You won't, for the forseeable future, have to pay every time you open your book. You can trade books with your friends, highlight passages, rip out pages, etc.
If the new digital TV comes about, you probably won't be able to do any of that with TV programs.
Unfortunately, the people are lazy and will put up with crap like this, unless it affects them directly. So we end up with corporations that do stuff like this, but people still patronize their business. Sad, really.
Exactly - the media companies and US Congress are the ones abusing copyright, turning it from a mutually beneficial compromise between the citizens and the artists into a tool to protect corporate profits.
I am a computer professional working in the field of Unix System Administration. I have been involved in technology for approximately ten years. I am opposed to laws such as the DMCA and the SSSCA.
I have been watching with increasing dismay as copyright law has moved from a balancing act between the rights of the public and an incentive to creators to a tool to protect corporate profits. This is far from the ideals of the founding fathers, who correctly regarded copyright as a limited monopoly for creators, with works quickly entering the public domain for the benefit of all.
The current situation does nothing to benefit the public. Copyright holders, increasingly large corporations instead of individual authors, retain control over their works for an obscene period of time (more than a lifetime in the case of both individual and corporate works). And it seems that over the past 40 years or so, the copyright period gets increased regularly, usually after lobbying by media companies. How the current copyright term can coexist with the Constitutional limitations of "for a limited time" and "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts" is beyond me. Current copyright law promotes nothing but corporate control and profit-mongering over works that should have long ago entered the public domain.
Contrast copyright law with patent law. Patents cover control over physical items for a term of 17 years. Copyright covers control over intellectual items for terms over 100 years, generally. If the maker of a drug to cure cancer or AIDS is expected to earn back their development costs in 17 years, why is a record label or publishing house allowed to control their work for up to ten times as long?
Copyright is intended as a balance and an incentive. It is NOT a tool to guarantee profits, or legislate the survival of a particular business model. Can anyone look at the copyright system as it currently exists and say that at achieves any type of balance? Media companies say that they need draconian copyright protection in order for people to create new works. However, lasting works of art, music, and literature were created long before this system of copyright abuse, and will continue to be created if copyright laws are reformed, for no other reason than creative people are driven to create. In addition, more reasonable copyright law would most likely spur MORE creative works, as A) artists would no longer be able to wring every last cent out of a work, and B) there would be a larger body of public-domain work available for everyone to work from.
I found it absurd that Disney's Michael Eisner was in front of Congress talking about "pirates" who steal, as opposed to artists who create. What have Disney's big hits been lately? The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Atlantis? The Little Mermaid? All of those are taken from stories and tales in the public domain. Disney has used these stories to make millions. However, they refuse to release their own works into the public domain to inspire others. Who in this situation is exploiting the work of others?
Laws like the DMCA and the proposed SSSCA take corporate control over intellectual property to the next level. Under the guise of "protecting the artists", media companies want to make it a federal felony if you find a way around their copy-prevented items. As codified in the 1984 Supreme Court decision on VCRs, people have, for example, the right to time-shift and space-shift TV programs onto videotape. In the future of the SSSCA, though, the media companies will be able to mark digital TV shows as "uncopyable", and digital VCRs and the like will be forced to oblige, technically cutting off people from taping a TV show while they're at work. And if you are able to circumvent this restriction, to exercise your legal rights, you can be thrown in jail for five years. Where is the justice? Where are the rights of the citizens?
When the VCR came into general use, Hollywood swore up and down that it would be the death of the industry. Why, if people were allowed to copy video and TV, then nobody would buy anything anymore. Now, of course, Hollywood makes a large chunk of its profits each year from video rentals, and media profits grow larger each year, even though people have the ability to use a VCR. If they were completely wrong about the VCR, what makes you think they're correct about digital media being the death of their industry?
In addition, laws like the SSSCA will have a chilling effect on the progress and innovation of new technology. When every digital device created must meet the copy prevention standards (and licensing costs) ordered by the media companies, there will be a much lower incentive to create new technology. I point you to the Linux computer operating system, started by one man in Finland a decade ago, that is now a robust business-class operating system supported by companies such as IBM. In the world of the SSSCA, Linux would cease to exist, because as an open and freely-modifiable product, it would not be able to incorporated closed copy prevention technology. Is that the technological innovation that you claim to support? Someone who comes up with the next big digital audio invention will be forced to include this copy-prevention technology,cutting off the individual inventor.
