A History of the Digital Copyright Struggle

sconeu writes "The National Journal has an article detailing the battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. An interesting read, it discusses the tech industry's early miscues, and the efforts made to ensure that Hollywood isn't the only voice heard on the Hill."

Shameless plug

Check out the class thesis [unc.edu] I did on the history of United States copyright. Pages 10+ are at least somewhat relevant.

At least some companies are on our side

Though their motivations may not be so philanthropic, at least consumer electronics corporations are on the side of the people like you and I. After all, they know that consumers will not purchase crippled, copy-protected products. Hopefully, this will result in a somewhat more balanced result when laws are passed. Call me cynical, but I feel that the Hollywood lobby's advantage is quite large and the laws will likely get passed.

Copyright: if you dont like it don't buy it

I don't understand the mentality of alot of people in regards to digital copyright. Personally, I see it as if you don't like digital copyright, don't buy products that use it. The people who make movies and such have the right to sell the product in any way they please, yet people for some reason feel they are 'entitled' to use it any way they want. I see it as if you don't like the copyright scheme's they use, don't buy the product. Obviously most people don't care about the copyright protection as there has been no decline in the purchase of movies, even though they are released on the DVD format which has alot of protection. If people continue to buy movies that use copyright protection scheme's then the companies will continue to use the scheme's.

Re:Copyright: if you dont like it don't buy it

The people who make movies and such have the right to sell the product in any way they please

This is true. Now, after they've sold me a copy, it's my property. The law says I can do whatever I please with my new property, except for one thing: I am not generally allowed to make new copies of the content encoded in my physical copy, other than copies allowed under the statute of "fair use".

yet people for some reason feel they are 'entitled' to use it any way they want

I should be, as long as I don't make copies of the content that aren't protected by fair use.

There is nothing wrong with companies trying to peddle information that is saddled with any kind of onerous encrpytion/copy protectsion/annoyances/whatever..

However, by the same token, there should be nothing wrong with me doing whatever I want with my property, including decrypting it, hacking it, burning it, or gluing it to my forehead. (As long as I don't make copies of the content on it that aren't protected by fair use.)

The problem is that the media industry has bought legislation that gives these technical tricks the force of law. That is a huge change in the nature of the copyright landscape, and it effectively eliminates many of the tair use rights people used to hold over their own bought-and-paid-for property.

It used to be, you bought a CD, and you owned it; the record company only owned a lein that prevented you from redistributing additional copies of the CD. Now, through technical measures backed by new laws, the record company removes most of your ownership rights in your CD and retains them for itself. You are effectively renting the CD and are only allowed to play it on record-company approved equipment.

You Know What They Say....

You can't solve a social problem with technology.

"Broadcast Flags" will be waived...
"Digital Rights Management" will be mismanaged....

Its just a horrible cycle.

Funny stuff

With a cue from Walt Disney Chief Executive Michael Eisner, Senate Commerce panel staffers dimmed the lights for a packed February 28 hearing in the Russell Senate Office Building. A full house of lawmakers and lobbyists settled back to watch an ABC Nightline

How funny would it be if it came out that Eisner had downloaded the footage the night before off of LimeWire?

Which makes you wonder, did he actually have the rights to show the footage? Sure, Eisner OWNS abc, but i wonder if he went through the red tape to get something printed that said he had the rights.

Go Silicon Valley

The more I read about the entertainment industry trying to lobby its way into a stable business model the more I want it to fall on its face and never get up. For them to expect the computer industry to include DRM into all software to prevent piracy is insane. It is not the computer industry's nor the ISP's job to police copyright infringement. The software is made to do a certain thing, but that doesn't mean someone will find another use for it.

For example, the airplane was invented as a way to travel. As soon as the military saw this, they thought, we can drop bombs from this device. Now the plane is not just for travel, but also for war. I'm sure the Wright Brothers didn't expect the creation of Stealth Bombers now did they. The same applies for developers of CD/DVD burners. I'm sure the original plan for them was to provide a great way to back up large amounts of data. Then someone said, hey, we can put multimedia on this and get our car stero, home theater to play this also.

