For those with an eye for the finer details:
----
[start with a root server]
> server d.gtld-servers.net.
Default Server: d.gtld-servers.net
Address: 192.31.80.30
> set type=soa
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: d.gtld-servers.net
Address: 192.31.80.30
Authoritative answers can be found from:
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS1.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS2.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS3.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS4.TOMORROW2.NET
NS1.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.20
NS2.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.21
NS3.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 130.94.173.110
NS4.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 130.94.173.111
> set type=ns
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: d.gtld-servers.net
Address: 192.31.80.30
Authoritative answers can be found from:
NS3.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 130.94.173.110
NS4.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 130.94.173.111
NS1.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.20
NS2.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.21
> set type=a
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: d.gtld-servers.net
Address: 192.31.80.30
Authoritative answers can be found from:
NS2.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.21
NS1.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.20
> set type=soa
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: ns1.tomorrow2.net
Address: 128.241.194.20
[no response.]
^C
> server ns3.tomorrow2.net.
*** Can't find address for server ns3.tomorrow2.net.: Non-existent host/domain
[back to the root server, since ns1 doesn't know ns3]
> server d.gtld-servers.net.
Default Server: d.gtld-servers.net
Address: 192.31.80.30
> server ns3.tomorrow2.net.
Default Server: ns3.tomorrow2.net
Address: 130.94.173.110
> set type=soa
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: ns3.tomorrow2.net
Address: 130.94.173.110
anarchsforlife.org
origin = ns1.ocdns.com
mail addr = root.ns1.ocdns.com
serial = 1005677141
refresh = 28800 (8 hours)
retry = 7200 (2 hours)
expire = 3600000 (41 days 16 hours)
minimum ttl = 86400 (1 day)
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = ns2.ocdns.com
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = ns1.ocdns.com
ns1.ocdns.com internet address = 130.94.173.122
ns2.ocdns.com internet address = 130.94.173.124
>
[but this is telling us to ask ocdns.com]
If the price of a CD is too low, it can cause a problem of perception, both with listeners and with distributors. "Inexpensive" versus "cheap". That is why it is often best to stay close to the prevailing price for similar products.
Slashdot Mirror
Garage Band is based on Logic Audio, which Apple took over when they bought Emagic. Logic Audio is about the deepest DAW software around, and has about the crappiest, most out-of-date manual you can imagine. So even the true pro software has all types of hidden tricks, and other obvious features, none of which are documented adequately. Blame Emagic, the original developer.
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
Seems clear that the whole copyrighted work is a substantial amount of itself.
One of the problems with a combination of long copyrights and aggressive, indiscrimiate lawyering is that they do not distinguish between freeware/abandonware and, say, ISOs of brand-new games. Therefore it makes it more difficult for a copyright holder to distribute software on their own terms, if those terms are "give it away...I can't sell a C64 game anymore".
The minority makes a lot of great points about why Congress should not have passed the copyright extensions in the first place. But unfortunately the majority was correct that it is within the discretion of Congress to set the terms of copyright.
The battle needs to be fought in the legislative branch.
Unfortunately, Congress seems to have forgotten about the term "authors" as well twisting the term "limited times" nearly to a breaking point. However, it is not the Court's job to overturn a harmful law, only to overturn an unconstitutional one.
I am not one to defend Corporate America, but if you were Eisner, wouldnt you do the same? If one of the cornerstones of your business were to all of a sudden become freely reproducible, wouldnt you try to stop that from happening?
The earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons are surely not "one of the cornerstones of [their] business". It is not as if they would lose all rights to everything Mickey Mouse. They would lose exclusive rights to copy and distribute the earliest cartoons (at first, with subsequent titles to follow). They could continue to copy and distribute them. It's just that others could also copy and distribute them.
Add others could copy and distribute the ones Disney might like to suppress. If there's a "Mickey Mouse Kills the Dirty Yellow Bucktoothed Nips" cartoon, for instance....
Mickey Mouse, the character, if I understand correctly, has a different legal status than that of a specific story and animation.
Weird Al releasing "Amish Paradise". Coolio did not authorize that song at all, and was very upset about it - but it still remained on the CD, Coolio got nothing for it
Coolio's track is based on a Steve Wonder tune called "Pastime Paradise"...
Liquid Audio has offered for a long time what the major labels want to do with music on the 'net. The codec sounds alright, they have a flexible DRM scheme, it's not too terribly difficult to recover a license, etc. But consumers do not want what they are offering, because they do not want a restricted format. You would think the major labels would take a lesson from this.
Some people think it is stupid and pointless to make your own creative edit of a Star Wars movie. Some people on Slashdot think it is stupid and pointless to edit out brief nudity.
