They're not abusing copyrights, they're abusing the court system. They are using copyrights as intended: to control the distribution of the works for profit. They aren't using the courts as intended, by extorting people, many of which are clearly innocent. Worst of all, this kind of court abuse is not simply limited to the copyright debate. Perhaps we should be fixing the legal system instead of blasting copyrights?
In the end it's the cash that's going to determine the next election, not what you read on/.
What, did you get the orders in the mail, or something? Something like "vote for *insert shill here*, or we detonate the bomb implanted in your brain"?
It doesn't prevent people copying music/software, so were I to be concerned about my music/books etc being copied, it wouldn't work. I could say "well, my album is all over the net, but at least I know who bought it originally". Yeah, but people still aren't buying it.
The system's designed to discourage that. Sure there will be some people who don't care and will happily share their marked files, but most won't. It's like how it is now, where someone cracks the DRM on a copyrighted file, and distributes it on P2P networks. The only difference is that the file shared will be traceable back to the original owner, which the copyright holder can then sue the person for thousands of dollars.
And I still think there'd always be a cop out - like "my kid borrowed my mp3 player" or "I let someone use my PC to write an email - I guess they copied it then"
Initially, yes there will be. But hopefully, people will realise how much of a disservice it is, and how much of a betrayal of trust it is to share other people's files. Then the excuse will become less plausible, since no-one would do that to a friend by then. Thankfully, the cop out won't end up with false positives, only false negatives, so there won't be too much harm during that time.
Also, I refuse to divulge my credit card details over the net, preferring instead to use my banks one-time-credit-card number so that it can't be reused. Combined with a gmail (or mailinator or whatever) account, I can't really see how it would be trackable.
Well, if you deliberately give out false information, and you use a credit card that is genuinely untraceable (so that the bank can't even verify that you were the one using the credit card at the time), then you are one of the few people who could share the file without consequence. You would be one of the select few who could, and if you were to do any pirating, the copyright holders would have to catch you using the methods they currently employ. The system isn't perfect, but it is certainly an improvement.
So 2 seconds with a file comparer and a hex editor fixes it. Well, probably less than 2 seconds if it's automated.
They'd be clever about it. Perhaps build in a good checksum algorithm to verify that the unique ID isn't changed. But of course, that isn't perfect. Someone could crack the algorithm and circumvent the marking system. In which case, the media companies will have to develop another algorithm, and another, and another, perpetuating the rat race of copyright holders v. crackers. As imperfect as it may be, it still makes it hard for pirates, while not affecting the average legitimate consumer at all.
Well, leakage is one problem; another is do you trust them generally, with your money and/or in this case your reputation.
It's very simple. The company holding my credentials have the responsibility to handle my data with care. They will be responsible if my details are leaked onto the net. If they still blunder, hello huge class action suit.
I live in Australia. We have fairly restrictive gun control, and consequently we have very low gun crime. It keeps the potential criminals honest. Sure, some criminals do have handguns, but that's all they can really get. Anything bigger becomes harder to conceal. Plus, the community mostly supports gun control, so if one is seen on someone who isn't police/security, the police are often called. In other words, it's very hard to get and keep a gun here.
Compare with VT. Sure, guns weren't allowed on campus. That doesn't really do anything. The hardest parts of a gun crime have already been bypassed, and that is getting an automatic gun and being able to transport it to the place where you intend to commit the crime. The person is completely legal holding the automatic one step outside the campus. The easiest part is where you step onto campus and pull the trigger.
As a matter of fact, I do think that stealing 1 cent each from 5 million people is less of a crime than stealing 50 thousand dollars. For me, it's how much the crime hurts others, rather than the illegitimate rewards. I don't feel the need to punish someone just for doing well for themselves illegitimately. Of course, as soon as millions start stealing 1 cent, the argument falls apart...
Exactly. I'd rather have an IP free-for-all than that.
