This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Anti-anti-cd-copying Legislation?
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
Its already there silly (Score:3, Insightful)
So in reality this senator should just be acting to ensure that your laws are being upheld.
There is no need for special new laws to uphold laws that already exist.
Geez...
Re:Its already there silly (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems like a silly and stupid idea, but when you think about maybe its the only way? Instead of fighting to change 1 law, now they have to change 2.
Re:Its already there silly (Score:2)
Re:Its already there silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Fair use is a defense to a charge of copyright infringement. You do not have an entitlement to access copyrighted information in any manner you want to.
Maybe it's the "fair" that throws everybody off. "Fair use" just means that there are some situations in which it is acceptable for you to reproduce copyrighted information, even though such reproduction would otherwise be infringing.
Re:Its already there silly (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but to me, saying on the one hand "xxx use is not copyright infringement" and on the other hand "you may not buy or sell a device which allows you to do xxx use" are logically incompatible statements. If it's not illegal to perform the action, how can it be illegal to buy the equipment necessary to do it?
Yet that is exactly what the DMCA, and to a much greater extent the SSSCA, do say.
The DMCA is a big complex law (aren't they all) and only small bits of it are actually offensive to civil rights. If they would just remove the bit that says you aren't allowed to circumvent access control measures, maybe change it to say you aren't allowed to circumvent access control measures in order to violate copyright law, which is of course redundant since violating copyright law is already illegal, I think the law is salvageable. Last I heard, it sounded like Rep. Boucher wanted to do exactly this. Here's hoping he does, and Congress gets a sudden attack of sanity.
As to this latest proposal - sorry, I can't get into it. Noble intentions, bad concept. It shouldn't be illegal to produce a Cactus CD ... WTF? BMG and Geffen should be allowed to market whatever silver colored shiny crap they want to. We just shouldn't be prohibited from circumventing it as necessary. Let the copy protection arms race occur in userspace, as it always has. Oh, and Phillips can worry about making sure the CD Digital Audio trademark isn't abused - there's our warning labels.
(Looking back over this post, it's approximately -4 Redundant, as it echoes years of slashdot party line....)
It may be there, but it's been leagled out. (Score:2)
But the RIAA, MPAA and every other copyright nazi has gone out and sued it to death, winning quietly in most cases.
So, fair use has been nickeled and dimed to death so that ripping a CD because it's scratched and several tracks don't play well is illegal. The RIAA and MPAA expect you to buy another one.
I have a scratched Live: Throwing Copper and Adiemus: Songs of Sanctuary that have multiple tracks that odn't work thanks to a stupid CD holder I had in my car. GRIP and cdparanoia managed to get the tracks off the CDs after 12 hours on one track and I mp3'd them. Only way I can listen to the whole CD. I've not bothered to burn them back on a second CD as of yet
Re:Its already there silly (Score:4, Interesting)
No, actually fair use is defined as an exemption to copyright law. Fair Use is delineated in Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of the U.S. Code and I heartily recommend you check it out. You say it yourself, actually, when you say:
"Fair use" just means that there are some situations in which it is acceptable for you to reproduce copyrighted information, even though such reproduction would otherwise be infringing.
...which means that in the excepted case of "fair use" you are entitled to access copyrighted information in any manner available to you, provided you're within the bounds of U.S. Code.
Re:Its already there silly (Score:2, Insightful)
You do not have an entitlement to rip CDs (in the sense that anyone who tries to stop you is violating the law). However, if someone tries to stop you through the courts, by accusing you of infringement, you can use the Fair Use defense (and will probably win, under current law). Fair Use doesn't obligate the owner of a copyright not to do anything that might reduce your ability to exercise Fair Use.
Re:Its already there silly (Score:4, Interesting)
In the absence of special non-protected versions pressed specifically for the library of congress, all copyrighted works should be copyable.
Of course Disney & cabal have obscured and circumvented this original intent.
Re:Its already there silly (Score:5, Insightful)
As it stands under current law, fair use is a defense, not a right. Saying "Fair use!" might get you off the hook when someone accuses you of violating a copyright, but a copyright holder isn't required to provide you with the tools you need to exercise fair use. That's an important distinction.
Distinctive Differences (Score:4, Insightful)
Virg
Worse (Score:2)
DMCA: The most corrupt laws money can buy.
SSSSC: That's what you think.
(Sorry. I probably got the initials wrong on the second law, but that's ok. They'll change it's name the next go round anyway, so that some people won't notice it.)
.
Not sure that's true (Score:4, Insightful)
This also comes under licensing. Phillips licenses the technology and dictates that any use of the technology menas that it is universal. You should be able to place ANY CD Disk in ANY CD player and have it work.
Is there a law covering what happens to a company when they bend the license agreement so that their product only plays in certain players because they have ATTEMPTED to prevent copying?
