I guess this explains why I can't play with any game pad for more than a minute without feeling like my thumb is going to break off. The young'uns have adapted to the abuse.
'Course, back in my day, I used to get a recurring blister on my right middle finger, thanks to the wear and tear caused by the old Midway joysticks.
So I'd like to pose this question: if a technology that has thorough and unbreakable digital rights management technology is created but the same technology allows for every possible means of fair use for all of my digital media, how are my freedoms and rights being abridged?
The problem occurs in Sen. Hollings' narrow definition of "fair use" (time-shifting, backing up, etc.). The assumption is that we, the consumers, purchase the DRM-protected content, and the content providers dole out keys depending on what they determine to be fair uses.
But the problem with any "thorough and unbreakable" DRM is that it must first define all digitized media as illegal, then find exceptions. Every exception punches a hole in the impervious DRM protection -- for instance, if the computer's microphone is left unregulated for dubbing LPs, it opens the door for making analog copies of streamed Pressplay broadcasts. Every method of digitization has some legitimate use; either the legitimate use must be banned, or the illegitimate use must be allowed.
Hollings ignores the idea that consumers could potentially be content creators as well. I could be using that camcorder to sneak into a theater and record "Lord of the Rings," but I'm far more likely to record a home movie and upload it to my relatives. Or I could use my sound card to help create my garage band's indie album. Will I need to get a license to perform these tasks, which are currently legal? Because I'm now using equipment that could potentially override copy-protection, will I have to ask permission to continue? At this point, we've left the area of "fair use" and are now intruding on basic rights.
An unbreakable DRM scheme cannot exist in the same market as full fair use. Either break the DRM, or ban fair use.
I know you were shooting for irony, but other news outlets have criticized the SSSCA, like Newsweek. (I'm not sure which corporate parent MSNBC will adhere to in this fight.)
A while ago, I was using an audio editing program with a nagware system that would lock the program for a minute at a time while displaying its please-pay message. Eventually, I decided I wanted to get rid of the nag, but as it turned out, the program required you to print out and snail-mail an order form to get your precious registration number.
I decided that if I were going to pay for the program, I might as well get the latest version. But while searching VersionTracker, I found another editor with more features, more frequent upgrades -- and an online registration account. I had the program and an unlock code within a few hours.
This isn't a flame, but could you please not make up stats to back up your arguments? You're guessing about how many people use CD-R's for illegal downloads, and maybe that's a high percentage, but there are many people who use CD-R's for fair-use mix CDs, homemade recordings, EMusic downloads, etc., who'll get caught up by a levy. Saying that "most" of them are pirates anyway is to give in to the brutal reductionism that Michael Eisner used in stating that PC manufacturers profited from piracy.
Anyway. While I agree that the SSSCA would be bad (the nightmare scenarios you cite are all legitimate, and I can think of more), I don't like the blackmail aspects of the argument. The RIAA has essentially said, "Give us what we want, or we sue the hell out of you and take it anyway," and advocating a levy is acceding to that demand.
But the RIAA doesn't have the moral legitimacy to demand this tribute. The biggest players, the five record companies and the Hollywood studios, would get the biggest benefits, essentially corporate handouts that'd all but price indies out of the marketplace, especially if the big companies shift their business models to take advantage of the sin tax. And there's still no guarantee that musicians will get a cent of additional royalties from it.
I don't want to pay an additional tax to prop up a failing business model, especially if that tax was added because the labels and studios lied about the effects of piracy to get it.
Andrea Thompson was the former actress who was hired as a newsreader for CNN Headline News, as part of their makeover into a really bad Web page-inspired design. HN was criticized for eschewing journalism for a pretty face, the first time in history a network newscast has been accused of that. (/irony)
Someone with a lot of literary skills needs to come up with some sort of alert that claims that those bastard liberal media companies and those liberals in Congress (I said sensationalist) are trying to take a way your right to record your TV shows by mandating that all future electronic devices contain copy protections to allow people who make shows to disable your ability to record them without paying for them.
