Predicting The End Of Digital Copying 583
prostoalex writes: "Christian Science Monitor warns about approaching era of digital prohibition. With FCC requiring the use of copy prevention mechanisms in future generations of television sets, soon 'Americans may not be able to copy a song off a CD, watch a recorded DVD at a friend's house, or store a copy of a television show for more than a day'. Of course, no article on this topic can go without a mandatory quote from Jack Valenti, who points out: 'It is not legal to make a copy of a DVD now. Everything people are doing legally today, they'll be able to do legally tomorrow'."
Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:3, Interesting)
I would however expect that we will see more **AA taxes such as the ones already in place on CD-R and radio broadcasts. 5% on your cable modem bill, 3% of your hard drive, 6% of your compactflash card.
If this money were actually distributed to all affected copyright holders and not just those that belong to the **AA, this wouldn't be the worst solution in the world.
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the absurdity of the proposal, and with any current levies. In my opinion, if the government plans on charging us fees on the 'assumption' that we're going to be breaking copyright laws, then in those cases IF and when we do break copyright laws, we should consider our debt as paid in full. Otherwise, if the record industry decides to sue someone on the basis of lost sales, we could easily point out that they received compensation for their music, in the form of a fee from the sale of the blank CDs.
So what if the gaming industry decides later this year that they want to get a piece of the pie, too? They'll be asking for their $1.23, or $2.27 for the lost sales of games, because someone copied a PC or Playstation game onto a CD. Then the literary world will get wind of the idea, and decide they want some $$ for their lost sales of e-texts, pdf documents, etc...
There are far more legitimate uses for CDs than there are illegitimate uses. And my guess is that the majority of CDs sold are for legitimate uses. Looking at my stack of CDs, I see some photo CDs that I made, dozens of backup CDs for my hard drive, a collection of MP3 CDs for music that I already own, software backup CDs, temporary storage CD-RWs, various document CDs, etc...
BTW, I think the record industry should pay the same levy on the blank CDs that they use for distributing their music to consumers. This would, in effect, take money from the smaller record labels, and distribute it to the largest label. They may whine, "But we're using these blank CDs to distribute our music for which we own the copyrights." Tough shit ! I want to buy some blank CDs to distribute to friends a set of photos for which I own the copyright!
And those RIOs.... how about someone just using them for storing music they already own, to listen to while they're out for a jog, or a bike ride, etc...
And don't get me started on the flash memory levies. What the hell !?!? The record industry wants me to pay them because I take use flash memory for my digital camera !?!? I don't own a stinkin' flash-based MP3 player!
Grrrrrr....
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:3, Interesting)
The goal for commercial content protection has to be to stay ahead of the curve just enough to assure current profitability. They realize that sooner or later the copy protection WILL be broken. It's inevitable, even if it's a hundred years from now (but more likely less than one year), that any copy protection will be defeated and the content plastered across the Internet. But that doesn't matter to THIS year's balance sheet.
What's going on with the RIAA, MPAA, Etc. is the industry trying to stay ahead of that curve any way they can. They don't have to stop everyone, just most everyone and they do that by making it just difficult enough that most people won't bother. Like insurance, it's a numbers game.
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:2)
But here lies another problem: How do you determine what an "affected copyright holder" is? And how do you determine to what degree a particular copyright holder is affected?
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies don't fund the schools that my kids will go to, or pave the roads that I drive on. In fact those companies don't provide any -public- services at all. You have to pay for their products and services.
If I start an entertainment company, does that mean I can suddenly start collecting taxes?? Imagine the possibilities for corruption of such a system. Suppose a company collects a tax based on how many artists they sign. You can bet every name in the RIAA register would be signing every no-name retard on the planet to increase their portion of the pie.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in maintaining the RIAAs bottom line. If they can't find a real way to make money in the digital age then they should get another job just like everyone else...
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not government's responsibility to prop them up by becoming their enforcement arm.
What is the government's responsibility anyway? I mean, I'm sure you have your own fantasy about what a government does, but the actual real government does spend quite a lot of its effort propping up industry. And I know you probably think that's only because they're in the pocket of industry, but it might also have something to do with the fact that a healthy economy is more likely to get them re-elected.
The telegram industry was a perfectly legitimate industry that employed millions of people. If they were the RIAA, they would lobby to ban the telephone because it is a threat to their bottom line. It makes little sense.
Except you left out a major difference between telegrams and music. The telegram was rendered obsolete by the telephone. Music isn't becoming obsolete; CDs are. That's a huge distinction.
Look at their sales records, in the days of Napster (when music piracy was totally rampant) they enjoyed RECORD SALES. Sales have since dropped.
I always love this one. As if the relationship between piracy and music sales is so direct and immediate that you could turn Napster on and sales would immediately skyrocket. By that same logic, Dubya is directly responsible for the economic slump and it has nothing to do with the boom-bust cycle that began in the 90s.
The problem lies in the fact that I can't put the new Linkin Park CD into my MP3 collection.
Oh look, a red herring. We weren't discussing DRM. We were discussing piracy specifically. Don't try to confuse the two.
Maybe this drop in sales is not because of music piracy, but because the vast majority of music released (read: shoved down our throats) is total crap
You have music shoved down your throat? Poor you. I listen to music mostly at home, at work, and in the car. I guess you spend most of your time in elevators and shopping malls or on hold.
If the RIAA wants to stay in business, they should move from strongarm anti-piracy attempts to actually improving their product.
This is the most specious argument of all. Firstly, you are basically justifying mob rule. Secondly, people obviously people want the product or they wouldn't be pirating it. I don't listen to N'Sync but millions of teenaged girls do. Although I'm sure there is some kind of conspiracy out there to suppress the music you like, I will at least acknowledge that some of the bands I like just aren't mainstream enough to have huge followings.
As a side note, the prices for CDs are insane. I went CD shopping the other day and was apalled to see that a CD I wanted had a sticker on it for $20.
And you didn't buy the CD. Congratulations, that's the way capitalism is supposed to work. If all you want is music, there's plenty of music out there for $10 or less, even from popular artists. I picked up most of Rush's back catalog for $8 a pop. Heck, if quality isn't your number 1 priority, check out the 99 cent bin at your local used CD store.
$20! That's roughly $0.50 a minute for a normal CD! Phone sex lines give better rates than that.
Hey, that's some bargain phone sex. Anyway, how is that a fair comparison? Is it that you listen to the music CDs once and throw them away or do you tape your phone sex calls and listen to them repeatedly?
Oh wait, you didn't repeat *every* single commonly-used
-a
Rebutting the Rebuttals (Score:4, Insightful)
The telegram industry was a perfectly legitimate industry that employed millions of people. If they were the RIAA, they would lobby to ban the telephone because it is a threat to their bottom line. It makes little sense.
Except you left out a major difference between telegrams and music. The telegram was rendered obsolete by the telephone. Music isn't becoming obsolete; CDs are. That's a huge distinction.
No, the analogy is quite apt. What really happened was that a content/information delivery mechanism was made obsolete. In this case, the RIAA member companies' power comes from controlling the current music distribution scheme. Napster and the Internet destroy that artificial choke point. Thus, the companies need to adjust to this fact or go the way of the telegram companies. (Or horse buggy manufacturers...)