Through this whole mess I just hope that some silly law doesn't get pasted that requires software/hardware developers to add DRM to their products, because if it does happen, I know a whole bunch of people that will stick to the last latest and greatest hard/software that doesn't include DRM.

This isn't about stealing.

It's about control and competition. They aren't scared of copying, they're scared of people making their own stuff and not paying the industry taxes to get it made and distributed. They are trying to hinder the progress of the arts by artificially restricting what gets made while keeping themselves as the "gatekeepers to culture". You might not believe this, but most artists would accept a modest lifestyle if they could make the art that they want without being controlled by others. Those kinds of people are the ones who make the really good stuff. The idea that those people would be able to make a living without being controlled scares the shit out of the copyright industry.

Also, besides hindering the progress of art, they will also hinder the progress of science since most scientific advancements of today depend heavily on the use of computers. If computers are taken away (which they will have to be in order to get this level of control), then the copyright industry will be using copyright to hinder the progress of the useful arts and sciences.

However, since the ONLY reason that copyright exists is to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences,what they're doing is blatantly unconstitutional. It's just that they can't come out and say that they want to control culture and prevent people from cmpeting with them by creating their own art, since they would get destroyed in the backlash. Maybe someday their internal notes and memos will come out and people will realize that this is about control and doing blatantly unconstitutional things to make money, not about stealing.

So what does this mean? This means:

1. Stop talking about this in terms of piracy. If you believe this is about piracy and not about control of culture, then you're still a part of the problem since you believe the copyright industrys' lies.
   
2. Stop buying anything from the copyright industry forever. Fuck em. Giving money to the copyright industry is giving weapons to people who want to destroy freedom to help sustain their bankrupt "-ism". So, stop seeing, renting, buying movies and music. Forever, since that's how long they would want copyright to last if they got their way.
   

Outlawing The Right to Read

CBDTPA & other such future laws will outlaw information sharing. They will forbid the fundamental right to share. It is very important to understand this process.

(1) "The Right to Read" by Richard M. Stallman.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [fsf.org]

(The important thing about this story is that it was written before the DMCA was even proposed!)

(2) "What's Wrong With Copy Protection" by John Gilmore.

http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm [cryptome.org]

(3) "Re-evaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail" by Richard M. Stallman.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyrig ht.html [fsf.org]

What is copyright, and what is it meant to accomplish? How can we tell whether it is meeting its goals?

This was also written before the DMCA; Stallman argued that copyright law had _already_ gone too far.

(4) Sold Out, By James Boyle

http://www.wcl.american.edu/pub/faculty/boyle/sold _out.htm [american.edu]

Business Model Hollywood/ Open Source =?.

It seems to me, that open-source companies are like Hollywood, in that they both create CONTENT, and both are freely available on the net. . The opensource embraces this fact, with my applause. So, what kind of business model can be adopted by both, to make a modest and fair profit, but not create this digital gestapo?

Observations

a) Many industry forces want to combat the rise in Internet copyright infringement through technological means.

b) These technological means would likely result in a considerable reduction in the flexibility of personal computers.

c) This "considerable reduction in flexibility" might preclude 100% open source operating systems, depending on the technology used. It stands to reason that open source and free software license compatibility is not the primary concern of the proponents of such legislation.

d) At the very least, this is likely to make it difficult to play movies and/or music with open source software, which will reduce the desirability of the software we've worked so hard to build.

e) This is unacceptable.

What are we going to do about it?

I can think of a few possibilities.

We could stop infringing copyrights, and convince the industry that the problem has been solved. Fat chance this'll happen.

We could implement a classic broad-based boycott, but history has shown that this only works until the next cool shiny DVD comes out.

We could convince our representatives to stop listening to the entertainment industry.

We could do nothing (or do things that amount to nothing, like sit around and gripe like I'm doing right now).

Something is going to happen, and it's probably going to suck unless we, a community of people who have a vested interest in preventing these things from happening, unite and implement an effective solution.

What'll it be?

-John

Re:Observations

We could stop infringing copyrights, and convince the industry that the problem has been solved.