Re:Not sure that's true (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that whatever is to be done, it needs to start with hard and fast rules regarding the nature of music purchases. Are you buying a product(disc w/music on it) or buying a license(permission to listen to album 'X').
If the former, then what I've purchased is mine and I'll use it how I please. They can do whatever they want, as long as its still CD compliant, but they shouldn't whine when I make a back-up copy.
If the latter, then someone is replacing my scratched disks, providing CD media versions of my old cassette tapes etc. I've PAID the license, I've the right to different media, the same as software companies would provide floppy disk versions of software on request, replace damaged media, or allow you to generate back-up copies if you so desired.
Currently the recording industry wants it both ways, but only the parts that benefit them.
Re:Not sure that's true (Score:4, Funny)
is "very correct" more right than just "correct" ? This one always makes me laugh. I think you need a patch:
--- english.h Thu Mar 7 17:02:19 2002
+++ english_fixed.h Thu Mar 7 17:02:28 2002
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
- unsigned int correct;
+ boolean correct;
That should fix it.
Re:Not sure that's true (Score:2)
Sales of products in general are subject to a doctrine of "implied suitability," meaning that the product is expected to perform the function that a reasonable consumer would expect of it. For instance, it is generally understood that a hammer is suitable for pounding nails into wood, so if you bought a hammer and it broke when you tried to use it for that purpose, you would have recourse against the merchant for selling you a defective product.
Given the huge installed base of computer CD units and software for playing music CDs inserted thereinto, it's clear that this doctrine applies here.
Foul, non-sequitur (Score:2)
But copy protection doesn't do that anyways. Preventing you from making perfect digital copies of your CDs or ripping MP3s to trade online in no way interferes with fair use using other technologies -- audio tape, for instance, is still perfectly practical toward those ends.
But, continuing upwards through your argument, the article doesn't even talk about that. It talks about the CD industry passing off copy-protected CDs as ordinary CDs, and if you read the article, you'll see that Rep. Boucher will be perfectly happy if the industry agrees to label all copy-protected CDs as such, so that purchasers who don't want to be fooled aren't. He's not opposed to copy protection per se, just copy protection used without notice.
Re:Its already there silly (Score:2, Insightful)
"We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original." - unanimous 3 judge court of appeals decision
Fair use does not give use rights - it protects against overzealous copyright holders suing you.
As long as the CDs are required to be identified by labels, the RIAA will be cutting their own throat, as they will experience more lost sales from a warning label than they will from warez kiddies. Beside - said warez kiddies will just end up using analog outputs to capture audio, that will be turned back into digital audio (with slightly reduced quality), then ripping said files into mp3 or whatever format prevails.
But, I know that when I stop buying CDs because of copy protection - it will hurt them so much, they will cry uncle - not because of me in particular, but because many people will be doing the same as me, a great many people. We will hit them in their pocketbooks - and reward the companies who do not copy protect their CD's.
So all I want is legislation that requires the label to cover at least 25% of the front, so as it cannot be overlooked.
'nuff said
Re:Its already there silly (Score:3, Informative)
Largely irrelevant. The Audio Home recording act 1992 and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act 1998 between them tie fair use rights up in a Gordian knot, where you are technically allowed fair usage, but you are technologically prevented from doing it, if you see what I mean.
Case law - not confused and contraditory copyright law and fair use defence - has held that burning MP3's is explicitely fair use, see RIAA versus Rio 1999 [harvard.edu]
However, fair use (as another poster asserts) is a post facto defence. If you can make a copy, then fair use allows you to do so in many cases. It does not give leverage to demand copyable media. In fact, the 1992 Audio Home Recording act actually mandates copy prevention technology, it's just that RIAA vs Rio rules that computers and the Rio aren't "digital audio recorders"; the computer is a general purpose device, the Rio doesn't actually make the copy from the original source, it receives the pre-copied data from the computer. That was a contraversial technical ruling though, and it could be ignored in future.
But really, your opinion can be countered with one word: Macrovision.
I agree with Rosen (Score:3, Insightful)
Why doesn't she tell that to the people who passed the DMCA?
uh... (Score:2)
Support Boucher (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Support Boucher (Score:3, Informative)
Kudos to you for writing.
Re:Support Boucher (Score:2)
Re:Support Boucher (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Support Boucher (Score:2)
Thank Peter Fox (Score:2)
More [dmoz.org].
It is as they say....... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Make a better hack.. (Score:2)
Get hit with a clue stick from the Circuit City DVD experiment. It was a dismal failure.
Good Guy or Publicity stunt? (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing that kills me it, COPY PREVENTION DOESN'T WORK! I've said before and I'll say it again, If I can listen to it, I can copy it. It's as simple as that. They only way they can stop people from copying CDs it to fix them to where they will not play in any device. Don't laugh, some of these new "Copy protected" CDs are halfway there.
