Tell her no one need to push the record companies to adopt new business models. Instead, they should be obligated to let new business models develop unimpeded. The problem is not that record companies and so-called "rights" organizations hinder true competition and new business model development. Back in the day when we lacked modern technology, some of these companies and organizations could facilitate commerce. Today, they stand in the way, purely out of fear that if new copyrighted work could compete on a level playing field with every other copyrighted work, independent artists would thrive, and licensees could cherry-pick lesser known artists for a fraction of the cost of blanket licenses -- like paying only for the terrific dessert instead of the entire buffet. Today, our technology could make it simple for copyright owners to allow any business to compete on the same level playing field -- just post your "wholesale" price for a stream or a download, and collect the money without trying to appoint winners and losers, or own a piece of the consumer connection. Let the "retail" end set the retail prices - whether supported by ads, bundled, marked up, marked down, or what have you. Nothing in the copyright act of any nation - or in any copyright treaty - gives the copyright owner the right to protect business models instead of copyrights, or to choose which businesses should "win" in a non-competitive marketplace. Tell her to approach this from the standpoint of antitrust and copyright misuse, so each work stands on its own and not as part of a "leveraged" collective that makes every work "average", and both artists and the public will benefit handsomely.
I think you still miss the main point. Even if they found someone downloading, the fact that someone copies my copy cannot EVER infringe the exclusive right of distribution. In fact, if someone copies my copy, it is the person who does the copying (downloading) who may be the infringer. The judge was saying that, at best, the person who lets someone copy their copy may be secondarily liable as a contributory infringer -- but of the exclusive right of reproduction, not distribution. Each right is separate, and only infringement of the distribution right was in issue here.
Actually, no. No one has to distribute it in order for someone to download it. The judge was interpreting the exclusive right to distribute in Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act, which specifically limits it to the right to distribute "copies" and "phonorecords", which in turn are defined as tangible objects. The confusion comes from the popular use of "distribute" to mean "disseminate", but there is no exclusive right of dissemination. So, the judge got it right. Downloading may infringe the exclusive right of reproduction, but nothing tangible changes hands, so it is not a distribution. If I help you make an illegal copy of something, I may be "secondarily" liable for your act of infringement of the reproduction (not distribution) right, but they first have to prove your primary infringement, and not the mere fact that I did the equivalent of leaving my copy of a copyrighted poem lying beside a photocopier.
It amazes me how the press gets sucked into the lingo. This is not at all a ruling in favor of deregulation. To the contrary, it is a ruling authorizing private regulation of the Internet. Moreover, private regulation in this space is much more dangerous than government regulation because it works. The government can't do much at all to regulate the Internet, thanks in large measure to the First Amendment and thanks in no small measure to the fact that the government does not have any physical control over the transport layer. But the major ISPs do have such control, and are not bound by the First Amendment. In short, this ruling says, in plain English, "Whereas the government may not and cannot regulate communications over the Internet that are protected from suppression by the First Amendment, we hereby free those of you who have the power to suppress freedom of speech to go ahead and do so."
The RIAA statement has been around since 2003, so I don't think anything new is underway, even though it did get picked up by some "reporters" this month as if it were news. This is what it looked like in December 2003, according to the Web Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031202021246/http://w ww.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/cost.asp -- I could not see any difference.
Also, note that then and now, the data only goes up to 1996 -- a bit stale even by 2003 standards.
Yes. I listened to what he said, and then read the article -- the guy got it wrong, wrong, wrong. What I heard him say is that net neutrality is defined by diffferent people different ways, and if you define it one way -- to mean nothing interesting can happen and no innovation can take place unless it is on the Internet -- then he is against it. He believes people ought to be free to develop innovative things on their own LANs, but if they use the Internet for it then everyone else should be able to participate in it (which is what others mean by net neutrality, though he did not say that), otherwise, you have fragmentation (he said that), which he opposes.
For a lot of people, that "fragmentation" is precisely what net neutrality seeks to avoid. The DPS project (which supports a particular brand of net neutrality) would seem to get a boost from his speech, but for people who misrepresent his position as being in favor of Internet privatization and fragmentation -- which is not "the Internet" at all, and which he opposed. He is all for net neutrality if you define it as does the DPS Project, http://www.dpsproject.com/.