The industry's problem is not that some people infringe copyrights. The industry's problem is that technology has made it practical for artists to produce and distribute their works independently. Don't use language that supports their scam of suppressing the latter under the guise of suppressing the former.

DaveNET plan

Check out scripting.com [scripting.com], where Dave Winer and his friends have figured out a good response to this. Don't sit around bitching, learn how to game the legislative process and get good people elected.
They've started backing the Libertarian candidate [taragrubb.com] to replace one of the Congress critters backing this nonsense and now she's getting real media coverage and is given a chance to win.
We don't need to put up with these yahoos in DC. God knows they need us more than we need them, so let's get moving on replacing their bought and paid for asses.
I'm certainly doing my part [reedandwright.com]to spread the word.
Rustin

History repeating itself

Even the broadcast-flag technology failed to address an infinitely harder problem: how to stop people from using the Internet to spread movies from sources other than digital television. Disney used that limitation as an opportunity to reframe the debate.

I'm sure this point has been made before on some other similar article somewhere else, but I enjoy ranting and most posts do this too, so I'll speak my mind anyway :)

If one looks back in history 50 years, one will recall the 50's as a decade where Hollywood studios were in trouble, feared the television media for similar reasons as they fear the 'net today, and were reluctant to enter the new technology. The studios faced monopolistic charges (I'm recalling a John Lithgow PBS segment) and almost went bankrupt. They bit the bullet, embraced television, and Hollywood fared quite well.

Now, movie making and television have virtually merged thanks to Time Warner, Turner, etc (well for our purposes they have). They are not starving for cash these days, but they certainly are not embracing this new technology. They are rather attempting to control it and resist it, like in the 50's. What they must realize is that more people "pirating" means more people viewing their content. These then could be customers if the RIAA would embrace (I'm sick of that word too; homonyms?) the 'net, they could provide content from third party sites that they could control just like television. They would need some ad system which I am not going to try and pull out of my arse to gain the sites revenue, but I think it could work. Either that or a pay system, but because of who we're dealing with, it would have to be good.

My point (ah yes, there it is) is that if the big guns spent some of their budget for fighting the 'scourge' that is 'piracy,' they could at the very least have a better argument in court, if not a peaceable solution for everyone. All of you out there downloading m0vI3Z will have to give it up if anything but more rights being lost is to be acheived. They will win if you don't, and honest hackers and their rights will get screwed.

My personal code

I have a personal moral code, as I'm sure most people do. My code amounts to the fact that I will not do anything that hurts someone else or myself. If you aren't hurting anybody, then its not wrong to do.
Laws are neither good nor bad. Some apply to moral situations and some do not. For me, if a law is not enforced, it does not exist. For example if there is a stop sign in the middle of nowhere at night and there is no cop, then I can run the stop sign. As long as nobody is hurt. I broke the law, but I didn't hurt anyone and I didn't get hurt.

Here's where copyright gets in. I could care less what laws the government tries to pass. They can't enforce them on me. As we all do I'm sure, I have a rather large collection of mp3s. It's technically illegal, yes. But nobody is ever going to come and take me to jail for it. It's an unenforced law, so I refuse to obey it, since nobody is hurt.

As for unjust/unconstitutional laws I publicly disobey them on purpose, as we should all. The best way to fight an unconstitutional law is to break it. If you go to court, and the law is truly unconstitutional you can take your case up through the system until the power of judicial review is used to get the law off the books.
It is quite plain and obvious that new copyright laws are unconstitutional and unjust in many ways. And breaking these laws doesn't hurt anybody. Therefore I don't care what laws they make, I will not follow them. At the very worst I can become a martyr for the cause. (only I wont die).
I suggest we all stop moaning and groaning and repeating ourselves over and over again. When obviously innocent people start getting locked up then, and only then will there be a public outcry.
Remember we've taken advantage of every right the constitution gives us, except for the right of revolution. The fundamentals of our US government are sound and have lasted through time. We're going to have to have a revolution sometime, or technology will get ahead of the law and everything will fall apart.

Feel free to call me a nut.

Bill Gates

Does anyone have that mp3 on Bill Gates during a radio interview where he was describing the sad state of copyright protections back in those days? From what I remember, he became a hero for backing the rights of software authors.