Re:Good Guy or Publicity stunt? (Score:2, Interesting)
So (for example) you can plug your audio cable from your CD player into your PC and sample the CD. However, your PC then refuses to play the audio, because it contains a watermark identifying it as needing a keyed source to play from and it doesn't have one.
Now, of course, this leads to a weird suggestion I heard. Suppose you get a load of copy-protected disks, make copies of them, and distribute them. Of course, they are useless unless somebody comes up with a way of getting around the protection. However, people might still buy them in anticipation of that.
Are you breaking copyright law? Well, if you are, then that means that the copy protection failed to prevent you doing so, even though you visibly did NOT bypass it. And that, in turn, means that the copy protection is NOT effectively enforcing the rights of the copyright holder, and has no DMCA protection.
But do you think any company would have the guts to *not* prosecute somebody who was handing out copies of protection failures?
Not gonna happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh no! Another H2G2 reader! (Score:5, Funny)
If only we could get half of the galaxy's lawyers working on the circumvention of copy-protection laws and the other half on circumventing the circumvention laws, they could leave us in peace to actually code some stuff that might be worth circumventing!
Sorry. I was just venting...
Copyright law,,,, (Score:2, Interesting)
I think a corollary to the copright law should be that if you deny access [through encryption or other technological measures] to your works you are not protected by copyright. After all patents are granted for people publishing their ideas in the open, so why should copyright not operate the same way?
Re:Copyright law,,,, (Score:2, Insightful)
Because of the ease digital media lends to circumvention of copyright of items stored in that mediusm, IMO it's understandable that copyright holders may want to attempt to restrict the casual (or die hard) violator. Accesses to these items are not being denied, but more closely ristricted to the origninal copyright licensee. As long as this ristriction does not prevent your use of the product (under the license) they are fulfilling their obligations to you.
Don't get too excited.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, he not necessarily advocating blocking all copy-protection on CDs. He just wants to stop the music industry from passing off copy-protected CDs as regular copyable CDs. If the music industry agrees to label all copy-protected CDs as such, he'll still be happy.
Re:Don't get too excited.... (Score:2)
But, that's still a Good Thing (TM)!!
If the discs are CLEARLY labeled (I mean something other than a message in a 4pt font on the rear bottom of the CD jewel case), consumers will hopefully think twice about buying them. This is where education by people in-the-know comes into play.
If we inform people to avoid these CDs, because they won't play properly, but the record companies are forced to label them, it will be easy for people to avoid buying them.
I realize that if EVERY CD had this, that wouldn't work then, but we can nip this in the proverbial bud while only a few discs have this garbage on them.
Re:Don't get too excited.... (Score:2)
(I mean something other than a message in a 4pt font on the rear bottom of the CD jewel case)
Or worse yet, on the CD inside the jewel case.
Re:Don't get too excited.... (Score:2)
But what we really, really don't need is yet another law written for one special case...
Re:Don't get too excited.... (Score:2)
If it's successfully argued that the only extra value of these CDs is copyright circumvention, should these CD be sold for less?
It would be hard to argue that successfully, because it's probably not true in the opinion of the judiciary. Although the question of whether or not format shifting is fair use for digital musical recordings hasn't been tested in court, there are plenty of other cases where the courts have supported similar rights, so it's quite reasonable to expect that format shifting is *not* copyright infringement, and therefore there is real value being removed from these non-CDs.
Huzzah for common sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
If it breaks the redbook standard, it's not a music CD. IMHO, it has no right being at my local Tower Records, since the number of cd players that can't recognize it is... well... it's a big number.
But shouldn't it bother you when one senator, who actually wants to uphold 'fair use' gets a wired article? That since the introduction of copy protected CD's, this is the first time this has come up in Congress?
From the article:
Boucher's complaints are twofold: Americans may not know they're buying crippled discs, and that the new discs don't work on all players.
Don't the discs as they are currently have a sticker that says they won't play in your PC? But thank god he got the second part right. The only problem is that the RIAA can tell him to stuff it. They can call it a new generation of audio technology - after all, my LP doesn't play in my CD player. Neither does the copy protected disc.
Not only that, but we're not thinking long term - even if copy protection gets taken off standard CD's, what about the next generation? DVD audio discs? Or something we haven't seen yet? (Hopefully resembling those little data blocks a la star trek...
The point of this whole disjointed thought train is that the DMCA must be repealed, since it shuts down other laws, that previously exist, and even those that may yet be written. Fair use is out the window, since it states that you have the priviledge of using certain recordings in certain ways, but the RIAA isn't required to make it technically possible for you to do so. Therein lies the problem. And when HDTV finally rolls around, even though it'll be possible to build a TiVo with enough storage space to support it, it'll still be illegal, thanks to the DMCA, fair use won't apply.
