Predicting The End Of Digital Copying 583
prostoalex writes: "Christian Science Monitor warns about approaching era of digital prohibition. With FCC requiring the use of copy prevention mechanisms in future generations of television sets, soon 'Americans may not be able to copy a song off a CD, watch a recorded DVD at a friend's house, or store a copy of a television show for more than a day'. Of course, no article on this topic can go without a mandatory quote from Jack Valenti, who points out: 'It is not legal to make a copy of a DVD now. Everything people are doing legally today, they'll be able to do legally tomorrow'."
Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:3, Interesting)
I would however expect that we will see more **AA taxes such as the ones already in place on CD-R and radio broadcasts. 5% on your cable modem bill, 3% of your hard drive, 6% of your compactflash card.
If this money were actually distributed to all affected copyright holders and not just those that belong to the **AA, this wouldn't be the worst solution in the world.
Hrm... (Score:5, Interesting)
I copy my CD's to MP3 format and take those into work so that I won't have my CD's stolen. I do the same with my DVD's, except I convert them to Windows Media 8 format.
As long as you own a copy of the video in question, aren't you basically doing what is already legal to do with CD's? (Aside from the whole DMCA riff, which is OK, because I have several region-free DVD's.)
I'm not talking about distributing those copies. That is, of course, illegal as hell. I'm talking about using a copy of your own item for personal use.
Re:never has been (Score:1, Interesting)
Special circumstances? How about consumers can make all the copies they want of copyrighted works under fair use law as long as it is for their own private, non-commercial use, plus other "special circumstances"
Stock up now... (Score:2, Interesting)
On another point, I'm not sure if fewer features will be a big selling point for the electronics manufacturers - "sorry, sir, the ability to record was phased out with last years model." If there's a demand, someone will supply it.
Re:never has been (Score:1, Interesting)
The digital world exposes flaws in copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
The interesting (and disturbing) thing is that this stuff was never legal to begin with.
Copying a CD, making a mix disc for your girlfriend, having a group of people watch one copy of a videotape, loaning CDs to friends, these are all legally fuzzy.
These things have been going since the beginning of consumer recording devices. I have stacks of home-copied tapes and Apple II games from my high school days. But not until the internet have the Media Corporations been able to actually *see* the data flying around. And not until the internet have they even considered the idea of *monitoring* your recording devices.
So to them, this is great. Now they can finally fully and completely enforce all those laws that were drafted in the phonograph era and patched here and there whenever a new technology comes out.
But to the rest of us, it shows just how much power copyright law gives the copyright holder.
What to do? Well the obvious thing is to never ever buy anything from those corps again. And avoid new technology until the appropriate "DeCSS-esque" hack is available (no matter what the article says, the technology will be cracked and the information will be relatively easy to find). That way you can always remain in control of your own possessions. I don't see any other solution. The government believes "copyright" and "capitalism" go hand-in-hand, even though too strong copyright is decidedly anti-freedom and anti-capitalistic.
EFF Case Analysis (Score:4, Interesting)
A quote:
"The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user's hard drive." In its reasoning, the court stated that this type of format conversion falls within the personal use right of consumers to make analog or digital recordings of copyrighted music for private, noncommercial use. According to the ruling, "Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act."
So again, my question: what is so fundamentally different between DVD's and CD's that I can space-shift one legally, but not the other?
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:3, Interesting)
The goal for commercial content protection has to be to stay ahead of the curve just enough to assure current profitability. They realize that sooner or later the copy protection WILL be broken. It's inevitable, even if it's a hundred years from now (but more likely less than one year), that any copy protection will be defeated and the content plastered across the Internet. But that doesn't matter to THIS year's balance sheet.
What's going on with the RIAA, MPAA, Etc. is the industry trying to stay ahead of that curve any way they can. They don't have to stop everyone, just most everyone and they do that by making it just difficult enough that most people won't bother. Like insurance, it's a numbers game.
Re:never has been (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with digital technology is that there is no degradation of quality and that makes the potential for abuse staggering. That is why the industries are overenforcing copyright laws and making silly new laws to try to protect their intellectual property. If people didn't abuse their ability to copy IP, there wouldn't be any laws against it, but if you provide people with a situation where there's very little stopping them from committing a crime and no immediate consequences, the vast majority will not care that it's immoral or illegal and the rest will simply forget because everybody else is doing it. The problem is not a legislative one, it's a moral one: "Thou shalt not steal." Not that hard and you don't have to be religious to see the social benefit of it. (I'm not religious, but I try to avoid theft and murder and adultery and the like)
And Then Jack Valenti Will Have Lost (Score:3, Interesting)
4-600,000 film downloads a day? (Score:2, Interesting)
According to Viant, a Boston-based market-research firm, 400,000 to 600,000 films are illegally downloaded from the Internet each day.
