The real solution, if the goal is preventing things like this from happening, is proportional fines (I.e. An independent accounting firm determines how much money the company made from its misconduct and they are fined say 5 times that amount). If misconduct is unprofitable they will stop doing it, if a CEO continues doing it when he should know it will be unprofitable he can be found personally liable to the shareholders for fiduciary misconduct.
What about the third side that says addicts who aren't harming anyone but themselves should be offered help if they (for whatever reason) want to quit but should otherwise be left alone?
Especially in the Washington area (proud home of the worst drivers in the US) where things like using turn signals are already considered a sign of weakness.
Really? Where can I find one of these mythical cell phone operators that doesn't screw the customer? Last time I checked there were only about 4 cell networks all of which had the same anti-consumer policies (locked and exclusive handsets, long-term contracts, 700%+ markups on text messages, caps on "unlimited" data, etc). At least I can hook any router and computer(s) up to my cable modem but I can't buy an iPhone (even at full, unsubsidized, price) and use it with my T-Mobile account without the trouble and risk of jailbreaking it.
ASCAP needs distribution. Just like the labels agreed to many things they didn't like to get on iTMS (DRM-free distribution, selling singles instead of albums, fixed pricing, etc) they will see that Apple dominates the digital music distribution industry and even they are not stupid enough to give up a large, established revenue stream chasing a new one which they have never received before (how many stores that have kiosks to allow you to preview CDs are paying performance fees?)
Early iterations of services like the legit Napster, PressPlay, Rhapsody, etc showed what the industry wants from digital music and also showed that the vast majority of customers will opt for piracy or nothing ahead of that option. The people in charge of RIAA and ASCAP are obviously out of touch with reality but they are, if anything, bean counters and will almost certainly be able to look at the numbers and see that they stand to lose far more than they stand to gain by making a stand on this nonsense. I think that if Apple simply says no this new demand will go away. If popular artists start disappearing from iTunes it is pretty much certain that a significant number of people who would have purchased them will torrent them instead and that is the last thing the labels want.
A true student of the RIAA would just start suing people at random and offering them the chance to "settle" for less then the cost of defending themselves at trial.
The problem with these schemes will be false positives, each of which will tie up a couple of staff for a few hours. Fingerprint matching in the real world is not like CSI.
Or lockup a couple of innocent people for a few decades. Which seems more likely given that this program is run by the people or brought you (by the admission of the FBI's own inspector general) thousands of illegal misuses of "National Security Letters"
"Both the DMCA takedown notice and the counter-notice are sworn affidavits, meaning that when the issue goes to court any untruths in the notices can be prosecuted as perjury. So there's a strong disincentive for someone to issue a DMCA takedown frivolously, as it will cost the publisher almost nothing to get the takedown reversed, and may land the issuer in hot water. Likewise, there's a strong disincentive for a publisher of infringing materials to issue a counter-notice."
If only it worked this well. There have been numerous confirmed cases of people and organizations sending bogus takedown notices and I've yet to hear of a single prosecution. INAL, but doesn't perjury require intent (i.e. the person signing the notice knew or should have known it wasn't legit) often making it very hard to prove?
Think about electricity deregulation: the transmission is seperate from the generation, and while everyone has to pay for the transmission (since we don't want overly redundant infrastructure), individuals can choose their generation source.
Not just from the article. They refuse to say, have been asked to spell it out, and continue to threaten without making any specific claim. After a while you just learn to tune them out.
Is it just me or does this whole thing reek of SCO redeux?
The key phrase is "No action may be brought under this title". It doesn't preclude bringing action under other laws (DMCA, Copyright Act, NET Act, etc)
He tends to vote democratic more often then republican
Are you sure about that? I don't know how he votes in countless procedural votes they have everyday but Lieberman has voted with the Republicans on almost every major issue the current senate has considered and the reason he's not an independent is that Democrats in his state got sick of him and he lost the Democratic primary. In fact, the only reason he is still in the Senate is that something like 70% of registered Republicans voted for him while a substantial majority of Democrats and independents favored the Democratic nominee.