Back then, if you were an author, your only protection was protecting your software with keys and other nasty copy protections. No one liked it. Mr. Gates fought for legal protection, stating the software industry would thrive with laws.

Somewhere between then and now it turned ugly with people who disagree with their vision of revenue being called "pirates." It would come down to a person who makes a backup copy of their own software would be suspected of raping and pillaging thousands of software authors of thousands of dollars.

The entertainment industry appears to be a great amplifier of this intellectual property madness. They wish consumers and the technology they buy to be a conduit for their business plan. It appears the label "pirate" has appeared on the other side of the coin these days.

They need a "control"

"ABC Nightline segment on a 15-year-old named Benjamin who used his personal computer to go online and download the movie Men of Honor and an episode of Seinfeld, minus the ads"

Let me guess, they showed him start the download, then a smooth cut to hey presto here is the movie, cutting out the days or weeks between.

For a control, they should have had him download "men of Honor" and "Seinfeld" from a legitimate site he could buy it from.

Oh wait, despite the promise to do Video on Demand they never have. So there is NO "control" to compare this with and they have no idea if people would buy the product for a couple of $$ a download if they could get it legitimately from fast download servers.

All that shows is there is big demand, not that people wouldn't pay for downloads if they were available.

Scariest part?

It's a battle between Hollywood and the tech-industry... who is missing from this picture? The consumers... the people... It isn't untill the end of the article consumersgroups are mentioned... and rightly so... they hardly play a role...

Isn't it scary to live in a nation, where the voice of the voting people are ignored?

When did democracy die?

Why the need to protect broadcasts?

I don't get the obsession with protecting broadcasts.

Since they are transmitting to anyone with an antenna on their roof (while hoping that you will watch thier commercials), whats the big deal if teenager X records the latest episode of Buffy and shares it on the internet?

The only thing I can see is a lessening of the value of next day re-runs (with new commercials) since whoever missed it the first time it was broadcast can now get it of the internet at thier own leisure instead. And I don't think those constant re-runs of M.A.S.H are at danger, only the most hardcore Allan Alda fans will downlaod that.

I can see why HBO wants to protect their primetime movies, since they are a subscription based service. But according to the article, copy protection for cable has already been solved by that C5 group.

No, this is all about what the broadcasters have dreamed of since the invention of the VCR, regaining total control over the average Joe's television watching habits and killing those pesky Tivo devices that threat to kill their revenue model.

Also the point about noone ordering broadband because there's no high definition movies to download is just bull. The reason noone gets broadband today is because of bad service, crippled bandwith, download caps and monthly fees bordering to extortion.

Besides, downloading a DVD using a 2 mbit/s connection takes atleast 6 hours. Wow! Select a movie at breakfast, watch it for dinner. I don't think HBO needs to worry about competition from broadband anytime soon.

And in the side-scene we have the movie studios smiling with glee waiting for the broadcast industry to fix thier broken DVD standard with laws and regulations.

Screw both industries

They either are against us, or are ready to sell our rights as a piece of some bargain. Consumer advocates, free/open software developers and civil rights groups must do everything to affect the outcome of this because it's their interests that are at stake. Both Intel and Disney can kiss our asses and have Enron-style bankruptcy for all I care.

How Hollywood's brain works...

OK, say I invent a 100% effective copy protection scheme for protecting digital content, by spraying hairspray on a DVD, then pouring boiling water over it, (oh no, now I've blown it, I was going to patent that idea as well).

So, in 6 months time, the shop shelves are full of uncopyable DVDs, priced at twice the price they are at the moment, to make up for the cost of development, and the fact that if the consumer doesn't have a choice, he'll pay, right?

How much money does Mr Average spend on DVDs? Guess what, it's the same as it was before. Why? Because Mr Average still earns the same he did before, and decent copy protection doesn't fill his wallet with money. So, fewer DVDs are sold. Hollywood is happy, because at least they are making more on each DVD.

However, in a further 6 months, audiences at the cinemas start to drop - oh no! Why on earth is that? Oh, right, because nobody has seen advance copies of the film, so they don't care to go and watch it.