A recording artist intended a CD to have 12 tracks in a particular order. You should still have the right to make a mixtape CD with one of those tracks on it and give it to your friend.
Similarly, someone who wants to edit out brief nudity on the copy of the movie they bought should be able to do so. A company should be able to offer a service to make the desired edits.
These are pretty simple principles based on fair use and right of first sale. In one context you say it's nobody's business what you do with a DVD you bought -- such as play it on a Linux box -- despite the wishes of the copyright holder to restrict any use not explicitly permitted. In another context you say they have the right to stop you from using the product in a certain way. Which way do you want it to be?
I was shopping for a 1080i/480p display recently. I looked at a Sony HDTV set with a tuner built in. Very soon they are putting out a basically equivalent model without the tuner, and it will sell for $500-$700 less. For other brands, HDTV-compatible sets without tuners sets go for $500-$1000 less than the equivalent sets with tuners. I don't know where they get the $200 figure.
The plasma sets are monitors only. If you wnat to tune television -- SDTV or HDTV -- you buy a tuner. Many tube and projection sets come with SDTV tuners but require a separate tuner for HDTV if you want it. The tuner would plug into the TV through the component video inputs -- i.e. a so-called "analog hole".
The government should stay out of decisions that people must spend extra money to have what they neither want nor need.
These digital protections are in place to protect artists and creators from having their work stolen. Region coding in particular prevents China, e.g., from flooding the US markets with their pirated DVDs and undercutting the whole industry.
How is it stealing from an artist or a content company if you purchase a legitimate Region 1 DVD and play it in Europe? Or a Region 2,3,4,5,6 DVD in the USA?
Region codes do nothing to prevent Chinese companies from flooding the US markets with region-free DVDs.
Some of the posters here do not seem to understand the evil absurdity of the idea that the US government, on behalf of Hollywood studios, might ensure that you do not watch Eyes Wide Shut as Stanley Kubrick intended, may not view Orson Welles' film MacBeth on DVD, and cannot see David Lynch's Lost Highway in its correct aspect ratio, backed with the threat of physical force.
If the movie industry insists that some obstacles must exist to keep movies in their intended market areas, or that companies must be discouraged from actively marketing and distributing copies of films in markets in which they do not have distribution rights, that makes some degree of business sense. What is offensive is the idea that governments may threaten physical force and detention of those who would work around the technical measures the movie companies use.
DVDs have 3 levels of access control in some sense:
1. CSS encryption
It's been ruled that this is an access control covered by the DMCA. However, not all DVDs are encrypted. DVDs that have some data encrypted do not always have all data encrypted. Perens could use an unencrypted DVD for his demo to bypass the CSS issue.
2. Region code
It still seems to be an open question whether region code is an access control covered by the DMCA.
3. Video standard
The USA, Japan, and much of Asia use NTSC. Other areas like Europe and Australia use PAL.
Some region-free or multi-region players will output NTSC for an NTSC disc, and PAL for a PAL disc. It is necessary to convert between video standards if the display cannot handle the video standard. Some players can also convert PAL discs for NTSC displays, and NTSC discs for PAL displays.
I would be completely astonished if video standard were considered an access control.
Assume for a moment that a disc has no region code, and you want to play it in a region 1 player. One player I own will refuse to play a PAL disc with no region, reporting it cannot play this type of disc. Since almost all displays in region 1 cannot handle a PAL signal, that restriction in the player makes some amount of sense. ("I tried to play this DVD and all it does is show a stretched out black&white picture!!!")
Say for a moment that a disc is from region 3, with NTSC video and no encryption. The only thing to restrict playing the disc in the USA is the region code. The big question now is whether the region code is "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the DMCA]", and whether instructions for how to play the disc are:
From the article:
The power of Mozilla, which got its name from Netscape's dinosaur-like mascot, is its open-source nature.
True, I suppose, almost. As I remember it, NCSA first developed the Mosaic browser, which was further developed into Mozilla and then Netscape Navigator.
I agree. Illegal aliens work jobs nobody else would want, at a wage nobody else legally could be paid. Yet they perceive themselves to be better off in the USA working for less than minimum wage. This is a case against minimum wage, and a case for making it easier for honest people to work in the USA legally.
The other big problem with the sweep of illegal aliens that was mentioned: They were mainly Mexicans. Last I heard the USA was not really worried about international terrorist organizations based in Mexico.
Software must be sold to get the money to make more software.
One service that Red Hat offers is technical support. You can get the software for free. You can get peer support for many issues, but sometimes that is not enough or not fast enough. If you need help for a production down problem, then a company can sell the service of letting you talk to a live person within X minutes. For example, IBM's HTTPD is essentially Apache with SSL and LDAP. IBM sells the features they added, and the service of technical support if you need it.