RIM might not be as big as those US telcos, but they are big enough and surely fought pretty hard. Their most recent annual report showed revenue in the year of over 3 billion USD and their current market cap is well over 45 billion USD... should be enough to hire an expensive lawyer or two.
Yes, but the companies NTP is going after now can hire an entire expensive law firm or two and a enough congressmen to get any laws they broke changed.
THREE uncompressed (CD-quality) DRM-free songs for $6? That's about $2.00 per song, not much higher than Apple's DRM-free pricing.
In fact, since you're getting it uncompressed, I'm not seeing the problem here... Their pricing is in line with digital downloads.
Apple's DRM-free pricing is $1.29 per song. How is three songs of your choice for $3.87 (with the option to make your own ringtone from any of the songs for free or buy one for $0.99) in line with $6 for 1 song of your choice, 2 filler tracks and a ringtone
Also, what makes you think the CDs will be DRM-free? I don't see anything in the article to indicate Sony BMG won't include copy protection, spyware, rootkits, etc with ringles (which is one of the dumbest product names I've ever heard)
Right, we would be so much better off if the government hadn't interfered. Then instead of having CableCards that still have technical issues (mostly caused by the cable companies themselves) but work most of the time we could still be forced to pay to rent converters from the cable company and have no option to purchase hardware or use Tivos or other devices not provided by the cable company.
But, I'm sure the free market would correct that even though it didn't at any time between the invention of cable TV and FCC CableCard mandate going into effect.
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You left out
4. Joe's company gets bad press for selling CDs that don't work in many cd players
5. Joe's customers go online to download copies of the CDs they bought but now can't play on their computers, rip to their iPods, etc
6. A percentage of the customers mentioned in 5 decide that since they are downloading songs from the CD they bought (which Joe's propaganda campaign has been telling them is illegal anyway) they might as well download music from other CDs (which they haven't bought) too
7. Retailers get sick of having to deal with Joe's CDs being returned at a much higher rate than anything else since people consider discs that won't play on their particular hardware defective.
8. Sales of Joe's CDs plummet while his competitors cash in by promoting the fact that their music is DRM free
"I suppose by this logic movie theatres should run gruesome scat-fetish porn because, hey, otherwise they're denying you your right to see what you want!"
If by "movie theaters" you mean private screening rooms and home theaters where people can view content that they have purchased without anyone else seeing it then yes.
A much better analogy would be should DVD players refuse to play NC-17 or X rated movies, or any other content that the hardware maker doesn't approve of. Why should I need corporate permission to, in the privacy of my own home, use a piece of hardware I've purchased (video game console, DVD player, VCR, etc) to access content I've purchased (game, movie, music, etc). If a individual store wants to refuse to stock it that's there right but a hardware manufacturer shouldn't be able to dictate what content you can watch (or do you want to have to buy a Sony licensed DVD player that plays only Sony movies, a Fox licensed DVD player for Fox movies, etc)
It's amazing the complicated dance that many young people are led through to prevent them understanding that Orwell's '1984' is a direct indictment of Stalinism and Soviet Communism. It's almost as if there was a concerted effort made by those who revere 'Communism/socialism' in theory.
While it's true that much of the government in 1984 is based on the USSR under Stalin (and the direct allegory of the Russian revolution in Animal Farm makes Orwell's anti-communist stance quite clear) I think your statement is an oversimplification. 1984 is an indictment of totalitarianism in general and a cautionary tale meant to warn readers (i.e. it could happen here.) In fact, many direct parallels can be drawn between the dystopian world of 1984 and repressive, totalitarian regimes on both the far left (Stalinist Russia, Communist China) and far right (Nazi Germany, Spain under Franco)
One could even argue it was allowed by the "USA PATRIOT" act (the president has the authority to take whatever actions needed to combat terrorism)
One could argue that but they would be making a fool of themself since even if the patriot act said that (which it doesn't) it would not overide the fact that warrantless wiretaps are in clear violation of the fourth amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")
Are you trying to imply that doing your best to make sure the laws are enforced is a bad thing ? No matter how unpopular a law is, it's still law as long as it is on the books. You would not want to live in a world where people can pick and choose what laws they obey.