How many broadband users are there worldwide? I believe I've heard numbers around 10 million. Does the typical broadband user download a full-length movie every 3 weeks? Or are most movie downloads in a very-low-quality format that is plausible to download over at 56K?
I suspect BS.
Copyright and money printing (Score:2, Interesting)
So recently a sort of law passed that says that manufacturers have to pay 6 Euro for every CD writer they sell because there is the possibility that this device is used for illegal actions.
Practically that means, that I as the customer have to pay a penalty for not doing anything illegal. I'm not able to purchase a CD writer for my downloaded ISO images of a Linux distribution or for making backup copies without paying the penalty for illegal copying.
In acient history there was a motto "in dubio pro reo" that means that you can't put a penalty on somebody if you are not totally sure that he's guilty. Nowadays it looks like its enough that the entertainment industry complains a lot about illegal copies and that its not controllable what a man does with his CD writer and so they are enabled to charge every user for illegal copies without any evidence that he really does it. Its like they got permission to print their own money.
I wonder when its time to send the male part of the population to jail since they all are carrying the tool with them that could be used to rape somebody...
For me that means that I will get my 6 Euros back by NOT buying CDs any more. After around 1000 CDs the entertainment industry convinced me that I'm probably a bad guy and that they don't want to make any more business with me.
No timeshifting == no more TV (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM is Theft (Score:3, Interesting)
Jack Valenti and July 17th, Washington DC, Department of Commercie DRM Workshop:
"A little Demagogary Never Hurt anyone"
Jack agian in 1982: "The VCR is to Movies like the Boston Strangler to Young Women"
Ruben Safir: President of NYLXS and Co-Founder of NY Fair Use August 2002:
"Jack Valanti is to Private Ownership and Property as the Boston Strangler to the VCR"
Jack Valenti again at the DRM Workshop:
"If this body connot find a way to agree to find a way which will protect private property from Theft then we'll just have to go to Congress and get it done"
Ruben Safir at the Press Conference after the Workshop:
"I completely agree with Jack Valenti. Congress has to step in and protect our private property from theft. It's my damn disk, my damn computer. If someone breaks into my home and steals my computer and my DVD's, who calls the cops and files the police report?
Me or Universal Pictures?
DRM is Theft. Congress must pass a law which will protect the property of every owner of a computer and purchaser of Digital Information by outlawing anything which prevents the full enjoyment of their property. We don't need prior aproval of Warner Brothers, Jack Valenti, or Barry Sorkin to use our computers to augment our enjoyment of our property. There is no forced contract to a cash sale. Forcing a contract on the public which they didn't negotiate as equal partners is a form of slavery no free citizen can put up with.
That's why we propose a New Fair Use Bill, one which guarantees that Copyright is secondary to the Constitutional Right of Security in ones Home and with one's pocessions. Because Copyright is secondary to my property rights in my home and Congress has to make it clear.
If anyone should be forced into a license, then Bertleson should be forced to License to Listen.com. That's why we gave them the limited exclussive Monopoly in the first place, to make sure the material is published. If they don't want to publish, too bad, make them do it anyway or strip them of their Monopoly.
How can we can we continue to expect to maintain a free society if we can't accumulate, copy and archive on our digital systems and information. How are we expected to be able to publish from annotated facts, with references to the original works when everything on the internet can expire or disapear. We have to be able to copy to archive. It's essential to our politcal speech, or for that matter our abilty to have party music mixed to our own enjoyment on Saturday Night."
TVs are not made in the U.S. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:never has been (Score:3, Interesting)
Coincidentally, listen.com is NOT competing. Approximately 40 million people have stolen music with a filesharing program. Listen.com, oddly enough, doesn't advertise the number of users to whom it provides service, but I'd hazard a guess of less-than-40-million. Even the record companies wouldn't sneeze at 40 million times 10 bucks a month.
Remember Divx? (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember. Sales were slow - why? because the discs weren't portable. You registered it to YOUR player and YOUR player only. Your player broke? You had to call them and beg them to unlock the disc for another player.
There was an article in Salon bout 2 months ago with Courtney Love. this article [salon.com] where she talks aobut Record Labels and Piracy. A VERY good read. Even if you (like I do) think her music sucks.
I think, as she states, that we're going to see a big upheaval in the Recording Industry as a whole. Not by the consumers, but by the artists. Artists are out there to create something, and to have that something viewed or listened to by the public masses. Not to be censored down so far as to only PAYING customers by record companies that only have themselves to think about..
