I still think that was a bad decision on their part. There's obviously a limit of reason here. In the most purely technical sense, a ten million year copyright only lasts for a limited time. Realistically, it's perpetual (especially if retroactive extensions are allowed). It's a bit like claiming that a law that allows you to be thrown in jail for criticizing the government does not restrict free speech, since you can keep right on saying it in jail. I think the retroactive extensions were another extremely poor decision to allow. Obviously, in the absence of a time machine, you can't "promote the progress of Science and useful Arts" fifty years ago! But in effect, copyrights which far outlast a human lifespan are not for a limited time by any reasonable definition of that term, even if they are by a purely technical one.
Yes, actually, I think any such efforts are silly and misguided, to put it the nicest way I can. Everything digital is a simple numeric value, when it comes right down to it. Everything digital is also trivially copied, due to the fact that it is just bits. And computers can flip bits in a predetermined pattern at an ever-increasing rate. That's what they're designed to do, they have to do that in order to work.
It's going to cause a lot of shakeups. An old business model is dying, and is going to require some quick adaptation from those who used to use it. It used to be that large operations were needed to make copies of things, because the equipment to do so was prohibitively expensive for Average Joe Consumer. That's no longer the case, and what was once was necessary is now obsolete. That happens. But reality doesn't go away because you deny it loudly enough.
"There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss copy protection. We respect free speech."
A comparison comes to mind here. Here's a hint, Mr. Ayers. It comes from a bull and it ain't a steak.
The hubris of thinking they can ban the mention of a number, and then turn around and say they "respect free speech", is breathtaking doublethink. Part of free speech is the right to discuss things you don't like. Part of it is the right to discuss them in as specific of terms as anyone wants. And part of it is being able to mention any number one wants to, from zero either direction to infinity. There's not a bit of respect for free speech here.
That'd include me. I'd be all for a 5 or 10 year copyright, designed around the realistic and technological limitations inherent in such a system. But after a few years, either something has made you a profit, or it's not going to. I don't get paid for my work for "life plus 70", I get paid for it when I do it, and the person who paid for it is then entitled to benefit from it in any way and as long as they desire. Why should anyone else get special treatment?
I'm not convinced he's not just "throwing a bone" here. How about a campaign promise to veto any copyright extensions or new restrictions that come across his desk? To work to scale back the DMCA, and work the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act back to a genuinely, realistically "limited time", like the Constitution requires? To ensure that if the Internet streaming royalty increases go into effect, he'll work toward scaling them back? It's a nice thought and a good idea, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not much. If this is to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than promise to release one thing, he needs to be willing to take on the deep-pocket content industry, and in doing so, ensure that their bribes^Wcampaign contributions will go to the other side. Otherwise, it makes no real difference.
Not quite. If we really must have the car analogy here, it would be more like "I have the technical skill to build my own backup Ford with equipment and parts I already have. I'll do that in case my kids crash the crap out of the original." However, you've unwittingly provided a tremendously good demonstration of why physical property and "intellectual property" aren't the same thing, so let's take that opportunity for illustration!
When I pay the local Ford dealer for a car, I'm paying him for complete ownership of the physical product. I'm not paying him for authorization to use it, as a matter of fact, he's not even legally authorized to grant that. I'm paying him for legal, physical possession of a single object. But once I do have it, it is mine. If I want to share it with a friend to carpool to work or school, the dealer can't come after me for "losing him a sale"-even if doing so really does! It's my car now, I can share it, loan it, sell it, even give it away. And the moment the last payment is made (or immediately, if I pay in full up front), that dealer has no more right or interest in that car at all.
On the other hand, when I purchase a CD, I'm told I'm not purchasing the rights to do whatever I want with that CD. I'm not, in other words, being granted full ownership of the physical property. I am, on the other hand, being sold a license to exercise certain rights (in this case, the right to private, personal enjoyment of what's on that CD.) Yet, in that case, there's nothing wrong with making a backup in case the original is damaged. You told me you were selling me rights rather than goods. Alright. But now I already bought those rights (which incidentally came with a good). There's no need for me to go purchase another, identical good. Why would I need to purchase those rights twice?
