RIAA: We Won't Pursue Mandated DRM Technologies 302
tekman writes "A New York Times article details an agreement between the RIAA and various hardware and software companies in which the RIAA has agreed to avoid seeking legislation that would mandate technologies in computers and other home electronics to restrict 'unauthorized' copying. The most interesting thing about this is the absence of the MPAA."
Thank God (Score:3, Insightful)
Hah! - I'll build all my own processors... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hah! - I'll build all my own processors... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hah! - I'll build all my own processors... (Score:4, Funny)
I imagine so, with all the crumbs and stuff.. time to buy a proper lab desk, no?
Re:Thank God (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, it isn't so much that I hate the RIAA because they don't want me to copy their music, but I hate the RIAA because they want to force restrictive technology into MY computers against my will. You know what, tell me you don't want me to pirate your music and I'd be happy to. Frankly I can do without ever listening to RIAA member music ever again, but leave me fucking computers alone.
Translation ... (Score:5, Funny)
Fair Use (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't like this at all. I doubt we'll be getting fair use back anytime soon. In fact, I bet this compromise was just a way for the RIAA to get rid of its opposition in removing it.
Re:Fair Use (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Fair Use (Score:3, Insightful)
> This basically says that the RIAA and electronic companies would rather copyright not come up in congress right now, because both would rather keep the situation as-is than allow there to be any meaningful changes in either direction.
I'd be willing to wager that they're only concerned about the possibility of meaningful changes in one direction.
Re: Fair Use (Score:5, Interesting)
Their industry as they know it is slated to collapse in the next 5 years, and given the numbers they are putting up, it's very possible.
Here's another indicator. The highest selling album of the year is Eminem's latest. It sold 6.5 million copies in the 6 months or so after its release. Spiderman on DVD sold 11 mill in one week...
Re: Fair Use (Score:2)
Who?
Electronics companies like consumers having more ability to do what they like with content -- being able to make more copies of things and play them in more places means buying the hardware to play them in those places, bigger disk drives, etc etc. They're concerned about losing the ability to make things like the TiVo, and about being legally forced to include expensive copy protection technologies in products (telephone answering machines?) where they really don't belong.
The RIAA and MPAA are concerned about movement in the opposite direction -- making it easier for consumers to access content they've paid for in a variety of ways (and, in doing so, weakening the copy protection they're working so hard to make mandatory).
So while each of them is concerned about one direction, the goals differ. So no, it's not just one direction they're concerned about.
Re:Fair Use (Score:5, Interesting)
Lobbyists for some of the nation's largest technology companies will use the new agreement to oppose efforts in Congress to broaden the rights of consumers, such as explicitly permitting viewers to make backup copies of DVDs for personal use or to copy songs onto handheld listening devices.
This again makes congress look like a bunch of puppets with a lot of make-up. What gets them elected is a big shiny megaphone that they receive as a gift from BSA, RIAA, or other "special interest" groups. I guess all they have to do for the next election is scream "terrorists... terrorists... terrorists..." through it and they'll get the pass from the crowd. Democracy my @$$! That word, along with Freedom and Rights have lost their respective meanings. Welcome to the era of Security (DMCA), Privacy (DRM), and Patriotism (USPA).
Difference in opinion may land you in jail for federal crime(s).
Re:Fair Use (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use (Score:2)
United States Patent Office?
Yeah because they have Everyones Computers! (Score:5, Interesting)
this [slashdot.org]
And now this!
If indeed they do have access to a lot of P2P networks, this would go along with MANY peoples comments about them not needing DRM anymore.
Fishy?
I hope not.
Good (Score:5, Funny)
honour amoungst thieves? (Score:5, Insightful)
the idea, that, two multi-national business organizations (comp. ind. / riaa) have basically made an agreement to A) not "buy" some legislation from their corrupt governmnet and B) further collude in some way to determine the future of the industry.. i thought these people were supposed to be COMPETING???
how f'ing obvious can this be...
Re:honour amoungst thieves? (Score:2)
Re:honour amoungst thieves? (Score:5, Interesting)
In any event, although I'm glad to see that one thing they agree on is that government intervention is bad. I wish the movie industry had signed on, as they are a potentially more powerful lobby group.