So, this Congressman Rick is going about things all wrong - he needs to start by repealing the DMCA. Feel free to write him. =)
(Yes, I know the article states that he would like to rewrite the DMCA. But it's badly flawed in its current incarnation, and should be repealed, and a new, non-insane law should be drafted.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. (Score:2, Insightful)
The dark side of this issue, however, is that there doesn't seem to be anything to keep these copy-controls out of any future formats. If the RIAA-holes can't copy-protect their CDs, why whouldn't they just move to some new copy-protection-filled standard, and refuse to make music CDs? Yes, this would totally screw the consumer, but it's not like that's ever stopped them before.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. (Score:3, Interesting)
The war starts with a single shot. You can't not start a war because the first shot isn't going to win it for you. You have to start somewhere, and stating that we deserve to know what we are buying is a good step.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. (Score:2)
If it breaks the redbook standard, it's not a music CD.
The problem is that I'm not sure if it does break the standard. My understanding is that these things work by introducing intentional errors into the data stream, which are corrected by the CD player's interpolation algorithms.
This means that computer rippers will choke on them because of the errors, but will still play just fine on regular audio CD players. Note that the errors can be inaudible if you design your error such that the interpolation gives the correct data anyway.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. (Score:2)
I could be wrong, but I don't think the redbook standard specified that CDs must be able to be read by computer. In fact, a major part of the redbook standard is interpolation of errors, so allowing errors is part of the standard.
In fact, it's your computer that's violating the standard, because it's not interpolating the data. It's simply rejecting the CD.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. (Score:2)
Thats keeps them playable when they get scratched. Now how will that be with the crippled discs?
Probably won't affect it much at all. You don't have to introduce very many errors to make it unusable for a computer, say, 1 error per second. That's only 1 error about every 44K samples.
Re:Huzzah for common sense. (Score:2)
Nope - because the producer of the TiVo-type device is providing you with a means of circumventing the copy protection. *You* aren't doing the decrypting - it is - and therefore it's illegal. This is the part that sucks.
If you built the device yourself, without receiving plans from anyone, cooked up the decryption algorythms yourself, implemented them yourself, and never distributed the device, you *might* be within the bounds of the DMCA. Most people don't have the skills or time to do this, and if the SSSCA gets passed, even if you had the skills and time, you wouldn't be able to get the materials from which to build such a device.
THis all has to stop somewhere - it's getting out of hand, and it looks like Boucher may be one of the only ones in the US gov't that cares.
Necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Content providers should be allowed to encode whatever they want to, however they want to. Yes, I agree that if they encode copy prevention techniques in their CDs, they shouldn't tell everybody that they're actually CDs, because they aren't. But there shouldn't be any restrictions at all on what they can put on a 5" sandwich of aluminum and polycarbonate.
The problem here isn't CD copy prevention. It's the DMCA. Just like the content provider should be able to encode his content however he sees fit, the end user should be able to take whatever steps he needs to to access the bits that are sitting on the disc he purchased that's sitting inside his computer. But the DMCA prevents this, and makes illegal that users efforts to circumvent the copy-prevention code, feeble as it may be.
But I don't think the solution to this problem is another law. The proper solution to a problem caused by passage of a bad law is repeal of that bad law, not a new law that's intended to act as a band-aid. I respect Boucher's efforts, but overturning the DMCA is way more important.
Re:Necessary? (Score:2)
1) Anybody can encrypt anything they want.
2) Anybody can try to decrypt anything they want.
The government should not get involved in this technology escalation. They will always make it worse because legislation always favors one side.
Re:Necessary? (Score:5, Interesting)
In my opinion, a good fair law would be one that stipulates that if a company wants copyright protection they have to let the consumer have full access to the content for the purpose of space and time shifting. If a company wants to take away that ability from the consumer and use copy protection, they should not be allowed copyright protection. Copyrights are a balance between the public and the content creators. It's the governments job to maintain that balance, not the copyright holders. If they don't like the way the balance is set, they should get off it and rely on techincal solutions alone. It's stupid for us to pretend that copyright is a balance while allowing copyright holders to continually make their side 'heavier' using technical countermeasures against fair use and laws such as the DMCA.
Finally People are Standin Up (Score:3, Interesting)
Boucher's recent voting record (Score:2, Informative)
Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.org) (Score:3, Insightful)
Howz that for culture? And they say history can't teach us anything.
Re:Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.o (Score:2)
Re:Hubris -- The Illiad (Homer, not userfriendly.o (Score:2, Funny)
eudas
Miss Hilary (Score:2, Insightful)
Rosen said in a statement: "The notion of copy protection is certainly not new to the entertainment industry. Even computer software already employ various technology protections as appropriate for their marketplace and their consumers. The music industry deserves to do the same. Legislation to prevent self-help technologies would be unwise and unfair."
I can still make a legitimate purchase of any piece of software and expect to be able to use it without any interference from said copy protection, unlike these CD's, which can keep you from using them in the very devices they were intended for.