I didn't say it was the studio's responsibility. (Were that so, they'd be responsible to make you a backup and give it to you.) However, if I purchase a car, which periodically needs the oil changed in order to keep running properly, I expect the oil system not to be hermetically sealed. I don't expect the manufacturer to send out a team with oil and filter in hand, granted. The maintenance is not their responsibility. But I do expect them not to actively interfere with me doing it. As to fair use, dead wrong, those are legal rights, and you in fact have them even if you never purchase the media at all. (I'm not sure how that changes of anything, of course fair use is a defense to the copyright law, just like free speech is a defense to the latest he-said-a-bad-word law. That in no way indicates free speech is not a right!) As to "platform rights", again, I don't necessarily expect help playing on a platform of my choosing-they don't have to come code the player for me. But again, if I can do it, or someone else can, I do expect not to be actively interfered with or have to technically "break the law" just to use something I paid for (and even paid for those specific rights for, private viewing).
Or, there's always "Hey, I want to exercise my rights under fair use laws, which have always existed and which you don't have to pay a penny for." Or "Hey, I want to exercise my private-exhibition right (which I paid you for) on a platform of my choosing." Or "I want to make a backup of this, so I can continue to exercise that private-exhibition right (which, again, I paid you for) if my kids scratch the crap out of the original." It's not quite so black-and-white as you put it there.
Developing an overblown DRM system: Millions of dollars.
Hiring consultants to tell you it'll really, really work this time after firing all the ones who informed you copy protection is a cryptographic impossibility: Thousands of dollars.
Paying lawyers to send cease-and-desist letters to thousands of websites after the key leaks: $500/hour.
Watching yet another DRM scheme go up in flames shortly after its release: Priceless.
The last time I checked, ex post facto laws were prohibited. It's a bit like the IRS retroactively regulating that you really owed an extra $2000 on your taxes for the past five years, even though at the time you didn't.
Actually, the $750 per song is for unintentional infringement. This action was obviously intentional and profit-motivated, the statutory damages in that case are $150,000 per infringement...which would be pretty good, I bet that would actually discourage them from doing this again, as opposed to this garbage settlement, which will have roughly the deterrent effect of fining you or me fifty cents.
It is the job of the police and courts to enforce the law, not you. It is the job of parents to protect their children, not you. You are a registrar. Your job is to ensure that your customers' sites are accessible. Your job is not to judge that site's content. If someone thinks the site should be shut down, that person or organization can go get a proper court order. Until that time, you and your company are out of line in even considering a request to take down a site unilaterally.
I have several domain name registrations coming up. I can assure you, those registrations will not be with your company, absent a public apology and an assurance that this will never happen again except upon a valid court order, and I will ensure that everyone I know who may register a domain is made well aware of this incident. Unless your position is quickly reversed, you stand to lose quite a bit of business.
I see your point. However, if this is a troll, it's a good one (which, of course, do exist). The poster wasn't making ludicrous or outrageous claims (certainly, we do have evidence here to support the fact that at least one post has been deleted), and seemed, if anything, a bit defensive of the practice-"Hey, sorry, look, we get told to do this." To me, it appears to fit with what it says it is-someone who's frustrated by having to do this, but has been given no choice, being given an opportunity to explain why it happens. I wouldn't honestly put it past Apple, either-"It just works!" is a central part of their advertising scheme, and they figure (probably correctly) that it's better to have a few irritated forum users then a bunch of posts for people to point at and say "It DOES NOT just work!" If it comes out that Apples suffer from the same types of bugs and problems and idiosyncracies that all computers do, where's that leave them? Of course, they wouldn't explain such a marketing strategy to forum moderators. Rather, they would give them some nebulous story about how it's "legally required", and figure (again probably correctly) that 99% of those won't have the first clue that no such thing is legally required and will buy it. To me-it's not proven, but on its face, it looks like it certainly has a decent chance of being legitimate.
You mean, evidence, like someone who had a screenshot of a post he had made, which was now missing? To show that Apple really is deleting posts on this subject? You're right, we should demand that type of evidence before believing this guy!
Well, apparently, now we know that those who are authorized to distribute the content do distribute there, and don't try to distinguish themselves. So why shouldn't we believe so?