In addition, there will be an incentive to purchase pre-SSSCA digital hardware, and a disincentive to purchase post-SSSCA digital hardware, as no consumer in their right mind will want to pay more for crippled technology. This will have an adverse affect on the US technology industry.
It is time for copyright to return to its ideals - a balance between citizens and producers. This is NOT the time to swing the balance even more toward producers than it already is. I implore Congress to reject measures designed to technically impede the rights of the people.
I dumped the only family Windows box this weekend for a used iMac running OSX. Finally - a computer my wife and I can both like. She gets her few applications (Word, email, web) in an easy-to-use package, I get the same great interface with a tasty Unix center. What's not to like?
"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."
I think you meant to say there SHOULD BE no need for special new laws to uphold laws that already exist. As proven day after day, Congress will happily contradict and violate their own laws depending on who's paying for what.
Don't forget that the Canadian and EU governments are chomping at the bit to follow the US lead in IP protectionism. If you don't get the SSSCA when we do, yours will be coming.
Where is the outcry to our elected representatives to work to fix the system. The legal system is now just another implement in the corporate toolbox. What is it going to take for us to work and get people into office who will actually try to change things, instead of sending yet another stream of RepubliCrats in to keep the system going exactly like it is?
Do Something!
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For the love of Pete, the situation is not going to change until we, all of us, remind Congress that they work for us, not Disney, and that we will remove them from office if they do stuff like this. There are plenty of sheep out there who will just believe the corporate line, but I'd like to think that the readers here have a little more sense.
Call your representatives, especially if you have one on the Senate committee considering this. I called John Edwards office on Wednesday. It took all of 30 seconds. Did my call make a difference? Probably not. Would 500-1000 calls that day have made a difference? Possibly.
We, the technologically inclined, need to get off of our comfortable, Quake-playing asses and realize that there's a world out there. We're so caught up in ourselves that if an issue doesn't affect us personally this very day, we ignore it, aside from some grumbling on slashdot. Well, Congress doesn't read slashdot, so we need to get our message out.
Rise up, geeks. Organize. I find it hard to believe that a group that can build Mozilla can't get itself together enough to organize efforts against laws that affect our very livelihood. The only way we can even have a chance of stopping this is if we all work together.
There's one of the fundamental issues. Disney has obviously benefited from the wealth of human knowledge available in the public domain. However, in their greed, they refuse to let any of THEIR contributions enter the public domain.
This is a fundamental problem, and one of the reasons that Disney is just as immoral, if not significantly more so, than the people "stealing" their content. At least with the "stolen" content ideas get passed around - Disney et al would have knowledge locked up and only available to the highest bidder.
You can't legislate respect. If Blizard is bringing the hammer down on bnetd, odds are it will just create ill will among the people who would buy the product anyway. Crackers will crack, but attacking bnetd might be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I just got off my butt and called my Senator on that list, John Edwards (D-NC). It was quick, painless, and only took about 30 seconds. If enough people call them, they might actually notice.
Re:Great... Content Control Features For Creators?
on
Photoshop for OS X
·
· Score: 1
And when the content moves into the public domain, your decendents will make sure that the password protection is removed, so that society can enjoy unfettered access to your work, right?
Oh, I forgot. The idea behind the "content protection schemes" is that if anyone is left alive in 150 years who still has a copy of the work, and has the technology to read it, they should be able to figure out a way to crack it.
People are so greedy, and want to wring every last penny that they're "entitled" to out of their customers, that they would sooner revoke the rights of the people than have one person read their work or hum their tune without paying. At least with posts like this I know who's supporting laws like eternal copyright extension and the DMCA.
Try this on - people were able to create beautiful works of art and make money off of them before technology existed to skull-fuck their readers/listeners. I don't see writers, artists, and musicians all destitute on the street in this world of photocopiers, videotapes, MP3s, and more. I don't see people refusing to create new art, music, and writing. In fact, publishing seems to be a bigger business every year.