Re:Miss Hilary (Score:2)
And the standard "tech support" response is: buy another CD drive. Joy, for those unlucky enough to have drives that don't like SafeDisc.
Good intentions... (Score:2, Insightful)
...aren't there too many laws already? Does the government need to pin down yet another nuance of society? Perhaps there are laws which need to be repealed, perhaps the DMCA or others that would simplify things and prevent companies from having too strong a hold to begin with.
funny... sort of... (Score:2, Funny)
Copyprotected discs are not CDs (Score:4, Interesting)
It is nice to see that politicians are looking at possiblities to ban these technologies. I am thinking that there may already exist laws that prohibit this practice, at least in some countries. I know that in Norway government agencies are looking at taking legal action against Sony for illegal marketing as they are selling a product marketed as a CD and priced as a CD while it clearly is not a CD!
Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs (Score:2)
While I completely agree that these discs should not be marketted as CDs (and I believe they aren;t anymore, they have stickers saying they won't play on PCs), banning the technology is the farthest thing from the answer I have ever heard. That is no more a solution than banning P2P sharing is for stopping piracy. They should be able to put whatever they want on the discs, as long as they don't try to pass them off as regular CDs. Banning the technology they use, or their ability to use it, will just set a dangerous precedent. If they can't use technology is ways they want to, what is to say you can use technology in the ways you want to? Technology isn't the problem.
Re:Copyprotected discs are not CDs (Score:3, Funny)
Music industry exec: "Yes, you see, all along it turns out that 'CD' stood for 'Copyprotected Disc'."
They are sneaky!
mark
Wouldn't it be better... (Score:2)
Copy Protection Not The Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
If CDs were clearly marked as copy protected or if stores were required to give an actual refund if you want to return them, these klunky, defective schemes would never have been launched in the first place.
The same can be said for software. Try buying software, and then, after rejecting the enclosed license, try to return it for a refund. Good luck.
Consumers don't need a law banning copy-protection on CDs. Manufacturers have a right to do this to their CDs. What consumers need is a right to a refund if were not satisfied with conditions of sale that were not disclosed upfront. Further, we need the right to a refund if the product is unusable. Obviously some time-frame is necessary (e.g., within 30 days,) but there's no reason why these rights aren't afforded us now.
Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem (Score:2)
As it is, consumers are forced to gamble -- they're taking a chance unless conditions of use are fully disclosed before purchase. (And some of those terms can be pretty odd, like *one* archival copy -- what about tape backups, where relying on *one* tape is... well, stupid? Should they really care how many archival copies are made, as long as only ONE copy is ever in use at once, and are never possessed by anybody but the license holder -- and that all archival copies are either transferred to the new licensee or destroyed if the license is transferred?).
Re:Copy Protection Not The Problem (Score:2)
Or consider Encore by Passport Designs. I bought the current version in '97. Later I bought Win98. Win98 worked as well as expected, but when it was installed, Encore stopped working. So it was unuseable, and I reformatted and replaced Win95 (Encore is still the major use for that computer!). I didn't even try to get my money back for Win98, because I knew just how hopeless it was, even though the software was totally useless. (Yes, Win98 had other problems, but they don't really affect this point.) Encore never had an upgrade because Passport Designs was acquired by another company, and the product was dropped.
It's not the fault, exactly, of MS that their Win98 OS wouldn't work with all of the software written for Win95. But it is their fault that the only way I could find out was to irrevokably spend the money. And I've never been happy with them since. (Now I use Linux whenever possible, and this may have been the first step on the way. And it wasn't a small one.)
OTOH, don't think of Linux as a way to save money unless your funds are really tight. I've spent more on different flavors of Linux that I've spent on all of the versions of Windows I ever bought
$cat bullet foot (Score:3, Insightful)
If it gets to the point where a music CD is going to ask me for a password every time I want to play it, I think I'll go back to tape or vinyl.
Anti-anti-anti-cd-copying legislation (Score:2)
ZDnet has it too! (Score:2, Insightful)
Not all bad (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not all bad (Score:2, Informative)
Representative Boucher's Contact Information
DISTRICT OFFICES
188 East Main Street
Abingdon, Virginia 24210
276-628-1145 112 North Washington Avenue
Pulaski, Virginia 24301
540-980-4310 1 Cloverleaf Square, Suite C-1
Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219
276-523-5450
WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE
2187 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-3861
Send him a letter of support
No need for an industry, we need music. (Score:3, Interesting)
Serious? In what way? Last thing I remember is that the music industry was making much more than expected during the days of Napster. So where exactly is the problem? I believe it to be the music industry itself. People do not need a music industry. Music is not an industry (unless your talking about the genre called industry) it is a culture, a hobby, entertainment, and most important, a way for musicians to make a living. Now how can small time musicians make a living when the big time record companies take all that money from the people to pay, well, themselves?