Look at their sales records, in the days of Napster (when music piracy was totally rampant) they enjoyed RECORD SALES. Sales have since dropped.
I always love this one. As if the relationship between piracy and music sales is so direct and immediate that you could turn Napster on and sales would immediately skyrocket.
Actually, it's the RIAA that's been pushing this argument. They've been claiming direct sales losses due to piracy. Thus, "turning Napster off" should have stopped those losses. (The fact that they can't point to any statistically significant losses makes their argument even more specious.)
The problem lies in the fact that I can't put the new Linkin Park CD into my MP3 collection.
Oh look, a red herring. We weren't discussing DRM. We were discussing piracy specifically. Don't try to confuse the two.
While the main issue is an attempt to prevent piracy, the result of the proposed legislation and current "anti-piracy" technologies are to prevent things like this scenario. Most DRM initiatives are directly aimed at restricting current fair-use capabilities. (Look at Valenti's claim that copying DVD's is illegal.)
If the RIAA wants to stay in business, they should move from strongarm anti-piracy attempts to actually improving their product.
This is the most specious argument of all. Firstly, you are basically justifying mob rule. Secondly, people obviously people want the product or they wouldn't be pirating it.
No, he's advocating for consumers. Basically all sales are aimed at appealing to the "mob" (or a specific segment of it). If a company (or association) fails to please their target customers then they can expect to lose them. As to the pirating, there are some people who will always want stuff for free no matter what. Many of the users of Napster used it as a "try before you buy" service and to get tracks from out of print albums. (Yes Eminem was #1 with his new CD for downloads. Strangely, he was also #1 for actual CD sales. So, where's the cause and effect of downloads reducing sales? Ms. Rosen continues to be unable to backup her claims.)
Oh wait, you didn't repeat *every* single commonly-used
Now you're the one straying off subject. This particular debate is about "anti-piracy" measures. We already know that the RIAA's member companies are closer to slave traders when it comes to how they treat their artists (especially thanks to a little "edit" to a bill one night).
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:3, Insightful)
There are other things beside THE economy; it isn't everything there is, you know.
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:2)
Wana bet?? Check the recording specs for SDMI compliant hardware here.
http://www.sdmi.org/
Sorry about the documents in PDF.
They are making it very hard to record anything of your own creation that isn't Monural voice grade bandwidth limited. This is collateral damage limiting indi creation using new hardware.
Watch out for this to become mandentory instead of optional and anything else not legal.
In the USA, having a lockpick is illegal if you are not a locksmith. Expect audio and video recorders to have the same restrictions soon.
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:2)
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:2)
At the very least, mere possession _is_ illegal in many states. Big ones. And in others, only possession with intent to use criminally is illegal, but possession itself is enough to construe criminal intent (ie the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant once such implements are found). California, New York, and Texas are among the states with anti-lockpick laws.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
Sumner
Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (Score:4, Insightful)
the explicit legalization of all copying of copyrighted works, and the explicit endorsement of copying by the industry that will be the beneficiary of the tax revenue
If we are being charged (financially) on the presumption that we will engage in copying of copyrighted works, it has to be legalized. You can't tax an illegal activity any more than you can have your cake and eat it too.
screw this off (litterally) (Score:5, Funny)
Did they also pass a law banning screwdrivers? 'Cause if not...I plan to use one to exclude anticopying technology in my next generation TV.
Re:screw this off (litterally) (Score:3, Funny)
Nope, but I'm afraid you are in violation of DMCA in doing so.
In the process of removing the screws you need to turn each of those with a screwdriver n-turn anti-clockwise, where n is the exact number of turn the manufacturer has turned to put that screw in place. By reversing the process you are effectively doing reverse-engineering on it and violate the DMCA.
Re:screw this off (litterally) (Score:3, Funny)
Whimsical descriptions of how regular everyday activities constitute DMCA violations are NOT CLEVER ANYMORE. They're as bland and predictable as the endless Natalie Portman hot grits Beowulf cluster goatse first posts.
Let it die, already.
Re:screw this off (litterally) (Score:2)
Good to know.. (Score:2)
Guess that means they don't need any new laws. Which, in turn, means they can stop buying congress critters. I'm sure their accounting departments will be glad to hear that.
(Point being, this is as transparent as usual for Valenti. The things implied by this quote don't bear out at all.)
-Rob
But were doing out best (Score:2)
But we will be working our butts off to have most of the things you are doing today classified as illegal.
Of course we'll be making small changes as not to conflict with the constitution.
What about TVs not made in the U.S.? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article,
So what's stopping companies from countries other than the US from making a copy-protected version of their hardware for the US market, and a non-copy-protected version (possibly at a higher price) for the non-US market?
Sure, companies don't like having to support multiple products, but I'll bet there'd be a market for this. Wouldn't the FCC's new regulation just push American companies out of this market?
TVs are not made in the U.S. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What about TVs not made in the U.S.? (Score:2)
People will know because of newspapers (Score:2)
People will quickly find out who caused their VCR to stop working. Even if Joe Sixpack doesn't read the paper, when he mentions his VCR that wont record to the informed John Aged-Red-Wine or Stan Mountaindew at work, he will get an answer.
When someone at work asked me why his new CD wouldn't play in his computer, he got more of an answer than I think he wanted. I can get a little preachy at times.
Re:What about TVs not made in the U.S.? (Score:3, Funny)
Hrm... (Score:5, Interesting)
I copy my CD's to MP3 format and take those into work so that I won't have my CD's stolen. I do the same with my DVD's, except I convert them to Windows Media 8 format.
As long as you own a copy of the video in question, aren't you basically doing what is already legal to do with CD's? (Aside from the whole DMCA riff, which is OK, because I have several region-free DVD's.)
I'm not talking about distributing those copies. That is, of course, illegal as hell. I'm talking about using a copy of your own item for personal use.
Re:Hrm... (Score:2)
My question is this: there is nothing legally wrong with space-shifting my CD collection, so what is legally wrong with space-shifting my DVD collection?
Nothing. Valenti just pulled that out of his elderly ass.
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Eric Olsen: How are you actually going to overcome the "fair use" doctrine? It's already a fact that "archival" copies are allowed, so why is "space shifting" not archival and thus "fair use"?
Cary Sherman:
Now compare and contrast with Orrin Hatch questioning Hilary Rosen in the Senate- here [membrane.com]:
''Can I make a copy of a CD that I buy and put it into a car?'' asked Hatch. When Rosen hemmed and hawed, Hatch muttered, ''The answer is yes.''
EFF Case Analysis (Score:4, Interesting)
A quote:
"The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user's hard drive." In its reasoning, the court stated that this type of format conversion falls within the personal use right of consumers to make analog or digital recordings of copyrighted music for private, noncommercial use. According to the ruling, "Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act."
So again, my question: what is so fundamentally different between DVD's and CD's that I can space-shift one legally, but not the other?
Re:EFF Case Analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
This may sound cynical, insulting, and typical of
The advent of each new content medium is an opportunity for the media companies to re-fight a battle that they've already lost. Because the space shifting of CDs and the space shifting DVDs has a one word difference, judges and congressmen, out of willingness, stupidity, or an error in the legal system, do not simply brush off the **AAs' complaints by saying that the courts have already ruled that such activities are legal. This seems stupid when you look at it from the perspective of the average
Re:EFF Case Analysis (Score:3, Informative)
Good question. The difference comes from the RIAA's interpretation of the DMCA. Unfortunately all the lower court decisions to date seem to agree with the RIAA's interpretation. The reasoning goes like this: DVDs are copy protected. It is illegal (with certain very narrow exceptions) to circumvent the copy protection. Thus if you made a copy, you could only have done that by circumventing the copy protection, an illegal activity.
