Surefire Way To Stifle Innovation 350
denissmith writes "C|NET has a very funny piece by Patrick Ross, where he pooh-pooh's Congressman Rick Boucher's (D-VA) efforts to protect Fair Use by claiming that it will stifle innovation." From the article: "If HR-1201 becomes law, every consumer could legally hack any TPM by claiming fair use, and as fair use isn't codified, there would be as many definitions of it as there are consumers. Consumers would be legally sanctioned to break their contracts with the content provider. No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits. That hated TPM would disappear from the market, as there's no reason to employ a lock if everyone has a legal right to the key. But as TPM leaves, so do the digital offerings that come with it."
Surest Way To Stifle Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Surest Way To Stifle Innovation (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Surest Way To Stifle Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
Which is really just a new meta-term for DRM (Digital Rights Management). Don't you just love TLAs? Just be glad you're not in the USN (US Navy) or other GMB (Government Military Branch). They love their acronyms.
Re:Surest Way To Stifle Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Surest Way To Stifle Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surest Way To Stifle Innovation (Score:3, Informative)
No, I think you had it right the first time :)
Re:Surest Way To Stifle Innovation (Score:3, Informative)
I thought it was Toilet Paper Malfunction.
Re:Surest Way To Stifle Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Surest Way To Stifle Innovation (Score:2)
TPM (Score:2)
This guy is an industry shill (Score:5, Insightful)
Patrick Ross works for The Progress & Freedom Foundation, a think tank based in Washington, D.C., and its Center for the Study of Digital Property. Earlier this week, the Progress & Freedom Foundation filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the RIAA and MPAA in their legal fight against file-swapping software companies Grokster and StreamCast Networks.
'nuff said.
You're right , but consider something my friend (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a professional software guy and I bet you are too.
Slashdot itself has a groupthink just like any other community. Amish folk dislike electricity. Daily Kos dislikes Republicans. And we the Slashdotters generally dislike Microsoft and the RIAA.
So yeah, you're right to an extent, but Patrick Ross has the right to give his RIAA-biased opinions just as much as you have the right to give your software/Linux/techie-biased opinion.
Re:You're right , but consider something my friend (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, Mr. Ross is presenting "his" opinions as the representative of what, at first glance, might appear to be a consumer rights group, and is using a (fairly) respectable on-line publication to do it.
Whereas we're commenting on a
It doesn't take much to figure out that this guy's so-called opinions are nothing more than a PR team'
Re:You're right , but consider something my friend (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it impossible to be unbiased? Because we all have opinions. Even down to the events that an article chooses to relate, to the emphasis given can show our bias. Even if that bias is unintentional. A fly on the wall only sees certain things from a certain view. Give me two flys, on opposite walls, and I will have all the much more information to base a decision on. Three flys on differing walls is even more info.
So why do you ask for unbiasedness? Why not take what he has to say, then read the EFF website and see what they have to say, and base your decision on the arguments given. Listening to only one source, no matter how unbiased you think that source is, is a very shallow way of learning, and you are simply asking them to give you an opinion. That's not to say you will always walk away with their opinion, you may hate them so much that whatever they say you'll disagree with simply to spite them. Either way though, they are giving you your opinion.
An excellent example of this is right here. You'll have the RIAA haters shouting loudly that the RIAA sucks, then you'll have the RIAA saying loudly that you suck. No one is listening to the other and trying to find a middle ground that is right. (Note I am not saying that the exact middle is the right way. But typically there is some give and take, where both sides have a point).
I'm reminded of the old saying, "If I wanted your opinion, I'd tell it to you."
"Unbiased news" (Score:3)
"98% of scientists say that evolution occurred, but did it? Up next, we'll have the arguments of almost the whole scientific community, versus a small group of people with degrees from degree mills, on the subject of what should be taught in the science classroom."