Like a gate, DRM can be good, bad or ugly. A good gate will keep uninvited people off of your property and keep your cows on it. Good DRM will protect copyrights from infringement -- and nothing else. A "bad" gate may have a positive use, but we must always weigh whether the negative effects outweigh the good, such as whether a very strong gate keeps firefighters away when your house is on fire. "Bad" DRM might be tolerable, such as a limited download intended for you to be able to "try before you buy" new software, or intolerable, such as a timed out movie intended to prevent people from exercising their statutory right to sell, lend, rent or give away their copy. An "ugly" gate would be the one that creates a barrier where no right exists to do so, such as if I were to place a toll booth at the Brooklyn Bridge. In the DRM world, the DRM that gives publishers cotrol over what they have no right to control is ugly, just plain ugly, and should be prosecuted. No copyright owner has the right to control private performances of their works (e.g., how many times you watch a movie or play a song). No copyright owner has the right to require playback using one particular CD player, computer operating system or media player. No copyright owner has the right to regulate whether I rent my movie, sell my used CD, sell a lawfully made copy of computer software to an artist instead of a student, or play my video games 10 years from now. See http://interactionlaw.com/id13.html
The article says "But the answer is not regulations imposing net neutrality.... We all know that regulations beget more lobbyists. I'd rather let the market sort these things out." This is a false dichomoty. A fresh approach, that recognizes this, is being offered at http://www.dpsproject.com/. In a nutshell, it says "don't regulate the application layer of the Internet, but don't let the big companies pass off distorted networks and application layer limitations as "the Internet."
SEC. 3. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN PROVIDING INTERNET ACCESS.
(1) Definitions.- As used in this Section:
(A) Internet.- The term "Internet" means the worldwide, publicly accessible system of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP), some characteristics of which include:
i) Transmissions between users who hold globally unique addresses, and which transmissions are broken down into smaller segments referred to as "packets" comprised of a small portion of information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints, and a small set of prefixed data describing the source and destination of each transmission and how the packet is to be treated;
ii) routers that transmit these packets to various other routers on a best efforts basis, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow; and
iii) said routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the particular application in use, in accordance with globally defined protocol requirements and recommendations.
(B) Internet access.- The term "Internet access" means a service that enables users to transmit and receive transmissions of data using the Internet protocol in a manner that is agnostic to the nature, source or destination of the transmission of any packet. Such IP transmissions may include information, text, sounds, images and other content such as messaging and electronic mail.
(2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact provide access to the Internet in accord with the above definition, regardless whether additional proprietary content, information or other services are also provided as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
(3) Network providers that offer special features based on analyzing and identifying particular applications being conveyed by packet transmissions must not describe these services as "Internet" services. Any representation as to the speed or "bandwidth" of the Internet access shall be limited to the speed or bandwidth allocated to Internet access.
(4) Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice- A violation of paragraphs 2 or 3 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of this Act.
I respectfully disagree with your perception that this has nothing to do with DRM. Take Bruce's article, posted by Technocrat.net, for example. It got slashdotted, and we were all able to click on a link to see it. But suppose Technocrat.net had wrapped it in DRM, and the click took us to a "pay 25 cents to view it"? Or worse, we got a message saying "sorry, this article is available only to AOL customers"? Moreover, while Bruce, RMS and others may want to have their speech unwrapped, the wealthy tend to have access to additional "exclusive" speech because they can pay to finance a business model built on artificial scarcity. For example, a service that provides excellent intelligence reports on legislative initiatives in Congress, available only to those who can pay a lot -- having calculated that they can make more money charging a lot to a few than charging little to many. The very fact that others are excluded from the information adds value for those who wish to pay for it. Plus, the artificial scarcity often has nothing to do with copyrights and such. Disney, for example, has experimented with DRM designed to prevent lower income people least likely to pay full price for new DVDs from being able to watch them used or rented. Why? To eliminate competition from rental, re-sales and gift markets. Bruce is right. This is serious stuff.
Although I now see MS has disavowed this, the technology is here (the EZ-D was actually on the market) and the next generation DVD may contain a palette of tools for similar mischief.
I was intrigued by the headline of the story. It was as though written by Microsoft or the movie industry, and utterly inaccurate. Such an invention cannot possibly be to combat piracy, and the story omitted even a hint of the only plausible motive: elimination of competition from secondary markets for DVDs.