Re:honour amoungst thieves? (Score:5, Informative)
They are competing for your money. It's your choice where it goes and both want as much of it as possible.
p2p and "free" music are generally based around "new" technology like computers, broadband, portable media players, software tools like CD to mp3 converters and so on. I'd always considered the RIAA as fighting new technology since they started to get on their high horse. They'd rather we were rebuying "The Dark Side of the Moon" on vinyl, cassette, CD then DRM than converting it to mp3s from the CD itself. No profit for them, simple ecconomics. Plus, you can easilly make a copy for the car or holiday home when you might have bought multiple copies instead.
It's worrying that they are colluding. Unless they have just realised they can't possibly win this war without having an mp3 police to break down your door and delete your files, and have full control of the software on the internet. It was always a pipe dream.
Re:honour amoungst thieves? (Score:3, Informative)
Rather have Congress decide the solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahhh, yes I would, thank you. (Score:3, Insightful)
You think I'm a loon? Congress is elected and it's members will do what it takes to stay that way. It's a simple matter to convince people their rights are being infringed, given the current state of outrageous copyright laws. If the public turns its attention to this issue for long, they might just understand it - and poof, many Mikey Mouse schemes will vaporize. Publishers make their living by wooing the public. Time lays waste the plans of mice and men.
Re:honour amoungst thieves? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:honour amoungst thieves? (Score:2)
What the RIAA has been doing would be like trying to introduce new legsliation on automobiles on how they had to be built, to cater to the bussiness model of the potted plant industry.
Full Text (Score:2, Informative)
By AMY HARMON
he big record companies said today that they would not seek government intervention to prevent digital piracy, in a compromise with technology companies that may hurt the efforts of the motion picture industry to win support for its own antipiracy plans.
The recording industry and two trade groups representing computer makers and software companies said they had arrived at several basic principles of an agreement that would help ease the tensions between their industries. They said they planned to convene a meeting of senior executives to discuss technical solutions to combat the illegal copying of digital material.
"This agreement says that those who seek to put the burden of piracy on the technology are simply missing the point," said Robert Holleyman, president of the Business Software Alliance, whose members include Microsoft, Apple Computer and Adobe Systems "Technology can be part of the solution, but it is not the entire solution."
As part of the agreement, the Recording Industry Association of America said it would oppose legislation that would require computers and consumer electronics devices to be designed to restrict unauthorized copying of audio and video material. Technology executives have hotly opposed such measures, which they argue would slow innovation, add costs to their devices and do little to stop piracy.
"We think businesses are capable of meeting these challenges," said Hillary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association, at a news conference in Washington. "Our industries need to work together for the consumer to benefit and for our respective businesses to grow."
In turn, the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary.
Several consumer groups and some technology companies, including Intel and Gateway, have supported legislation proposed by Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, that seeks to clarify the rights of copyright users in a digital age.
"As a matter of first order, we believe the marketplace should address these issues," said Ken Kay, executive director of the Computer Systems Policy Project, whose group represents Intel, as well as Dell Computer Hewlett-Packard and others.
Many consumer electronics companies did not join the agreement. They contend legislation like Rep. Boucher's is necessary to ensure that consumers can make fair use of digital copyrighted material even when it is locked up to prevent illegal copying.
The recording industry's agreement with the computer trade groups marks a departure from its longtime alliance with the motion picture industry on the antipiracy front and underscores their divergent concerns. The music industry may already have taken the hardest hit from digital piracy that it will have to face, as it begins to experiment with technological copy-protection on compact discs.
But the motion picture industry is worried that digital television broadcasts and movies copied off of DVD's will soon be traded over the Internet in the same high volumes as music is currently. Hollywood movie and television studios view federal intervention as a key element in avoiding the same fate as the recording industry.
Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said his organization still believed that "no reasonable alternative course of action should be eliminated from consideration."
"We are not prepared to abandon the option of seeking technical protection measures via the Congress or appropriate regulatory agency, when necessary," Mr. Valenti, said in a statement. "Designing ways to protect valuable creative works is very much in the long-term best interests of consumers and indispensable to the nourishment of our nation's economy."