Under this interpretation, it would not be illegal to make a copy of the CD, because the CD is not copy protected. If the CD is copy protected, than it would be illegal to make a copy by circumventing the copy protection (hence the recent stories that black pens are an illegal device under the DMCA, because they can be used to circumvent Sony's CD copy protection scheme).
The reason the RIAA's interpretation of the DMCA is being upheld by the courts is the totally inadequate authorship of the DMCA (some might propose this was on purpose, and I won't disagree with them). There is a clause in the DMCA which is supposed to protect fair-use. In the first DMCA related case, the DeCSS (MPAA vs. 2600) the judge ruled that the fair-use clause did not apply to the copy circumvention sections of the DMCA.
There have since been a number of rulings that manufactures and publishers are not obligated to protect fair-use. Aside: one judge said the DVD did not limit fair-use, because you could still take pictures of each still frame, at least until Fritz chips appear in all the camera and sounds recorders. The copyright rules as written force copy protection down the publics throat, but put no limits on the use of them. So that is why we are in the situation we are now, the DMCA essentially grants the copyright holders the ability to remove any right a citizen would normally have, so long as they can claim the citizen using it had to break copy protection in order to use it.
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is, copyright law is infringement of my liberty. I'll accept it to a certain degree, but when the law stops me from doing very reasonable things with my own property, just in case I might also do something illegal, then that's where i draw the line.
Re:Hrm... (Score:5, Informative)
With the exception being that copy protection only hurts the honest - it does nothing to prevent the piracy groups from doing thier thing. For real examples of this, take a look at the gaming industry.
Warcraft 3 (and many other titles) use a copy protection on the CD called SecuRom. This copy protection puts invalid data on the CD, with the intention of "tricking" burners. That's all well and good, except it also hinders the ability of certain drives to READ the CD. This is causing problems with legitimate owners of the CD not being able to play the game they paid for. It doesn't, however, seem to have prevented the warez groups from releasing a non-protected ISO. It's kind of funny, actually, that in the first couple of weeks, the most user-suggested workarounds for Warcraft 3 problems (on Blizzard's "Open Support [battle.net]" forum) were "Try the no-CD", and "Try to find the warezed version and see if that works". Blizzard, of course, couldn't condone either one of these, and instead pointed to a general system-tweaking checklist that had little to do with actual game issues.
The sky is not falling.. (Score:2)
Besides Jack, you can't live forever.....
Re:The sky is not falling.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey Jack! (Score:2)
Get with the fucking program.
This sucks! (Score:2)
This is insane nonsense. The truth is that most people won't realise that they are being butt-fucked until it is too late.
Valenti's quote should read "Grab the Vaseline and bend over, here comes the MPAA."
No prevention... (Score:2, Insightful)
Laws also mean nothing to the 'good' citizen. That citizen would behave properly whether the law existed or not, providing it is a proper and just law.
Not does the law mean anything to the criminal. He will break them ( or rather, do what he wants )whether or not they exist.
Again I say, that laws merely define a punishment. They do *not* control behaviour.
Stock up now... (Score:2, Interesting)
On another point, I'm not sure if fewer features will be a big selling point for the electronics manufacturers - "sorry, sir, the ability to record was phased out with last years model." If there's a demand, someone will supply it.
Oh, but it is legal. (Score:2)
Of course the obligatory shot at the RIAA's stupidity is in order. I'll drop $30-$50 for a book without thinking about it. I've spent less than $14 (exactly one CD for $13 and change) in the last 4 or so years on music (and pirated none) because the RIAA places their profit over their customers' rights. Ya make yer choices, you suffer the consequences.
Re:Oh, but it is legal. (Score:2)
And let's not forget our friend Dmitri. eBooks are what put him in jail (albeit the ebook software maker and not the publisher).
So much for my SuperDrive (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when? I can't use my SuperDrive to copy the content that I create on my own?
Valenti is a liar. (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm, actually, shit-for-brains, despite your consistent propaganda to the contrary it IS, in fact, perfectly legal to make a copy of a DVD.
Sell the copy? No. Give a copy away free to anyone who asks for it? Probably not. MAKE the copy in the first place? LEGAL.
"It is not legal to make a copy of a DVD now" is a flat-out lie. Someone in the mainstream media needs to call him on this crap.
Yeah right, Jack! (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't watch tv. Don't buy music.
Incorrect attribution (Score:3, Informative)
~Phillip
*Shrug* (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:*Shrug* (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, there are plenty of artists and bands who are selling thier music in mp3 format. The problem is you are not hearing or interested in those artists because they aren't on MTV or hyped in magazines (which they mostly own).
Hence, the point never ever has been of demand and supply. When you have advertisment and product differentiation, there is no point talking about demand and supply. You either buy ("you favorite band or musicians")'s CD or live a miserable life without it. There's no substitue product.
Re:*Shrug* (Score:2)
So? The artists I want to listen to don't do it, otherwise I wouldn't be bitching about it. Music isn't like buying chocolate (few ppl are picky about chocolate), it's like buying paintings.
If the RIAA wants me to buy their music, they should be saying "What does this guy want?" instead of saying "How do we make sure this guy doesn't give his music to everybody."
Geez they act like I'm interested in giving my crap away.
Re:*Shrug* (Score:2)
They should be, though -- the difference between good and bad chocolate is about as big as, say, the gap between Bach and Eminem.
(Many thanks to Dubious-Analogies-R-Us for that one.)
The digital world exposes flaws in copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
The interesting (and disturbing) thing is that this stuff was never legal to begin with.
Copying a CD, making a mix disc for your girlfriend, having a group of people watch one copy of a videotape, loaning CDs to friends, these are all legally fuzzy.
These things have been going since the beginning of consumer recording devices. I have stacks of home-copied tapes and Apple II games from my high school days. But not until the internet have the Media Corporations been able to actually *see* the data flying around. And not until the internet have they even considered the idea of *monitoring* your recording devices.
So to them, this is great. Now they can finally fully and completely enforce all those laws that were drafted in the phonograph era and patched here and there whenever a new technology comes out.
But to the rest of us, it shows just how much power copyright law gives the copyright holder.
What to do? Well the obvious thing is to never ever buy anything from those corps again. And avoid new technology until the appropriate "DeCSS-esque" hack is available (no matter what the article says, the technology will be cracked and the information will be relatively easy to find). That way you can always remain in control of your own possessions. I don't see any other solution. The government believes "copyright" and "capitalism" go hand-in-hand, even though too strong copyright is decidedly anti-freedom and anti-capitalistic.
Boycott the MPAA in december (Score:3, Insightful)
For starters, join the boycott of all commercial movies in December 2002. The Boycott is aimed at bringing public attention to the fact that these companies are buying our representatives and using them to take away our rights. It's unlikely that we'll be able to actually cut into their profits, but hopefully it will inform enough of the public that the MPAA won't feel so good about doing it anymore. So tell your friends and family not to go to commercial movies between November 30th and January 1st (non-inclusive). Take the time you would waste staring at a screen and spend it with your family and friends, read a book, or whatever - just don't go to the theatres.
