Surefire Way To Stifle Innovation 350
denissmith writes "C|NET has a very funny piece by Patrick Ross, where he pooh-pooh's Congressman Rick Boucher's (D-VA) efforts to protect Fair Use by claiming that it will stifle innovation." From the article: "If HR-1201 becomes law, every consumer could legally hack any TPM by claiming fair use, and as fair use isn't codified, there would be as many definitions of it as there are consumers. Consumers would be legally sanctioned to break their contracts with the content provider. No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits. That hated TPM would disappear from the market, as there's no reason to employ a lock if everyone has a legal right to the key. But as TPM leaves, so do the digital offerings that come with it."
This guy is an industry shill (Score:5, Insightful)
Patrick Ross works for The Progress & Freedom Foundation, a think tank based in Washington, D.C., and its Center for the Study of Digital Property. Earlier this week, the Progress & Freedom Foundation filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the RIAA and MPAA in their legal fight against file-swapping software companies Grokster and StreamCast Networks.
'nuff said.
Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I think this is the first time I've seen a summary that doesn't try to put a spin on the article one way or another. (Not that such things are always the fault of the posters. So called "objective journalists" are just as bad, if not worse.) The summary, and the article, come across clearly that this is a double-edged sword. By taking the opposite extreme in an attempt to balance out the DMCA, this bill may cause extrodinary harm to the businesses who produce the content that consumers want to have fair use rights over. Causing harm to them would cause a reduction in quality and quantity of content production, just as the DMCA has caused a change in consumer purchasing habits.
The golden middle is to not muck with laws that work in the first place. Sadly, we're far beyond that. None the less, the DMCA has not had as chilling of an effect as was once expected. As the Lexmark vs. SCC case has shown, courts are beginning to find in favor of fair use, slowly erroding the power of the DMCA by way of precident.
Will this new bill help or hurt? I think that remains to be seen.
As an aside, I have to say that I'm getting pretty tired of the "defend the innovation!" cry. Microsoft used the same line of B.S. in their court cases, and it didn't sway public opinion then any more than shouting it from the rooftops will sway public opinion now. Let's see these companies who are using this line actually do something innovative for a change, then we'll think about accepting it. In the meantime, it's a tainted as the buzzword "Synergy".
Number of Consumers (Score:2, Insightful)
And how many customers would actually have the desire to hack theirs? It took me 3 hours to teach my dad to use a DVR. For some reason I don't see him or the majority of people out there taking advantage of this.
Society grows more and more litigious every day (Score:2, Insightful)
Kind of funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
So what this means it that it would be legal to say watch an DVD on my linux box but it would still be illegal for me to rip it and publish it using p2p.
So I could rip my CDs and put them on my MP3 player but it would be illegal for me to P2P them.
So any protection will have to stand on it's own and breaking it is perfectly legal.
Hey works for me.
Sorry buddy but show some proof (Score:2, Insightful)
Otherwise, you'll be modded troll/flamebait and ignored.
The demand a one way street (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny, because every single one of them does it. If you've ever signed a contract for any kind of service, such as cable/satellite TV, DSL, cellular phones, etc, the contract includes the clause: "$COMPANY maintains the right to change the terms of this agreement without notice" or something to that effect. So basically, what he really means is that no sane business enters a contract in which the terms are fair, or that they don't have complete control over their ability to screw the customer in the future. Cute claim, though, since most people don't read that far into the contract (and there's nothing you can do about it, since you need to get your internet and telephone service from them, and you can't get it without agreeing to let them change the terms on you).
I ran into this problem myself with SBC DSL recently, wherein they changed the terms of the contract after I signed it, stating that after one year, the price goes up three-fold. They didn't even inform me of the change, and acted as if it had always been that way, even though I read the contract and that was not there, and the person on the phone when I ordered the service assured me that there was no such price hike after one year (I specifically asked).