So, Hollywood increases it's advertising budget to ram their latest films down your throat. Need to make those losses up, so DVD prices rise. Fewer are sold.

By now, economics of scale are being to fall apart - we're only pressing 20% of the DVDs we used to, so it's costing us more! Oh dear, OK, well we're wasting money pressing two or three different versions of each disc for different regions, and 50% of people have multi-region players anyway, so we're wasting money. However, the shareholders won't believe that, so let's just raise DVD prices.

Ooooh, more people going to the cinema, wonder why that is, is it because they can't afford DVDs? Nahhh, it's our increased advertising budget. So, now that people are happily watching our films, and not pirating them, let's increase ticket prices, hahahaha!!! Oh, and why are we wasting money shooting on 35mm, the general public is so used to DVD, they won't care if we switch to 16mm instead, save money, and flog new projectors to all the cinemas.

Oh yeah, let's devise a new soundsystem for the new film format, with 10 speakers, instead of 6. Also, let's patent it, and make it incompatible with everything else.

6 months pass...

So, all the cinemas are on the virge of bankruptcy, but at least they have the 16mm projectors and new sound system, that sounds rubbish because the cinemas are too small for a 10 speaker setup. Nevermind.

Anyway, increased ticket prices mean smaller audiences. NO!!!!! Quick, add the new sound system to DVDs, and increase the price. Flog people new DVD players, with uncrackable region encoding.

Nobody buys them... Hmmm - increase advertising budget, that's it!

And so it goes on...

Why not buy the Content Industry?

I believe that some technology company (was it MS?) already made a threat to Valenti to buy the MPAA companies. If you look at the wealth in the electronics/IT sector, they could probably do it. If Hollywood continues their attacks in Congress, the tech sector might just follow up on their threat...

Btw: has anyone ever thought about DRM? It's a weird system isn't it? A system designed to keep itself safe from its owner...

for a book length treatment

I recommend Jessica Litman's Digital Copyright [dannyreviews.com].

Danny.

A letter to Congress

I recently faxed the following letter to my Congressional representatives. Feel free to quote it in your own correspondence, with proper attribution of course. (apologies for the formatting; this is copied from LaTeX source)

I am proud to be both your constituent and the owner of a small but
successful digital video studio. I have become very alarmed by recent
changes to U.S. copyright law, and the direction in which it seems to
be heading. The tremendous powers the law has granted to copyright
owners, particularly large film and music studios, are having a
deleterious effect on independent producers (such as myself) as well
as consumers of these media.

Under the pretense of combating music and film piracy, the major
U.S. recording companies and film studios have recently obtained legal
powers that extend far beyond the reasonable, limited monopoly
conferred by traditional copyright law. For example, the 1998 Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) outlawed the creation of tools that
circumvent the copy-prevention systems now present in commercial VHS
tapes, newer audio CDs, DVDs, and other digital media. This provision
has hardly diminished the operations of music and film
pirates. Instead, the primary effect of the DMCA's anti-circumvention
provision has been to trample on ``fair use'' rights --- legal
allowances to duplicate copyrighted material for personal or
educational use. It is illegal to produce a device that circumvents
the copy-prevention system on VHS tapes or DVD discs, even if the
intended use is simply creating a personal back-up copy, excerpting
for academic purposes, or converting the media into an alternative
format (e.g. close-captioning for a hearing-impaired audience).

More significantly, small, independent producers are excluded from the
DMCA's protection, since most copy-prevention systems are only
available to the largest media studios (either due to high costs or
exclusive licensing arrangements). As an independent studio, we have
not seen any benefit from the DMCA. In fact, on several occasions we
have been forced to abandon projects because copy-prevention systems
barred us from duplicating materials, rights to which we had
properly and legally obtained!