My concern is the almost inevitable expansion of this program to things other than cp. The past actions of this government (secret illegal wiretapping, datamining bank records, holding US citizens for years without charging them with a crime, touture, etc) show just how little the current administration cares about the privacy and constitutional rights of Americans and leads me to beleive that (if a system like this is built) iti s only a matter of time before it is used to monitor and archive internet traffic and look for many things other than cp (copyrighted files? normal/legal porn? political dissent?)
Slashdot Mirror
The real solution, if the goal is preventing things like this from happening, is proportional fines (I.e. An independent accounting firm determines how much money the company made from its misconduct and they are fined say 5 times that amount). If misconduct is unprofitable they will stop doing it, if a CEO continues doing it when he should know it will be unprofitable he can be found personally liable to the shareholders for fiduciary misconduct.
What about the third side that says addicts who aren't harming anyone but themselves should be offered help if they (for whatever reason) want to quit but should otherwise be left alone?
How about something more functional like this?
Especially in the Washington area (proud home of the worst drivers in the US) where things like using turn signals are already considered a sign of weakness.
Really? Where can I find one of these mythical cell phone operators that doesn't screw the customer? Last time I checked there were only about 4 cell networks all of which had the same anti-consumer policies (locked and exclusive handsets, long-term contracts, 700%+ markups on text messages, caps on "unlimited" data, etc). At least I can hook any router and computer(s) up to my cable modem but I can't buy an iPhone (even at full, unsubsidized, price) and use it with my T-Mobile account without the trouble and risk of jailbreaking it.
DVD Jon Connor emerges as humanity's last hope of survival.
ASCAP needs distribution. Just like the labels agreed to many things they didn't like to get on iTMS (DRM-free distribution, selling singles instead of albums, fixed pricing, etc) they will see that Apple dominates the digital music distribution industry and even they are not stupid enough to give up a large, established revenue stream chasing a new one which they have never received before (how many stores that have kiosks to allow you to preview CDs are paying performance fees?)
Early iterations of services like the legit Napster, PressPlay, Rhapsody, etc showed what the industry wants from digital music and also showed that the vast majority of customers will opt for piracy or nothing ahead of that option. The people in charge of RIAA and ASCAP are obviously out of touch with reality but they are, if anything, bean counters and will almost certainly be able to look at the numbers and see that they stand to lose far more than they stand to gain by making a stand on this nonsense. I think that if Apple simply says no this new demand will go away. If popular artists start disappearing from iTunes it is pretty much certain that a significant number of people who would have purchased them will torrent them instead and that is the last thing the labels want.
"Following a torrent of customer complaints" Is that torrent available on the Pirate Bay? I have been unable to find it anywhere.
Probably, everything else seems to be
Not true. They try to confuse you into signing up for direct debit but it is possible to sign up for paperless billing without it.
Why only people who link to it?
A true student of the RIAA would just start suing people at random and offering them the chance to "settle" for less then the cost of defending themselves at trial.
Finally, I can't believe it took this many posts before someone mentioned Snow Crash.
Or lockup a couple of innocent people for a few decades. Which seems more likely given that this program is run by the people or brought you (by the admission of the FBI's own inspector general) thousands of illegal misuses of "National Security Letters"
If only it worked this well. There have been numerous confirmed cases of people and organizations sending bogus takedown notices and I've yet to hear of a single prosecution. INAL, but doesn't perjury require intent (i.e. the person signing the notice knew or should have known it wasn't legit) often making it very hard to prove?
And we all know how well electricity deregulation worked out for consumers, right?
Is it just me or does this whole thing reek of SCO redeux?
The key phrase is "No action may be brought under this title". It doesn't preclude bringing action under other laws (DMCA, Copyright Act, NET Act, etc)
Are you sure about that? I don't know how he votes in countless procedural votes they have everyday but Lieberman has voted with the Republicans on almost every major issue the current senate has considered and the reason he's not an independent is that Democrats in his state got sick of him and he lost the Democratic primary. In fact, the only reason he is still in the Senate is that something like 70% of registered Republicans voted for him while a substantial majority of Democrats and independents favored the Democratic nominee.