Require labels for functionally impaired CDs (Score:5, Insightful)
It's as simple as educating the masses -- nobody's gonna want a conglomerate to tell them what they can or can't do with their music. If anything, legislators should start focusing more on the digital rights of consumers, instead of narrowing the scope down to addressing only CDs. If it's crystal-clear what constitutes piracy and what constitutes fair use, the RIAA won't have any excuse to start bawling about how consumers are copying their music, regardless of the reasons for doing so (piracy vs portability).
Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs (Score:2)
It's a big claim.. Can I see evidence of that? The problem will be when the entire industry goes to the new format together and there is no alternative. Two examples that I find in widespread use are Macrovision on videotapes and DVD's and Region coding on DVD's and videogames. Have you bought any of these? Do you only buy non Macrovision DVD's and tapes? Do you buy only region free DVD's? They do exist. The last one I saw was in Yellowstone National park about the bears. It is region free and free of Macrovision. They intended on selling it to visitors to take home. My entire DVD collection still contains one one DVD I bought used. I got it to test the DVD player in my new computer. I do back up not supporting the cripled formats with my wallet. I have bought extra 100 disk spindles of blank CD's to support the open standards industry.
Re:Require labels for functionally impaired CDs (Score:2)
We can beat that! (Score:2, Funny)
We've got an anti-Anti-anti-cd-copying law
Copy protected "CDs" (Score:3, Interesting)
I know this isnt going to happen but could it?
Remember DIVX, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember DIVX (the DVD bastardization), folks? You had to pay $3 every time you watched a DIVX movie. That's what the RIAA and the MPAA want: Pay-per-use, to be able to squeeze more money out of your pocket every time you want to watch a movie or just listen to a CD. Keeping music and films from being distributable is the first step towards that goal. The next step is introducing new technology which incorporates those features. (Think XM Satellite Radio -- AM and FM are free... but how will local stations compete with nationwide coverage with fewer/no commericals?)
That's where it's all headed, but first the consumer has to be conditioned to the idea that it's just fine and dandy to pay every time you use something.
Every few years the government likes their people (Score:2)
Not just an election year ploy (Score:2)
I Like to copy CDs, but I buy them all (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one view this new era of the music industry keeping honest folks from ripping tracks on CD's rediculous. Even when tapes were the classy way to purchase music, I always bought vinyl. Usually for the extra inserts, but mostly for the larger image and the medium would last longer. I was very anal about my records, and would never play them unless I were dumping to a blank tape. Now I have begun this with CD's I play in the vehicles. My new view is that my purchased CD's NEVER leave the house. And, no more do I have to deal with a CD that I only like one song on taking up a slot in the CD changer. If the music industry makes ripping and burning impossible, they are doing honest customers a disservice. Of course, all this is moot in my scenario because the punk industry seems to "get it" with regard to music trading, bootlegs, MP3 files, etc.
Just my $0.02!
This is good, but is it necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
But is it really necessary? What I mean is, Philips says that "copy protected" CDs are actually "silver discs that looks like CDs, but are not CDs", and they are the people who say who can and can't use the little "compact disc digital audio" logo. Philips has said time and time again that they don't approve of the copy protection.
So, can't we just enforce what it means to be a CD (perfect duplication of audio each time, meaning no copy protection) instead of wasting a bunch of money writing new laws that don't *really* need to exist??
-nate
misinformation and omissions (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
What it comes down to is that asking average joe american to run out and buy all new electronics, while the economy is down, and without gaining an advantage in sound quality in return, is just going to piss a lot of people off. And there is NO way that copy protected CD's can be changed to work with existing hardware in an effective manner; if you can play them on current, unprotected hardware (of any kind), they are obviously not secure.
The industry, as it is, only pisses off educated people in general. And there aren't enough of us to make a difference to them. They might want to be careful where they walk with this crap, though. When they piss off every U.S. resident who owns a stereo, they might not enjoy the results. At least, I hope that's the way it would turn out...
Article on FoxNews (Score:2, Informative)
Get Smart! (Score:2)
"Perfect digital copy" (Score:2)
But the vast majority of people making copies are ripping mp3s, which are audibly imperfect at the rates normally used on file sharing networks.
It takes more time, being realtime, but you can get a higher quality copy by connecting the analog output on your CD player to the analog input on decent PC audio hardware, and going through a whole D/A A/D conversion, than you can ripping a CD track to mp3 at 128Kbits.
Once one person has made a copy through an analog loop, they have removed any copy protection which is not encoded into the audio itself. At that point, they are free to make as many digital copies of that as they like.
As for encoding analog signatures in audio which can survive compression/decompression cycles, it would be an issue if people were trading high quality representations of the audio, but given the low quality of your average mp3, I doubt that any inaudible signature would survive (but people put up with those stupid floating logos on cable TV, which they are already paying for... maybe they would just as happily put up with a background screeching noise in all of their audio, representing the serial number of the track...)