I have learned of upcoming copyright initiatives that would further
worsen the situation. The Security Systems Standards and Certification
Act (SSSCA), introduced by Sen. Ernest Hollings at the behest of the
Disney Company and other large studios, would outlaw all digital audio
and video equipment that does not contain an integrated, tamper-proof
copy-prevention system. This measure would make life extremely
difficult for independent digital studios like my own, which have
thrived on the availability of cheap, flexible digital equipment for
editing (and thus necessarily duplicating) audio and video. Large
media companies will escape through an exception in the law for
``professional'' recording devices --- which will likely be priced
beyond the budget of a small studio. This is already the present
situation with VHS players: cheap ``consumer'' players by law must
incorporate the Macrovision copy-prevention system, while expensive
``professional'' players are excepted!

Thankfully the SSSCA was withdrawn, but mandatory copy-prevention
equipment appears in several other upcoming proposals. One such
measure is the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act
(CBDTPA), also to be introduced by Sen. Hollings. The Act's
supporters, all major media companies, claim that having
copy-prevention hardware in all digital TV equipment is necessary for
the widespread adoption of digital TV. I see no reason for this. Many
other media, like analog TV, radio, and the audio CD, have thrived
despite the absence of copy-prevention systems. My own studio has no
qualms about digital distribution channels that do not mandate
copy-prevention. One effect of mandatory copy-prevention equipment is
clear though: it will completely lock out independent artists and
studios who do not have the ability to encode their work with the
proper copy-prevention signals. I strongly suspect that this is
the true effect the established industry intends to create with the
CBDTPA.

In light of these facts, I urge you to take the following actions:

Oppose the further expansion of copyright powers. Pre-DMCA
copyright law was already strong enough to encourage the creation of
vast numbers of film, music, and literary works.

Do not support mandatory copy-prevention or ``content
protection'' systems, as embodied in such measures as the CBDTPA and
SSSCA. Media pirates will inevitably find ways around these
systems. Mandatory copy-prevention will only have the effect of
strengthening the established media monopolies at the expense of
independent studios, artists, and consumers.

Support the efforts of legislators such as Rep. Rick Boucher
(D-VA), who is working to scale back the Draconian provisions of the
DMCA and write ``fair use'' into law as a guaranteed right.

Support H.R. 5285 - the Internet Radio Fairness Act - which will
lower the unreasonably high music royalty rates imposed on independent
internet music broadcasters.

I can think of no better way to erode America's world leadership in
film, music, and digital media than to destroy the abilities of
creative artists to produce works, and of consumers to enjoy
them. Expanding the control of existing large media companies may lead
to higher short-term profits for them, but will surely cause severe
long-term hardship for all of us.

Support a Congressional Candidate

that opposes the Digital MCA. See Tripp Helms' website. [helmsforcongress.com].

Are They Suing Phillips?

No. Why? Because Phillips is a $60 billion (last time I looked which was years ago) giant bigger than the entire lame entertainment industry.

They can manufacture dual-tray CD players with CD recorders built in, obviously for the purpose of copying a CD (albeit they would claim it's for creating "best of" CD's - yeah, right...) - and nobody dares sue them. Because if they stopped making CD players, the music labels would have no way to sell their product. And if DVDs and VCRs don't get made, movie studios won't get 40-60% of a movie's revenue coming from video rentals.

The movie studios and music labels need to be told to shut up and sit down by the people making their profits possible - the artists and the tech companies.

Without tech, there is no art - and that goes back to whoever mixed the first paints on the cave floor...

As a Canadian.. I am sorry...

Hopefully this stupid survey conducted by Ipsos-Reid [ipsos-reid.com] will not cast doubt on the importance I see of a strong and supportive partnership with our brothers to the south.

Quoting, Seven in ten (69%) Canadians think that the United States, because of its policies and actions in the Middle East and other parts of the world, bear some of the responsibility for the terrorist attacks on them, while 15% indicate that they believe that the U.S. bears all of the responsibility.

The question is overly broad and thus meaningless, additionally the timing is both inconsidered and just a cheap way of creating news by bashing Americans. Supporting a soverign nation (Israel) in its struggle for acceptance and a right to exist, and deploying military forces in Saudi Arabia when asked, does not constitute a justification for the cowardly act of September 11th.

For more information, here is an article [globeandmail.com], but more importantly, I think we should all Ipsos-Reid what we think of their "make news bullshit by bashing Americans" at ...