A few years ago, Buena Vista Home Entertainment tested a product called the EZ-D DVD, which was just like any regular DVD except with the added manufacturing cost of placing a coating on it that was sensitive to air, and wrapping the DVD in an airtight package. One opened, the disc would turn black within 48 hours, thereby ensuring it could not be rented, lent, sold or given away. Although I do not know the details of the Microsoft technology, as described by you it would be just as sinister. Why? Three reasons.
First, it has nothing to do with fighting piracy. This is demonstrably so for three reasons:
(1) the most serious piracy comes before DVDs hit the market (copies resulting from camcording movies in theatres or from copies slipped by someone within the industry, long before the DVD release),
(2) anyone who wishes to copy it can do so during the viewing period (you only need to make one copy, and if you can watch it, you can copy it, and make copies from copies), and
(3) "dumbing down" the store-bought copies by making them less useful would be a godsend to professional infringers, who, thanks to lessened competition, can sell their copies very at profitable margins because they are a better product that will last virtually forever.
Second, given that the cost of manufacture is likely higher, the only economic sense in going to added expense in making a product that will have less value to the consumer and be sold for less money is the expectation that greater profits can be made by doing so. The higher profits derive solely from the elimination of competition from the gift, rental, lending and resale markets. Secondary markets place healthy downward pressure on prices for new products. (Consider new and used homes, new and used automobiles, for example. What would happen if the sellers of new homes and new cars could prevent competition from resales?)
Third, it is socially disastrous. The only basis for copyright protection in the United States is to promote the progress of science and useful arts by encouraging the widest possible dissemination of works of authorship. This approach does the opposite: It would allow the copyright owner to generate higher profits from a smaller number of people. Gone from the exchange of information are those who cannot afford the price of a new DVD, and rely instead on used, rental, gift and lending economies. Those who most need low-cost access to copyrighted works because they cannot afford new ones would be disenfanchised.
This sort of market distortion should be condemned as an anti-competitive trade practice and as an unlawful extension of the copyright monopoly beyond the limits imposed by legislatures in the copyright grant. No nation on earth gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to control private performances of their works, but this invention would take that right, and the law be damned. Competition authorities should be quick to bring back justice -- assuming they can act independently and for the public good.
I am a lawyer, and the first question that comes to my mind is whether your school is a public or private institution. If public, you may have a claim for a violation of your First Amendment rights. You have freedom of speech, and while using Bittorrent for infringement would not be considered protected speech, using it for lawful communications certainly is. One of the briefs filed in the Grokster case (by Video Software Dealers Assocaition) makes the point that the Firt Amendment protects the use of P2P technology for lawful communications.
As some have noted, schools may restrict uses based on consumption (bandwidth issues), but to suppress a particular method of commuincation because they don't like it has traditionally been frowned upon.
DRM is like a gate. The very same gate can be good (keeps unwanted people off of your property), bad (keeps firefighters from saving your house) or ugly (keeps you out of your own property). DRM may be good when it protects copyrights from infringement, may be bad when an unintended consequence is to prevent lawful uses, and may be ugly when the purpose and effect is to give the copyright owner control beyond the limits of the law, restrain competition, or destroy secondary markets for legal copies of a work. See DRM: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
DRM is like sheep's clothing. Describing it, as the article does, is not enough. The most crucial aspect of DRM is how it is used -- what's under the clothing. A number of DRM tech companies frantically try to please the wolves, and fail to address the need to keep the uses of DRM within legal bounds. My soon-to-be-published article, DRM: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, tries to explain this.
Regarding "If I'm buying the right to watch a move (as in license) . . ..", there is no such thing as a licence to watch a movie, at lease not as a matter of copyright. When you buy a DVD you buy a copy of a movie, but you don't need anyone's permission to watch it. You can even watch a stolen DVD without infringing the copyright.
The first time I heard of the fiction of needing a license to watch a movie or listen to music was from an attorney from one of the major record labels, who argued (several yeaers ago) that they should be teaching consumers that "when you buy a CD, all you are buying is a piece of plastic with a license to listen to what's on it." That's baloney, but appaarently, they are succeeding in getting people to believe it.
You don't need a license to read a book, listen to music or watch a DVD movie. Don't ever let them make you believe you do, or they have already won.