I don't see where liberalism comes into it. Certainly none of the leftist media types I know would condone putting the keys to the entertainment and tech industries in the hands of media cartels like Disney.
What I'm really disappointed in is the alacrity with which Sen. Kerry and the other Democrats on Hollings' committee agreed to the outlandish claims put forward by the entertainment weasels. I didn't go for Ralph Nader's "Democrats and Republicans are the same" platform during the election. But the SSSCA hearings provided a real "They Live" moment for me, where I could see the invisible puppet strings from the entertainment industry.
But Mr. Chernin of the News Corporation suggested that matters might be different if the tables were turned. "Let's say I decide to broadcast on my network the code for how to make Intel chips or Microsoft software," he said. "I think they'd find a way to stop it."
It's called a "lawsuit." That is, you sue whoever leaks proprietary code when they do it. It doesn't mean you cripple your hardware or software on the off-chance that somebody could do it.
I swear to God, these media types must blow their noses by committee.
I'll leave the readers to try to come up with a way of bypassing Tim's Rights Management Directive, but he's smarter than almost any of us, so it won't be easy. Easier is, I think, just paying for the goddamn music you want to listen to, and gettnig to a rent a Tim of your own for it.
Interesting metaphor. Tim will now be a standard fixture in my nightmares for the next few weeks.
I think many legitimate music fans would rather not have Tim's masters drop an eight-foot-tall robot into their living room on the suspicion that they may be pirating their music. There's a point where rights management becomes so unwieldy and offensive that it's not even worth paying for music if it means having Tim watch over your shoulder. That's the point where many Legitimate Users either start becoming Competent Pirates or else get out of the game altogether.
This conceivably could happen, although it'd probably be AudioGrabber's publisher who'd be hauled into court for violating the DMCA. It'd be an interesting fight if a software vendor were to argue that the feature has a legitimate purpose (e.g., allowing the playing of defective media), but few indie software vendors have the time/money/lawyers to fight the RIAA. (The DeCSS case also doesn't bode well.)
Re:you bad evil hackers
on
Chained Melodies
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Credit where credit is due: http://www.modernhumorist.com/mh/0004/propag anda/i ndex.cfm
Thank goodness there will always be work for copy editors in the future! I thought about correcting the spelling and grammar in your post, but then I'd have to charge you. It's a capitalist world, after all.
Levity aside, what you're arguing for smacks of protectionism: My skills are great, but I have to prevent the Morlocks who call my tech-support line from learning how to do things for themselves, or I'm out of a job. Not only is that a piss-poor way of treating people (ever get sneered at by an obnoxious tech who's read one more manual than you have?), but it creates the impression that techs are inventing crises to stay busy, as many commentators thought after Y2K fizzled.
Anyone who regularly reads or posts to Slashdot knows that computers really aren't that difficult to learn with a little effort. I enjoy bringing people up to my level. If that means that I have to strive for an even higher level to stay employed, that's the way it goes.
I got the same reply from Sen. Cantwell. For the record, she's also a Democrat, though more aligned with the Washington State tech industry than the entertainment cartels.
So, rather than bitch, piss and moan about the reaction of the victims of unauthorized trading of copyrighted music, why not have a discussion about how we can stop the thievery without losing our privileges?
Because with the SSSCA, the discussion moves beyond the legality of file sharing. It would criminalize a large swath of activities we now consider legal -- beyond music, it would prevent you from using or designing an OS without licensing and incorporating DRM from the onset, creating sound recordings with a card not DRM-certified, creating innovative hardware without considering the possibility (however unlikely) it'll be used to copy or play digital media, and so forth.
The only people who lose their privileges are the people who do their best to stay on the good side of the law. The pirates will be momentarily set back, but you'll be heavily penalized for doing nothing. That's why it's unfair, and why we're complaining.
Re:Don't write your Congressmen
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
Steve Jobs is already on record as saying that software piracy is a sociological problem, not a technological one. Expect Apple to fight this tooth and nail.
Oh, and you can Command-Q to get out of the registration without sending it in. Much easier than maintaining your web of lies to "Steve".
