It's even worse with java applets, for two reasons... One, I don't think you even get the "Jesus!! This software is unsigned!!" message. AFAIK, self-signed java applets simply don't run, or run with lowered privileges.
Secondly, while there are sites out there that let you "share" an SSL certificate with others cohosting on the same server, I don't know of anyone offering this service for signing java applets.
This is complete bullshit, and it really disturbs me that even the GPLed mozilla hasn't solved it.
The fact is, it's impossible to plug the analog hole.
Agreed.
Circumvention is a reality, not a breach of their rights.
Agreed.
And if I can't copy my CD, then I'm not being given my rights, either, since in 1993 they passed a law that it was illegal to try to bring suit against me for making myself a copy.
You said it yourself - that law (I assume you mean the Audio Home Recording Act) said you won't be sued for making certain types of copies. It did not say you have the right to make those copies.
Therefore the technology cannot be made illegal without violating my rights and making rights desired by the public at large and disliked by very few people null.
What technology? You're losing me.
Therefore, the government is not protecting the people should they make DRM required
However, making DRM mandatory in players and preventing non RIAA bands from creating DRM signed media is restraint of trade.
Absolutely.
The point (that we say you've missed) is that if players only play DRM signed media, whoever controls the signing system decides who can distribute music.
No, I get that point. I just don't see anyone coming out with such players.
In order for DRM to work, players must only play DRM signed content. Otherwise, you could burn the music to a traditional easy-to-copy CD and rip it back into a non-DRM format.
No. In order for DRM to work, content must only play in DRM players. Then you can't burn the music to a traditional easy-to-copy CD at all.
If you think that the DRM laws will be fair to non RIAA bands, ask a local musician if he ever recieved a penny from the piracy compensation tax on CD-Rs. He didn't, but the RIAA did.
If you're going to give up on the hope that the legislators might pass fair laws, then there's no sense in talking about any of this anyway. Rather than arguing the slippery slope when there actually is no slippery slope, I'd rather talk about what I'd like to see the future of music distribution, and that includes DRM.
Huh? The DeCSS ruling was based on the anti-circumvention clauses, and there have been lots of legal threats made on those grounds (Felten, bnetd, etc).
No, the DeCSS ruling was based on the anti-distribution clauses, and legal threats are not the same as enforcement.
You don't see a problem with making it illegal to distribute software that could conceivably be used for copyright infringement, even when it has perfectly legitimate uses as well?
I don't see a problem with making it illegal to distribute software primarily designed for copyright infringment.
The DMCA has already been invoked against a program that twiddles a single bit in a file
Your link did not point to a court case, nevertheless, I don't think it matters how many bits you twiddle. What matters is the effect.
hex editors and debuggers can't be far behind.
If you really believe that, then you have absolutely no knowledge of what the law actually says.
how does an artist make $$ to live without compensation.
They get a job.
if the potter wants to give pots away, that's his choice, and is fine, but if someone steals a couple because they like them, or just want to use them for a while, they should still be charged with theft.
On the other hand, if someone buys a pot and then makes another pot which looks the same, s/he shouldn't be charged with theft.
If DRM related things are not enacted into laws, then DRM is completely useless, as competing, open technologies would be widely available and more desirable to consumers.
Yeah, that's why people only watch broadcast television, and refuse to buy proprietary cable boxes to descramble their television signals, right?
If all of the consumers buy non-DRM technology, the MPAA/RIAA will drop DRM like a bad habit.
Sure, that's why the MPAA/RIAA will be sure to release DRM protected content which allows consumers to use the content in the ways in which they want to use it.
I also like your implication that you get to decide what aspects of this issue people should argue about.
I am opposed to laws against abortion, too, but that doesn't mean this is the right forum to talk about that.
If the food came in a sealed metal container that only opened to release the food once it was half way down my throat, just for the purpose of not being microwaveable, then no, I would not buy it.
"This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends," Lofgren said in an interview Tuesday. Instead of creating new rights for consumers, she said, her bill would ensure that "the rights they have in the analog world, they have in digital."
That's funny, I thought I had the right (under the audio home recording act) to take my audio casette and share it with a milion of my best friends.
The problem here is that the DMCA violates the fair use clause of the existing copyright laws.
That's funny, since I thought the DMCA said that "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
RIAA wants DRM precisely so they can shut out John Q. Garage band.
So?
So, that's a combination in restraint of trade and therefore illegal, and a detriment to the public good.
No. Wanting something is not a combination in restraint of trade. I want DRM so I can shut out the RIAA. That doesn't mean I'm breaking the law.
Geez, there must be a thousand unsigned band directories on the web... try looking up "unsigned bands" in a search engine.
Unsigned bands != give their music away for free. I like a lot of unsigned bands, but the ones I like happen to want you to pay for their CDs.