Since the recording industry had never been a strong supporter of legislation that would mandate technical solutions to digital piracy, industry analysts said Ms. Rosen appeared to have conceded little that would have a far-reaching effect on the companies she represents.
But the move may make it harder for Mr. Valenti's group to achieve its aims.
"It has a great deal of symbolic value," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a nonprofit group that has opposed legislative mandates on technology. "Public policy makers are going to ask why isn't the recording industry pushing for mandates when they're the ones getting killed?"
Re:Full Text (Score:4, Interesting)
I was going to moderate this as 'Redundant' (yes, folks, watch out - I'm armed again!) but decided instead to respond.
Copyright issues aside (you didn't give credit for the source - The New York Times online edition); their servers are not likely to be Slashdotted any time soon. Granted, Joe DSL will probably be Slashdotted within his first five minutes on the front page, but the NYT have big pipes - like Adonis big pipes.
Please, people, stop aiding blatant Karma-whoring.
Re:Full Text (Score:2)
I did it as a service to those that don't want to register with the NYT.
It's just PR (Score:5, Insightful)
They're just trying to spin the fact that they can't force that kind of legislation to make it sound like they're being the good guys.
What difference does it make to them if there's that kind of legislation anyway? They're doing everything they can to restrict their CDs to DRM players as it is.
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:It's just PR (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's just PR (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe selling DRM hardware and software will be the only way the products will be able to access media in the future, and they figure more people care about watching the latest Britney Spears video than about their fair use rights. Unfortunately, that's true, but I think most people who want to watch videos and listen to music on their computers are the ones who do car about fair use. The ones who just want to access the media will use dedicated devices.
This leaves nobody to buy the crippled computer hardware and software, which is as it should be
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:It's just PR (Score:2)
"How can I help it thet power likes to walk on crooked legs?"
-- Friederich Nietzsche, "Also Sprach Zarathustra"
*sigh* I guess it's time to change my sig...
Re:It's just PR (Score:3, Informative)
Not every computer is some glorified games console. Many more computers are imbedded in devices so deeply that most people aren't even aware of them.
Legislation that forces DRM will have a hard time distinguishing between glorified games consoles, microcontrollers and serious business machines. The overhead of securing the former would be an undo burden on the latter.
Such legislation would be like carpetbombing a neighborhood just to catch a single software pirate. The collateral damage would far outweigh whatever benefit the MPAA or RIAA might gain.
That either entity ever entertained the idea merely goes to show just how much contempt they have for the rest of society.
quatrain (Score:2, Funny)
or other electronics, moreover;
does it seem to anyone else
that hell is freezing over?
Gotta wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't help but think there's a juicy story behind this decision.
Re:Gotta wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they stop the push to legislate for business, the push to legislate for consumers lessens and they can do whatever they want since there are no laws against it.
Re:Gotta wonder... (Score:2)
In light of that, would I be correct in declaring that
Re:Gotta wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
From earlier in the comments...
Translation
"So stop hacking us, damnit!"
Sounds to me like it's not all humor, but some truth. They have found that the market WILL NOT EAT their bullshit, so they are stepping back as carefully as they can in order to not look like the bunch of spineless techno-asswipes they are.
PS. The earlier story was a fake. Obviously it was that stupid hacking groups way of showing a vunerability in MPG123, and nothing more.
Re:Gotta wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
How I wish that were true. But I'm not convinced. The thread's parent asked "Gotta wonder ... what sparkled this change of heart? [...] can't help but think there's a juicy story behind this decision."
Well, here's my theory: The RIAA just realized that DRM will not have to be pushed by legislation. Once finantial institutions, online retailers, software companies, and media publishers realize exactly what DRM technology buys for them, it will be them that will require--no, demand it, from the ISPs and their users. There is no need for legal coercion, when you can use four or more industries to push it on their customers.
DRM allows big companies to restrict what you can do with your computer. That means "email and documents that can not be printed or duplicated, or altered or forged", "media that can not be permanently stored, much less shared", "software that can not be pirated". Do you think that there is a single bank that does not want that for online transactions? A single large software company that does not want to use it for selling big and expensive packages online? A single media company that does not want it to sell movies, music and books?
DRM's technical design is simple and remarkably effective. Very well designed, very, very evil. And, best of all (for them, not for us), it can be introduced slowly, in little steps, so that nobody realizes what's going on until it is too late.