So the BBC is "using Microsoft's DRM technology, in a break with the BBC's long-standing support of Real"? This illustrates the danger we face when competition authorities twiddle their thumbs at the dwindling competition in media players, DRM and any other enabling software. The BBC could never dictate which television or radio manufactures I chose to use, but somehow these public and private media giants think nothing of dictating which media player, DRM software or computer operating system they will "support". We desparately need third parties to be free to offer consumers support for the media palyers, OS and DRM of their choice. The BBC may set minimum DRM or player standards, for example, but should never be able to dictate which company from among numerous software providers actually wins in the marketplace.
To the contrary, record stores were a lot smarter than the record companies. Long before anyone had ver heard of Napster, they were clammoring to offer EVERYTHING online, and to have the freedom to experiment on pricing, customer service, search engines, presentation, promotions, compatibility with preferred operating systems and media players. The the record companies basically said "No, that's our future space. We want to sell directly to your customers." When they did give permission, it was for a limited quantity, a limited time, and with all sorts of restrictions none of the pirate or unlicensed services had to contend with. The record companies refused to let the retailers meet consumer demand. The rest is history.
Because it is bad for the country. Suppose you really agreed to a EULA or an access control that says, like Sony's EULA on the Destiny's Child "The Writing's On the Wall" CD, that you will not sell it or give it away. It might be a great deal for an individual buyer, particularly for a lower price, to agree to burn their books after reading them, or lock up their music after 30 days, or make a movie unwatchable after 48 hours, but it robs the "non-consumer" market of important access to creative works. Have you ever read a book, listened to a CD or watched a DVD you did not pay for new? Ever receive a used one as a gift? What about the kids down at the after-school tutoring program who need a better library?
The reason some rights do not belong to copyright owners is because we don't want to marginalize a huge portion of our society that will never be in a position to buy a new product, but need access to the secondary market. Let's face it, millions of people buy used cars, used clothes, used books, used CDs and used software because they can't afford the new stuff. We don't want those people to have to walk around naked and without any access to copyrighted works just because their participation could not be monetized by the original manufacturer.
We don't let employers get away with a EULA in which you waive your right to be free from discrimination even if you don't fear discrimination and they agree to pay you a higher salary in exchange. Why? Because it is bad for the masses. Against "public policy." Likewise, we can't let copyright owners get away with "waivers" of important federal rights just because someone is willing to agree to it - it's the person who is not a party to the EULA or the access conrol agreement who gets hurt, along with our culture.
Slashdot Mirror
In the second sentence of my post, the work "not" should not be there. Quite a difference that makes.
Tell her no one need to push the record companies to adopt new business models. Instead, they should be obligated to let new business models develop unimpeded. The problem is not that record companies and so-called "rights" organizations hinder true competition and new business model development. Back in the day when we lacked modern technology, some of these companies and organizations could facilitate commerce. Today, they stand in the way, purely out of fear that if new copyrighted work could compete on a level playing field with every other copyrighted work, independent artists would thrive, and licensees could cherry-pick lesser known artists for a fraction of the cost of blanket licenses -- like paying only for the terrific dessert instead of the entire buffet. Today, our technology could make it simple for copyright owners to allow any business to compete on the same level playing field -- just post your "wholesale" price for a stream or a download, and collect the money without trying to appoint winners and losers, or own a piece of the consumer connection. Let the "retail" end set the retail prices - whether supported by ads, bundled, marked up, marked down, or what have you. Nothing in the copyright act of any nation - or in any copyright treaty - gives the copyright owner the right to protect business models instead of copyrights, or to choose which businesses should "win" in a non-competitive marketplace. Tell her to approach this from the standpoint of antitrust and copyright misuse, so each work stands on its own and not as part of a "leveraged" collective that makes every work "average", and both artists and the public will benefit handsomely.
I think you still miss the main point. Even if they found someone downloading, the fact that someone copies my copy cannot EVER infringe the exclusive right of distribution. In fact, if someone copies my copy, it is the person who does the copying (downloading) who may be the infringer. The judge was saying that, at best, the person who lets someone copy their copy may be secondarily liable as a contributory infringer -- but of the exclusive right of reproduction, not distribution. Each right is separate, and only infringement of the distribution right was in issue here.