Here's a nickel and some advice - people generally act in accordance with your views of them. If you and your ilk treat your readers as criminals, they'll probably respond in kind. If you sell a good product at a fair price, while not impeding legitimate use of it (even if that means it's easier to copy for illegitimate use, too), you will probably be pleasantly surprised. Your fans will want to reward you for your work, people who aren't your fans and copy your work probably wouldn't buy your stuff anyway. Do you really want your fans to have to jump through the hoops of remembering which password goes with which book, or having to use an internet connection to verify their copy before they can read it, or any of the other myriad "I know you're going to steal this, so I'm going to make it as hard for you to use as possible" ways you can make life harder for people? If so, I'm pretty sure I don't want to buy any of your stuff anyway.
I'm sure that in 2055 or so, when the copyright on these classic games runs out(*), the game publishers will be glad to release them into the public domain, having received a fair return on their initial investment.
While I'm dreaming, I'd also like a pony.
(*) 2055 expiration date subject to change, depending on campaign donations.
I've always thought the current copyright system was pretty much indefensible. There's no rational way to reconcile "for a limited time" with copyright terms approaching 150 years, with no end in sight. I don't have too much faith that the Supreme Court will come down on the side of the people and the constitution, but it's our best shot.
The problem with decreased privacy...
on
David Brin on Privacy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...is that it's currently a one-way street. We, the individuals, are expected to give up personal information, allow unlimited surveilance and suspicion, and pretty much become an open book for the government and corporations. But the trend is for INCREASED privacy for those groups. Corporations are trying to lock up more and more information under the guise of "trade secrets" and have laws like the DMCA, etc. to back them up. Governments are moving more and more lawmaking into secret sessions, and hiding more information under the guise of "National Security."
I agree with the author that the only way the "transparent society" will work is if the transparency goes both ways. But that will never happen, as both governments and corporations see the citizenry as resources, not equals.
If you're not doing anything wrong, why get all strung up on the so called invasion of your privacy?
Ah yes, the ultimate defense from those who would throw away any right that doesn't affect them directly. In answer to your question, you should get strung up unless the following critera are true:
All laws on the books are just.
All laws are applied in a just manner.
Only the guilty get punished.
If those cases fail, then you open yourself up to the abuse of the system by those with the power to do so. Think McCarthy - "If people aren't communists, then they shouldn't have a problem with us investigating them, and if we can turn up any dirt on them in the process, then they deserved it." How many peoples lives were affected by that sorry spectacle, yet people want to continue to throw away the Constitution so that they can give unchecked power to a group that has shown that it can't be responsible with the power it has now.
Does Mandrake still have the neato-keen "Linux By The Pound" feature in the installer? Where, instead of selecting packages, you choose the total number of MB to install via a slider.
"I'm feeling saucy. I'll try 456MB of Linux today."
"Oh, I better take it easy. Only 95MB of Linux for me."
It just struck me as really funny for some reason.
I actually talked to some John Edwards staffers in Raleigh back in September, and they didn't have any sort of problem saying with a straight face "So what's wrong with the current copyright laws? We don't have a problem with creators getting copyright protection for upward of 150 years."
They also didn't seem concerned about DMCA levels of protection given to copyright holders at the expense of the citizens. When I brought up the problem of DMCA-protected copy prevention mechanisms and a theoretical expiration of copyright, they shrugged it off with "I'm sure something will take care of that." Fits along well with the recent story about the last whatever kind of reel-to-reel tape drive that was being made. In 150-ish years when the copyright expires on stuff made today on digital media, do you really think the technology to salvage it will still be around?
So I'm not too thrilled with Sen. Edwards cluelevel, and would encourage my fellow North Carolinians to continue to try to either show him the light or vote for someone else.
I was a bigger fan of the Gnome system for a while, but lately have gravitated toward KDE. The reason for that is that KDE provides a more "complete package", IMHO, with all the parts fitting together better for me. Konqueror is a fine web browser/file manager, too.
That being said, KDE 2.2 is slow on my notebook, so I run blackbox there in most cases.
As always, personal tastes and needs will end up dictating what people use.
Slashdot Mirror
You won't, for the forseeable future, have to pay every time you open your book. You can trade books with your friends, highlight passages, rip out pages, etc.