Re:Boycott the MPAA in december (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Boycott the MPAA in december (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the trouble. It counts on people choosing what's best for the world over what's best for their obsessions. Hopefully people will be able to compromise and wait until January to see the films.
Concerns about Technicalities and PBS (Score:4, Insightful)
The article states that some Television manufacturers might include anti-"theft" copy prevention systems, to deter users from recording shows on the TV. What makes me wonder about this, is what about such things as "Cable in the Classroom", a public service for the education of elementary students. I have seen it used quite often in public schools. (Whether or not the usefulness of this program is worthwhile, that is left out of this discussion)
You also have other stations such as PBS, and at times school districts and colleges may have their own channels. As a few college radio stations do around where I live in Arkansas, everything they broadcast is part of the NPR (National Public Radio) program, or locally done programming, which is all in the public domain.
An arguement can be said from people that such things as books and movies which have entered the public domain (Silent films, ne?), you still have to pay for the cost of publication, even if it is only $.75 for the Dover book version of Plato's works.
But the point is that such things as PBS, et cetera, are broadcasting free of charge, as a public service, and intend for you to be able to record these shows, for either your own children, school, et cetera. Therefore, would the television industry require them to use some encoded stream on the SAP to allow the television to record these shows? Or would it just ignore this altogether and basically say Screw you, PBS.
Just thought it would be an interesting viewpoint on this issue...
Read my post... (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38224&cid=409
In a nutshell I argue current interpretation and enforcement of copyright has to be reexamined in the context of the intent of copyright (which is a GRANT to the originator by power of law for benefit of the greater society, not an inherent right to be exploited to the detriment of greater society.)
Yes, I'm karma whoring, damnit!
Re:Concerns about Technicalities and PBS (Score:2)
Actually... WHO CARES? (Score:2)
My only really paranoid fear is all this crap will eventually lead to the entire US as a Police state. Yeah ok, so thats a little extreme. But either they will just fuckin' give up already, or they will keep getting laws passed till you need to have goveremnt issued DRM compliant occular implants so you are deported from the country.
Legality (Score:2)
There is a flip side to this coin. Most of the things people are doing illegally today, they were able to do legally yesterday.
The solution is simple: repeal the freedom-destroying laws and put a moratorium of new ones and most people will be law-abiding citizens. An added benefit is that there will be fewer blood-sucking lawyers. Add more freedom-destroying laws to the hundreds of thousands of laws already on the books, and help create a growing criminal society.
And Then Jack Valenti Will Have Lost (Score:3, Interesting)
Completely legal to copy a DVD (Score:5, Informative)
For the specifics, go to NYFairUse.org [nyfairuse.org] and learn what right you have, and what Jack Valenti, Sony, AOL Time Warner, Microsoft, Vivendi, and many others in the entertainment cartel and digital camps promoting drm are trying to ban. And find out what your legislators position on the issue is, then call them, and let them know you'll be voting on this issue this November.
For a NYC based organization that promotes Linux use, Fair Use rights, freeing Dimitry, and many other issues important to the community, see NYLXS.com [nylxs.com] and if you are from the area, drop in at our next installfest or in-service demo, or CUNY Linux demo, or our boat cruise around Manhattan on August 24th, or join us in Washington DC at our next protest against drm [newsforge.com], and attacks on our fair use rights.
Of course.... (Score:2)
Hmm... He conspicuously failed to address the day after tomorrow and all subsequent days.
4-600,000 film downloads a day? (Score:2, Interesting)
According to Viant, a Boston-based market-research firm, 400,000 to 600,000 films are illegally downloaded from the Internet each day.
How many broadband users are there worldwide? I believe I've heard numbers around 10 million. Does the typical broadband user download a full-length movie every 3 weeks? Or are most movie downloads in a very-low-quality format that is plausible to download over at 56K?
I suspect BS.
Copyright and money printing (Score:2, Interesting)
So recently a sort of law passed that says that manufacturers have to pay 6 Euro for every CD writer they sell because there is the possibility that this device is used for illegal actions.
Practically that means, that I as the customer have to pay a penalty for not doing anything illegal. I'm not able to purchase a CD writer for my downloaded ISO images of a Linux distribution or for making backup copies without paying the penalty for illegal copying.
In acient history there was a motto "in dubio pro reo" that means that you can't put a penalty on somebody if you are not totally sure that he's guilty. Nowadays it looks like its enough that the entertainment industry complains a lot about illegal copies and that its not controllable what a man does with his CD writer and so they are enabled to charge every user for illegal copies without any evidence that he really does it. Its like they got permission to print their own money.
I wonder when its time to send the male part of the population to jail since they all are carrying the tool with them that could be used to rape somebody...
For me that means that I will get my 6 Euros back by NOT buying CDs any more. After around 1000 CDs the entertainment industry convinced me that I'm probably a bad guy and that they don't want to make any more business with me.
I'm afraid it'd affect other area too (Score:2)
as price rises, consumption will fall (Score:2)
The economy is in bad shape. Lots of people are out of work. As such, they have fewer dollars to spend on non-essential items like entertainment. If the price of entertainment goes up, they'll consume less. So, Jack Valenti may get his way. But it probably won't be the outcome he wants. He should be careful what he asks for. He might just get it.
"Innocents in a jungle"??? (Score:2)
According to Viant, a Boston-based market-research firm, 400,000 to 600,000 films are illegally downloaded from the Internet each day. "[These films] are innocents in a jungle, ready to be ambushed by anyone," says Jack Valenti
This from the man who makes fun of anyone who says "information wants to be free".
No timeshifting == no more TV (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM is Theft (Score:3, Interesting)
Jack Valenti and July 17th, Washington DC, Department of Commercie DRM Workshop:
"A little Demagogary Never Hurt anyone"
Jack agian in 1982: "The VCR is to Movies like the Boston Strangler to Young Women"
Ruben Safir: President of NYLXS and Co-Founder of NY Fair Use August 2002:
"Jack Valanti is to Private Ownership and Property as the Boston Strangler to the VCR"
Jack Valenti again at the DRM Workshop:
"If this body connot find a way to agree to find a way which will protect private property from Theft then we'll just have to go to Congress and get it done"
Ruben Safir at the Press Conference after the Workshop:
"I completely agree with Jack Valenti. Congress has to step in and protect our private property from theft. It's my damn disk, my damn computer. If someone breaks into my home and steals my computer and my DVD's, who calls the cops and files the police report?
Me or Universal Pictures?
DRM is Theft. Congress must pass a law which will protect the property of every owner of a computer and purchaser of Digital Information by outlawing anything which prevents the full enjoyment of their property. We don't need prior aproval of Warner Brothers, Jack Valenti, or Barry Sorkin to use our computers to augment our enjoyment of our property. There is no forced contract to a cash sale. Forcing a contract on the public which they didn't negotiate as equal partners is a form of slavery no free citizen can put up with.
That's why we propose a New Fair Use Bill, one which guarantees that Copyright is secondary to the Constitutional Right of Security in ones Home and with one's pocessions. Because Copyright is secondary to my property rights in my home and Congress has to make it clear.