Consider the story about the TCPA-enabled chip from AMI, from a couple days ago. The chip is harmless enough, not stopping anything from working, just providing a small additional feature (bootloader hashing) that can be even useful for a few people, and that of course can be disabled (I'm almost sure about that). But it is there, and it is part of step one: deployment. When Windows 2006, or whatever, is released, there will be already thousands of machines with such feature. Then that you'll start to have problems downloading things from a couple of places, and then more, until someone tells you that you just need to enable the little dicken and your problems will be gone.
Oh, but you'll have to use Windows, or OS-X, or other DRM enabled OS, too. But everybody uses that, right? So there's no problem at all.
Last time I posted something about this, I got an encouraging reply, which I think is the only thing we can do: If those companies abuse their new power, which is almost certain that they will do, people just may get too annoyed, and start looking for alternatives. We have to build alternatives while there's still time.
Also, IMO Linux should be starting to look for a way to implement DRM, without compromising its principles (or well, without compromising them too much). Maybe someone, say like the FSF, could provide DRM signing of binaries, so that we can still use OSS for dealing with this crap.
Anyway, I think it's foolish to sigh in relief, and cheer at news like this. DRM is here to stay, and you better get used too it.
Divide and conquer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Divide and conquer (Score:2)
weird...
Re:Divide and conquer (Score:2)
Are you kidding? Those sort of machinations are de rigeur in the political arena.
Re:Divide and conquer (Score:3, Insightful)
"...the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary..."
Add your point, and the MPAA has a free shot towards screwing the people without the people doing anything to stop them (appart from associations like the EFF, I hope).
Re:Divide and conquer (Score:3, Insightful)
--
It's a mixed bag (Score:5, Interesting)
The downside is that the tech companies have also agreed to a self-imposed DRM mandate, and will ALSO drop lobbying for greater consumer rights. From http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/news/4946117.h
"In exchange, the tech companies agreed that government shouldn't alter laws to allow consumers to bypass copyright protection measures to make personal copies of DVDs and other digital works."
Two steps forward, two steps back IMHO.
Re:It's a mixed bag (Score:2)
We lose. Again.
avoid seeking legislation that would mandate (Score:3, Insightful)
Before all the retards post.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only literal thing that has happened, is that they promise not to push for laws that insist on hardware DRM. The manufacturers are of course free to implement it on their own.
Which is the only possible explanation as to why the RIAA would cave like they have.
This isn't a good thing, by far.
LOC: Load Of Crap (Score:4, Insightful)
WHITEWASH! Early Stories Stated BSA Agreed To - (Score:2, Informative)
Re:WHITEWASH! Early Stories Stated BSA Agreed To - (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA before writing the headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA before writing the headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't read the New York Times whitewash. Read the AP article (which has been changed because the first draft on the wire was a total PR fiasco) but it does talk about what the BSA is obligated to do for the RIAA now:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-D
Glin
Is this a Fair Trade??? (Score:4, Insightful)
We got hosed tommy, we got hosed.
The idea of Senator Hollings bill was absolutely ludicrous and it wouldn't have been difficult to defeat. Boucher's bill, on the other hand seems to make sense and had a good chance of winning.
I ask, is this a fair trade?
Here's some of the article for those of you too cool to read it yourselves.
As part of the agreement, the Recording Industry Association of America said it would oppose legislation that would require computers and consumer electronics devices to be designed to restrict unauthorized copying of audio and video material. Technology executives have hotly opposed such measures, which they argue would slow innovation, add costs to their devices and do little to stop piracy.
"We think businesses are capable of meeting these challenges," said Hillary Rosen, president of the Recording Industry Association, at a news conference in Washington. "Our industries need to work together for the consumer to benefit and for our respective businesses to grow."
In turn, the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project said they would not support legislation that seeks to bolster the rights of users of digital copyrighted material, which the recording industry has said is unnecessary.
Several consumer groups and some technology companies, including Intel and Gateway, have supported legislation proposed by Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, that seeks to clarify the rights of copyright users in a digital age.