Actually, no. No one has to distribute it in order for someone to download it. The judge was interpreting the exclusive right to distribute in Section 106(3) of the Copyright Act, which specifically limits it to the right to distribute "copies" and "phonorecords", which in turn are defined as tangible objects. The confusion comes from the popular use of "distribute" to mean "disseminate", but there is no exclusive right of dissemination. So, the judge got it right. Downloading may infringe the exclusive right of reproduction, but nothing tangible changes hands, so it is not a distribution. If I help you make an illegal copy of something, I may be "secondarily" liable for your act of infringement of the reproduction (not distribution) right, but they first have to prove your primary infringement, and not the mere fact that I did the equivalent of leaving my copy of a copyrighted poem lying beside a photocopier.
It amazes me how the press gets sucked into the lingo. This is not at all a ruling in favor of deregulation. To the contrary, it is a ruling authorizing private regulation of the Internet. Moreover, private regulation in this space is much more dangerous than government regulation because it works. The government can't do much at all to regulate the Internet, thanks in large measure to the First Amendment and thanks in no small measure to the fact that the government does not have any physical control over the transport layer. But the major ISPs do have such control, and are not bound by the First Amendment. In short, this ruling says, in plain English, "Whereas the government may not and cannot regulate communications over the Internet that are protected from suppression by the First Amendment, we hereby free those of you who have the power to suppress freedom of speech to go ahead and do so."
The RIAA statement has been around since 2003, so I don't think anything new is underway, even though it did get picked up by some "reporters" this month as if it were news. This is what it looked like in December 2003, according to the Web Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20031202021246/http://w ww.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/cost.asp -- I could not see any difference.
Also, note that then and now, the data only goes up to 1996 -- a bit stale even by 2003 standards.
Yes. I listened to what he said, and then read the article -- the guy got it wrong, wrong, wrong. What I heard him say is that net neutrality is defined by diffferent people different ways, and if you define it one way -- to mean nothing interesting can happen and no innovation can take place unless it is on the Internet -- then he is against it. He believes people ought to be free to develop innovative things on their own LANs, but if they use the Internet for it then everyone else should be able to participate in it (which is what others mean by net neutrality, though he did not say that), otherwise, you have fragmentation (he said that), which he opposes. For a lot of people, that "fragmentation" is precisely what net neutrality seeks to avoid. The DPS project (which supports a particular brand of net neutrality) would seem to get a boost from his speech, but for people who misrepresent his position as being in favor of Internet privatization and fragmentation -- which is not "the Internet" at all, and which he opposed. He is all for net neutrality if you define it as does the DPS Project, http://www.dpsproject.com/.
Like a gate, DRM can be good, bad or ugly. A good gate will keep uninvited people off of your property and keep your cows on it. Good DRM will protect copyrights from infringement -- and nothing else. A "bad" gate may have a positive use, but we must always weigh whether the negative effects outweigh the good, such as whether a very strong gate keeps firefighters away when your house is on fire. "Bad" DRM might be tolerable, such as a limited download intended for you to be able to "try before you buy" new software, or intolerable, such as a timed out movie intended to prevent people from exercising their statutory right to sell, lend, rent or give away their copy. An "ugly" gate would be the one that creates a barrier where no right exists to do so, such as if I were to place a toll booth at the Brooklyn Bridge. In the DRM world, the DRM that gives publishers cotrol over what they have no right to control is ugly, just plain ugly, and should be prosecuted. No copyright owner has the right to control private performances of their works (e.g., how many times you watch a movie or play a song). No copyright owner has the right to require playback using one particular CD player, computer operating system or media player. No copyright owner has the right to regulate whether I rent my movie, sell my used CD, sell a lawfully made copy of computer software to an artist instead of a student, or play my video games 10 years from now. See http://interactionlaw.com/id13.html
SEC. 3. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN PROVIDING INTERNET ACCESS.
(1) Definitions.- As used in this Section:
(A) Internet.- The term "Internet" means the worldwide, publicly accessible system of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP), some characteristics of which include: i) Transmissions between users who hold globally unique addresses, and which transmissions are broken down into smaller segments referred to as "packets" comprised of a small portion of information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints, and a small set of prefixed data describing the source and destination of each transmission and how the packet is to be treated; ii) routers that transmit these packets to various other routers on a best efforts basis, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow; and iii) said routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the particular application in use, in accordance with globally defined protocol requirements and recommendations.
(B) Internet access.- The term "Internet access" means a service that enables users to transmit and receive transmissions of data using the Internet protocol in a manner that is agnostic to the nature, source or destination of the transmission of any packet. Such IP transmissions may include information, text, sounds, images and other content such as messaging and electronic mail.