You're right , but consider something my friend (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a professional software guy and I bet you are too.
Slashdot itself has a groupthink just like any other community. Amish folk dislike electricity. Daily Kos dislikes Republicans. And we the Slashdotters generally dislike Microsoft and the RIAA.
So yeah, you're right to an extent, but Patrick Ross has the right to give his RIAA-biased opinions just as much as you have the right to give your software/Linux/techie-biased opinion.
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a market-oriented [corporate-centric] think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy. Its mission is to educate [lobby] policymakers, opinion leaders and the public about issues associated with technological change, based on a philosophy of limited government [Don't legislate against us, only for us], free markets [Ditto] and individual sovereignty [Don't let consumer rights groups interfere with us making money].
PFF's research combines academic analysis [paid-for studies] with a practical understanding of how public policy is actually made [yet more lobbying]. Its senior fellows and other scholars are leading experts in their fields, with distinguished careers in government [ex-government officials turned lobbyists], business [corporate mouthpieces], academia [assistant lecturers desparate for grant money] and public policy [our pet politicians]. Its research is substantive, scholarly and unbiased [Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!]. At the same time [yes, we really were lying in the previous sentence], PFF is focused on having an impact on public policy.
PFF's underlying philosophy combines an appreciation for the positive impacts of technology with a classically conservative view of the proper role of government [See previous comment about not interfering with us making money]. We believe that the technological change embodied in the digital revolution has created tremendous opportunities for enhanced individual liberty [See previous comment about those goddamn consumer rights groups], as well as wealth creation [for us] and higher living standards [for us]. Those opportunities can only be realized if governments resist the temptation to regulate [DMCA? What's that? Extension of copyright? Never heard of it] , tax [us] and control [us]. Government has important roles to play in society [like helping us], including protecting [our] property rights and individual liberties [hahahaha], but its tendency is to reach beyond its legitimate functions in ways that harm [help] consumers, burden citizens [with all this messy legal stuff they really don't need to know about, right? By the way, Mr. Senator, how many callgirls will you be needing tonight?] and slow progress [of the growth of our bank balances]."
Where's the logic? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never seen a more obvious bluff in my entire life. It's like a child threatening to hold his breath until you give in to what he wants. It has no more substance than the "blockbusters" they produce.
They will not stop making movies or television or music because of piracy or anything else. Why? Because then they'd be making no money. They're threatening to stop making money. The TPM argument (I guess "TPM" sounds better than "DRM") is no different. Without (DR/TP)M, businesses and their advocates muse, no one will make digital content.
Good. I hope the MPAA and the RIAA and everyone else bows out because the business is just "too risky" from their point of view. The second they do so, they give away their market. Television, movies and music are a very, very competitive business, and there are thousands of people trying to work their way into it every day. There are thousands of people who want their shot at the billions these companies make and there are thousands more who would pleased with the chance to give their stuff away just for a little recognition. Someone else would step in immediately, hopefully or even probably with a better attitude for the market, and seize what can only be deemed a mythical opportunity.
To suddenly give up a huge position of power and influence... a position that might never been attainable again, is ludicrous. It's a bluff. The MPAA and RIAA have everything to lose by stepping out of the market and we, the consumers, and have everything to gain.
I just don't understand their argument at all.
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're right , but consider something my friend (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, Mr. Ross is presenting "his" opinions as the representative of what, at first glance, might appear to be a consumer rights group, and is using a (fairly) respectable on-line publication to do it.
Whereas we're commenting on a
It doesn't take much to figure out that this guy's so-called opinions are nothing more than a PR team's attempt at swaying public opnion in a way that's favorable to the corporations that finance them, and thus should be taken with a grain of salt approximately the size of Arnold Schwarzenegger's head.
Depends on what side you're on (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Then there must be a lot of insane business operators out there. Just about every one of them in fact.