If anyone should be forced into a license, then Bertleson should be forced to License to Listen.com. That's why we gave them the limited exclussive Monopoly in the first place, to make sure the material is published. If they don't want to publish, too bad, make them do it anyway or strip them of their Monopoly.
How can we can we continue to expect to maintain a free society if we can't accumulate, copy and archive on our digital systems and information. How are we expected to be able to publish from annotated facts, with references to the original works when everything on the internet can expire or disapear. We have to be able to copy to archive. It's essential to our politcal speech, or for that matter our abilty to have party music mixed to our own enjoyment on Saturday Night."
IP Laws Are Necessary Only in a Slave System (Score:5, Insightful)
How true! Here I go again. This bears repeating over and over even if I get modded down as a troll:
Intellectual property laws exist only because we have a slavery system. Our livelihood depends on working for others so we can pay our taxes. The reason that we have to work for others is that 99% of people have been deprived of an inheritance in the wealth of the land. Income property is owned by a few and the state. The others are slaves. Artists, programmers and inventors depend on their work to make a living. Can we blame them? We all depend on our labor because we are all slaves. So now we are swimming in a ocean of laws and rules that take away our remaining liberties, one by one.
Let's face it, if you cannot put a fence around it or put chains on it, it does not belong to you. Makes no difference whether it is ideas, writings, software, music or what have you. Once you've released it, like the air, it belongs to nobody and everybody.
Intellectual property owners (such as Microsoft, Adobe, and the music industry) will fight freedom with everything they've got. Right now they have two formidable weapons: IP laws and powerful police states to enforce them. But those who yearn to be free also have a formidable weapon, the internet.
The internet and other communication technologies (e.g., file sharing systems) are the first major kinks in the armor of a sick system. As technology progresses, the system will eventually collapse. What will happen to a slave-based economy when robots and advanced artificial intelligences replace everybody, i. e., when human labor, knowledge and expertise become worthless?
[And Jack Valenti, what will the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) do when all human actors are replaced with virtual actors? Do you think they are going to sit on their arses? Should SAG follow your example and lobby congress to pass laws prohibiting virtual actors? Not that Valenti cares about actors, mind you. He seems to only care about insuring that the cash flowing into Howllywood Inc.'s coffers never stops.]
And don't think for a minute this won't happen in your lifetime. The internet is the latest giant leap in human communication. Before that came mass telecommunication technologies and before that was the movable press. If history is any indication, we can expect a giant leap in technological progress and scientific knowledge. In fact, it is happening before our very eyes.
We should all demand a system where everybody is guaranteed income property, a piece of the pie, an estate if you will. There is plenty for everybody.
Communism confiscates all property and enslaves everybody. Capitalism gives property to a few and enslaves the rest. It's sad. The land should not be divided for a price. It should be an inheritance for us and our children and their children. It's the only way to guarantee freedom and a truly free market in a world where human labor is about to go the way of the dinosaurs.
Demand liberty! Nothing less.
Re:IP Laws Are Necessary Only in a Slave System (Score:2, Interesting)
Consider it a Digital Bill of Rights for the New Millennium:
The legislation to be drafted will accomplish the following main stream objectives which all reasonable people can expect:
-All copyrights to individual scores, writings, and recordings will be returned to the original artist after a period of 10 years.
-No technology can be deployed which spies on, wiretaps or discloses privately owned information which is stored on digital devices by any government agency or private 3rd party without the issuance of a publicly pronounced and disclosed warrant limited to a specific criminal investigation.
-All copyright cases must prove, prior to a judgment of guilt, proof that the actions in question did not infringe on Fair Use, and the individuals rights under the 4th and 1st amendment of the Bill of rights US Constitution.
-Ownership of all physical media, and devices to read such media, is the sole property of the purchaser of the media, without an expressly negotiated and signed contract between both the copyright holder and the purchaser.
-No technological software or hardware method can be deployed in a digital product and made available for normal retail sale which inhibits, in any way, the full enjoyment of the property by the purchasers, regardless of any agreement between the designer of the hardware or software products. Such agreements are null, and not contractible.
-Copyright is an exception to Fair Use as it limits the ability for individuals to enjoy their private property and express themselves with the use of such copyrighted materials. Fair Use is a doctrine to be based on the 4th and 1st amendments of the US Constitution.
-Individuals have the right to express themselves to others about the means, mechanism and workings of all digital devices, including but not limited to, discussion on how to make fair use of media, how to improve such devices, or to reverse engineer all such devices and the algorithms which are used to help them display, copy or run media.
We need to get as many big guns on this as possible and then relentlessly campaign, actively working to elect supporters and vote out incumbent opposition. In fact, we should look to defeat, not just the proposed spyware legislation, but also defeat Senator Hollings
Re:IP Laws Are Necessary Only in a Slave System (Score:3, Insightful)
> we have a slavery system. Our livelihood
> depends on working for others so we can pay our
> taxes. The reason that we have to work for
> others is that 99% of people have been deprived
> of an inheritance in the wealth of the land.
> Income property is owned by a few and the
> state.
If everyone owned some, it would no longer be income property. Why pay someone else to use their property if you can use yours just as well?
> The others are slaves. Artists, programmers and
> inventors depend on their work to make a
> living. Can we blame them?
Not at all. Artistic talent, programming acumen and inventiveness are amongst the few income properties which can't be taken away by the rich. The fact that in order to realise the income they have to sell their souls to distribution companies *IS* a problem, but the fact they live on their work ISN'T.
In the system you propose, a talented musician would be unable to write music because he'd have to spend all his time maintaining his physical 'income property', and he'd have no reason to release the music to others because they'd be no extra income for doing so.
> Intellectual property owners (such as
> Microsoft, Adobe, and the music industry) will
> fight freedom with everything they've got.
> Right now they have two formidable weapons: IP
> laws and powerful police states to enforce
> them. But those who yearn to be free also have
> a formidable weapon, the internet.
I hate to tell you this, but it simply isn't true. The internet isn't run by 'those who yearn to be free'. It's run by big companies who have just as many interests as the IP owners. Lemme guess, you're posting this in Internet Explorer?
> What will happen to a slave-based economy when
> robots and advanced artificial intelligences
> replace everybody, i. e., when human labor,
> knowledge and expertise become worthless?
Everybody goes to work fixing the robots.
> We should all demand a system where everybody
> is guaranteed income property, a piece of the
> pie, an estate if you will. There is plenty for
> everybody.
Then you hit the above problem - it stops being income.
A better one would be to pass a law saying that the owners of income property must use it to the good of society (although of course they can use it for their own benefit too if that is compatible). In my home town, many small businesses are being crippled by the fact that the big firms have bought big chunks of commercial land in the town centre and have let it lie fallow and decrepit. They only bought it so a competitor couldn't. Eugh.
> Communism confiscates all property and enslaves
> everybody. Capitalism gives property to a few
> and enslaves the rest. It's sad. The land
> should not be divided for a price. It should be
> an inheritance for us and our children and
> their children.
These are incompatible, I'm sure you see.
Anti-piracy is not the real goal of these laws! (Score:2)
WHY? Why should they give a f*%k if consumers are buying new digital televisions and getting broadband? What does that really have to do with the economy? The way they talk about it, it was as if this were THE ANSWER to all of our economic problems....yeah, I can just hear the fat bastards and their groveling, whiney lobbyists now....