(2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact provide access to the Internet in accord with the above definition, regardless whether additional proprietary content, information or other services are also provided as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
(3) Network providers that offer special features based on analyzing and identifying particular applications being conveyed by packet transmissions must not describe these services as "Internet" services. Any representation as to the speed or "bandwidth" of the Internet access shall be limited to the speed or bandwidth allocated to Internet access.
(4) Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice- A violation of paragraphs 2 or 3 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of this Act.
I respectfully disagree with your perception that this has nothing to do with DRM. Take Bruce's article, posted by Technocrat.net, for example. It got slashdotted, and we were all able to click on a link to see it. But suppose Technocrat.net had wrapped it in DRM, and the click took us to a "pay 25 cents to view it"? Or worse, we got a message saying "sorry, this article is available only to AOL customers"? Moreover, while Bruce, RMS and others may want to have their speech unwrapped, the wealthy tend to have access to additional "exclusive" speech because they can pay to finance a business model built on artificial scarcity. For example, a service that provides excellent intelligence reports on legislative initiatives in Congress, available only to those who can pay a lot -- having calculated that they can make more money charging a lot to a few than charging little to many. The very fact that others are excluded from the information adds value for those who wish to pay for it. Plus, the artificial scarcity often has nothing to do with copyrights and such. Disney, for example, has experimented with DRM designed to prevent lower income people least likely to pay full price for new DVDs from being able to watch them used or rented. Why? To eliminate competition from rental, re-sales and gift markets. Bruce is right. This is serious stuff.
Although I now see MS has disavowed this, the technology is here (the EZ-D was actually on the market) and the next generation DVD may contain a palette of tools for similar mischief.
A few years ago, Buena Vista Home Entertainment tested a product called the EZ-D DVD, which was just like any regular DVD except with the added manufacturing cost of placing a coating on it that was sensitive to air, and wrapping the DVD in an airtight package. One opened, the disc would turn black within 48 hours, thereby ensuring it could not be rented, lent, sold or given away. Although I do not know the details of the Microsoft technology, as described by you it would be just as sinister. Why? Three reasons.
First, it has nothing to do with fighting piracy. This is demonstrably so for three reasons:
(1) the most serious piracy comes before DVDs hit the market (copies resulting from camcording movies in theatres or from copies slipped by someone within the industry, long before the DVD release), (2) anyone who wishes to copy it can do so during the viewing period (you only need to make one copy, and if you can watch it, you can copy it, and make copies from copies), and (3) "dumbing down" the store-bought copies by making them less useful would be a godsend to professional infringers, who, thanks to lessened competition, can sell their copies very at profitable margins because they are a better product that will last virtually forever.Second, given that the cost of manufacture is likely higher, the only economic sense in going to added expense in making a product that will have less value to the consumer and be sold for less money is the expectation that greater profits can be made by doing so. The higher profits derive solely from the elimination of competition from the gift, rental, lending and resale markets. Secondary markets place healthy downward pressure on prices for new products. (Consider new and used homes, new and used automobiles, for example. What would happen if the sellers of new homes and new cars could prevent competition from resales?)
Third, it is socially disastrous. The only basis for copyright protection in the United States is to promote the progress of science and useful arts by encouraging the widest possible dissemination of works of authorship. This approach does the opposite: It would allow the copyright owner to generate higher profits from a smaller number of people. Gone from the exchange of information are those who cannot afford the price of a new DVD, and rely instead on used, rental, gift and lending economies. Those who most need low-cost access to copyrighted works because they cannot afford new ones would be disenfanchised.
This sort of market distortion should be condemned as an anti-competitive trade practice and as an unlawful extension of the copyright monopoly beyond the limits imposed by legislatures in the copyright grant. No nation on earth gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to control private performances of their works, but this invention would take that right, and the law be damned. Competition authorities should be quick to bring back justice -- assuming they can act independently and for the public good.
Brigadoon has software for Macs and PCs, 30-day trial and $30 forever, to do essentially the same thing. See https://www.pcphonehome.com/
I am a lawyer, and the first question that comes to my mind is whether your school is a public or private institution. If public, you may have a claim for a violation of your First Amendment rights. You have freedom of speech, and while using Bittorrent for infringement would not be considered protected speech, using it for lawful communications certainly is. One of the briefs filed in the Grokster case (by Video Software Dealers Assocaition) makes the point that the Firt Amendment protects the use of P2P technology for lawful communications. As some have noted, schools may restrict uses based on consumption (bandwidth issues), but to suppress a particular method of commuincation because they don't like it has traditionally been frowned upon.