Re:Is this a Fair Trade??? (Score:4, Interesting)
an article on MSNBC earlier today about the same issue stated that the technology industry as part of this agreement stated that they would do everything in their power to impliment DRM anyway, to appease the RIAA and their "need" for legislation. Basically the tech industry said "we'll do what you want without legislation, and we'll stop lobbying for legislation that would hurt you". We got royally screwed in this one boys and girls.
Mandated by Government, that is (Score:3, Insightful)
No benevolent motive here (Score:5, Interesting)
What the RIAA is trying to do by keeping DRM mandates out of the hands of legislators is avoid a situation where they are forced to give consumers MORE rights. Fritz Hollings doesn't have as much influence as he used to now that Republicans have control of the Senate again. Someone who 'gets it', like Rick Boucher, could make them very unhappy. They'd rather not fight a battle in Congress if there's a good chance that they wouldn't win.
Non Aggression Treaty (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's just me.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't surprise me (Score:5, Informative)
WTF?
And what is the difference between the RIAA and the MPAA? They are so closely tied that there isn't really a distinction. Also, look at the organisations themselves...they have mucho much in common. Plus they want the same thing...the MPAA not being in the agreement is just a good tactic...it leaves the free to still lobby for DRM. And seeing as it has more money than the RIAA (as a whole), that was a very smart choice.
And as for a rating system...uhh, a rating system is a good thing, if it helps parents see what their kiddies are listening to/watching (no susbstitute to actually seeing and hearing themselves, but even so). Mandated and inflexible because it's law, that's a bad thing (some 14 year olds are older than most 40 year olds will ever be) , but a rating system 'pur sang' is not a bad thing which takes away end user rights.
Re:Doesn't surprise me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't surprise me (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't surprise me (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's see, they've:
Damn! I'm glad they're not really evil. As my mamma used to say, "Evil is as evil does."
Check out some good independent music:
Henry Rollins [21361.com]
Ani Difranco [righteousbabe.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Inform your representative of your concerns! (Score:4, Insightful)
For the technology industry's end of this bargain with the devil, the participants agreed to stop lobbying for a bill protecting consumers' fair use rights to digital media.
The technology companies were the major lobbying force behind the bills to protect consumers' fair use rights. If these corporations aren't going to stand up for our rights, then we'd better do so for ourselves. And the time to do so is right now, before coming DRM technologies erode the rights we have left.
Can you think of a better excuse to write your Congresscritter and tell him or her to support the Boucher bill? If our fair use rights aren't explicitly protected, then they'll slowly disappear as future generations of technology will have more and more restrictions on how you can use the content you paid for. Write to your Congressperson now and let them know you are concerned about this issue!
AP Story on the MPAA (Score:5, Informative)
MPAA Info [yahoo.com]
There is a reason for this (Score:3, Insightful)
You can be sure that next audiodisc format will have VERY strong enpcryption and there won't be any players/soundcards which will provide standard SPDIF out while playing a new format.
Join the EFF NOW! (Score:2)
We do not need corporate help to get our rights set down in law! The EFF is working to be our voice! Take the time to donate some money and get this done!
DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
But like, c'mon, piracy is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* petty thieves have to understand that some sort of management is necessary? People spend time and money to create software, music, movies, etc., and people go and steal it because they believe
a) they are entitled to it
b) they believe industy X is overcharging
Argument (a) is stupid, nobody is entitled to a product. Argument (b) is also stupid. There is plenty of free music and software available on the internet that isn't illegal. If you're truly upset about overcharging, then use free software. The fact that you steal (in addition to being morally repugnant) is that it just tells the companies you are stealing from that they have a product you want, and the fact that you won't pay them for it forces them to clamp down on it.
Furthermore, why won't any of the thieves that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go to Best Buy and steal a copy of Photoshop or the new Eminem CD?
Re:DRM (Score:5, Funny)
But like, c'mon, speeding on public highways is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* scofflaws have to understand that some sort of management is necessary? People speed because the believe
a) they are entitled to
b) they believe the speed limits are too low.
Argument (a) is stupid, nobody is entitled ot break the law. Argument (b) is also stupid. There are plenty of freeways available that have reasonably high speed limits. If you're truly upset about speed limits, then use private roads. The fact that you speed (in addition to being morally repugnant) is that it just tells the legislators that you are a criminal, and the fact that you won't pay attention to the limit forces them to clamp down on it.