I've heard there are these things called "books", some of which have a whole bunch of laws and precedents and all kinds of neat things like that in them. When a judge is hearing a case about a subject, I bet he could look at one of those, and see what the relevant law and caselaw is! In fact, I hear judges get legal secretaries that actually find out where to look for that type of thing, and the judge just reads it!
Judges are generally in specialized areas too. You generally don't see a judge hearing a felony-assault case one day and a personal-injury dispute the next. Given that, there's no excuse for a judge not knowing what the law is in h(is|er) area of expertise, and if information is needed from outside that area, I do imagine any competent judge knows someone who (s)he could ask, or can ask the legal secretary to look it up. Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't expect judges to be legal experts?
And if the law's progressed to the point that a judge, let alone an average person, cannot have a pretty good comprehension of it, there's something wrong. Now, sure, soon as the EFF gets involved, this idiocy will get overturned on appeal-if you want limited access to your content, here's an idea, put it behind a free, anonymous registration system, or even just require that a captcha be entered before the content will display. Judges generally require some degree of good faith on your part, some indication that you've genuinely tried to solve the problem and failed, and that going to court is your last resort. This person has made no effort whatsoever to utilize a technical rather than legal solution, and the judge should've recognized that. (If the other website was somehow "cracking" a password-registration system or deliberately circumventing the captcha, then and only then would there be an argument that someone is breaking into content which is not intended to be totally open to the public.)
Actually, "renting out" is an inherent right under First Sale doctrine, just like reselling is. Most of the rental chains do indeed pay fees to the movie conglomerates, but those are for "priority" treatment and large bulk discounts on the videos-it's not a legal requirement. If someone wanted to purchase a bunch of videos at retail and start renting them out that would be perfectly legal.
That aside, of course, your premise is basically correct. Here's the problem, however. Under First Sale, you do have the right to resell, rent, or give away a copyrighted item, provided you either destroy your backups or transfer them along with the original. DRM usurps this right-even if I get sick of a song purchased off iTunes, and am perfectly willing to delete my copy after transferring it to you, I can't do that. iTunes is not reduced in price either-a buck a song is about par for the course on CD's, which can be readily resold to the used-CD shop, given away to a friend that likes it, and so on. It also makes other fair uses difficult-I may not have the right to publicly display a DVD, but I do have the right to back it up in case it gets scratched. I may not have the right to burn and sell copies of a CD, but I do have the right to resell, trade, give away, or loan out the original. I may not have the right to put on a movie exhibition and charge admission, but I do have the right to use a scene as part of a school project which is commenting on the movie, or to do so in a critical review.
The main problem here is not when DRM usurps rights people don't have anyway-it's when it usurps rights people do have. We simply don't run into that in the other scenarios. If you buy a McDonald's hamburger, or a gourmet meal in Paris, you have the right to eat it, and you get to. I think people would be pretty upset if the meal came with 3/4 of it encased in glass so that it could not be gotten to! However, that's exactly what we have here. When you purchase a copyrighted item, you're by definition purchasing rights under First Sale and Fair Use in addition to the "personal enjoyment" type rights consumer media is told with. DRM takes the ability to use those rights away, and that's what people are upset about-not that DRM prevents them doing things they have no right to do, but that it prevents them doing things they do have the right to do.
Of course, the difference being, it really is more expensive to purchase better ingredients for better food, it really is more expensive to purchase hardwood than sawdust, and it really is more expensive to build a computer in the US than in China.
DRM actually would raise production costs-it would be more expensive to develop, program, test, and refine DRM systems, and then make deals to have them implemented in hardware, than to simply produce unencumbered media. The same would apply to leasing someone else's systems. The other circumstances you are describing are companies spending less money to produce a product of less value. The scenario here is spending more money to make a product of less value.
Slashdot Mirror
I still think that was a bad decision on their part. There's obviously a limit of reason here. In the most purely technical sense, a ten million year copyright only lasts for a limited time. Realistically, it's perpetual (especially if retroactive extensions are allowed). It's a bit like claiming that a law that allows you to be thrown in jail for criticizing the government does not restrict free speech, since you can keep right on saying it in jail. I think the retroactive extensions were another extremely poor decision to allow. Obviously, in the absence of a time machine, you can't "promote the progress of Science and useful Arts" fifty years ago! But in effect, copyrights which far outlast a human lifespan are not for a limited time by any reasonable definition of that term, even if they are by a purely technical one.