If the new digital TV comes about, you probably won't be able to do any of that with TV programs.
Unfortunately, the people are lazy and will put up with crap like this, unless it affects them directly. So we end up with corporations that do stuff like this, but people still patronize their business. Sad, really.
Exactly - the media companies and US Congress are the ones abusing copyright, turning it from a mutually beneficial compromise between the citizens and the artists into a tool to protect corporate profits.
I am a computer professional working in the field of Unix System Administration. I have been involved in technology for approximately ten years. I am opposed to laws such as the DMCA and the SSSCA.
I have been watching with increasing dismay as copyright law has moved from a balancing act between the rights of the public and an incentive to creators to a tool to protect corporate profits. This is far from the ideals of the founding fathers, who correctly regarded copyright as a limited monopoly for creators, with works quickly entering the public domain for the benefit of all.
The current situation does nothing to benefit the public. Copyright holders, increasingly large corporations instead of individual authors, retain control over their works for an obscene period of time (more than a lifetime in the case of both individual and corporate works). And it seems that over the past 40 years or so, the copyright period gets increased regularly, usually after lobbying by media companies. How the current copyright term can coexist with the Constitutional limitations of "for a limited time" and "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts" is beyond me. Current copyright law promotes nothing but corporate control and profit-mongering over works that should have long ago entered the public domain.
Contrast copyright law with patent law. Patents cover control over physical items for a term of 17 years. Copyright covers control over intellectual items for terms over 100 years, generally. If the maker of a drug to cure cancer or AIDS is expected to earn back their development costs in 17 years, why is a record label or publishing house allowed to control their work for up to ten times as long?
Copyright is intended as a balance and an incentive. It is NOT a tool to guarantee profits, or legislate the survival of a particular business model. Can anyone look at the copyright system as it currently exists and say that at achieves any type of balance? Media companies say that they need draconian copyright protection in order for people to create new works. However, lasting works of art, music, and literature were created long before this system of copyright abuse, and will continue to be created if copyright laws are reformed, for no other reason than creative people are driven to create. In addition, more reasonable copyright law would most likely spur MORE creative works, as A) artists would no longer be able to wring every last cent out of a work, and B) there would be a larger body of public-domain work available for everyone to work from.
I found it absurd that Disney's Michael Eisner was in front of Congress talking about "pirates" who steal, as opposed to artists who create. What have Disney's big hits been lately? The Hunchback of Notre Dame? Atlantis? The Little Mermaid? All of those are taken from stories and tales in the public domain. Disney has used these stories to make millions. However, they refuse to release their own works into the public domain to inspire others. Who in this situation is exploiting the work of others?
Laws like the DMCA and the proposed SSSCA take corporate control over intellectual property to the next level. Under the guise of "protecting the artists", media companies want to make it a federal felony if you find a way around their copy-prevented items. As codified in the 1984 Supreme Court decision on VCRs, people have, for example, the right to time-shift and space-shift TV programs onto videotape. In the future of the SSSCA, though, the media companies will be able to mark digital TV shows as "uncopyable", and digital VCRs and the like will be forced to oblige, technically cutting off people from taping a TV show while they're at work. And if you are able to circumvent this restriction, to exercise your legal rights, you can be thrown in jail for five years. Where is the justice? Where are the rights of the citizens?
When the VCR came into general use, Hollywood swore up and down that it would be the death of the industry. Why, if people were allowed to copy video and TV, then nobody would buy anything anymore. Now, of course, Hollywood makes a large chunk of its profits each year from video rentals, and media profits grow larger each year, even though people have the ability to use a VCR. If they were completely wrong about the VCR, what makes you think they're correct about digital media being the death of their industry?
In addition, laws like the SSSCA will have a chilling effect on the progress and innovation of new technology. When every digital device created must meet the copy prevention standards (and licensing costs) ordered by the media companies, there will be a much lower incentive to create new technology. I point you to the Linux computer operating system, started by one man in Finland a decade ago, that is now a robust business-class operating system supported by companies such as IBM. In the world of the SSSCA, Linux would cease to exist, because as an open and freely-modifiable product, it would not be able to incorporated closed copy prevention technology. Is that the technological innovation that you claim to support? Someone who comes up with the next big digital audio invention will be forced to include this copy-prevention technology,cutting off the individual inventor.