Re:Compromise or be ignored - it's the only option
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
Besides, why shouldn't effective DRM exist? Assume for a second that strong DRM is included in all electronic devices. Now assume I'm a band and I want to allow free copying of all my stuff - what's the problem? I can just "chmod" my music files to "allow everything" and stick them on my web site. Similarly with open-source software. All writers have to do is set the rights bits to "enable all" and we're pretty much ok, aren't we?
I understand the platform problem (e.g. DeCSS), but really, again, that's within the rights of the media owners. If I want to produce movies that I know can't run on Linux boxen, well I have the right to do that. And if you can't play them, too bad. There's nothing that says you have a right to hack my stuff so you can see it on your OS.
There's a crucial problem: With the SSSCA, DRM will be required for all hardware and software in the U.S. This goes several steps beyond the content provider installing the DRM, and you abiding with its terms.
With your example band, all the hardware and software that you use to record and digitize your music, right down to the audio-in and digitizing software, will bear a DRM stamp. At the end, you'll have digital music with a DRM ID, giving the copyright holder the power to monitor those IDs, assuming you feel like taking time out of your touring schedule to hunt down copyright violators. All well and good -- as long as you hold the key for the copyright. If you sign a major-label contract, they get the copyright, and not only will you not be able to place music for free, the copyright holder has unprecedented power to monitor those transactions, right down to switching that "enable all" bit back off. It's entirely possible that your band will never get that key, or your music, back.
BTW, I disagree with your statement that complaining to legislators, etc., will do nothing. This isn't a law -- right now, it's not even a proposal. If we complain now, and the SSSCA gets scrapped, it's save us a hell of a lot of trouble later trying to get it repealed.
My reply from Sen. Cantwell
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
I sent an email to Maria Cantwell, who not only is my state's senator but, as a former executive at RealNetworks, is presumably more tech-savvy than other senators. Here's the reply:
Dear Mr. Vasquez:
Thank you for contacting me about the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). I appreciate hearing your concerns.
The SSSCA has not yet been introduced in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, nor does it exist in final form. A member of my staff has been in contact with the office of Senator Hollings, who is one of the authors of the SSSCA along with Senator Stevens. I was informed that the SSSCA is yet to be completed, and the timeline for the introduction of the SSSCA is uncertain at this point. The early draft that was made publicly available on the Internet, to which your comments are likely directed, may be significantly different from the legislation that may be introduced by Senators Hollings and Stevens.
I understand your concern that we must work to achieve the right balance between protecting copyrights and remunerating the creators of those works and reasonable consumer use of copyrighted works. Indeed, the pace of innovation requires a diligent consideration of both of these interests. I believe that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) passed in 1998 helps to accomplish this goal. I feel we need to continue to encourage innovation in technology while protecting the intellectual property rights of inventors, artists, authors and musicians. This law prohibits circumvention of technological protection measures and the trafficking of such technology. Thus, the DMCA facilitates legitimate distribution of copyrighted work by allowing for the use of technological measures by the copyright holder and providing legal protections for those measures. However, you should know that I will not be supportive of legislation that unduly limits technological innovation or consumers' rights.
At this relatively early point in the development of digital distribution of copyrighted works, the U.S. Copyright Office has recommended that Congress make no significant changes to copyright law right now. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyright law, I will be actively considering these issues. Please be assured that should the SSSCA come before the Senate, I will keep your concerns in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to do so in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell United States Senator
Apart from the bit about the DMCA, it looks pretty promising.
Re:THE BIG FREAKING POINT.
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
And to extend your analogy, what if the person who has the combination dies without ever telling anyone else? What if, after 70 years, there even was a safe?
Dan Bricklin has some similar observations about copy-protection and artistic legacy.
Slashdot Mirror
That current storyline bugs me, too. I feel a lecture coming on.
But Alex could ask her dad the same thing she did for the anti-drug lecture: "Didn't you make dub tapes when you were a kid?"
"Uh, yeah...but the weed's stronger these days -- I mean, the digital copies are better!"
No, the frightening thing is that we Mac users really talk like that. Apple doesn't even need to pay us.