Yes, actually, I think any such efforts are silly and misguided, to put it the nicest way I can. Everything digital is a simple numeric value, when it comes right down to it. Everything digital is also trivially copied, due to the fact that it is just bits. And computers can flip bits in a predetermined pattern at an ever-increasing rate. That's what they're designed to do, they have to do that in order to work.
It's going to cause a lot of shakeups. An old business model is dying, and is going to require some quick adaptation from those who used to use it. It used to be that large operations were needed to make copies of things, because the equipment to do so was prohibitively expensive for Average Joe Consumer. That's no longer the case, and what was once was necessary is now obsolete. That happens. But reality doesn't go away because you deny it loudly enough.
"There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss copy protection. We respect free speech."
A comparison comes to mind here. Here's a hint, Mr. Ayers. It comes from a bull and it ain't a steak.
The hubris of thinking they can ban the mention of a number, and then turn around and say they "respect free speech", is breathtaking doublethink. Part of free speech is the right to discuss things you don't like. Part of it is the right to discuss them in as specific of terms as anyone wants. And part of it is being able to mention any number one wants to, from zero either direction to infinity. There's not a bit of respect for free speech here.
That'd include me. I'd be all for a 5 or 10 year copyright, designed around the realistic and technological limitations inherent in such a system. But after a few years, either something has made you a profit, or it's not going to. I don't get paid for my work for "life plus 70", I get paid for it when I do it, and the person who paid for it is then entitled to benefit from it in any way and as long as they desire. Why should anyone else get special treatment?
More technical authority (one vote in Congress vs. 0), probably less, realistically so. Look up "bully pulpit".
I'm not convinced he's not just "throwing a bone" here. How about a campaign promise to veto any copyright extensions or new restrictions that come across his desk? To work to scale back the DMCA, and work the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act back to a genuinely, realistically "limited time", like the Constitution requires? To ensure that if the Internet streaming royalty increases go into effect, he'll work toward scaling them back? It's a nice thought and a good idea, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not much. If this is to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than promise to release one thing, he needs to be willing to take on the deep-pocket content industry, and in doing so, ensure that their bribes^Wcampaign contributions will go to the other side. Otherwise, it makes no real difference.
Not quite. If we really must have the car analogy here, it would be more like "I have the technical skill to build my own backup Ford with equipment and parts I already have. I'll do that in case my kids crash the crap out of the original." However, you've unwittingly provided a tremendously good demonstration of why physical property and "intellectual property" aren't the same thing, so let's take that opportunity for illustration!
When I pay the local Ford dealer for a car, I'm paying him for complete ownership of the physical product. I'm not paying him for authorization to use it, as a matter of fact, he's not even legally authorized to grant that. I'm paying him for legal, physical possession of a single object. But once I do have it, it is mine. If I want to share it with a friend to carpool to work or school, the dealer can't come after me for "losing him a sale"-even if doing so really does! It's my car now, I can share it, loan it, sell it, even give it away. And the moment the last payment is made (or immediately, if I pay in full up front), that dealer has no more right or interest in that car at all.
On the other hand, when I purchase a CD, I'm told I'm not purchasing the rights to do whatever I want with that CD. I'm not, in other words, being granted full ownership of the physical property. I am, on the other hand, being sold a license to exercise certain rights (in this case, the right to private, personal enjoyment of what's on that CD.) Yet, in that case, there's nothing wrong with making a backup in case the original is damaged. You told me you were selling me rights rather than goods. Alright. But now I already bought those rights (which incidentally came with a good). There's no need for me to go purchase another, identical good. Why would I need to purchase those rights twice?