Yes, but the companies NTP is going after now can hire an entire expensive law firm or two and a enough congressmen to get any laws they broke changed.
Verizon (NYSE: VZ)
2006 Revenue: US$88.1 billion
Market Cap: US$124.2 billion
AT&T (NYSE: T)
2006 Revenue: US$63 billion
Market Cap: US$246 billion
Deutsche Telekom AG (NYSE: DT) owners of 100% of T-Mobile USA
2006 Revenue: EUR61.3 billion (US$85.1 billion)
Market Cap: US$83.08 billion
Sprint Nextel (NYSE: S)
2006 Revenue: US$41 billion
Market Cap: US$50.36 billion
Apple's DRM-free pricing is $1.29 per song. How is three songs of your choice for $3.87 (with the option to make your own ringtone from any of the songs for free or buy one for $0.99) in line with $6 for 1 song of your choice, 2 filler tracks and a ringtone
Also, what makes you think the CDs will be DRM-free? I don't see anything in the article to indicate Sony BMG won't include copy protection, spyware, rootkits, etc with ringles (which is one of the dumbest product names I've ever heard)
Right, we would be so much better off if the government hadn't interfered. Then instead of having CableCards that still have technical issues (mostly caused by the cable companies themselves) but work most of the time we could still be forced to pay to rent converters from the cable company and have no option to purchase hardware or use Tivos or other devices not provided by the cable company.
But, I'm sure the free market would correct that even though it didn't at any time between the invention of cable TV and FCC CableCard mandate going into effect.
You left out
4. Joe's company gets bad press for selling CDs that don't work in many cd players
5. Joe's customers go online to download copies of the CDs they bought but now can't play on their computers, rip to their iPods, etc
6. A percentage of the customers mentioned in 5 decide that since they are downloading songs from the CD they bought (which Joe's propaganda campaign has been telling them is illegal anyway) they might as well download music from other CDs (which they haven't bought) too
7. Retailers get sick of having to deal with Joe's CDs being returned at a much higher rate than anything else since people consider discs that won't play on their particular hardware defective.
8. Sales of Joe's CDs plummet while his competitors cash in by promoting the fact that their music is DRM free
If by "movie theaters" you mean private screening rooms and home theaters where people can view content that they have purchased without anyone else seeing it then yes.
A much better analogy would be should DVD players refuse to play NC-17 or X rated movies, or any other content that the hardware maker doesn't approve of. Why should I need corporate permission to, in the privacy of my own home, use a piece of hardware I've purchased (video game console, DVD player, VCR, etc) to access content I've purchased (game, movie, music, etc). If a individual store wants to refuse to stock it that's there right but a hardware manufacturer shouldn't be able to dictate what content you can watch (or do you want to have to buy a Sony licensed DVD player that plays only Sony movies, a Fox licensed DVD player for Fox movies, etc)
While it's true that much of the government in 1984 is based on the USSR under Stalin (and the direct allegory of the Russian revolution in Animal Farm makes Orwell's anti-communist stance quite clear) I think your statement is an oversimplification. 1984 is an indictment of totalitarianism in general and a cautionary tale meant to warn readers (i.e. it could happen here.) In fact, many direct parallels can be drawn between the dystopian world of 1984 and repressive, totalitarian regimes on both the far left (Stalinist Russia, Communist China) and far right (Nazi Germany, Spain under Franco)
One could argue that but they would be making a fool of themself since even if the patriot act said that (which it doesn't) it would not overide the fact that warrantless wiretaps are in clear violation of the fourth amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")
Right, only certian people should be allowed to pick and choose what laws they obey
My concern is the almost inevitable expansion of this program to things other than cp. The past actions of this government (secret illegal wiretapping, datamining bank records, holding US citizens for years without charging them with a crime, touture, etc) show just how little the current administration cares about the privacy and constitutional rights of Americans and leads me to beleive that (if a system like this is built) iti s only a matter of time before it is used to monitor and archive internet traffic and look for many things other than cp (copyrighted files? normal/legal porn? political dissent?)