A couple years ago, I had some long discussions with the head of Jeepster records, home of the band Belle and Sebastian. He was willing to permit cassette copies to circulate of unreleased tracks, the then-unavailable Tigermilk LP, radio sessions, etc., among fans. But if anyone so much as mentioned a digital medium and one of those recordings in the same sentence, they received a legal nasty-gram by email.
He explained that cassette copies provided for limited distribution, such that only the hard-core fans could obtain the material -- an MP3 or CD-R can be duplicated any number of generations. I countered that only the hard-core fans had any interest, and that was the overriding factor in limiting distribution.
It is amusing, then, to find most of Belle and Sebatian's work on EMusic as unencumbered MP3s. Perhaps they finally saw that if people know about you, they might buy your records.
Still, films are different. It costs a large amount of money to produce a film as compared to a sound recording. It costs a large amount of money to produce prints of a film for screening, as compared to the cost of producing CDs for mass-distribution. It costs so much that often it is necessary to use the same prints for theatrical release in Australia as for the initial release in the USA. That is why they get so freaked out, even more than the recording companies.
Regardless, it is completely unjustifiable even to imagine that general-purpose technologies need to be squashed to protect these people's interests.
One other problem I see is that NOT being able to archive my own videos/music/whatever means that I am completely dependant on market demands to guarantee continued access to the pieces I enjoy. When the number of people interested in a particular piece drops too low, how many on demand services are going to continue offering access to it?
Damn straight. This is among the biggest reasons why copyright is supposed to be of limited duration. Humanity has not merely the right but the need to benefit from the work of humanity. If it is enforced that "intellectual property" disappears into the mists of time, all possible future benefit is lost. That is why the ideas need to return to the public. And why should it be up to Disney, Universal, etc. to decide which creative works are permitted to feed the human soul, and for how long? Obviously I am not talking about Snow Dogs, but more like Fantasia in the case of Disney, or a true classic like Citizen Kane that will remain as alive and as relevant to the human struggle in 500 years as it is today.
The wheel was patented forever, and they are no longer licensing it. The Bible, I Ching, Tao te Ching, the writings of Plato, Socrates, and Nietzsche are under perpetual copyright and out of print. It is illegal to make unauthorized copies. Now that the society and culture have collapsed, how do your profit margins look, Disney?
Someone mod parent up! Hope this bites UMG in the ass.
I was somewhat offended that UMG are using the free LAME encoder rather than a commercial product such as Fraunhofer. Ain't that a slap in the face? They could be creating the fscking MP3-like files on Linux systems with that free-software tool, yet they want to block you from playing the resulting CD any which way on your Linux system.
From http://www.musichelponline.com/index.asp
UMG is incorporating copy protection into their CDs to assess its viability in protecting the rights of our artists and copyright holders by preventing CD copying and illegal Internet distribution.
This will not turn out to be commercially viable, and will not prevent very much copying or distribution. And exactly how do they expect to stop bootleggers this way?
The CD should automatically start playing in most PCs. If it does not start playing in yours, open the CD-ROM drive's window and click on the music player application. Once in the player you can "Play" or open the "Playlist", choose a track and click on it.
I have difficulty playing the audio from any multisession CD, e.g. one with a bonus music video. I'm sure part of the "protection" in each of these schemes is the simple fact that there is a 2nd session. And even though I have trouble playing the audio, I have no trouble ripping the audio. First thing to educate the public about is how to turn off auto-insert notification to stop their goofy player from starting automatically. That will remove the false impression that the CD can somehow make the computer do something all on its own.
Presence or absence of the Compact Disc CD Audio logo means nothing. It could be left off the disc and package for aesthetic reasons.
don't think ppl who buys $10.000 DACs are gonna listen to n'sync crap
But the person with the $10,000 DAC will want to listen to CDs on Deutsche Grammaphon, one of the premiere classical labels which (to my knowledge) is owned by Vivendi-Universal.
If I were Philips, I would start a marketing campaign (as they may now be doing) for Compact Disc Digital Audio as a high standard of audio fidelity, and against these corrupted CDs.
It's poetic that Deutsche Grammaphon spends all sorts of R&D money to improve audio fidelity, and their parent company spends R&D money to corrupt those high-fidelity recordings.
Devil's advocate.
You could make an argument that:
a) With ownership of a DVD video, you have the right to access the video signal, but not the unencrypted digital data. (DMCA prohibits circumvention of an access control mechanism.)
b) Only the licensed DVD player has the right to decrypt the digital data. (Copyright holder has granted the consumer electronics company the right to build a device that can read and decrypt the data.)
c) Therefore, to gain access to the video signal for private home viewing, you must rely on the licensed player to decrypt the data and to change it to a video signal you can watch.