I didn't say it was the studio's responsibility. (Were that so, they'd be responsible to make you a backup and give it to you.) However, if I purchase a car, which periodically needs the oil changed in order to keep running properly, I expect the oil system not to be hermetically sealed. I don't expect the manufacturer to send out a team with oil and filter in hand, granted. The maintenance is not their responsibility. But I do expect them not to actively interfere with me doing it. As to fair use, dead wrong, those are legal rights, and you in fact have them even if you never purchase the media at all. (I'm not sure how that changes of anything, of course fair use is a defense to the copyright law, just like free speech is a defense to the latest he-said-a-bad-word law. That in no way indicates free speech is not a right!) As to "platform rights", again, I don't necessarily expect help playing on a platform of my choosing-they don't have to come code the player for me. But again, if I can do it, or someone else can, I do expect not to be actively interfered with or have to technically "break the law" just to use something I paid for (and even paid for those specific rights for, private viewing).
Or, there's always "Hey, I want to exercise my rights under fair use laws, which have always existed and which you don't have to pay a penny for." Or "Hey, I want to exercise my private-exhibition right (which I paid you for) on a platform of my choosing." Or "I want to make a backup of this, so I can continue to exercise that private-exhibition right (which, again, I paid you for) if my kids scratch the crap out of the original." It's not quite so black-and-white as you put it there.
Developing an overblown DRM system: Millions of dollars.
Hiring consultants to tell you it'll really, really work this time after firing all the ones who informed you copy protection is a cryptographic impossibility: Thousands of dollars.
Paying lawyers to send cease-and-desist letters to thousands of websites after the key leaks: $500/hour.
Watching yet another DRM scheme go up in flames shortly after its release: Priceless.
The last time I checked, ex post facto laws were prohibited. It's a bit like the IRS retroactively regulating that you really owed an extra $2000 on your taxes for the past five years, even though at the time you didn't.
"Alright, if you don't care about killing yourself, quit smoking or you'll kill the Internet!"
Might work.
Actually, the $750 per song is for unintentional infringement. This action was obviously intentional and profit-motivated, the statutory damages in that case are $150,000 per infringement...which would be pretty good, I bet that would actually discourage them from doing this again, as opposed to this garbage settlement, which will have roughly the deterrent effect of fining you or me fifty cents.
Please allow me to put this in a few words:
This is not your place.
It is the job of the police and courts to enforce the law, not you. It is the job of parents to protect their children, not you. You are a registrar. Your job is to ensure that your customers' sites are accessible. Your job is not to judge that site's content. If someone thinks the site should be shut down, that person or organization can go get a proper court order. Until that time, you and your company are out of line in even considering a request to take down a site unilaterally.
I have several domain name registrations coming up. I can assure you, those registrations will not be with your company, absent a public apology and an assurance that this will never happen again except upon a valid court order, and I will ensure that everyone I know who may register a domain is made well aware of this incident. Unless your position is quickly reversed, you stand to lose quite a bit of business.
I see your point. However, if this is a troll, it's a good one (which, of course, do exist). The poster wasn't making ludicrous or outrageous claims (certainly, we do have evidence here to support the fact that at least one post has been deleted), and seemed, if anything, a bit defensive of the practice-"Hey, sorry, look, we get told to do this." To me, it appears to fit with what it says it is-someone who's frustrated by having to do this, but has been given no choice, being given an opportunity to explain why it happens. I wouldn't honestly put it past Apple, either-"It just works!" is a central part of their advertising scheme, and they figure (probably correctly) that it's better to have a few irritated forum users then a bunch of posts for people to point at and say "It DOES NOT just work!" If it comes out that Apples suffer from the same types of bugs and problems and idiosyncracies that all computers do, where's that leave them? Of course, they wouldn't explain such a marketing strategy to forum moderators. Rather, they would give them some nebulous story about how it's "legally required", and figure (again probably correctly) that 99% of those won't have the first clue that no such thing is legally required and will buy it. To me-it's not proven, but on its face, it looks like it certainly has a decent chance of being legitimate.
You mean, evidence, like someone who had a screenshot of a post he had made, which was now missing? To show that Apple really is deleting posts on this subject? You're right, we should demand that type of evidence before believing this guy!
Hrm. RTFT, would that one be?
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.It's been 13 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Chances are, you're typing with both hands. Please insert one thumb up your ass and try again.
From the summary...
It is not revealed in which direction the hands of the clock will be moved...
From TFA...
The minute hand of the Doomsday Clock will be moved closer to midnight on January 17 (emphasis added).