But don't even think about creating your own content though...that's forbidden in the "Acceptable Use Policy" for most broadband providers (no servers, and if you post on their hosted machines, you give them all rights to the content). They only want you to consume, not compete. Most AUP's only allow information to travel ONE direction....from the marketeers to you.
But don't answer yet, if you liked broadband policies, you are gonna love "Digital Convergence"... when your computer is prevented from doing anything usefull (like running software that you wrote and/or compiled yourself) and is morphed into a constant movie trailer machine....that you can never fast forward through!
The way things are going now, I'm not going to be purchasing a "NEW DIGITAL TELEVISION" and I hope that others don't either! Keep your old set! Stay analog!
Aha (Score:2)
I just noticed a subtle thing in what Jack Valenti said that can make a pretty big difference, and knowing him, may well have been intentional:
You'll notice that instead of saying "they'll be able to do tomorrow", he says "they'll be able to do legally tomorrow." What he is saying is that what is legal today will be legal tomorrow; what he is not saying is that what is legal and doable today will be doable tomorrow. Saying that one will be able to "legally do" something does not necessarily imply that the same act will actually be doable, just that it won't be illegal to do.
Think of the CHILDREN!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait, Jack was being mellow dramatic... ah... I get it now. Never mind.
Seriously, they can legislate, tax, rant, criminalize and encrypt all they want. They'll never win and they'll still be Hollywood so they'll still be making billions. They can spend millions of dollars figuring it out and push people's freedoms to the limit. People will still 'pirate' songs for their own use, third world distribution pirates will still get away with it, good artists will do well, bad ones won't and life will go on.
Pay them no mind, help with the circumvention when you can and support the people who are standing up to this non-sense. But never will there be an underground file sharing 'le resistance' and no matter how hard or illegal it becomes, we'll still be listening to our mp3s at work.
Underestimating the power of social systems. (Score:2)
Copying data, on the other hand, is something that a lot of people like to do. Having a few people lobby about not copying data may work in the short term, but in the long term enough people who are doing copying legitimately will run into the barriers artificially imposed by the lobbyists, and the backlash will be resounding.
Why are region free players so popular in Europe and Asia, etc? Because people want the most feature-filled releases, and are willing to pay for it. The money is there for those who want to provide the access, legal or not. And enough people want it that, like prohibition, it will eventually be overturned.
Social systems at work may take a while to correct, but they will correct, and the tryanny of a few trying to get more money by selling less will end.
Anal sex is a failure? (Score:2)
Yes, you can come up with reasons why you, specifically, may not do it, but freedom of choice is one of those Big Ideas that a lot of people have trouble dealing with.
Social groupings do work on the large scale, you just have to learn how they work. In the case of humans, we still scale up fairly well because our actual social groups are fairly small, and it is fairly hard to hide our actions from within them, unless we cut ourselves off from them. When you walk down the street, you avoid strangers subconciously. You have very segregated and well defined social groups: work friends, normal friends, best friends, etc.
The way humans have adapted from a small social-group climate to city life is very interesting if you study it. On the very grand scale, things like region encoding and the war on drugs won't stop something if enough people feel that it's not a crime, and enough don't care to enforce rules made up by the few people who actually don't like it.
Even the more moderate people see no problem with marijuana because it's demonstraited to be largely harmless, especially compared to the addictive potientials of nicotine or heroine.
Another Chapter in "Been there, done that" (Score:2)
Re:Another Chapter in "Been there, done that" (Score:2)
Evidence indicates that they're doing just that.
Otherwise, they'd be doing political organization, throwing in megabucks into an industry PAC, and calling on the community for help.
What's really going on is that they are putting even less effort than MS did into "Trustworthy Computing".
The industry is taking the wrong approach (Score:5, Insightful)
- Introduce oppression as a theoretical idea. Guage the response.
- Make oppression optional. Depending on the opposition to the idea (you did remember to guage the response to the theoretical idea, didn't you?), offer some worthless token that the masses believe has some great value and tell the masses that the oppression is the "tradeoff" needed to obtain the token. Highlight the fact that it is still optional -- if they don't want the token, they don't have to accept the oppression. Some people will buy into it; others won't.
- Make oppression mandatory for some things. It is essential that you create the appearance that the masses have a choice. Only instead of pointing out that those who do not choose your oppression are missing out on exclusive benefits, paint the opposition as a deluded group of sadists who are "depriving themselves" of "basic rights" to your worthless tokens. This will win you converts, because no one wants to be seen as depriving himself of anything.
- Make oppression mandatory across the board. If you have followed the above steps, you can now claim that the oppression is the de facto standard that has not only been "accepted" but "endorsed" by the masses. Anyone who questions the oppression can be refuted with this claim, which will strengthen the masses' belief that the oppression is "right" and "good." At this point, you may withdraw the worthless tokens or advance your oppression, because the masses no longer have a choice -- they have already made it and must trust their own judgment.
The industry seemed to be following this pattern pretty well.DIVX was its theoretical idea, which created a backlash that was carefully guaged.
The masses who bought DVDs (which are optional -- a superior alternative to VHS for those who like the finer things in life) congratulated themselves on defeating the sinister premise of pay-per-view disks, but gave no thought to the copy-protection and region-encoding incorporated into DVDs. "At least we're not paying to watch our own disks!" And people can still tape movies from cable/broadcast TV, so they feel secure because they have that option.
Consumers are all too happy to pay more for the superior picture and sound on a disk that actually costs the industry less to mass produce and ship than VHS tapes. The higher price and the mandatory five-minute commercials (which one could FFWD through on a VCR) are accepted as the "tradeoff" for these great benefits. The industry sweetens the deal by offering special features for PCs (worthless Flash games that could be reused from disk to disk by slapping a new front end on them -- anyone play the Bowling Game on the Shrek DVD?) and chides non-converts for "depriving themselves" of their basic rights to the superior picture quality and sound of DVD. Meanwhile, DVDs that work with your PC now install software on your PC, connect to industry Web sites (sending who knows what information back) and some even require you to register to use the "features" on your disk. "Why not," people shrug, "I already bought the disk. I'm not going to deprive myself of features I paid for just because I'm afraid to give out my name and address."
Here's where Valenti fucks up. He should have killed the consumer's ability to record when it was in its infancy. He certainly tried, but failed, and people became accustomed to being able to make and share recordings (share as in "bring a movie to a friend's house," not Napster).
Since he failed to kill the consumer's ability to record, he should have conceeded that victory to the people -- then they would continue to follow him blindly, satisfied with their little VCRs. Now that he tells us we've been been breaking the law all this time, that we are not only morally but legally wrong, he may lose the trust of the sheep. If he mounts a serious effort to inform consumers that they cannot watch movies at friends houses, that they cannot tape movies off their TVs, the sheep may wake up. And they won't be happy little sheep anymore.
Remember Divx? (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember. Sales were slow - why? because the discs weren't portable. You registered it to YOUR player and YOUR player only. Your player broke? You had to call them and beg them to unlock the disc for another player.
There was an article in Salon bout 2 months ago with Courtney Love. this article [salon.com] where she talks aobut Record Labels and Piracy. A VERY good read. Even if you (like I do) think her music sucks.