I guess this explains why I can't play with any game pad for more than a minute without feeling like my thumb is going to break off. The young'uns have adapted to the abuse.
'Course, back in my day, I used to get a recurring blister on my right middle finger, thanks to the wear and tear caused by the old Midway joysticks.
So I'd like to pose this question: if a technology that has thorough and unbreakable digital rights management technology is created but the same technology allows for every possible means of fair use for all of my digital media, how are my freedoms and rights being abridged?
The problem occurs in Sen. Hollings' narrow definition of "fair use" (time-shifting, backing up, etc.). The assumption is that we, the consumers, purchase the DRM-protected content, and the content providers dole out keys depending on what they determine to be fair uses.
But the problem with any "thorough and unbreakable" DRM is that it must first define all digitized media as illegal, then find exceptions. Every exception punches a hole in the impervious DRM protection -- for instance, if the computer's microphone is left unregulated for dubbing LPs, it opens the door for making analog copies of streamed Pressplay broadcasts. Every method of digitization has some legitimate use; either the legitimate use must be banned, or the illegitimate use must be allowed.
Hollings ignores the idea that consumers could potentially be content creators as well. I could be using that camcorder to sneak into a theater and record "Lord of the Rings," but I'm far more likely to record a home movie and upload it to my relatives. Or I could use my sound card to help create my garage band's indie album. Will I need to get a license to perform these tasks, which are currently legal? Because I'm now using equipment that could potentially override copy-protection, will I have to ask permission to continue? At this point, we've left the area of "fair use" and are now intruding on basic rights.
An unbreakable DRM scheme cannot exist in the same market as full fair use. Either break the DRM, or ban fair use.
I know you were shooting for irony, but other news outlets have criticized the SSSCA, like Newsweek. (I'm not sure which corporate parent MSNBC will adhere to in this fight.)
I suppose you could refer to it as S.2048, especially where typing "CBDTPA" repeatedly would hike the character count on your letter to the editor.
A while ago, I was using an audio editing program with a nagware system that would lock the program for a minute at a time while displaying its please-pay message. Eventually, I decided I wanted to get rid of the nag, but as it turned out, the program required you to print out and snail-mail an order form to get your precious registration number.
I decided that if I were going to pay for the program, I might as well get the latest version. But while searching VersionTracker, I found another editor with more features, more frequent upgrades -- and an online registration account. I had the program and an unlock code within a few hours.
This isn't a flame, but could you please not make up stats to back up your arguments? You're guessing about how many people use CD-R's for illegal downloads, and maybe that's a high percentage, but there are many people who use CD-R's for fair-use mix CDs, homemade recordings, EMusic downloads, etc., who'll get caught up by a levy. Saying that "most" of them are pirates anyway is to give in to the brutal reductionism that Michael Eisner used in stating that PC manufacturers profited from piracy.
Anyway. While I agree that the SSSCA would be bad (the nightmare scenarios you cite are all legitimate, and I can think of more), I don't like the blackmail aspects of the argument. The RIAA has essentially said, "Give us what we want, or we sue the hell out of you and take it anyway," and advocating a levy is acceding to that demand.
But the RIAA doesn't have the moral legitimacy to demand this tribute. The biggest players, the five record companies and the Hollywood studios, would get the biggest benefits, essentially corporate handouts that'd all but price indies out of the marketplace, especially if the big companies shift their business models to take advantage of the sin tax. And there's still no guarantee that musicians will get a cent of additional royalties from it.
I don't want to pay an additional tax to prop up a failing business model, especially if that tax was added because the labels and studios lied about the effects of piracy to get it.
Um, huh? EMusic is still very much alive, though I can't seem to get the Dan the Automator album to download today.
And *BSD is dying, right?
If you wanna find out how much of a troll this is, check here.
Andrea Thompson was the former actress who was hired as a newsreader for CNN Headline News, as part of their makeover into a really bad Web page-inspired design. HN was criticized for eschewing journalism for a pretty face, the first time in history a network newscast has been accused of that. (/irony)
Someone with a lot of literary skills needs to come up with some sort of alert that claims that those bastard liberal media companies and those liberals in Congress (I said sensationalist) are trying to take a way your right to record your TV shows by mandating that all future electronic devices contain copy protections to allow people who make shows to disable your ability to record them without paying for them.