Furthermore, why won't any of the scofflaws that are reading this (and I know some of you are) go out in your car and run some red lights and hit some pedestrians?
Re:DRM (Score:2)
So, I don't see what the problem is with a mandated speed governor either. Most people don't race their cars, so they don't need to go faster than whatever limit is posted. And, unlike DRM, people actually DIE when traffic laws are violated.
Re:DRM (Score:2)
Re:DRM please mod parent up. (Score:2)
This should have +5 insigtful AND +5 funny :)
Re:DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
I know the intention was satire, but I find it interesting that you chose to contrast speeding with unsanctioned copying, two offenses which have roughly equal detriment to society -- that is to say, virtually none at all.
However, some futher contrast is also useful to consider:
Impact on Society of Speeding:
Impact on Society of Unsanctioned Copying:
Penalties for Speeding:
Penalties for Unsanctioned Copying:
Now someone tell me that's a balanced policy.
Schwab
Re:DRM (Score:4, Informative)
It's not theft. It's a copyright violation.
And there's a large legal difference between the two.
From dictionary.com:
theft
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
Re:DRM (Score:2)
And, no matter how you look at it, it's immoral.
Re:DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not legal, but don't presume to say it's immoral to break a copyright law that has been modified and extended for no apparent reason other than maintaining a particular way of doing business.
Personally, I feel some of the business practices of the companies whose copyrights are being broken are far more "immoral" than the copyright violation being discussed.
Re:DRM (Score:2)
They collect on blank media, even if it's not used for bootlegging... that is theft.
Nobody is entitled to a product? Who cares about "entitlement": no-body who bootlegs software or music is using "we're entitled" as a defence. Why would they? It's stupid.
Overcharging? I dunno... all I know is photoshop is way out of my budget, and yet I could get a copy for free, hurting no-one.
Would I be comfortable with that? Sure. Can't afford it... but hey there it is for free, and no-one is down any revenue.
Your last question is bogus, for reasons you know well. I don't know why you weren't modded as a troll.
The **AA has yet to show any independently, indisputable figures, that show that bootlegging has cost them anything much.
Hell, I can bootleg music from the radio, as people've been doing for decades. Why don't you burn all the people who've done that at your stake, too, while you're at it.
Fundementalist.
Re:DRM (Score:2)
But like, c'mon, piracy is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* petty thieves have to understand that some sort of management is necessary?
I understand why people are upset about surgicly impanting tracking devices in the entire population, it's a violation of your rights, yadda yadda yadda.
But like, c'mon, crime is rampant. Surely, those of you that *aren't* petty criminals have to understand that some sort of management is necessary?
Same exact argument.
Copyright violation occurs. We have already have laws against it. Some people have the oppinion that current copyright law is inadaquate. The only suggestion those people can come up with is DRM and DRM laws. That does NOT imply their proposals are necessary, good, right, legal, or even constitutitonal.
-
Re:DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have a car and I take the car, now you no longer have the car.
Do you understand, at least, the material difference between stealing and copying? The idea that copying can be equivalent to theft is rooted in the idea of information scarcity -- but information can be endlessly, perfectly replicated at essentially zero cost. Keep that in mind when you're jumping... to conclusions.
Not the whole story (Score:4, Informative)
From this story [ap.org]: "Under the agreement, technology lobbyists will argue that record companies should be permitted to use hacker-style tactics to disrupt Internet downloads of pirated music and movies."
Great.
Snap Out of It! This is a Disaster! (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Endorse hacking of computers! Yes the BSA (Microsoft, Apple, DELL, HP and Intel) will lobby congress to allow the RIAA to hack P2P networks, so long as the RIAA is "careful" about it!
2) BSA will "aggressively pursue digital pirates" on behalf of the RIAA. Now you've got Hollywood AND Silicon Valley working together to rifle through your shit!
3) The BSA will help the RIAA defeat any attempt to elucidate the fair use rights of consumers. That's right Hollywood and Silicon Valley will work together to make sure your rights are never spelled out by congress.
All of this in exchange for letting a law drop that was going to be voted down anyway! The RIAA just fucked Silicon Valley, your fair use rights and computer users everywhere in one swoop! This is GREAT news! Idiots.