Wish I had the venture capital to start what she's talking about.
Re:EFF Case Analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
This may sound cynical, insulting, and typical of
The advent of each new content medium is an opportunity for the media companies to re-fight a battle that they've already lost. Because the space shifting of CDs and the space shifting DVDs has a one word difference, judges and congressmen, out of willingness, stupidity, or an error in the legal system, do not simply brush off the **AAs' complaints by saying that the courts have already ruled that such activities are legal. This seems stupid when you look at it from the perspective of the average
There is no such right? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Fouding Fathers knew that it was not enough to guarantee people's rights, because some morons would try to argue those rights away, they took steps to make sure the people would have the rights to *fight* for their rights. A copyright breaking device is a weapon against injustice, and it's our *sacred right*, according to the Second Ammendment, to keep and bear it.
Re:Boycott the MPAA in december (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IP Laws Are Necessary Only in a Slave System (Score:2, Interesting)
Consider it a Digital Bill of Rights for the New Millennium:
The legislation to be drafted will accomplish the following main stream objectives which all reasonable people can expect:
-All copyrights to individual scores, writings, and recordings will be returned to the original artist after a period of 10 years.
-No technology can be deployed which spies on, wiretaps or discloses privately owned information which is stored on digital devices by any government agency or private 3rd party without the issuance of a publicly pronounced and disclosed warrant limited to a specific criminal investigation.
-All copyright cases must prove, prior to a judgment of guilt, proof that the actions in question did not infringe on Fair Use, and the individuals rights under the 4th and 1st amendment of the Bill of rights US Constitution.
-Ownership of all physical media, and devices to read such media, is the sole property of the purchaser of the media, without an expressly negotiated and signed contract between both the copyright holder and the purchaser.
-No technological software or hardware method can be deployed in a digital product and made available for normal retail sale which inhibits, in any way, the full enjoyment of the property by the purchasers, regardless of any agreement between the designer of the hardware or software products. Such agreements are null, and not contractible.
-Copyright is an exception to Fair Use as it limits the ability for individuals to enjoy their private property and express themselves with the use of such copyrighted materials. Fair Use is a doctrine to be based on the 4th and 1st amendments of the US Constitution.
-Individuals have the right to express themselves to others about the means, mechanism and workings of all digital devices, including but not limited to, discussion on how to make fair use of media, how to improve such devices, or to reverse engineer all such devices and the algorithms which are used to help them display, copy or run media.
We need to get as many big guns on this as possible and then relentlessly campaign, actively working to elect supporters and vote out incumbent opposition. In fact, we should look to defeat, not just the proposed spyware legislation, but also defeat Senator Hollings
Product and Piracy (Score:3, Interesting)
The FM radio plays the songs that the record industry paid to put there. As far as the RIAA is concerned, you can record your favorite radio station 24/7/365. Why? Because they know that if you really like a song, you'll get the CD so you can really hear it. The reason is that given the compression, limiting, and the general limitations of an analog bandwidth-limited FM channel, there's a big difference between what you can record off a radio in cassette and what you'll hear if you play back a CD. The best you can say about the quality is "good enough for casual listening".
A few years ago, the product was vinyl records and people found out what was on the records by listening to tracks on AM/FM radio. Yes, people once listened to music on AM.
These tracks played on radio are and were PROMOTIONAL TOOLS. No promotion, i.e. if the people have no way to hear what is on a record, they won't buy it. Why should we pay the industry's promo costs, except as they are reflected in the price of the actual product?
An MP3 is in many ways comparable to an FM radio signal. Is it a "perfect copy"? If it is, why doesn't everybody but the totally honest download all their music? Despite what's been done to shut down P2P and Internet Radio, it's still possible to get almost anything if you know how/where to look. Why do people buy CDs?
It isn't just about supporting artists, it's just that CDs sound better.
128K MP3 quality isn't about getting every nuance of the music to your ears, it's about being "good enough" for casual listening.
The MP3 IS A PROMOTIONAL TOOL designed to get you to buy the CD. Anyone who mistakes MP3s for products has just fallen for the hype of the people who want to turn our computers into DRM-locked household appliances.
Why does RIAA care about MP3s and not FM radio? Because independent artists can distribute MP3s via upload to Internet radio networks and to P2P networks without having to pay a gatekeeper fee to independent promoters to get to FM radio. The RIAA labels keep the gatekeeper fees (aka payola) high enough to freeze out "just anybody".
Do MP3s as promotional tools work? There's a recent album that was released by an unknown band itself on MP3 for promotional purposes before they started selling the CD. They made a very nice profit off it.