It is truly sad that the result of all of this great technology and economic freedom is lower quality media with disadvantages like floating ads. Why should we progress if it means that in order to watch "All in the Family" reruns, we will have to peer through fifteen layers of floating advertisements? Or if to listen to a Led Zeppelin CD, we will first have to listen to targeted ads? Good old low quality analog tape beats that any day.
In order to truly protect their audio, they would need to release CDs which only play in a registered system which would consist of a full digital path from computer/player to speakers. Then, in order to get a decent reproducible analog signal, you would have to rip apart your speakers, which would be a violation of the DMCA.
P.S. If everyone were to distribute copies of copy protected CDs widely enough, it might send a message to the recording industry like, "you failed, losers... Try again..."
Macrovision CD protection breaks MathCad software (Score:5, Interesting)
Today, I have a failed install of MathCAD 2001i [mathsoft.com]. This is a professional tool for people who do math-heavy engineering calculations. It's about as far as you can get from entertainment content. MathSoft made the mistake of using Macrovision [macrovision.com] copy protection technology. That protection scheme involves creating CD-ROMs that violate the CD-ROM spec, then recognizing them during installation. So it's similar to the "flawed CD" protection scheme for audio CDs. And, sure enough, it doesn't work reliably.
The installation required a reboot of Win2K (a violation of the Windows Logo Program requirements [microsoft.com]). Then the program complained that I had a debugger installed.
Now that's scary. Macrovision apparently thinks that anybody with development tools (in this case, Microsoft Visual C++ 6.x) is trying to pirate software. The Macrovision program wasn't running under the debugger. The debugger wasn't even running. The debugger was merely installed on the machine.
A call to MathSoft tech support made it clear that this is a known problem. MathSoft suport admits to using Macrovision copy protection, and admits that they've had considerable problems with their protection scheme. They're trying to get Macrovision to fix it, not with much success.
This rather expensive product comes with a 90-day warranty. I told MathSoft support that I want a fix by Monday, or it goes back. I'm also going to try to get Microsoft to pull MathSoft's right to use the "Designed for Windows" logo for nonconformance with the logo standards for nonintrusive, compatible installation.
Re:Poly-negative soup (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Poly-negative soup (Score:2)
Ah, but you mis-understand -- this isnt an issue of 'consumer' rights, it is CITIZENS' Rights. "Voting with your dollars" and all this other mumbo-jumbo is an effort to make citizens movements impotent and ineffective. Its like accepting a butter-knife from your opponent in a sword-fight. What you have in your pocket is a baseball bat (Democractic Governance) but you Americans keep accepting a position at the bottom of the shit-hill when issues of this nature arise.
You will NEVER dig yourself out of your present Plutocratic mess as long as you continue to buy the BS that absolute-free-market capitalism works, and is unassailable. It does not, and it will surely lead to the next American Revolution... or World War.
Re:Poly-negative soup (Score:2)
Why not work on REPEALING the law, instead of just slapping another layer of complexity on top?
Re:Poly-negative soup (Score:2)
Because technically speaking, there's little real difference between the two. Whenever laws are repealed, the language of the bill Congress debates would look something like, "Amend Title 17 to remove 1201". This is because (for example) courts need to be able to see what the laws used to be when evaluating precedent. If a Supreme Court ruling is based on a law that has been repealed, lower courts need to know about it to determine if that ruling is still worth following (in case maybe Congress later passed another law similar to the repealed one). (IANAL, but this seems like the most logical explanation.)
Re:Don't mod this up unless wired gets /.'ed (Score:3)
---
WASHINGTON -- Music CDs equipped with copy protection will, if Rick Boucher gets his wish, soon be as obsolete as eight-track cassettes.
The feisty Democratic congressman from Virginia says he plans to introduce legislation banning, or at least regulating, compact discs outfitted with anti-copying technology.
Few discs sold in America currently feature the controversial scheme -- but the recording industry expects that as worries over digital piracy grow, the technique will become widespread.
"Suffice to say, there probably will be a legislative response to ensure that consumer rights will be protected," Boucher said in an interview.
Boucher's complaints are twofold: Americans may not know they're buying crippled discs, and that the new discs don't work on all players. "The big problem initially is that consumers have no information that is complete and reliable about the disabilities which attend copy-protected CDs," Boucher said. "These CDs will not play in DVD players, not play on personal computers (and) not even play on all CD players."
His remarks come as a Washington-style war of words between Boucher and the head of the Recording Industry Association of America is escalating. In January, Boucher wrote to RIAA's Hilary Rosen complaining about copy-protected discs; Rosen fired back last week by calling them "a measured response to a very serious problem facing the music industry today."
In response to Boucher's prediction of legislation, Rosen promised that the recording industry steadfastly would oppose it.
Rosen said in a statement: "The notion of copy protection is certainly not new to the entertainment industry. Even computer software already employ various technology protections as appropriate for their marketplace and their consumers. The music industry deserves to do the same. Legislation to prevent self-help technologies would be unwise and unfair."