John Wright [mailto]
Senior Vice-President
Ipsos-Reid Public Affairs
[phone]

To my American brothers, I am sorry for this type of survey, see to it that Ipsos-Reid doesn't do it again... Take the time, even if it is just a two-word email!

Disagreeing with Lessig

"The evidence is that this is an increasing battle, not one that is going to be resolved in the short term," says Lawrence Lessig.... "This is a struggle to the death."

No! In fact, death is only a threat if the Content Cabals get their way. In that case, they will in all likelihood kill off (severely reduce) both Tech Sector profits and their own. On the other hand, if by some miracle they give up and grant their customers fair use rights to digital content, they will (contrarily) end up making more money than ever before.

Demonstrating this point is as easy as looking back at the last few distribution revolutions. VCRs? We've already got Valenti's famous serial-killer quote [cryptome.org], but thank goodness he didn't get his way - video rentals have been big business for the studios ever since the Supreme Court ruled the VCR legit.

Going back further: Were audio cassettes the bane that the music industry feared, way back in the age of disco when Home taping was killing music [counterpunch.org]? I didn't think so.

And prior even to that: Think television, think radio, think... the printing press. Did publishers make more money before, or after, Gutenberg?

Returning to the present age, is it even clear that Napster, that glorious window onto the world of music as a whole, undivided and beautiful and ever-surprising - was it indeed a bad thing, or was it perhaps free-marketing the music itself [slashdot.org]? And at the same time, oh look, those copy-protected CDs don't seem to be selling so good. [slashdot.org]

What I'm getting at here is that discussions of this issue often degenerate rapidly into an us-vs-them mentality. Which in a way makes sense, since the --AA's are a bunch of raving lunatics, who want to lock people up for sharing music [slashdot.org] after first DOS'ing their computers [slashdot.org]. But looked at from a different perspective, they're just lost sheep in need of some direction - a little guidance from those of us who actually live with, embrace, and explore the technological frontiers.

In other words, people paint the conflict as win-lose. But it's not: it's a choice we have, as a society: win-win, or lose-lose.

-Renard

Make sure you include musical instruments

Perhaps we need to extend the law to a musician's musical instruments. Creaters of musical instruments have one year to build in technology to prevent musical instruments from reproducing music that was created by someone other than the musician without explicit permission to play it. Vocalists need an implant.

I infringe neither software nor musical copyright. You have no right to force me to program big-brother-style content control into all the software and hardware systems I create.

Those working on open source, like myself and many others, clearly rely on the goodwill and kindness of the community.

In terms of horizontal software, copyright really only serves to make Microsoft and a few others profitable. These laws are to make large corporations rich, who control publicity and name brand to control what the masses want, often regardless of quality or merit by the company earning the profit.

Re:Digital Rights Management

Maybe you don't want to pay $20 for a CD. That doesn't matter. I want you to. There's a reason for that. I'll give you a hint: Its not because I got 1500 on the SATs.

The problem with most people reading Slashdot is that they don't have jobs that depend on the goodwill and kindness of the community. They're telling musicians like me that I'm supposed to. What would you do if your boss told you that unless the software sells 3 million copies, you get nothing? Welcome to our world.

If the tenuous nature of making a living off your music bothers you, maybe you should get a day job. I'm sorry, but at no point in human history did the majority of musicians make a good living at it.

If you want me to pay $20 for your CD, make damned sure you sell it in a format that I can easilly back up on my HD, and take full advantage of Fair Use whenever I want. Otherwise you won't ever sell one to me, no matter what your SAT score was.

You do not have a right to make money off your art. Most artists don't.

Re:Digital Rights Management

I don't think that's fair at all. I too am a musician, and If you want to agree to a major label contract with one of those big companies, then you have take their prices, even if that is 3 % off a $20 cd applied to all kinds of debt incurred by the recording/ distribution process.
Choose a different option! Sell unlimited use mp3's / ogg vorbis files on the internet. Stop getting bent over by a company that just wants you to make money. You can make just as much money without being indebted to those money grubbing assholes. You know, before people had recording technologies, they made money on playing music live. You should try that.