This deal is a catastrophe and represents a complete cluster-fucking of America by corporate shills; you will pay dearly for it in lost freedom.
This is the worst job I've ever seen Slashdot's editors do. God damn you for spinning this as a win.
Glin
Headline Woefully Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems the RIAA and/or BSA have learned to troll Slashdot, since the headline is grievously misleading.
This, "landmark agreement," simply states that BSA and RIAA will lobby against all new legislation on digital policy. Under this "balanced" approach, not only would Senator "Fritz" Hollings' (D-S.C.) bill for mandatory Digital Restrictions Mechanisms get the kibosh, so also would Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) initiative to make exercising Fair Use rights an affirmative defense against DMCA prosecution.
The most telling quote was from BSA head Robert Holleyman, who described the DMCA as, "generally working as it was intended."
This "compromise" measure is nothing of the sort, as it merely seeks to affirm the status quo, doing nothing to redress the harm done and still being done by the DMCA and the lesser-known NET Act.
I also note -- with piqued curiosity -- how the Associated Press report on this story has had significant changes made in the last few hours. The first version I read [yahoo.com] contained Holleyman's telling DMCA quote and mentioned the effects on Lofgren's and Boucher's bills. The latest version [yahoo.com] has a considerably different slant, soft-pedaling the announcement and eliding Holleyman's quote.
So the newswires aren't our friends, either.
Schwab
lesser of two evils (Score:5, Funny)
They're just going underground. (Score:2, Insightful)
The article says:
"They said they planned to convene a meeting of senior executives to discuss technical solutions to combat the illegal copying of digital material."
i.e. they took the process underground.
This is the way decisions get made. If you want music to be free, don't give your money to organizations that make decisions like this.
No point in DRM mandate from govt. (Score:2)
That's odd... (Score:2, Funny)
I'm pretty sure the words "this week" got left off of that title.
Translation: (Score:2)
MPAA's crystal ball (Score:2)
Because the Internet is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. Right Jack?
I don't know why anyone bothers to listen to this dipshit when he says something about the implications of some technology. Few prognostications have ever been as utterly wrong as his was. And that he insists that he's been proven correct is just stupid.
NPR (Score:5, Informative)
I hope we can buy a few senators back some day and have groups like the RIAA permanently banned from doing that special kind of business they do. They should have just stuck to certifying gold records.
And you believe them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Dell is going to have a real hard time selling me a new laptop in a couple of years if my old one can do more.
Re:wow (Score:2)
Re:wow (Score:2)
I'd answer that if I understood what you were really getting at.
Re:A huge win (Score:2)
Yeah, that's what it seems like...but where's the MPAA? I'm thinking they've gone around for a flanking maneuver. Sneaky bastards...
Although, it'd be nice if they just had a simple difference in opinion. If we could get the RIAA and MPAA to fight each other, that'd solve our problems. Doubt it would ever happen though.
Re:The Article (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How much power do they think they have? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people are using P2P to steal music as you put it, then how come there aren't very many games there? It's not the file size, DVD's get traded way more than games do. So what's the deal?
I'll tell you what the deal is, people aren't opposed to spending money. With games, they can download the demo and try it out legitimately. There's no way to do that with music or videos. Once you open that CD or DVD, it's yours. Satisfaction is not guaranteed.
Call it 'thievery' if you like, I call it ensuring customer satisfaction. Don't believe me? Then explain to me why the RIAA was at their peak while Napster was?
I've done quite a bit of searching for MP3s in my time, and what I have found (Note: this is not a scientific analysis, just an observation) that few people had complete albums. Just about everybody had one or two songs from a given album. That pattern is suggestive of people hunting around for new music to try, not somebody out to save a few bucks.
The funny thing is that all this happened at absolutely 0 cost to the RIAA. Free advertising. They should have looked the other way. Go fig.
Re:How much power do they think they have? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of people are probably downloading songs because they have a huge collection of CDs and would rather d/l what's already ripped than try to go through each CD and encode it all.
The more reasons I think about why somebody would download an MP3, the less I think the reason is to save money. It takes quite a few albums to make up the cost of an iPod.
... in return for the status quo (Score:3, Informative)