Boucher wouldn't give details on what approach he's considering -- obvious possibilities include ordering the music industry to stick labels on protected CDs, or an outright ban of that technology. "I'm considering a proper legislative response to these concerns," he said. "I'm discussing it with a large number of individuals."
Those discussions may take a while. Boucher said in an interview last July that he would introduce a bill to rewrite the Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- but nine months later, he has yet to do so. This week, Boucher pledged to introduce "the bill in the not-so-distant future."
Copy protection works by encoding deliberate errors onto a compact disc. The errors make it harder to burn copies but can render the discs unplayable on many computers -- and a few stereos -- by violating the "Red Book" standard for CD-Audio that Philips and Sony created in 1980.
Only two protected CDs appear to have been distributed so far in the United States: Charley Pride -- A Tribute to Jim Reeves, released by Music City Records and protected by SunnComm's MediaCloQ, and More Fast and Furious, a Universal Music Group soundtrack protected by Midbar's Cactus 200. Both discs ship with warning labels and an advisory that they are copy-protected.
Prue Adler, the assistant executive director of the Association of Research Libraries, said her group endorses Boucher's approach.
Adler said that "as consumers, their expectations are certainly that they have these rights and privileges."
Jonathan Zittrain, an assistant professor at Harvard University's law school, said that it is currently legal to sell copy-protected discs. Zittrain said, however, that manufacturers could be liable under existing law if they do not clearly disclose that the CDs are crippled.
"I actually relish the government's finally turning its attention to the copyright arms race," Zittrain said. "With full public attention focused on the issue, there's an opportunity for Congress to help generate a moderate path on the issue, rather than one tilted too far to locking everything up."
Ira Rothken, an attorney who sued (PDF) over the Charley Pride -- A Tribute to Jim Reeves disc, thinks it's possible that protected CDs violate even existing U.S. laws.
"It could be considered a copyright misuse to not allow people access to works and to space-shift them," Rothken said. "If you told me that someone would not be allowed to listen to the music anonymously, that would cross the line. You cannot have digital-rights management technology if somebody has to give up their anonymity. People should be allowed to reasonably space-shift."
But in a decision last fall, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals saw things exactly the opposite way. The three-judge panel unanimously ruled: "We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original."
This dispute over music comes as Hollywood studios, fretting that online piracy of digital content will imperil sales, have asked Congress to require that all PCs and consumer electronics sport technology to prohibit illicit copying. Last Thursday, the Senate Commerce committee convened a hearing where the studios complained that Silicon Valley firms had not moved quickly enough in setting anti-copying standards.
Senate Commerce chairman Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina) has drafted, but has not introduced, legislation called the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act. A version of the SSSCA obtained by Wired News would prohibit creating, selling or distributing "any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies."
Robert Zarate contributed to this report.
Re:Wow! Legislation that may be good. (Score:2)
Re:Wow! Legislation that may be good. (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course his proposal is not enough to stop all horrible effects of the DMCA, but at least it's a step in the right direction. I hope that this proposal will also make sure that more people in legislation start noticing that there's a problem. If a bill can't be passed (today) to outlaw copy-protected CD's, then at least bright yellow tags on those CD's will make everyone more aware of the fact that there's a problem.
And as soon as legislators start thinking there's a problem, they will come running in heaps to (at least give the impression of) providing a solution. Perhaps DMCA will someday stand for Dumb Musicbusiness Controlfreak Act.
Re:Typical example (Score:2)
Part of the reason for having a law like this is that the tax is there to compensate content producers for people copying their stuff. If that's the purpose of the fees, copying shouldn't be counted as being wrong, and they shouldn't prevent you from making copies.
Re:Typical example (Score:2)
That's only on "audio" CD-Rs, not "data" CD-Rs. It's why you get bent over if you're buying blanks for an audio-CD burner...it's a wonder those things sell at all, when you can get a burner for your computer that's faster, cheaper, and uses cheaper media.
(I suppose the "RIAA tax" might also apply to audiocassettes, but I haven't bought those in ages. It's been even longer since I last used them for data storage.)
Re:No wonder... (Score:2)
No they won't. They won't have to. It will become an obsolete format. The new stuff will not play on it. I have a nice collection of formats that are no longer mainstream. I have 7 inch reel to reel tape recorder (not copy protected), an 8 track tape recorder (not copy protected), a 12 inch laser disk (not copy protected, not even macrovision), a Betamax (ignores Macrovision).
Nobody will come and take it away. They don't have to.
Re:Just not possible... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just not possible... (Score:2)
> There's always a way...
But is there a _legal_ way to copy it (for legitimate purposes)? If, for example, region free DVD players are made illegal, it will still be _technically_ possible to play out of region DVDs.
But for the generally law-abiding consumer who at the moment can legally buy a region free player off the shelf, that won't matter.