I don't need someone to pick bands for me now that I can hear music from anyone who feels like recording something just by clicking a mouse. I don't need them (and neither do you) to decide what bands I'm going to select from in the first place.
I can't hear music from anyone who feels like recording something just by clicking a mouse. Good artists, whether with a record company or not, tend to not release their music for free on the internet. And the people who do buy CDs from unsigned artists tend to not want to undercut the artist by releasing their work for free on the internet. 'Cause let's face it, the unsigned artist is going to make sales locally, from people they see in person, not some anonymous napster user on the other side of the country.
DRM is useless without DMCA-style laws backing it up.
I don't have much of a problem with the DMCA though. I do mind the circumvention parts of it, but I think they're unnecessary (considering the fact that they have never even been enforced).
The problem is that there's always going to be tools like DeCSS that clearly have both legitimate and illegitimate uses.
Whatever. If you don't like CSS, don't buy movies with CSS.
For DRM to be the slightest bit effective, these tools have to be prohibited.
Yeah, and ultimately I don't have much of a problem with that. I have a lot less of a problem with the DMCA than I have with basic standard copyright law.
The only difference is that they are pushing for legislation that would make the barrier of entry for media creators much higher than it is today, because they are paranoid about people copying their work.
I am strongly opposed to that legislation. But I'm not opposed to DRM.
Allow me to elucidate: I don't want laws created that restrict the barriers of entry for content creators.
Get back on topic, this article is not about laws.
"Digital Rights Management" is an artificial limit placed on technology that would accomplish precisely that.
*Fuck* the artist if he doesn't want you to archive your CDs to MP3s. This is your right, not your privilege.
It's not your right in the sense that the artist has to make it easy for you.
When I buy a CD, I'm not subscribing to the ideals of the artist, the record company, or the RIAA. I'm buying a CD, which I have every right to make a backup copy of, send to my portable player, mix into a CD for my car, or microwave.
DRM likely isn't going to be very useful for CDs. It's more likely to be used for digital distributions. But whatever. No one's forcing you to buy anything.
Do you refuse to buy food that you can't microwave as well?
RIAA wants DRM precisely so they can shut out John Q. Garage band.
So?
Why do you think the record companies hate music-swapping networks?
Because they allow consumers to obtain music without paying for it that they otherwise would have been forced to pay the record companies for.
My favorite bands all encourage tape, CD and MP3 swapping among their fans (well, Tom Waits doesn't to my knowledge; the rest of my favorites do).
Mine don't. But more to the point, what bands are these, and where can I download their music? I've found the free stuff out there to be crap. (I assume these are non-RIAA artists who own the copyright on their own music).
However, before too long the major Media Player suites will *only* play properly secured content (again, in the name of fighting piracy -- the record execs will get on camera looking very hurt and say "we're giving the music away for free; we only ask that you register with us -- how cruel are you people?"). Once that happens, musicians who aren't signed by big labels can't distribute their music anymore.
I never said I was for monopolistic control over who is allowed to produce secured content. I only said I was for DRM.
It's not a good thing if you're a video editor like me.
So adapt.
Heck, up until about a year and a half ago, burning DVDs was ridiculously expensive-and you can bet "Digital Rights Managed" DVD players and their successors won't play the DVDs I make for my clients.
I certainly would be against DVD player manufacturers abusing their monopolies in that way. But that's a separate issue.
Why? Because Hollywood thinks the only reason anyone would want to make a DVD is to copy their shitty movies. I find that very offensive that they can only see DVD technology as a means to push "Rush Hour 2," and that they would penalize those of us who want to create rather than passively watch TV.
Heh, that's cute. Put words in Hollywood's mouth and then get offended by them.
People? You mean, like, Hollywood?
No, I mean independent music artists.
They aren't "forced" to avoid any formats-this argument is exactly the same as Jack Valenti's "Betamax is killing the movie industry." Heard it before, don't like my tools being restricted just because Hollywood can't or won't change its business model.
You seem to be the one favoring restricting tools (like DRM) because you don't want to change your business model.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference of course being that one of those two statements is a binding legal document.
It's even worse with java applets, for two reasons... One, I don't think you even get the "Jesus!! This software is unsigned!!" message. AFAIK, self-signed java applets simply don't run, or run with lowered privileges.
Secondly, while there are sites out there that let you "share" an SSL certificate with others cohosting on the same server, I don't know of anyone offering this service for signing java applets.
This is complete bullshit, and it really disturbs me that even the GPLed mozilla hasn't solved it.
man, you're more ignorant than I thought.
No, I'm just more realistic than you.
The fact is, it's impossible to plug the analog hole.
Agreed.
Circumvention is a reality, not a breach of their rights.
Agreed.