In addition, there will be an incentive to purchase pre-SSSCA digital hardware, and a disincentive to purchase post-SSSCA digital hardware, as no consumer in their right mind will want to pay more for crippled technology. This will have an adverse affect on the US technology industry.
It is time for copyright to return to its ideals - a balance between citizens and producers. This is NOT the time to swing the balance even more toward producers than it already is. I implore Congress to reject measures designed to technically impede the rights of the people.
I dumped the only family Windows box this weekend for a used iMac running OSX. Finally - a computer my wife and I can both like. She gets her few applications (Word, email, web) in an easy-to-use package, I get the same great interface with a tasty Unix center. What's not to like?
"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."
Warning! Contradiction encountered! Dumping core...
Well, maybe not. She didn't mention anything about the rights of the citizens...
I think you meant to say there SHOULD BE no need for special new laws to uphold laws that already exist. As proven day after day, Congress will happily contradict and violate their own laws depending on who's paying for what.
Don't forget that the Canadian and EU governments are chomping at the bit to follow the US lead in IP protectionism. If you don't get the SSSCA when we do, yours will be coming.
I've checked it out - in fact, I'm a member. ;-)
Where is the outcry to our elected representatives to work to fix the system. The legal system is now just another implement in the corporate toolbox. What is it going to take for us to work and get people into office who will actually try to change things, instead of sending yet another stream of RepubliCrats in to keep the system going exactly like it is?
For the love of Pete, the situation is not going to change until we, all of us, remind Congress that they work for us, not Disney, and that we will remove them from office if they do stuff like this. There are plenty of sheep out there who will just believe the corporate line, but I'd like to think that the readers here have a little more sense.
Call your representatives, especially if you have one on the Senate committee considering this. I called John Edwards office on Wednesday. It took all of 30 seconds. Did my call make a difference? Probably not. Would 500-1000 calls that day have made a difference? Possibly.
We, the technologically inclined, need to get off of our comfortable, Quake-playing asses and realize that there's a world out there. We're so caught up in ourselves that if an issue doesn't affect us personally this very day, we ignore it, aside from some grumbling on slashdot. Well, Congress doesn't read slashdot, so we need to get our message out.
Rise up, geeks. Organize. I find it hard to believe that a group that can build Mozilla can't get itself together enough to organize efforts against laws that affect our very livelihood. The only way we can even have a chance of stopping this is if we all work together.
Can we?
There's one of the fundamental issues. Disney has obviously benefited from the wealth of human knowledge available in the public domain. However, in their greed, they refuse to let any of THEIR contributions enter the public domain.
This is a fundamental problem, and one of the reasons that Disney is just as immoral, if not significantly more so, than the people "stealing" their content. At least with the "stolen" content ideas get passed around - Disney et al would have knowledge locked up and only available to the highest bidder.
You can't legislate respect. If Blizard is bringing the hammer down on bnetd, odds are it will just create ill will among the people who would buy the product anyway. Crackers will crack, but attacking bnetd might be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I just got off my butt and called my Senator on that list, John Edwards (D-NC). It was quick, painless, and only took about 30 seconds. If enough people call them, they might actually notice.
And when the content moves into the public domain, your decendents will make sure that the password protection is removed, so that society can enjoy unfettered access to your work, right?
Oh, I forgot. The idea behind the "content protection schemes" is that if anyone is left alive in 150 years who still has a copy of the work, and has the technology to read it, they should be able to figure out a way to crack it.
People are so greedy, and want to wring every last penny that they're "entitled" to out of their customers, that they would sooner revoke the rights of the people than have one person read their work or hum their tune without paying. At least with posts like this I know who's supporting laws like eternal copyright extension and the DMCA.
Try this on - people were able to create beautiful works of art and make money off of them before technology existed to skull-fuck their readers/listeners. I don't see writers, artists, and musicians all destitute on the street in this world of photocopiers, videotapes, MP3s, and more. I don't see people refusing to create new art, music, and writing. In fact, publishing seems to be a bigger business every year.