"Up next: A group of swift
The Amish (Score:4, Informative)
That's not really true. In fact, visit any amish community today, and you shouldn't be too surprised if you see an old woman on a handmade rocking chair talking on a cell phone, for example. Amish use electric lights, and even computers at times.
The Amish don't outright reject electricty, and they don't outright reject technology. Unlike us ("the English", to them), however, they don't automatically accept any new technology, either. The more liberal members of the amish community start using new technologies when they come out. The effects of the technology are looked at - if the people who use the technology start spending less time bonding with their families and communities, or other "social ills" start to come of the technology, then Amish leaders reject the technology, and those who use it are discouraged from doing so. This is why home telephones are not allowed (people chat on the phone instead of with their families and neighbors), but the most modern gas grills are allowed (cookouts bring communities together). The amish also like to be more technologically independent (for example, they prefer heat-powered devices over electric powered, even if it's propane heat, and manually haul the propane; they could always switch to other heat sources), but technological independence isn't the prime driving factor.
Often, compromises (for example, allowed at work, not allowed at home) are made. Work generally tends to be higher tech, as they need to remain competitive with "the English". Cell phones seem to be moving in that direction. Unlike regular phones, however, cell phones may prove more problematic for the amish - while the whole community could see phone lines heading to the house of a family that used a regular phone, cell phones are "hidden", and thus they don't have as much social pressure on home cell phone users.
Re:The Amish (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:2)
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a market-oriented [corporate-centric] think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy. Its mission is to educate [lobby] policymakers, opinion leaders and the public about issues associated with technological change, based on a philosophy of limited government [Don't legislate against us, only for us], free markets [Ditto] and individual sovereignty [Don't let consumer rights groups interfere with us making money].
PFF's research combines academic analysis [paid-for studies] with a practical understanding of how public policy is actually made [yet more lobbying]. Its senior fellows and other scholars are leading experts in their fields, with distinguished careers in government [ex-government officials turned lobbyists], business [corporate mouthpieces], academia [assistant lecturers desparate for grant money] and public policy [our pet politicians]. Its research is substantive, scholarly and unbiased [Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!]. At the same time [yes, we really were lying in the previous sentence], PFF is focused on having an impact on public policy.
PFF's underlying philosophy combines an appreciation for the positive impacts of technology with a classically conservative view of the proper role of government [See previous comment about not interfering with us making money]. We believe that the technological change embodied in the digital revolution has created tremendous opportunities for enhanced individual liberty [See previous comment about those goddamn consumer rights groups], as well as wealth creation [for us] and higher living standards [for us]. Those opportunities can only be realized if governments resist the temptation to regulate [DMCA? What's that? Extension of copyright? Never heard of it] , tax [us] and control [us]. Government has important roles to play in society [like helping us], including protecting [our] property rights and individual liberties [hahahaha], but its tendency is to reach beyond its legitimate functions in ways that harm [help] consumers, burden citizens [with all this messy legal stuff they really don't need to know about, right? By the way, Mr. Senator, how many callgirls will you be needing tonight?] and slow progress [of the growth of our bank balances]."
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:2)
In that light, it doesn't surpris
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:2)
The thing about "think tanks" is th
Re:Our survey said - "uh uhhh" (Score:2)
A very good example, but that does not summarily prove that another particular law will also increase freedoms in general. In particular, I would argue that a -generic- "Fair Use trumps Contract Law" law would certainly decrease freedom by a large and untenable degree. Does the freedom to wantonly disgregard the
Progress & Freedom Foundation "Supporters" (Score:5, Informative)
- Clear Channel
- MGM
- Sony Music Entertainment
- Time Warner
- VIACOM
- Vivendi
Patrick Ross is nothing but a whore turning tricks for his pimps.
Re:This guy is an industry shill (Score:2, Insightful)
The guy may be an industry shill, but that doesn't prove his argument wrong or yours right.
Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I think this is the first time I've seen a summary that doesn't try to put a spin on the article one way or another. (Not that such things are always the fault of the posters. So called "objective journalists" are just as bad, if not worse.) The summary, and the article, come across clearly that this is a double-edged sword. By taking the opposite extreme in an attempt to balance out the DMCA, this bill may cause extrodinary harm to the businesses who produce the content that consumers want to have fair use rights over. Causing harm to them would cause a reduction in quality and quantity of content production, just as the DMCA has caused a change in consumer purchasing habits.
The golden middle is to not muck with laws that work in the first place. Sadly, we're far beyond that. None the less, the DMCA has not had as chilling of an effect as was once expected. As the Lexmark vs. SCC case has shown, courts are beginning to find in favor of fair use, slowly erroding the power of the DMCA by way of precident.
Will this new bill help or hurt? I think that remains to be seen.
As an aside, I have to say that I'm getting pretty tired of the "defend the innovation!" cry. Microsoft used the same line of B.S. in their court cases, and it didn't sway public opinion then any more than shouting it from the rooftops will sway public opinion now. Let's see these companies who are using this line actually do something innovative for a change, then we'll think about accepting it. In the meantime, it's a tainted as the buzzword "Synergy".
Re:Confused (Score:2)
Honestly, I think this is the first time I've seen a summary that doesn't try to put a spin on the article one way or another.
He was very serious, but the submitter said the article is funny. That's belittling [reference.com], and means that he's a funny little man and if you agree, you're funny too.
Chilling effect: Court cases cost money. (Score:2, Interesting)
No chilling effects? How much money did that Lexmark case cost Static Control? Could you personally afford to fight Lexmark in court? No, I didn't think so. So you think DMCA precedent was set in the Lexmark v. SCC case? Then why is SCC now suing ISV [rechargermag.com] for doing the exact sam
Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
It comes across clearly that the author thinks it is a double-edged sword, but it isn't clear that it is.
His claim is that consumers could legally hack any DRM scheme by claiming fair use, which "isn't codified". That's wrong. There may not be a clear line in some cases, but it is absolutely codified and has a lot of case history involved, and the kind of copying the businesses we're talking about are worried about does clearly fall in the not-fair-use side. So he's also wroing in that a person could not legally claim fair use and hack the DRM for any reason they want.
His argument boils down to: Consumers "purchas[ing] exactly the amount of use they need" from big content industry is "innovation", big content won't distribute content without DRM, and allowing citizens to exercise fair use rights without being sued for breaking DRM in doing so is the same as not having DRM at all.
Like you, I don't think we can really say what the result will be without at least reading the law, and then seeing how it is played out in reality. But based this article's take on what the bill does, this article's take on the result is utter crap.
None the less, the DMCA has not had as chilling of an effect as was once expected.
I know! People were predicting that someone could be arrested merely for discussing a security flaw, resulting in security researchers being afraid to visit the U.S., and what a load of hogwash that turned out to be.
But in all seriousness, I think the extent to which the DMCA has failed to have a "chilling effect" is the extent to which people have either ignored it or not been under the jurisdiction of the government that created it. Mostly the latter. Where did DeCSS come from again? And why isn't it in my us.debian.org apt repository, or any other U.S. distro?
As the Lexmark vs. SCC case has shown, courts are beginning to find in favor of fair use, slowly erroding the power of the DMCA by way of precident.
All the Lexmark case showed was that a company can't use the DMCA for whatever the fuck it wants whenever it wants. Lexmark was essentially claiming that the chip on their cartridges was an access control mechanism to protect the copyrighted code on the chip on their cartridges, so making a compatible interface was a DMCA violation. If the courts had bought this, it would have been an expansion of the power of the DMCA. Not expanding isn't the same as eroding at all.
Re:Confused (Score:2)
Re:Confused (Score:4, Interesting)
And this guy (AKAImBatman) who's come out of nowhere
To quote tweety bird, "He don't know me wery well, do he?"
claiming to be confused and making bizarre convoluted claims which come down with the non-obvious conclusion that the article is correct in declaring that Fair Use is bad and will stifle innovation.