I don't see where liberalism comes into it. Certainly none of the leftist media types I know would condone putting the keys to the entertainment and tech industries in the hands of media cartels like Disney.
What I'm really disappointed in is the alacrity with which Sen. Kerry and the other Democrats on Hollings' committee agreed to the outlandish claims put forward by the entertainment weasels. I didn't go for Ralph Nader's "Democrats and Republicans are the same" platform during the election. But the SSSCA hearings provided a real "They Live" moment for me, where I could see the invisible puppet strings from the entertainment industry.
But Mr. Chernin of the News Corporation suggested that matters might be different if the tables were turned. "Let's say I decide to broadcast on my network the code for how to make Intel chips or Microsoft software," he said. "I think they'd find a way to stop it."
It's called a "lawsuit." That is, you sue whoever leaks proprietary code when they do it. It doesn't mean you cripple your hardware or software on the off-chance that somebody could do it.
I swear to God, these media types must blow their noses by committee.
I'll leave the readers to try to come up with a way of bypassing Tim's Rights Management Directive, but he's smarter than almost any of us, so it won't be easy. Easier is, I think, just paying for the goddamn music you want to listen to, and gettnig to a rent a Tim of your own for it.
Interesting metaphor. Tim will now be a standard fixture in my nightmares for the next few weeks.
I think many legitimate music fans would rather not have Tim's masters drop an eight-foot-tall robot into their living room on the suspicion that they may be pirating their music. There's a point where rights management becomes so unwieldy and offensive that it's not even worth paying for music if it means having Tim watch over your shoulder. That's the point where many Legitimate Users either start becoming Competent Pirates or else get out of the game altogether.
This conceivably could happen, although it'd probably be AudioGrabber's publisher who'd be hauled into court for violating the DMCA. It'd be an interesting fight if a software vendor were to argue that the feature has a legitimate purpose (e.g., allowing the playing of defective media), but few indie software vendors have the time/money/lawyers to fight the RIAA. (The DeCSS case also doesn't bode well.)
Credit where credit is due:g anda/i ndex.cfm
http://www.modernhumorist.com/mh/0004/propa
Thank goodness there will always be work for copy editors in the future! I thought about correcting the spelling and grammar in your post, but then I'd have to charge you. It's a capitalist world, after all.
Levity aside, what you're arguing for smacks of protectionism: My skills are great, but I have to prevent the Morlocks who call my tech-support line from learning how to do things for themselves, or I'm out of a job. Not only is that a piss-poor way of treating people (ever get sneered at by an obnoxious tech who's read one more manual than you have?), but it creates the impression that techs are inventing crises to stay busy, as many commentators thought after Y2K fizzled.
Anyone who regularly reads or posts to Slashdot knows that computers really aren't that difficult to learn with a little effort. I enjoy bringing people up to my level. If that means that I have to strive for an even higher level to stay employed, that's the way it goes.
I actually find .99 a bit faster under OS X. It's already better at loading /. than IE ever was.
Still, I gotta say -- Ugly, ugly font rendering.
I got the same reply from Sen. Cantwell. For the record, she's also a Democrat, though more aligned with the Washington State tech industry than the entertainment cartels.
So, rather than bitch, piss and moan about the reaction of the victims of unauthorized trading of copyrighted music, why not have a discussion about how we can stop the thievery without losing our privileges?
Because with the SSSCA, the discussion moves beyond the legality of file sharing. It would criminalize a large swath of activities we now consider legal -- beyond music, it would prevent you from using or designing an OS without licensing and incorporating DRM from the onset, creating sound recordings with a card not DRM-certified, creating innovative hardware without considering the possibility (however unlikely) it'll be used to copy or play digital media, and so forth.
The only people who lose their privileges are the people who do their best to stay on the good side of the law. The pirates will be momentarily set back, but you'll be heavily penalized for doing nothing. That's why it's unfair, and why we're complaining.