I think, as she states, that we're going to see a big upheaval in the Recording Industry as a whole. Not by the consumers, but by the artists. Artists are out there to create something, and to have that something viewed or listened to by the public masses. Not to be censored down so far as to only PAYING customers by record companies that only have themselves to think about..
Wish I had the venture capital to start what she's talking about.
They're right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman wrote a wonderful piece of science fiction on the subject. If you want to think about where this is going, it's worth reading. [gnu.org]
When you think about how it's possible for such a small industry (content is infinitessimal compared to, for instance, consumer electronics) to have such incredible influence, remember that politicians have a unique respect for those who control the media.
It's a remarkably cynical viewpoint, but the television in some ways restored an old social order called the monarchy. Content actually is King. More specifically, those who control the TV rule the world. I mean, think about it; that joke doesn't quite get the laugh it used to. Anyone who'se ever worked for a cause and felt the crushing, inevitable apathy of the world around them knows what I mean. Five minutes on Oprah could mobilize tens of millions of people to vote or to read or to free Tibet, but at the moment its highest calling is to sell beer and diet drugs.
And the days when the media owners were innocent and principled are ancient history. [time.com] They know what they're doing. The federal government's ONDCP editing scripts of prime time TV shows? [salon.com] Disney making anti-file-sharing propaganda cartoons? [wired.com] Oh, they know exactly how it works.
They may be doomed anyway, but the content trust will fight brutally to the end. They'll take whatever we wont fight to the death over. They'll leave a wake of ruined lives and an ocean of lost opportunity in their wake. If we're lucky, our children and their children will get to clean up the mess we make today.
Right to Read (Score:2, Informative)
They have to compete with old material (Score:2)
Let's assume that these new schemes, unlike all the others that have come down the pike, will really be solid.
It just means that people can't trade this year's crappy new content. Here's a tough problem: listen to The Beatles for free or to the latest manufactured boy band or Celine Dion type singer for $20 a disc, when there's only one halfway decent song on the disc?
The entertainment industry depends, in a very fundamental sense, on controlling access to the distribution systems. If you want your record at the Virgin Megastore, you've got to give a big label a cut. An unreasonably big cut, in my opinion.
They're acting as if they've got better music than people outside of their system. Ask anyone who listens to indie or underground music -- that's just not true. All they have is distribution. Even if they can build a closed and pirate proof system, THEY CAN'T KEEP PEOPLE FROM DISTRIBUTING MUSIC AND MOVIES IN OTHER WAYS. The ability to prevent people from distributing their art has always been the foundation of their power. That's why the mob was (is?) so important to the music business. They understood that, and they enforced it.
In other words, artists will be able to do an end run around them. They're going to go from having the best distribution to having a crippled distribution system, one that delivers a less desirable product, due to the heavy restrictions they're fighting for now.
Hollywood doesn't get it. You can channel a river, but you can't stop it all together, and the changes that technology is bringing down the pike are too big for anything but channeling. But they don't try to do that. The entertainment industry reacts the same way over and over again -- they try to litigate and copy protect their way back to the way things used to be.
Well, it ain't ever going to be the way it used to be. Until they start coming out with strategies to deal with the world as it is now, they're screwed.
Valenti is a dinosaur who is leading them to disaster.
This is a marketing ploy. (Score:2, Insightful)
How can it be, then, that everyone knows this except the industries themselves?
Obviously, they must know they'll make money from everything from region-code DVD hacking (sells more DVD's) to song swapping (creates more popularity for the music and thus sells more CD's.)
So what is going on here? Why doth they protesteth so?
The answer is, they use Forbidden Fruit as a marketing device. Young people especially - the big prize money as marketing demographics go - love to break rules and challenge authority. So the Industries use some reverse psychology and vehemently protest these technologies and practices. This encourages people to partake of them out of rebellion, which in turn generates more revenue for the Industries. And if they're lucky, the Industries pick up some Tax(ation without representation) money to boot.
Nice, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Jack Valenti is _WRONG_ (Score:2)
So, mister Jack Valenti, try and prove in a court of law that my copies are *not* commensurate with fair use. I'll be happy to show you my originals sitting safely in their original boxes in my bookcase.
Just because I *can* violate copyright, doesn't mean I'm going to (well... I guess some might say I've violated the DMCA a few times, but if you look very closely at the text of it, you will see that it was specifically intended to *not* limit fair use).
Product and Piracy (Score:3, Interesting)
The FM radio plays the songs that the record industry paid to put there. As far as the RIAA is concerned, you can record your favorite radio station 24/7/365. Why? Because they know that if you really like a song, you'll get the CD so you can really hear it. The reason is that given the compression, limiting, and the general limitations of an analog bandwidth-limited FM channel, there's a big difference between what you can record off a radio in cassette and what you'll hear if you play back a CD. The best you can say about the quality is "good enough for casual listening".
A few years ago, the product was vinyl records and people found out what was on the records by listening to tracks on AM/FM radio. Yes, people once listened to music on AM.
These tracks played on radio are and were PROMOTIONAL TOOLS. No promotion, i.e. if the people have no way to hear what is on a record, they won't buy it. Why should we pay the industry's promo costs, except as they are reflected in the price of the actual product?
An MP3 is in many ways comparable to an FM radio signal. Is it a "perfect copy"? If it is, why doesn't everybody but the totally honest download all their music? Despite what's been done to shut down P2P and Internet Radio, it's still possible to get almost anything if you know how/where to look. Why do people buy CDs?
It isn't just about supporting artists, it's just that CDs sound better.
128K MP3 quality isn't about getting every nuance of the music to your ears, it's about being "good enough" for casual listening.
The MP3 IS A PROMOTIONAL TOOL designed to get you to buy the CD. Anyone who mistakes MP3s for products has just fallen for the hype of the people who want to turn our computers into DRM-locked household appliances.
Why does RIAA care about MP3s and not FM radio? Because independent artists can distribute MP3s via upload to Internet radio networks and to P2P networks without having to pay a gatekeeper fee to independent promoters to get to FM radio. The RIAA labels keep the gatekeeper fees (aka payola) high enough to freeze out "just anybody".
Do MP3s as promotional tools work? There's a recent album that was released by an unknown band itself on MP3 for promotional purposes before they started selling the CD. They made a very nice profit off it.
Do MP3s work as promotional tools for major record labels? The evidence indicates that it works just as well as FM radio does.
What's the problem?
This isn't about piracy, it's about monopoly.
I wouldn't mind paying say, $1-2 for a CD-quality track I really liked, if there was any practical way to deliver a 50 meg download... this takes a while even with a broadband link... and I'm running 56K anyway.
Buy an MP3? I'm not interested in paying for music whose sound is "just good enough". If you're a musician, I'll repay your promotional costs when I buy your record. Don't expect me to pay your promo costs up front, if I can't find out whether or not your CD is worth buying by listening to some tracks at "just good enough" quality to figure out whether I want it or not, I'll find some artist who doesn't expect me to pay promotional costs in advance.
That's the real problem with the MP3 music services, regardless of vendor and regardless of the level of DRM built into the product/player.
People know whether they articulate it or not that there's a difference between sound worth paying for and freebie promotional tools whose sound is just good enough to tell you whether the CD is worth buying or not. What an MP3 service provider can do for you is provide you with lots of MP3 music packaged conveniently. . . so you can figure out what CDs you want to buy.