Perhaps you misunderstand? What I'm saying is that without enforcement, your "free-for-all" as you put it, would result in harsher measures against pirates. As it stands, loss of potential income from piracy is not quite enough to universally push through draconian internet legislation. However, if there were no way of preventing copyright infringement, or no way of tracking it, people would pirate more and more, resulting in more and more harsh legislation. You can't simply have everything you want, the way you want it, when you want it. Life is about compromise. If you don't compromise, organisations (such as the RIAA, MPAA, copyright lobby, government, etc) will be less likely to compromise with you.
Watermarking is a form of DRM, and when people like Amazon and Steve Jobs talk about DRM free music, that's exactly what I'm taking them as meaning.
I think, for reasons stated before, watermarking if a fine compromise. It isn't like Digital Rights Management, because it doesn't "manage" (read: restrict) your rights. All it does is trace the copyrighted work without preventing you from exercising any of your fair use rights. If you only put it on devices you own, and those of select friends, the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of the watermark never being viewed or used. You wouldn't even notice it there, since these files can do anything that unmarked and un-DRMed files can do. You tell me a system that weighs up the needs of content consumers and content creators more effectively.
Watermarked with what, though? 64 bit number? Your name and address? Credit card number and expiry date?
The former. You could register your details on the online store and receive a unique ID. It can only be traced back to you if the names/addresses are leaked. It does rely on the competency of the company to handle data, but most companies are more than capable of preventing data leakage. In the case of a person supplying false information (to prevent data mining), the credit card transactions could traceable, giving the RIAA and other copyright holders a lead to follow. People are happy because other people can only see a meaningless unique ID if they looked and they get all the freedoms of owning a file they ripped themselves, copyright holders are happy because they can easily find pirates. All good.
I'm not one of those people who believe that `any method of preventing people sharing files is better than none` because it's guaranteed to 1) not work, and 2) piss off paying customers.
If you want a market for completely unprotected copyrighted works, you will have to bear the consequences. Consequences such as the RIAA/MPAA/software companies/whoever else suing people left right and centre. Such as the illegalising of certain pieces of software that help commit copyright infringement. You would also probably have to bear laws requiring mandatory IP packet sniffing and recording at ISP level.
Copy protection is one way of controlling copyright infringement. If the copyright holders cannot enforce the law that way, they will rely on other ways, most of which are undoubtably worse. While I believe it is true that copy protections will always inconvenience the consumer to a certain degree, I think that watermarking is the least intrusive for its effectiveness. Personally, I would rather all my songs be watermarked than the fear of the RIAA come knocking at my door, demanding money because someone used my WAP to use P2P.
Tell me this Slashdot: is it any more pathetic to believe in a ridiculous government conspiracy theory than to accuse the government of intention to commit a conspiracy if only they had thought of it?
Let me guess, my pointing out white folk coming over to murder and plunder is racism against white folk?
Bingo. It implies that we are inferior to the First Nations or whatever the aboriginal folk are called in whichever country they were wronged, and therefore is racist. This kind of racism was and still is acceptable because it has a good, solid, intellectually justifiable reason behind it. However, when a community expects reimbursement for use of public property (the EM spectrum) that they have never previously used(!), the justification for such racism falls apart. The EM spectrum was never used, doesn't inconvenience them, and can be used by them currently on equal terms with all other communities. I can't say I begrudge the white/black/latino/asian/whatever else community for protecting public property.
Remarks like these are seldom made by any other than privileged white people who have never spent a day in their lives self-examining their racist crap
God dammit! You just don't learn, do you? Again with the racism. What, you think that only white people grow up in privilege, spout racist crap, and who don't self assess? You are seriously deluded and dangerously self-righteous if you didn't answer no.
What bugs me most about your crap, is that you seem to be blaming me, as a white person, for crimes of the past that I didn't even commit. Hell, I have nothing to do with your indigenous people unless you happen to be Australian. It is unfair, racist, prejudiced, and illogical as hell to hold all present day caucasians, regardless of their origins, responsible for the past. Sure, like good fellow citizens, we will help prop you up with our tax dollars, but we don't take kindly to greed and extortion.
What's stopping people from illegally sharing unmarked, unrestricted songs?