Software EULAs are often completely one-sided, reserving all kinds of rights for the publisher, revoking most rights for the licensee (aka user), and often include provisions that allow them to be changed at nearly any time. Generally they don't change except in the case of a patch -- but if you need that patch to run the software as advertised, or to prevent a potential security breach, then it's not much of a choice.
Heck, have you ever read through the mice type of your credit card agreement? They can change any of the provisions, including fees and rates, at any time with minimal notice. And implict acceptance is presumed.
Sorry, but there's plenty of contracts that people and businesses enter into everyday that are completely one sided -- and there is no realistic alternative to them in many cases because it's an industry wide practice. I'd love to see a real business try to go without a bank account of any kind.
In this case, it's we, the people of these united states, who are getting tired of the presumed guilt and revokation of rights by the media conglomerates. HR1201 simply tries to push the bias back toward the center.
Oh, and you're going to claim that this will make media companies stop distributing? Really? Honestly? You're claiming that they'll simply close their doors? What complete bullshit. It's a completely toothless scare tactic.
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:2, Insightful)
The guy may be an industry shill, but that doesn't prove his argument wrong or yours right.
Re:They should just keep their content to themselv (Score:3, Insightful)
What I can't believe, however, is that no one will come in to fill the void. It'll be a different kind of person/company/artist/whatever, but someone will show up. There will still be a market, it'll just be a slightly different one. It might not be one where you can make billions of dollars off of, but there will still be people who want to consume this media, and there will still be people who create and perform it.
Music is a no-brainer. The recording companies did not give birth to the industry, they just organized and took control of a large portion of it. Music was around before recording, and it will most likely exist for as long as the human brain is capable of processing sounds. I can't imagine movies ceasing to be produced, but the era of huge budget films could possibly end, or at least slow down, if the big studios start hitting financial difficulties. Then again, neato CGI and the like will probably pick up a bunch of the slack and make production costs cheaper eventually.
This isn't to say that the big media corporations are entirely doomed. I think there is still a niche for them, a good sized market, with plenty of potential for healthy profits. There are plenty of people who are willing to pay for something that they see value in. A company that wishes to try and provide that value should continue to make money. They just need to accept that piracy and sharing are part of the business. Maybe instead of spending dollars trying to stop it, they'll spend that money increasing the value of their product.
Re:It's always the non-creators who want free stuf (Score:3, Insightful)
My only response to Mr. Ross is "You say 'bitch' like it's a bad thing."
Re:Surest Way To Stifle Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
It comes across clearly that the author thinks it is a double-edged sword, but it isn't clear that it is.
His claim is that consumers could legally hack any DRM scheme by claiming fair use, which "isn't codified". That's wrong. There may not be a clear line in some cases, but it is absolutely codified and has a lot of case history involved, and the kind of copying the businesses we're talking about are worried about does clearly fall in the not-fair-use side. So he's also wroing in that a person could not legally claim fair use and hack the DRM for any reason they want.
His argument boils down to: Consumers "purchas[ing] exactly the amount of use they need" from big content industry is "innovation", big content won't distribute content without DRM, and allowing citizens to exercise fair use rights without being sued for breaking DRM in doing so is the same as not having DRM at all.
Like you, I don't think we can really say what the result will be without at least reading the law, and then seeing how it is played out in reality. But based this article's take on what the bill does, this article's take on the result is utter crap.
None the less, the DMCA has not had as chilling of an effect as was once expected.
I know! People were predicting that someone could be arrested merely for discussing a security flaw, resulting in security researchers being afraid to visit the U.S., and what a load of hogwash that turned out to be.
But in all seriousness, I think the extent to which the DMCA has failed to have a "chilling effect" is the extent to which people have either ignored it or not been under the jurisdiction of the government that created it. Mostly the latter. Where did DeCSS come from again? And why isn't it in my us.debian.org apt repository, or any other U.S. distro?
As the Lexmark vs. SCC case has shown, courts are beginning to find in favor of fair use, slowly erroding the power of the DMCA by way of precident.