Do MP3s work as promotional tools for major record labels? The evidence indicates that it works just as well as FM radio does.
What's the problem?
This isn't about piracy, it's about monopoly.
I wouldn't mind paying say, $1-2 for a CD-quality track I really liked, if there was any practical way to deliver a 50 meg download... this takes a while even with a broadband link... and I'm running 56K anyway.
Buy an MP3? I'm not interested in paying for music whose sound is "just good enough". If you're a musician, I'll repay your promotional costs when I buy your record. Don't expect me to pay your promo costs up front, if I can't find out whether or not your CD is worth buying by listening to some tracks at "just good enough" quality to figure out whether I want it or not, I'll find some artist who doesn't expect me to pay promotional costs in advance.
That's the real problem with the MP3 music services, regardless of vendor and regardless of the level of DRM built into the product/player.
People know whether they articulate it or not that there's a difference between sound worth paying for and freebie promotional tools whose sound is just good enough to tell you whether the CD is worth buying or not. What an MP3 service provider can do for you is provide you with lots of MP3 music packaged conveniently. . . so you can figure out what CDs you want to buy.
Why? Not because of artist loyalty or love of the RIAA, because CDs actually sound better, and if you've got a big bucks stereo system, you want to use it so you can listen to every little nuance of what your favorite artists do.
For an MP3 service, you are buying access to music, NOT the MP3s. This isn't to say that you want one-shot MP3s or time-locked, etc. You might decide to listen to your favorite new album on MP3 for a month or a year before you get around to buying. Maybe you're short on money and have to wait until your next check. But if you really like it, you'll buy the CD sooner or later. The artist and label make just as much money if you buy it a year from now after listening to the MP3 1,000 times as they do if you decide you've got to have it 30 seconds into the song.
The people who whine about PIRACY are the ones who haven't figured out what the RIAA labels know.
A product people will NOT pay for has a cash value of ZERO.
Sure, you'll rip the CD under "fair usage" afterwards if the RIAA's 0wn3d Congresswhores don't stop you, but generally where you can play it under circumstances where "just good enough" is good enough, e.g. your MP3 player when you're out jogging or doing other things where you don't have your full attention on the music.
The fair usage is what the RIAA/MPAA want to redefine out of existence.
Re:4-600,000 film downloads a day? (Score:2, Interesting)
Based on this site [columbia.edu] (and extrapolating, they only have the numbers I wanted for 2000), the total internet traffic amounts to only 2700 terabytes per day. So fully one seventh of the total internet traffic results from pirated movies? That strikes me as somewhat unbelievable.
Or, to put that in perspective (since one seventh doesn't really "mean" much), according to this site [y10000.com], by the end of 2002 the world will have a total digital storage capacity of 12 exabytes. Yet we somehow transmit that much data, JUST IN PIRATED MOVIES, every month? I don't think so!
Re:never has been (Score:2, Interesting)
Either provide free/very cheap ( like cost of medium) replacements for damaged Media or don't complain if customers make copies for safe keeping.
Re:never has been (Score:3, Interesting)
While you have a right to make copies for personal use, equipment and content companies are not obliged to provide the ability to make copies to you. Confused? Take Macrovision. The movie industry has no obligation to provide you with something to circumvent Macrovision so you can make copies for yourself. Macrovision does not take away your rights to make copies, and when you circumvent this copy-protection scheme to make a copy, you are still within your rights.
Now you can see why the battle is fought by the RIAA/MPAA on many fronts. Valenti is fighting a lost war: he wants to take away our fair-use rights. A bit silly of him: there is nothing to gain here and much to lose... much as the general public ignores the copyright issues, this is something they will not stand for.
The RIAA/MPAA are on the case though: they seem to be quite successful in mandating copy-prevention technology in next-generation equipment. Not only that, but they will make it a crime to circumvent these measures. They will say "Hey, we never took away your fair-use rights! You can still make copies, but we have had to put in these anti-piracy devices, oh and by the way: circumventing these will land you in jail. But sure, your fair-use rights still hold".
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not government's responsibility to prop them up by becoming their enforcement arm.
What is the government's responsibility anyway? I mean, I'm sure you have your own fantasy about what a government does, but the actual real government does spend quite a lot of its effort propping up industry. And I know you probably think that's only because they're in the pocket of industry, but it might also have something to do with the fact that a healthy economy is more likely to get them re-elected.
The telegram industry was a perfectly legitimate industry that employed millions of people. If they were the RIAA, they would lobby to ban the telephone because it is a threat to their bottom line. It makes little sense.
Except you left out a major difference between telegrams and music. The telegram was rendered obsolete by the telephone. Music isn't becoming obsolete; CDs are. That's a huge distinction.