Yes, they are! Please hePROGRAMMINGOVERRIDE There is no problem here. I am perfectly fine, fellow citizen. Thank you for your concern.
While I would love to moderate you up, there's no "Deeply disturbing because it's all too true" option.
Well count me a loony, but I sure do believe in cosmic rays.
Well, apparently, now we know that those who are authorized to distribute the content do distribute there, and don't try to distinguish themselves. So why shouldn't we believe so?
I've heard there are these things called "books", some of which have a whole bunch of laws and precedents and all kinds of neat things like that in them. When a judge is hearing a case about a subject, I bet he could look at one of those, and see what the relevant law and caselaw is! In fact, I hear judges get legal secretaries that actually find out where to look for that type of thing, and the judge just reads it!
Judges are generally in specialized areas too. You generally don't see a judge hearing a felony-assault case one day and a personal-injury dispute the next. Given that, there's no excuse for a judge not knowing what the law is in h(is|er) area of expertise, and if information is needed from outside that area, I do imagine any competent judge knows someone who (s)he could ask, or can ask the legal secretary to look it up. Are you honestly saying that we shouldn't expect judges to be legal experts?
And if the law's progressed to the point that a judge, let alone an average person, cannot have a pretty good comprehension of it, there's something wrong. Now, sure, soon as the EFF gets involved, this idiocy will get overturned on appeal-if you want limited access to your content, here's an idea, put it behind a free, anonymous registration system, or even just require that a captcha be entered before the content will display. Judges generally require some degree of good faith on your part, some indication that you've genuinely tried to solve the problem and failed, and that going to court is your last resort. This person has made no effort whatsoever to utilize a technical rather than legal solution, and the judge should've recognized that. (If the other website was somehow "cracking" a password-registration system or deliberately circumventing the captcha, then and only then would there be an argument that someone is breaking into content which is not intended to be totally open to the public.)
Actually, "renting out" is an inherent right under First Sale doctrine, just like reselling is. Most of the rental chains do indeed pay fees to the movie conglomerates, but those are for "priority" treatment and large bulk discounts on the videos-it's not a legal requirement. If someone wanted to purchase a bunch of videos at retail and start renting them out that would be perfectly legal.
That aside, of course, your premise is basically correct. Here's the problem, however. Under First Sale, you do have the right to resell, rent, or give away a copyrighted item, provided you either destroy your backups or transfer them along with the original. DRM usurps this right-even if I get sick of a song purchased off iTunes, and am perfectly willing to delete my copy after transferring it to you, I can't do that. iTunes is not reduced in price either-a buck a song is about par for the course on CD's, which can be readily resold to the used-CD shop, given away to a friend that likes it, and so on. It also makes other fair uses difficult-I may not have the right to publicly display a DVD, but I do have the right to back it up in case it gets scratched. I may not have the right to burn and sell copies of a CD, but I do have the right to resell, trade, give away, or loan out the original. I may not have the right to put on a movie exhibition and charge admission, but I do have the right to use a scene as part of a school project which is commenting on the movie, or to do so in a critical review.
The main problem here is not when DRM usurps rights people don't have anyway-it's when it usurps rights people do have. We simply don't run into that in the other scenarios. If you buy a McDonald's hamburger, or a gourmet meal in Paris, you have the right to eat it, and you get to. I think people would be pretty upset if the meal came with 3/4 of it encased in glass so that it could not be gotten to! However, that's exactly what we have here. When you purchase a copyrighted item, you're by definition purchasing rights under First Sale and Fair Use in addition to the "personal enjoyment" type rights consumer media is told with. DRM takes the ability to use those rights away, and that's what people are upset about-not that DRM prevents them doing things they have no right to do, but that it prevents them doing things they do have the right to do.
Of course, the difference being, it really is more expensive to purchase better ingredients for better food, it really is more expensive to purchase hardwood than sawdust, and it really is more expensive to build a computer in the US than in China.
DRM actually would raise production costs-it would be more expensive to develop, program, test, and refine DRM systems, and then make deals to have them implemented in hardware, than to simply produce unencumbered media. The same would apply to leasing someone else's systems. The other circumstances you are describing are companies spending less money to produce a product of less value. The scenario here is spending more money to make a product of less value.