John Naughton on the RIAA and SDMI

Tzoq writes: "John Naughton has a fine article concerning the SDMI debacle in this Sunday's "The Observer", called "The American crocodile that swallowed freedom"." This is not news to any regular slashdot reader, but it's a good, articulate rant, fun to read.

"This is not news to any regular slashdot reader"

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, it looks as though John Naughton did a search on Slashdot [slashdot.org] and concatenated all the slashdot summaries.

Forbidden

[GoofyBoy]

Pretty soon trading copywrited material is going to be like pr0n.

Its forbidden/rebellious, a challange/puzzle to get, and gratifying once you get it.

Re:"This is not news to any regular slashdot reade

[BlackHat]

I think you may be right as it includes the RIAA vs 2600 error often seen here on /.

...RIAA is suing a US magazine for publishing the code of a small computer program called DeCSS...

I'm E-mailing this article's address...

[SaxMaster]

to my friends and parents and THEIR friends as well. It's a good concise and easily understandable write up of the current copyright (wrong?) situation, and things like this (DMCA, etc...) are EXACTLY why I'm going into IP law.

RIAA MPAA confused

[bludstone]

The RIAA is suing over DeCSS?

This guy got his **AAs mixed up

Re:RIAA's first move

[GungaDan]

If I understand correctly, he's referring to Sonny Bono's last enduring monument (unless you count that bit of spleen he left on the tree, which has begun to rot by now), the copyright extension act. This extends (as the name suggests) copyright protections from some absurd number of years following the creation of the work, to some absurd number of years following the death of the work's creator. Not sure what the logic was, or why anyone in congress besides bonzo would've thought this was a good idea. Could be that the RIAA got Ricky Martin to give a live performance or something. But I ask you - why do I need to be guaranteed monopoly distribution power over use of my creative works AFTER I'M DEAD??? Would be really interesting to see how the profits generated for descendents of rich bastards by this bone-headed act measure up to the estate taxes that will no longer be collected...

lame

[jchristopher]

I stopped reading when I read this: Readers of this column will be aware that the RIAA is suing a US magazine for publishing the code of a small computer program called DeCSS that unscrambles DVD files so that Linux users can play their own disks.

I believe it's the MPAA that is suing 2600. How uninformed can you get? Makes you wonder about the accuracy of anything else on the site.

RIAA's first move

[Vintermann]

In this article it said:

"Its first act of appeasement was the granting of a ludicrous extension of the period during which works enjoy copyright protection. "

Something like our (mankind's) friend Hubbard's billion year contracts? [kvalito.no] :-) Could someone fill me in on this? I didn't know that part.

My thoughts on this matter.

[ReaganBSD]

Firstly, I must admit for the record that I'm not an expert on anything pertinent to this debate. I gladly accept all correction/instruction from those more knowledgeable than I.

I don't understand why MPAA wants to shut out the Linux people. Given the fact that Linux is so popular now, it seems to me that someone could make a killing selling regionless DVD players to the Linux community. It should be blindingly obvious that Linux's users WANT DVD--they're even going so far as to get a quasi-illegal programme to get DVD. The lawsuit is just plain crazy--speaking of fair use, as Dr. Touretzky stated, there is no fairer use than to play back content that you purchased. That's like Ford saying "you may buy our cars, but not drive them" or--horror of horrors!--the folks at Corona saying "you may buy our beer, but not drink it". Insane. Flat-out insane. Is it the "hacker" image that a lot of folks have about Linux? Really!

I have WinMe myself (see, I said that I'm no expert) and I can use DVD. Is M$ paying off the MPAA? My wise, cool old great-grandpa (RIP 1899-1993) had a saying, "If it looks stupid but makes money, it's not stupid.". I don't blame the MPAA for making money, or wanting to make more. But why should the MPAA care about what I use to play back my copy of Dr. No? After all, it's not like Corona cares which bottle opener I use to get at that ice-cold, sweet ambrosia, or who sells the lime wedge that I add to the ambrosia.

I see a historical parallel here. Remember Standard Oil, back in the 1880s? They were shot down hard because of their price-fixing (let's face it, region coding is price-fixing). Is this really any different?

It smells--no, stinks--like a power-grab to me. Sue, sue, and sue again to maintain power. It was said in George Orwell's 1984 that the purpose of seeking power was for power's own sake--not for money, love or anything like that--just power and dominance. Perhaps it's time for us to pool our funds and form our own coalition--call it the Linux Movie Coalition or whatever--and start pressuring Congress.

I'm interested in hearing replies. :)