Look at their sales records, in the days of Napster (when music piracy was totally rampant) they enjoyed RECORD SALES. Sales have since dropped.
I always love this one. As if the relationship between piracy and music sales is so direct and immediate that you could turn Napster on and sales would immediately skyrocket. By that same logic, Dubya is directly responsible for the economic slump and it has nothing to do with the boom-bust cycle that began in the 90s.
The problem lies in the fact that I can't put the new Linkin Park CD into my MP3 collection.
Oh look, a red herring. We weren't discussing DRM. We were discussing piracy specifically. Don't try to confuse the two.
Maybe this drop in sales is not because of music piracy, but because the vast majority of music released (read: shoved down our throats) is total crap
You have music shoved down your throat? Poor you. I listen to music mostly at home, at work, and in the car. I guess you spend most of your time in elevators and shopping malls or on hold.
If the RIAA wants to stay in business, they should move from strongarm anti-piracy attempts to actually improving their product.
This is the most specious argument of all. Firstly, you are basically justifying mob rule. Secondly, people obviously people want the product or they wouldn't be pirating it. I don't listen to N'Sync but millions of teenaged girls do. Although I'm sure there is some kind of conspiracy out there to suppress the music you like, I will at least acknowledge that some of the bands I like just aren't mainstream enough to have huge followings.
As a side note, the prices for CDs are insane. I went CD shopping the other day and was apalled to see that a CD I wanted had a sticker on it for $20.
And you didn't buy the CD. Congratulations, that's the way capitalism is supposed to work. If all you want is music, there's plenty of music out there for $10 or less, even from popular artists. I picked up most of Rush's back catalog for $8 a pop. Heck, if quality isn't your number 1 priority, check out the 99 cent bin at your local used CD store.
$20! That's roughly $0.50 a minute for a normal CD! Phone sex lines give better rates than that.
Hey, that's some bargain phone sex. Anyway, how is that a fair comparison? Is it that you listen to the music CDs once and throw them away or do you tape your phone sex calls and listen to them repeatedly?
Oh wait, you didn't repeat *every* single commonly-used
-a
Re:never has been (Score:4, Interesting)
I may be totally off base, but I don't think the reason the entertainment industry is fighting digital technology is because they are worried about Joe Consumer copying CDs and giving them to friends. People have been making copies of stuff for the last 20-30 years, and while the Internet may facilitate the process some, I don't think it greatly increases the damage on individual consumer can inflict on the entertainment industry. When I was in high school and college 15 years ago, people copied records (remeber those?) and CDs all the time..it's something those who are perpetually low on cash do. The Internet extends an individual's reach to some degree, but how many people can I email my CDs to anyway? Widescale distribution through things like Kazaa can be abusive, but those people could be caught and dealt with accordingly. With extreme DRM technolgy measures, the ones who are seriously trying to stick it to the industry through piracy will find ways to circumvent the technology and Joe Consumer will be left paying over and over for what costs him once today.
The real threat that the entertainment industry is trying to fight off is the independent music artist or film maker. The Internet has the potential to completely bypass the people who control the entertainment industry today and they don't like it. If they lose control over how digital works are distributed, they lose their cut and they whither and die. They are hiding behind the facade of "piracy" to protect their franchise. If the draconian DRM measures take hold, you'll wake up to find one day that even distributing your own works will be defined as "piracy" since the entertainment industry hasn't sanctioned said distribution.
--z
Re:Boycott the MPAA in december (Score:2, Interesting)
I work in IT and depend on its continued growth for my livelihood. I'd have to be out of my mind to give money to an industry hell bent on damaging that growth.
- "Fight prime time. Read a book."
Flawed Logic (Score:3, Interesting)
content companies are not obliged to provide the ability to make copies to
you.
This logic is flawed. If you have the right to do something then they
can't make laws that completely prevent you from exercising that right.
If they make copying of digital materials impossible by technical means
and combine this with laws that make the circumvention of these means
illegal, then they have by definition taken a right away.
So if I understand you correctly, you agree then, that we should not
have fair use rights. If that is your position then the logic becomes
consistent.
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Eric Olsen: How are you actually going to overcome the "fair use" doctrine? It's already a fact that "archival" copies are allowed, so why is "space shifting" not archival and thus "fair use"?
Cary Sherman:
Now compare and contrast with Orrin Hatch questioning Hilary Rosen in the Senate- here [membrane.com]:
''Can I make a copy of a CD that I buy and put it into a car?'' asked Hatch. When Rosen hemmed and hawed, Hatch muttered, ''The answer is yes.''