Without the encryption, and without the decryption being punishable under the DMCA or similar legislation, this argument would not work. So the MPAA and DVDCCA were very sneaky in making sure that one has to break anti-decryption laws in order to exercise fair use rights.
I don't think CSS has much to do with copying, but everything to do with access control. And then the law kicked in (in the USA) to make it illegal to gain access to content, even when you legitimately purchased media that holds the content.
I wonder how our rights are different for use of data on unencrypted DVDs, or unencrypted blocks on encrypted DVDs.
Related to the article more directly: Under the Norwegian law in question, it sounds like I could be prosecuted for accidentally typing "rm *log" rather than "rm *.log", if the company did not grant me the right to delete access_log. (And never mind that we will pull it from last night's backup -- they still lose a few hours of entries, and therefore I would have caused some harm.)
You mean BMG: Bertelsmann Music Group.
The SOA record is messed up. Get TOMORROW2.NET to correct it and update the serial. The root servers know who to ask, but TOMORROW2.NET has the zone messed up.
Also ns[1234].tomorrow2.net are confused amongst themselves -- ns1 doesn't know who ns3, and vice-versa, plus ns1 does not responsd but ns3 serves an SOA record that points to ns1.ocdns.com. They need to fix this too.
Once all this is fixed, they have to update the serial numbers so the zone transfers will happen.
For those with an eye for the finer details:
----
[start with a root server]
> server d.gtld-servers.net.
Default Server: d.gtld-servers.net
Address: 192.31.80.30
> set type=soa
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: d.gtld-servers.net
Address: 192.31.80.30
Authoritative answers can be found from:
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS1.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS2.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS3.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS4.TOMORROW2.NET
NS1.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.20
NS2.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.21
NS3.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 130.94.173.110
NS4.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 130.94.173.111
> set type=ns
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: d.gtld-servers.net
Address: 192.31.80.30
Non-authoritative answer:
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS3.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS4.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS1.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS2.TOMORROW2.NET
Authoritative answers can be found from:
NS3.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 130.94.173.110
NS4.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 130.94.173.111
NS1.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.20
NS2.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.21
> set type=a
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: d.gtld-servers.net
Address: 192.31.80.30
Name: anarchsforlife.org
Served by:
- NS1.TOMORROW2.NET
128.241.194.20
anarchsforlife.org
- NS2.TOMORROW2.NET
128.241.194.21
anarchsforlife.org
- NS3.TOMORROW2.NET
130.94.173.110
anarchsforlife.org
- NS4.TOMORROW2.NET
130.94.173.111
anarchsforlife.org
[that's what we wanted to see, so let's ask them]
> server ns1.tomorrow2.net.
Default Server: ns1.tomorrow2.net
Address: 128.241.194.20
> set type=a
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: ns1.tomorrow2.net
Address: 128.241.194.20
[no response]
^C
> set type=ns
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: ns1.tomorrow2.net
Address: 128.241.194.20
Non-authoritative answer:
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS2.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS3.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS4.TOMORROW2.NET
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = NS1.TOMORROW2.NET
Authoritative answers can be found from:
NS2.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.21
NS1.TOMORROW2.NET internet address = 128.241.194.20
> set type=soa
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: ns1.tomorrow2.net
Address: 128.241.194.20
[no response.]
^C
> server ns3.tomorrow2.net.
*** Can't find address for server ns3.tomorrow2.net.: Non-existent host/domain
[back to the root server, since ns1 doesn't know ns3]
> server d.gtld-servers.net.
Default Server: d.gtld-servers.net
Address: 192.31.80.30
> server ns3.tomorrow2.net.
Default Server: ns3.tomorrow2.net
Address: 130.94.173.110
> set type=soa
> anarchsforlife.org.
Server: ns3.tomorrow2.net
Address: 130.94.173.110
anarchsforlife.org
origin = ns1.ocdns.com
mail addr = root.ns1.ocdns.com
serial = 1005677141
refresh = 28800 (8 hours)
retry = 7200 (2 hours)
expire = 3600000 (41 days 16 hours)
minimum ttl = 86400 (1 day)
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = ns2.ocdns.com
anarchsforlife.org nameserver = ns1.ocdns.com
ns1.ocdns.com internet address = 130.94.173.122
ns2.ocdns.com internet address = 130.94.173.124
>
[but this is telling us to ask ocdns.com]
---
If the price of a CD is too low, it can cause a problem of perception, both with listeners and with distributors. "Inexpensive" versus "cheap". That is why it is often best to stay close to the prevailing price for similar products.