Here's a nickel and some advice - people generally act in accordance with your views of them. If you and your ilk treat your readers as criminals, they'll probably respond in kind. If you sell a good product at a fair price, while not impeding legitimate use of it (even if that means it's easier to copy for illegitimate use, too), you will probably be pleasantly surprised. Your fans will want to reward you for your work, people who aren't your fans and copy your work probably wouldn't buy your stuff anyway. Do you really want your fans to have to jump through the hoops of remembering which password goes with which book, or having to use an internet connection to verify their copy before they can read it, or any of the other myriad "I know you're going to steal this, so I'm going to make it as hard for you to use as possible" ways you can make life harder for people? If so, I'm pretty sure I don't want to buy any of your stuff anyway.
I'm sure that in 2055 or so, when the copyright on these classic games runs out(*), the game publishers will be glad to release them into the public domain, having received a fair return on their initial investment.
While I'm dreaming, I'd also like a pony.
(*) 2055 expiration date subject to change, depending on campaign donations.
Don't feel bad - I'm from rural Virginia, and have the same accent. It's not just a Canadian thing.
I've always thought the current copyright system was pretty much indefensible. There's no rational way to reconcile "for a limited time" with copyright terms approaching 150 years, with no end in sight. I don't have too much faith that the Supreme Court will come down on the side of the people and the constitution, but it's our best shot.
...is that it's currently a one-way street. We, the individuals, are expected to give up personal information, allow unlimited surveilance and suspicion, and pretty much become an open book for the government and corporations. But the trend is for INCREASED privacy for those groups. Corporations are trying to lock up more and more information under the guise of "trade secrets" and have laws like the DMCA, etc. to back them up. Governments are moving more and more lawmaking into secret sessions, and hiding more information under the guise of "National Security."
I agree with the author that the only way the "transparent society" will work is if the transparency goes both ways. But that will never happen, as both governments and corporations see the citizenry as resources, not equals.
Ah yes, the ultimate defense from those who would throw away any right that doesn't affect them directly. In answer to your question, you should get strung up unless the following critera are true:
If those cases fail, then you open yourself up to the abuse of the system by those with the power to do so. Think McCarthy - "If people aren't communists, then they shouldn't have a problem with us investigating them, and if we can turn up any dirt on them in the process, then they deserved it." How many peoples lives were affected by that sorry spectacle, yet people want to continue to throw away the Constitution so that they can give unchecked power to a group that has shown that it can't be responsible with the power it has now.
Now that I think about it, that was my first and last Mandrake install, too.
Does Mandrake still have the neato-keen "Linux By The Pound" feature in the installer? Where, instead of selecting packages, you choose the total number of MB to install via a slider.
"I'm feeling saucy. I'll try 456MB of Linux today."
"Oh, I better take it easy. Only 95MB of Linux for me."
It just struck me as really funny for some reason.
I got the exact same letter yesterday.
I actually talked to some John Edwards staffers in Raleigh back in September, and they didn't have any sort of problem saying with a straight face "So what's wrong with the current copyright laws? We don't have a problem with creators getting copyright protection for upward of 150 years."
They also didn't seem concerned about DMCA levels of protection given to copyright holders at the expense of the citizens. When I brought up the problem of DMCA-protected copy prevention mechanisms and a theoretical expiration of copyright, they shrugged it off with "I'm sure something will take care of that." Fits along well with the recent story about the last whatever kind of reel-to-reel tape drive that was being made. In 150-ish years when the copyright expires on stuff made today on digital media, do you really think the technology to salvage it will still be around?
So I'm not too thrilled with Sen. Edwards cluelevel, and would encourage my fellow North Carolinians to continue to try to either show him the light or vote for someone else.
I was a bigger fan of the Gnome system for a while, but lately have gravitated toward KDE. The reason for that is that KDE provides a more "complete package", IMHO, with all the parts fitting together better for me. Konqueror is a fine web browser/file manager, too.
That being said, KDE 2.2 is slow on my notebook, so I run blackbox there in most cases.
As always, personal tastes and needs will end up dictating what people use.
It doesn't MATTER who The Rock is, jabroni! :-)