Steve Jobs is already on record as saying that software piracy is a sociological problem, not a technological one. Expect Apple to fight this tooth and nail.
Oh, and you can Command-Q to get out of the registration without sending it in. Much easier than maintaining your web of lies to "Steve".
Besides, why shouldn't effective DRM exist? Assume for a second that strong DRM is included in all electronic devices. Now assume I'm a band and I want to allow free copying of all my stuff - what's the problem? I can just "chmod" my music files to "allow everything" and stick them on my web site. Similarly with open-source software. All writers have to do is set the rights bits to "enable all" and we're pretty much ok, aren't we?
I understand the platform problem (e.g. DeCSS), but really, again, that's within the rights of the media owners. If I want to produce movies that I know can't run on Linux boxen, well I have the right to do that. And if you can't play them, too bad. There's nothing that says you have a right to hack my stuff so you can see it on your OS.
There's a crucial problem: With the SSSCA, DRM will be required for all hardware and software in the U.S. This goes several steps beyond the content provider installing the DRM, and you abiding with its terms.
With your example band, all the hardware and software that you use to record and digitize your music, right down to the audio-in and digitizing software, will bear a DRM stamp. At the end, you'll have digital music with a DRM ID, giving the copyright holder the power to monitor those IDs, assuming you feel like taking time out of your touring schedule to hunt down copyright violators. All well and good -- as long as you hold the key for the copyright. If you sign a major-label contract, they get the copyright, and not only will you not be able to place music for free, the copyright holder has unprecedented power to monitor those transactions, right down to switching that "enable all" bit back off. It's entirely possible that your band will never get that key, or your music, back.
BTW, I disagree with your statement that complaining to legislators, etc., will do nothing. This isn't a law -- right now, it's not even a proposal. If we complain now, and the SSSCA gets scrapped, it's save us a hell of a lot of trouble later trying to get it repealed.
I sent an email to Maria Cantwell, who not only is my state's senator but, as a former executive at RealNetworks, is presumably more tech-savvy than other senators. Here's the reply:
Dear Mr. Vasquez:
Thank you for contacting me about the Security Systems Standards and
Certification Act (SSSCA). I appreciate hearing your concerns.
The SSSCA has not yet been introduced in the U.S. Senate or House of
Representatives, nor does it exist in final form. A member of my staff
has been in contact with the office of Senator Hollings, who is one of the
authors of the SSSCA along with Senator Stevens. I was informed that the
SSSCA is yet to be completed, and the timeline for the introduction of the
SSSCA is uncertain at this point. The early draft that was made publicly
available on the Internet, to which your comments are likely directed, may
be significantly different from the legislation that may be introduced by
Senators Hollings and Stevens.
I understand your concern that we must work to achieve the right balance
between protecting copyrights and remunerating the creators of those works
and reasonable consumer use of copyrighted works. Indeed, the pace of
innovation requires a diligent consideration of both of these interests.
I believe that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) passed in 1998
helps to accomplish this goal. I feel we need to continue to encourage
innovation in technology while protecting the intellectual property rights
of inventors, artists, authors and musicians. This law prohibits
circumvention of technological protection measures and the trafficking of
such technology. Thus, the DMCA facilitates legitimate distribution of
copyrighted work by allowing for the use of technological measures by the
copyright holder and providing legal protections for those measures.
However, you should know that I will not be supportive of legislation that
unduly limits technological innovation or consumers' rights.
At this relatively early point in the development of digital distribution
of copyrighted works, the U.S. Copyright Office has recommended that
Congress make no significant changes to copyright law right now. As a
member of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyright
law, I will be actively considering these issues. Please be assured that
should the SSSCA come before the Senate, I will keep your concerns in
mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to do so in
the future if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator
Apart from the bit about the DMCA, it looks pretty promising.
And to extend your analogy, what if the person who has the combination dies without ever telling anyone else? What if, after 70 years, there even was a safe?
Dan Bricklin has some similar observations about copy-protection and artistic legacy.