Why? Not because of artist loyalty or love of the RIAA, because CDs actually sound better, and if you've got a big bucks stereo system, you want to use it so you can listen to every little nuance of what your favorite artists do.
For an MP3 service, you are buying access to music, NOT the MP3s. This isn't to say that you want one-shot MP3s or time-locked, etc. You might decide to listen to your favorite new album on MP3 for a month or a year before you get around to buying. Maybe you're short on money and have to wait until your next check. But if you really like it, you'll buy the CD sooner or later. The artist and label make just as much money if you buy it a year from now after listening to the MP3 1,000 times as they do if you decide you've got to have it 30 seconds into the song.
The people who whine about PIRACY are the ones who haven't figured out what the RIAA labels know.
A product people will NOT pay for has a cash value of ZERO.
Sure, you'll rip the CD under "fair usage" afterwards if the RIAA's 0wn3d Congresswhores don't stop you, but generally where you can play it under circumstances where "just good enough" is good enough, e.g. your MP3 player when you're out jogging or doing other things where you don't have your full attention on the music.
The fair usage is what the RIAA/MPAA want to redefine out of existence.
Re:never has been (Score:5, Informative)
I DO make copies of my DVD's mr Valenti...and I will fight for my right to do so.
Anti-DMCA Candidates (Score:3, Informative)
Re:never has been (Score:2)
Well, that settles it.
Of course there's substantial financial harm.. After all, if you couldn't have made that copy, you'd run out, be a good little droid^H^H^H^H^Hconsumer and buy a second copy. That 20-30 bucks they lost out on is substantial!!!
Note for the sarcasm impaired - Duh.
Re:never has been (Score:3, Interesting)
While you have a right to make copies for personal use, equipment and content companies are not obliged to provide the ability to make copies to you. Confused? Take Macrovision. The movie industry has no obligation to provide you with something to circumvent Macrovision so you can make copies for yourself. Macrovision does not take away your rights to make copies, and when you circumvent this copy-protection scheme to make a copy, you are still within your rights.
Now you can see why the battle is fought by the RIAA/MPAA on many fronts. Valenti is fighting a lost war: he wants to take away our fair-use rights. A bit silly of him: there is nothing to gain here and much to lose... much as the general public ignores the copyright issues, this is something they will not stand for.
The RIAA/MPAA are on the case though: they seem to be quite successful in mandating copy-prevention technology in next-generation equipment. Not only that, but they will make it a crime to circumvent these measures. They will say "Hey, we never took away your fair-use rights! You can still make copies, but we have had to put in these anti-piracy devices, oh and by the way: circumventing these will land you in jail. But sure, your fair-use rights still hold".
Flawed Logic (Score:3, Interesting)
content companies are not obliged to provide the ability to make copies to
you.
This logic is flawed. If you have the right to do something then they
can't make laws that completely prevent you from exercising that right.
If they make copying of digital materials impossible by technical means
and combine this with laws that make the circumvention of these means
illegal, then they have by definition taken a right away.
So if I understand you correctly, you agree then, that we should not
have fair use rights. If that is your position then the logic becomes
consistent.
There is no such right? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Fouding Fathers knew that it was not enough to guarantee people's rights, because some morons would try to argue those rights away, they took steps to make sure the people would have the rights to *fight* for their rights. A copyright breaking device is a weapon against injustice, and it's our *sacred right*, according to the Second Ammendment, to keep and bear it.
Re:never has been (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with digital technology is that there is no degradation of quality and that makes the potential for abuse staggering. That is why the industries are overenforcing copyright laws and making silly new laws to try to protect their intellectual property. If people didn't abuse their ability to copy IP, there wouldn't be any laws against it, but if you provide people with a situation where there's very little stopping them from committing a crime and no immediate consequences, the vast majority will not care that it's immoral or illegal and the rest will simply forget because everybody else is doing it. The problem is not a legislative one, it's a moral one: "Thou shalt not steal." Not that hard and you don't have to be religious to see the social benefit of it. (I'm not religious, but I try to avoid theft and murder and adultery and the like)
Re:never has been (Score:4, Interesting)
I may be totally off base, but I don't think the reason the entertainment industry is fighting digital technology is because they are worried about Joe Consumer copying CDs and giving them to friends. People have been making copies of stuff for the last 20-30 years, and while the Internet may facilitate the process some, I don't think it greatly increases the damage on individual consumer can inflict on the entertainment industry. When I was in high school and college 15 years ago, people copied records (remeber those?) and CDs all the time..it's something those who are perpetually low on cash do. The Internet extends an individual's reach to some degree, but how many people can I email my CDs to anyway? Widescale distribution through things like Kazaa can be abusive, but those people could be caught and dealt with accordingly. With extreme DRM technolgy measures, the ones who are seriously trying to stick it to the industry through piracy will find ways to circumvent the technology and Joe Consumer will be left paying over and over for what costs him once today.
The real threat that the entertainment industry is trying to fight off is the independent music artist or film maker. The Internet has the potential to completely bypass the people who control the entertainment industry today and they don't like it. If they lose control over how digital works are distributed, they lose their cut and they whither and die. They are hiding behind the facade of "piracy" to protect their franchise. If the draconian DRM measures take hold, you'll wake up to find one day that even distributing your own works will be defined as "piracy" since the entertainment industry hasn't sanctioned said distribution.
--z
Re:never has been (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. This is completely wrong. Ok, not completely, but what you write there is what the music industry wants people to believe.
Their worst problem is not the storage technology, it's the transport/distribution technology. A single person can reach much more people via the internet than in real life, potientally leaking out the stolen music to the whole world.
But it's not as easy as that. Look at games/software, we know they are pirated a lot, and they lend themselves more to pirating than music/movies, but it seems the game publishers do get enough people to buy their games. Why?
Because of the packaging, because people think the price is adequate, because they want to play online and the server checks the serial of the game, and whatnot. Mostly it may be that online gaming fact today, and shows how the game publishers did turn the internet from their enemy to their friend, at least partly.
Now, the problem with music/movies is that there is not so much additional worth in getting the data you want in a physical container (jewel case). At the same time the prices are not adequate in the public perception. This gets people to warezing.
But the real problem for big music/movie publishers is that the internet makes a classical distribution channel obsolete, unfortunately for them this distribution is their only real selling point, it's the only real unique offer they have for musicians.
Think about it, everything else could be done with a musician/producer combo. The producer makes a deal with the musician, finances the production and sells the stuff over the internet. This new supply chain does not need a player like a global music publisher.
Re:never has been (Score:3, Interesting)
Coincidentally, listen.com is NOT competing. Approximately 40 million people have stolen music with a filesharing program. Listen.com, oddly enough, doesn't advertise the number of users to whom it provides service, but I'd hazard a guess of less-than-40-million. Even the record companies wouldn't sneeze at 40 million times 10 bucks a month.
Re:never has been (Score:5, Insightful)
Really ? I thought it had never been legal to make copies of copyrighted works and give them to someone else
Not quite (Score:3)
Re:Al Capone anyone? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Christian SCIENTISTS!!! We can't trust them (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mathematics Vs Copyright protection (Score:2)
I guess you didn't read this one [slashdot.org]
Most of us don't get algebra, much less this proof craziness!