No, that would be your interpretation of what I said. Free yourself from the groupthink man! Fight the... err... anti-man... um... after you fought "The Man"... eh... and all that jazz. Or you could just think for yourself.
Seriously, these things are always more complicated than Slashdot often makes them out to be. Creating a law that redefines Fair Use to an extreme *may* be as bad as the DMCA itself. It's important to understand what it's all about before getting behind it. Personally, I think that this at least shows that some of our representatives are thinking about their actual constituants. Unfortunately, I can't say if I support this bill until I've read it. (And yes, I've read the DMCA. And no, it's not entirely bad.)
official UID penis envy thread (Score:2)
Only reply if you have a lower UID. I know you are lurking.
Number of Consumers (Score:2, Insightful)
And how many customers would actually have the desire to hack theirs? It took me 3 hours to teach my dad to use a DVR. For some reason I don't see him or the majority of people out there taking advantage of this.
"very funny piece"??? (Score:2)
Daniel
Re:"very funny piece"??? (Score:2)
Re:"very funny piece"??? (Score:2)
=Smidge=
Re:"very funny piece"??? (Score:2)
agreed, "un-codified" fair use, where "fair use" is superior to contract law. I should have every freedom to both offer and accept offerings of content bound by the most severe of restrictions possible, even "not even you can watch this even once". Why should such a contract be illegal? Why should the person who openly accepts it be permitted to defy it?
Neither bill matters anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
It really peeves me when we add laws on top of laws rather than repealing bad ones and drafting new ones to cover changes. Innovation has occurred for thousands of years without copyright or patent protection. Free use wasn't even a phrase until we started to see tyrannical laws that abuse basic rights, inherent to all humans regardless of what their governments say or do.
Whatever movement is made in the law books, nothing will matter. The Internet combines the wishes of billions, disregarding every law. Funny thing is, the Internet really lets the free market shine without trampling on the basic human rights.
The Net won't murder, won't rape, won't rob from your home or incur taxes you don't want to pay. It won't restrict your right to speak freely, it won't take your guns away, it won't harbor troops in your home.
As more people embrace the Net, more will use the rights they were born with. More will commit legal crimes that are morally acceptable.
In the long run, maybe we'll see laws that protect life, liberal and property rights rather than laws controlling thought or non-violent actions.
Do bloggers worry about copyright? Do musicians on purevolume worry? Do researchers posting their theses care?
Everything I dream of in my free market world is coming true online, and no law is stopping it. Boucher's bill won't do jack. Repeal copyright and you'll see more innovation than ever.
Why release good music freely? Fans may pay you for more, or a production company might hire you to write something for them, or you might gain customers for your live shows, or you might get people to your site to gain AdSense revenue. Copyright won't protect your income-via-monopoly much longer.
Re:Neither bill matters anymore (Score:2)
I'm sorry, can you please define "liberal rights"?
I'm unfamiliar with the term. Do liberals have rights, to be enumerated by law, separate from conservatives?
Re:Neither bill matters anymore (Score:2)
Re:Neither bill matters anymore (Score:2)
But, interestingly enough, liberals may need legal protection soon enough...
Sounds like... (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like... (Score:2)
To bad most of Congress just drinks the cool-aid (read - corporate $$$) and shutts up until the next electi
Re:Sounds like... (Score:2)
Rebuttal (Score:5, Informative)
I am notnthis person, and as far as I know, the original poster owns all copyright. I claim nothing. It is a good rebuttal.
Who let this hack post on CNet?
Posted by: Billy Herman
Posted on: October 6, 2005, 8:33 AM PDT
Story: Here's a surefire way to stifle innovation
While the PFF is generally an awful source for awful, pro-
industry rhetoric, this article slips to a new low.