All the Lexmark case showed was that a company can't use the DMCA for whatever the fuck it wants whenever it wants. Lexmark was essentially claiming that the chip on their cartridges was an access control mechanism to protect the copyrighted code on the chip on their cartridges, so making a compatible interface was a DMCA violation. If the courts had bought this, it would have been an expansion of the power of the DMCA. Not expanding isn't the same as eroding at all.
Contract "right to disregard" (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not quite they way it works in the real world. There is almost ALWAYS one party that has the right to disregard its terms at will (hereafter, Business). Business has the right to modify these terms and conditions upon written notice to its client (hereafter, Client). Client cannot change the terms of its contract with Business. Client is completely screwed in regards to the contract with Business.
FWIW, part of my job is updating the Terms and Conditions for my employer as well as the paperwork we send on behalf of the companies we do business with (Leasing companies).
Re:You're right , but consider something my friend (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it impossible to be unbiased? Because we all have opinions. Even down to the events that an article chooses to relate, to the emphasis given can show our bias. Even if that bias is unintentional. A fly on the wall only sees certain things from a certain view. Give me two flys, on opposite walls, and I will have all the much more information to base a decision on. Three flys on differing walls is even more info.
So why do you ask for unbiasedness? Why not take what he has to say, then read the EFF website and see what they have to say, and base your decision on the arguments given. Listening to only one source, no matter how unbiased you think that source is, is a very shallow way of learning, and you are simply asking them to give you an opinion. That's not to say you will always walk away with their opinion, you may hate them so much that whatever they say you'll disagree with simply to spite them. Either way though, they are giving you your opinion.
An excellent example of this is right here. You'll have the RIAA haters shouting loudly that the RIAA sucks, then you'll have the RIAA saying loudly that you suck. No one is listening to the other and trying to find a middle ground that is right. (Note I am not saying that the exact middle is the right way. But typically there is some give and take, where both sides have a point).
I'm reminded of the old saying, "If I wanted your opinion, I'd tell it to you."
Bad economics reasoning that jumps to conclusions. (Score:3, Insightful)
No. This means that content providers will have more choice about what restrictions they can place on the content that they produce. To the degree that a competitive market exists, this may lead to content providers experimenting with a variety of more restrictive methods of distribution. However, I don't see that this will increase consumer choice. It will increase supplier willingness to continue to make the products available... but that's not the same thing. Will it increase the rate of new creation of material? Encourage new and more talented artists to try their hand? How many currently existing items not currently available in present forms will be put out in these more restricted forms?
Fact: the RIAA and MPAA are competing for my (and other consumers) entertainment dollars. Fact: basic economics dictates that I will spend my money on the goods that provide me the maximum happiness. Competitors for my entertainment time and money include: Music, as CD, iTunes, or various independent music downloads; Movies, theatrical or DVD; video games; DSL available free-for-bandwidth downloadable web entertainment such as Flash animations, calling people names on Slashdot and other forums, and the good old standby of pr0n; the occasional dinner out, or even cooking in with something a little higher quality than Kraft Mac Books, magazines, and all the other fun hiding out at the local Barnes and Noble; overpriced coffee serving as excuse to flirt with the cute barristas from the local coffee shop; Beer, Wine, and other forms of booze; Tobacco, Marajuana, and other less socially acceptable poisons.
The US economy is nigh-stagnant, especially for most individual consumers. Median individual disposable income is getting squeezed. Most big-label music of late sucks; I've bought only four albums (Joshua Tree, The White Album, Billy Joel's Greatest, and the Remains of Tom Lehrer) in the last five years, none with material newer than 1990. I've also got about a hundred CDs I picked up pre-2000, that I've ripped onto my Archos player, hooked up (most) of the time to the living room computer. (Zap2It is faster to scroll through than the TV Guide Channel.)