Currently, restricted songs pissing off consumers, pirates converting to an unrestricted format and sharing them all over the world, and the **AA trying desperately to defend their investment. Clearly there is a problem with the current system, but of course the baby goes out with the bathwater because of a lack of compromise.
Newsflash: racism is OK as long as you have a decent intellectual argument to back it up. And besides, your post was also racist. The difference was that your argument made little sense.
Of course! In fact, I think we should massacre them again, for old time's sake! After all, there's nothing wrong with it, right? I mean, we'll be more powerful, therefore we can do anything we want, right? Right?
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. After all, there can't be that many forums that have moderation systems that allow Insightful mods.
Can someone tell me why the parent is -1 flamebait? Is there a geek sensitivity that I'm not in on?
I'm thinking releasing the source in seriously obfuscated c with no descriptive identifiers. Or, there's always the old uncommented assembly.
They're not abusing copyrights, they're abusing the court system. They are using copyrights as intended: to control the distribution of the works for profit. They aren't using the courts as intended, by extorting people, many of which are clearly innocent. Worst of all, this kind of court abuse is not simply limited to the copyright debate. Perhaps we should be fixing the legal system instead of blasting copyrights?
You misspelt "prat".
I call BS. Didn't you follow the Vista release cycle?
Don't forget the inseparable three: "yes", "no", and "maybe"
Prepare yourself for Digital High Definition VOIP-enabled Broadband for your Mobile. Network with the Internet at High Speeds with your iPhone.
I live in Australia. We have fairly restrictive gun control, and consequently we have very low gun crime. It keeps the potential criminals honest. Sure, some criminals do have handguns, but that's all they can really get. Anything bigger becomes harder to conceal. Plus, the community mostly supports gun control, so if one is seen on someone who isn't police/security, the police are often called. In other words, it's very hard to get and keep a gun here.
Compare with VT. Sure, guns weren't allowed on campus. That doesn't really do anything. The hardest parts of a gun crime have already been bypassed, and that is getting an automatic gun and being able to transport it to the place where you intend to commit the crime. The person is completely legal holding the automatic one step outside the campus. The easiest part is where you step onto campus and pull the trigger.
As a matter of fact, I do think that stealing 1 cent each from 5 million people is less of a crime than stealing 50 thousand dollars. For me, it's how much the crime hurts others, rather than the illegitimate rewards. I don't feel the need to punish someone just for doing well for themselves illegitimately. Of course, as soon as millions start stealing 1 cent, the argument falls apart...
Copy protection is one way of controlling copyright infringement. If the copyright holders cannot enforce the law that way, they will rely on other ways, most of which are undoubtably worse. While I believe it is true that copy protections will always inconvenience the consumer to a certain degree, I think that watermarking is the least intrusive for its effectiveness. Personally, I would rather all my songs be watermarked than the fear of the RIAA come knocking at my door, demanding money because someone used my WAP to use P2P.
Oh you saw that movie too?
Tell me this Slashdot: is it any more pathetic to believe in a ridiculous government conspiracy theory than to accuse the government of intention to commit a conspiracy if only they had thought of it?
What bugs me most about your crap, is that you seem to be blaming me, as a white person, for crimes of the past that I didn't even commit. Hell, I have nothing to do with your indigenous people unless you happen to be Australian. It is unfair, racist, prejudiced, and illogical as hell to hold all present day caucasians, regardless of their origins, responsible for the past. Sure, like good fellow citizens, we will help prop you up with our tax dollars, but we don't take kindly to greed and extortion.
What's stopping people from illegally sharing unmarked, unrestricted songs?
Currently, restricted songs pissing off consumers, pirates converting to an unrestricted format and sharing them all over the world, and the **AA trying desperately to defend their investment. Clearly there is a problem with the current system, but of course the baby goes out with the bathwater because of a lack of compromise.
Newsflash: racism is OK as long as you have a decent intellectual argument to back it up. And besides, your post was also racist. The difference was that your argument made little sense.
Of course! In fact, I think we should massacre them again, for old time's sake! After all, there's nothing wrong with it, right? I mean, we'll be more powerful, therefore we can do anything we want, right? Right?