And if I can't copy my CD, then I'm not being given my rights, either, since in 1993 they passed a law that it was illegal to try to bring suit against me for making myself a copy.
You said it yourself - that law (I assume you mean the Audio Home Recording Act) said you won't be sued for making certain types of copies. It did not say you have the right to make those copies.
Therefore the technology cannot be made illegal without violating my rights and making rights desired by the public at large and disliked by very few people null.
What technology? You're losing me.
Therefore, the government is not protecting the people should they make DRM required
Agreed.
or if they make it illegal to do so.
To do what, exactly?
I would just go for one of the thousands of web hosts that give you some sort of SSL package.
Then everyone else sharing your certificate can hijack your connection.
However, making DRM mandatory in players and preventing non RIAA bands from creating DRM signed media is restraint of trade.
Absolutely.
The point (that we say you've missed) is that if players only play DRM signed media, whoever controls the signing system decides who can distribute music.
No, I get that point. I just don't see anyone coming out with such players.
In order for DRM to work, players must only play DRM signed content. Otherwise, you could burn the music to a traditional easy-to-copy CD and rip it back into a non-DRM format.
No. In order for DRM to work, content must only play in DRM players. Then you can't burn the music to a traditional easy-to-copy CD at all.
If you think that the DRM laws will be fair to non RIAA bands, ask a local musician if he ever recieved a penny from the piracy compensation tax on CD-Rs. He didn't, but the RIAA did.
If you're going to give up on the hope that the legislators might pass fair laws, then there's no sense in talking about any of this anyway. Rather than arguing the slippery slope when there actually is no slippery slope, I'd rather talk about what I'd like to see the future of music distribution, and that includes DRM.
Huh? The DeCSS ruling was based on the anti-circumvention clauses, and there have been lots of legal threats made on those grounds (Felten, bnetd, etc).
No, the DeCSS ruling was based on the anti-distribution clauses, and legal threats are not the same as enforcement.
You don't see a problem with making it illegal to distribute software that could conceivably be used for copyright infringement, even when it has perfectly legitimate uses as well?
I don't see a problem with making it illegal to distribute software primarily designed for copyright infringment.
The DMCA has already been invoked against a program that twiddles a single bit in a file
Your link did not point to a court case, nevertheless, I don't think it matters how many bits you twiddle. What matters is the effect.
hex editors and debuggers can't be far behind.
If you really believe that, then you have absolutely no knowledge of what the law actually says.
Wow, that's another great argument! You're so smart, I'm glad I've spent time discussing this with you.
Good argument, let me write that one down.
how does an artist make $$ to live without compensation.
They get a job.
if the potter wants to give pots away, that's his choice, and is fine, but if someone steals a couple because they like them, or just want to use them for a while, they should still be charged with theft.
On the other hand, if someone buys a pot and then makes another pot which looks the same, s/he shouldn't be charged with theft.
Does each consumer have to write their own software cracker?
Oh c'mon. I have a copy of DeCSS. It wasn't that hard to get.
Will creating a decoder or unlocker designed for fair use still get you thrown in jail?
Nah, I doubt creation for personal use is considered manufacture.
Good argument. I'll have to remember that one.
Paying more money for something which has a bunch of added features which you don't intend to use is being a fucking corporate whore.
DRM is impossible without laws to support it.
I strongly disagree.
If DRM related things are not enacted into laws, then DRM is completely useless, as competing, open technologies would be widely available and more desirable to consumers.
Yeah, that's why people only watch broadcast television, and refuse to buy proprietary cable boxes to descramble their television signals, right?
If all of the consumers buy non-DRM technology, the MPAA/RIAA will drop DRM like a bad habit.
Sure, that's why the MPAA/RIAA will be sure to release DRM protected content which allows consumers to use the content in the ways in which they want to use it.
I also like your implication that you get to decide what aspects of this issue people should argue about.
I am opposed to laws against abortion, too, but that doesn't mean this is the right forum to talk about that.
If the food came in a sealed metal container that only opened to release the food once it was half way down my throat, just for the purpose of not being microwaveable, then no, I would not buy it.
I would.
"This would not authorize someone taking their digital content and sharing it with a million of their best friends," Lofgren said in an interview Tuesday. Instead of creating new rights for consumers, she said, her bill would ensure that "the rights they have in the analog world, they have in digital."
That's funny, I thought I had the right (under the audio home recording act) to take my audio casette and share it with a milion of my best friends.
The problem here is that the DMCA violates the fair use clause of the existing copyright laws.
That's funny, since I thought the DMCA said that "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
RIAA wants DRM precisely so they can shut out John Q. Garage band.
So?
So, that's a combination in restraint of trade and therefore illegal, and a detriment to the public good.