On the other hand, I've seen Serenity, the LOTR, Harry Potter, Underworld, and the Brothers Grimm in theatres. I've bought DVDs for all of Farscape, about fifteen classic DVDs (Harvey) and as many more from in the cheap bin — matinees are $5.50; modest DVDs are $7-10 each, and I can make better popcorn for cheaper. (Lets leave the one porno video alone, shall we?) While I have HBO as part of my rent, I don't bother taping much, but caught a few of the biggest titles like Spiderman when they went there. I've found three new favorite SF authors via the local library (whoops, filesharing), and B&N is much happier for it. I've also picked up a newer edition of Joy of Cooking than the one I inherited from mom, and my grocery bill has risen nicely. (Alas, so has my waistline...) The owner of the new Sushi shop that opened two years ago knows me by name, and sent me a Christmas card. I've picked up about twenty video games in the time, perhaps half "new" a year or two after they came out, half old classic releases second hand on Ebay; Two of the new titles are still in box, waiting for the day that I finish MOO3.
There's a LOT of high-quality excelent value competition for my entertainment time and money. If the various content industries want more money, they need to either (a) fix the economy so that more people have higher disposable incomes — which they're not in a position to do, or (b) increase the perceived relative value of what they provide.
DRM does neither.
Re:The demand a one way street (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, there are some times where the terms can change, like if an interest rate is variable based on the national rate, but these are pretty specific occasions, and they're explicitly laid out in the contract. The only other example I can think of is insurance, they can change their coverage in order to limit their own liability, but this is only within reasonable boundaries (though you wouldn't know it to look at the contract terms).
Another good example is the lease on my apartment. It says that they (the landlord) can enter the apartment at any time without notice, but that's definitely illegal, and it wouldn't hold up in court. I know there are a couple other things in my lease that I'm not really obligated to. Again, it's basically so that they can try to talk me into giving them money when I'm not really legally obligated to.
If you talk to them, and make it clear that you know you are not obligated to pay, they won't try to hold you to your supposed obligations (to do so would be a waste of money for them). But once you've paid, you can't get your money back. Just try to be a savvy consumer, avoid shady businesses like these (unfortunately just about all landlords, telecoms, and insurance providers are shady in this respect) and don't let them push you around if you have to deal with them.
Interesting, thanks for posting (Score:2, Insightful)
I bet they get the occasional request for such a thing however, and I doubt they ever say "yes".
It's too bad though. I find myself becoming more wary of technology and all these so called "advances" and going back to basics.
Within 5 years I hope to own a home on 5+ acre piece of land. Then I'll get to try to "Amish" thing myself.
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, no, no (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes they will. So you use legal means to prevent them. Not technological means that also punish legitimate users. Even better, you work the assumption that people are going to make copies into the copyright system, and make sure that there are adeqaute measures to accomodate that.
Your model will simply lead to a continuation of the current RIAA lawsuit situation. Why? Because it'll be the only tool that content providers have to go after copiers. Is that what you want?
It's not a choice of one or the other. There are other mechanisms. Make distribution a minor misdemeanor. Make it so that the fine is sufficiently large to become a deterrent, large enough to justify going after the infringers but small enough that people don't feel sympathy for the infringer.
This is a balancing act between content providers and content consumers. Content providers don't have the tools to distinguish effectively between "legal, reasonable, legitimate" copying vs. whatever the opposite is.
No they don't. However, I do. I know whether what I'm doing is legitimate use or unlawful copyright infringement. Since their technology can't make that determination, I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to circumvent it when it gets it wrong.
My challenge to you, and the "I bought it so I should be able to copy it" crowd, is to USE YOUR SMARTS to DESIGN TPM THAT WILL MEET YOUR NEEDS, yet also stop people from copying and mass distribution of protected content.
I have a mechanism. Nobody is interested. Much like security, copy protection is not a product or a device. It's a process. Unfortunately anyone I've approached with it can't understand this.