DRM is like a gate. The very same gate can be good (keeps unwanted people off of your property), bad (keeps firefighters from saving your house) or ugly (keeps you out of your own property). DRM may be good when it protects copyrights from infringement, may be bad when an unintended consequence is to prevent lawful uses, and may be ugly when the purpose and effect is to give the copyright owner control beyond the limits of the law, restrain competition, or destroy secondary markets for legal copies of a work. See DRM: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
DRM is like sheep's clothing. Describing it, as the article does, is not enough. The most crucial aspect of DRM is how it is used -- what's under the clothing. A number of DRM tech companies frantically try to please the wolves, and fail to address the need to keep the uses of DRM within legal bounds. My soon-to-be-published article, DRM: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly , tries to explain this.
Regarding "If I'm buying the right to watch a move (as in license) . . . .", there is no such thing as a licence to watch a movie, at lease not as a matter of copyright. When you buy a DVD you buy a copy of a movie, but you don't need anyone's permission to watch it. You can even watch a stolen DVD without infringing the copyright.
The first time I heard of the fiction of needing a license to watch a movie or listen to music was from an attorney from one of the major record labels, who argued (several yeaers ago) that they should be teaching consumers that "when you buy a CD, all you are buying is a piece of plastic with a license to listen to what's on it." That's baloney, but appaarently, they are succeeding in getting people to believe it.
You don't need a license to read a book, listen to music or watch a DVD movie. Don't ever let them make you believe you do, or they have already won.
An interesting analysis of the DMCRA argues that the DMRCA strengthens the DMCA -- but in a good way.
So the BBC is "using Microsoft's DRM technology, in a break with the BBC's long-standing support of Real"? This illustrates the danger we face when competition authorities twiddle their thumbs at the dwindling competition in media players, DRM and any other enabling software. The BBC could never dictate which television or radio manufactures I chose to use, but somehow these public and private media giants think nothing of dictating which media player, DRM software or computer operating system they will "support". We desparately need third parties to be free to offer consumers support for the media palyers, OS and DRM of their choice. The BBC may set minimum DRM or player standards, for example, but should never be able to dictate which company from among numerous software providers actually wins in the marketplace.
To the contrary, record stores were a lot smarter than the record companies. Long before anyone had ver heard of Napster, they were clammoring to offer EVERYTHING online, and to have the freedom to experiment on pricing, customer service, search engines, presentation, promotions, compatibility with preferred operating systems and media players. The the record companies basically said "No, that's our future space. We want to sell directly to your customers." When they did give permission, it was for a limited quantity, a limited time, and with all sorts of restrictions none of the pirate or unlicensed services had to contend with. The record companies refused to let the retailers meet consumer demand. The rest is history.
Because it is bad for the country. Suppose you really agreed to a EULA or an access control that says, like Sony's EULA on the Destiny's Child "The Writing's On the Wall" CD, that you will not sell it or give it away. It might be a great deal for an individual buyer, particularly for a lower price, to agree to burn their books after reading them, or lock up their music after 30 days, or make a movie unwatchable after 48 hours, but it robs the "non-consumer" market of important access to creative works. Have you ever read a book, listened to a CD or watched a DVD you did not pay for new? Ever receive a used one as a gift? What about the kids down at the after-school tutoring program who need a better library?
The reason some rights do not belong to copyright owners is because we don't want to marginalize a huge portion of our society that will never be in a position to buy a new product, but need access to the secondary market. Let's face it, millions of people buy used cars, used clothes, used books, used CDs and used software because they can't afford the new stuff. We don't want those people to have to walk around naked and without any access to copyrighted works just because their participation could not be monetized by the original manufacturer.
We don't let employers get away with a EULA in which you waive your right to be free from discrimination even if you don't fear discrimination and they agree to pay you a higher salary in exchange. Why? Because it is bad for the masses. Against "public policy." Likewise, we can't let copyright owners get away with "waivers" of important federal rights just because someone is willing to agree to it - it's the person who is not a party to the EULA or the access conrol agreement who gets hurt, along with our culture.
Support Public Knowledge