No. Wanting something is not a combination in restraint of trade. I want DRM so I can shut out the RIAA. That doesn't mean I'm breaking the law.
Geez, there must be a thousand unsigned band directories on the web... try looking up "unsigned bands" in a search engine.
Unsigned bands != give their music away for free. I like a lot of unsigned bands, but the ones I like happen to want you to pay for their CDs.
I don't need someone to pick bands for me now that I can hear music from anyone who feels like recording something just by clicking a mouse. I don't need them (and neither do you) to decide what bands I'm going to select from in the first place.
I can't hear music from anyone who feels like recording something just by clicking a mouse. Good artists, whether with a record company or not, tend to not release their music for free on the internet. And the people who do buy CDs from unsigned artists tend to not want to undercut the artist by releasing their work for free on the internet. 'Cause let's face it, the unsigned artist is going to make sales locally, from people they see in person, not some anonymous napster user on the other side of the country.
DRM has the potential to change all that.
Ha! Do you really think the artist is going to be the one making this decision?
Yes, I do.
DRM is useless without DMCA-style laws backing it up.
I don't have much of a problem with the DMCA though. I do mind the circumvention parts of it, but I think they're unnecessary (considering the fact that they have never even been enforced).
The problem is that there's always going to be tools like DeCSS that clearly have both legitimate and illegitimate uses.
Whatever. If you don't like CSS, don't buy movies with CSS.
For DRM to be the slightest bit effective, these tools have to be prohibited.
Yeah, and ultimately I don't have much of a problem with that. I have a lot less of a problem with the DMCA than I have with basic standard copyright law.
The only difference is that they are pushing for legislation that would make the barrier of entry for media creators much higher than it is today, because they are paranoid about people copying their work.
I am strongly opposed to that legislation. But I'm not opposed to DRM.
Allow me to elucidate: I don't want laws created that restrict the barriers of entry for content creators.
Get back on topic, this article is not about laws.
"Digital Rights Management" is an artificial limit placed on technology that would accomplish precisely that.
DRM is a technology, not a law.
*Fuck* the artist if he doesn't want you to archive your CDs to MP3s. This is your right, not your privilege.
It's not your right in the sense that the artist has to make it easy for you.
When I buy a CD, I'm not subscribing to the ideals of the artist, the record company, or the RIAA. I'm buying a CD, which I have every right to make a backup copy of, send to my portable player, mix into a CD for my car, or microwave.
DRM likely isn't going to be very useful for CDs. It's more likely to be used for digital distributions. But whatever. No one's forcing you to buy anything.
Do you refuse to buy food that you can't microwave as well?
anthrax is just one implementation of biological weapons. but we shouldnt ban all biological weapons?
Anthrax is not banned. It's regulated.
RIAA wants DRM precisely so they can shut out John Q. Garage band.
So?
Why do you think the record companies hate music-swapping networks?
Because they allow consumers to obtain music without paying for it that they otherwise would have been forced to pay the record companies for.
My favorite bands all encourage tape, CD and MP3 swapping among their fans (well, Tom Waits doesn't to my knowledge; the rest of my favorites do).
Mine don't. But more to the point, what bands are these, and where can I download their music? I've found the free stuff out there to be crap. (I assume these are non-RIAA artists who own the copyright on their own music).
However, before too long the major Media Player suites will *only* play properly secured content (again, in the name of fighting piracy -- the record execs will get on camera looking very hurt and say "we're giving the music away for free; we only ask that you register with us -- how cruel are you people?"). Once that happens, musicians who aren't signed by big labels can't distribute their music anymore.
I never said I was for monopolistic control over who is allowed to produce secured content. I only said I was for DRM.
No-one has opened many of the drawers of the furniture here since they were last shut.
I haven't read such a funny line since the last time I read a law as funny!
It's not a good thing if you're a video editor like me.
So adapt.
Heck, up until about a year and a half ago, burning DVDs was ridiculously expensive-and you can bet "Digital Rights Managed" DVD players and their successors won't play the DVDs I make for my clients.
I certainly would be against DVD player manufacturers abusing their monopolies in that way. But that's a separate issue.
Why? Because Hollywood thinks the only reason anyone would want to make a DVD is to copy their shitty movies. I find that very offensive that they can only see DVD technology as a means to push "Rush Hour 2," and that they would penalize those of us who want to create rather than passively watch TV.
Heh, that's cute. Put words in Hollywood's mouth and then get offended by them.
People? You mean, like, Hollywood?
No, I mean independent music artists.
They aren't "forced" to avoid any formats-this argument is exactly the same as Jack Valenti's "Betamax is killing the movie industry." Heard it before, don't like my tools being restricted just because Hollywood can't or won't change its business model.
You seem to be the one favoring restricting tools (like DRM) because you don't want to change your business model.