First and foremost, Ross simply doesn't understand the legal
issues that are at stake. "Fair use isn't codified?" Try 17 USC 107.
It may not be cut-and-dried, but it's in the book.
Second, all of his rhetoric that TPMs are being developed in a
way that will stop harming consumers doesn't answer Boucher's
deeper issues with fair use. Even if we enter TPM utopia, where I
can buy locked-down media in my choice of TPM-laden format,
I'm still denied important rights of free speech. It's still illegal for
me to hack a DVD in order to make a 15 second clip of it for a
media criticism documentary. As a Ph.D. candidate in
communication, I can assure you that this is stifling innovative
forms of doing media studies, and that's just my corner of the
very large TPM-handicapped world.
Third, HR 1201 would neither uniquely lead to nor permit wide
scale, wholesale infringement. The last section insists that fair
use would stand as a defense to the section and that the Sony
standard, "substantial noninfringing uses," should guide which
tools can be marketed. This means it's still illegal for me to hack
rented DVDs to create my own library, to distribute software
serial numbers online, or to sell "black box" devices that are
designed primarily to help me commit infringements.
Additionally, Ross provides no response to the obvious fact that
all of these things are already happening despite the DMCA;
clearly, the law under the status quo isn't slowing down the
willful infringers.
What does the bill permit? The same things we were allowed to
do in the analog era: home recording of music for personal use
(e.g., mix CDs), fair use quotations of encrypted media, and
reverse engineering out of mere curiosity (subject to EULA).
As a fourth bit of shoddy quasi-journalism, Ross is totally
unresponsive to concerns about fair labeling. In ANARCHIST IN
THE LIBRARY, Siva V tells a terrifying story about a customer who
unknowingly bought a TPM-laden CD. When he found out it
wouldn't play on his home player, he wrote the record company.
Not only did they not fix his problem, they wrote a letter
assuring him that they were hell bent on releasing all CDs in
protected formats and that there's nothing he can do about it.
Does this sound like a fair business practice? HR 1201 requires
full disclosure of TPM restrictions so that customers can make
informed choices.
Fifth, Ross confidently cites the Register of Copyrights, Marybeth
Peters, in her conclusion that there's generally no problem here.
Ross commits a radical misquotation. Peters insists that the
statute is riddled with problems that handicap her ability to
preserve fair use through the exemption proceedings. She
explicitly states that important uses such as library archiving are
left out in the cold. She expresses deep reservations about the
statute's inability to effect the intended dichotomy between
access-controlling and use-controlling TPMs The former is
intended to make sure that people pay for their stuff, and it is
illegal to hack them. The latter is an inconvenience to the paying
customer, but users may hack them without breaking the law.
Unfortunately, a lot of TPMs control access but function
primarily as use controls; the DVD encryption scheme (CSS) is
the paradigm example, but there are many. In the final rulings,
Peters expressed her inability to solve this "dual-purpose"
problem. On these and other issues, Peters explicitly encourages
Society grows more and more litigious every day (Score:2, Insightful)
No disclosure of who paid for this article? (Score:4, Informative)
Business Software Alliance
Disney
MGM
Microsoft
NBC Universal
Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
Time Warner
Vivendi
Sorry buddy but show some proof (Score:2, Insightful)
Otherwise, you'll be modded troll/flamebait and ignored.
Re:Sorry buddy but show some proof (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html [pff.org]
Wow. You got your ass kicked (Score:2, Funny)
Holy cow. I would delete that account and create a new one. This account already has the stench of "loser" all around it.
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess I just don't see how limiting people's rights to their purchased property is progress and it's certainly not freedom.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Thanks man, its not like I was eating my lunch or anything..
Sarcasm or not? (Score:2)
Hold on (Score:2)
I'd no idea it was this serious, I'm also trying to work out how these operators managed to get themselves into the position they're currently in. Surely it can't have been supplying unprotected feeds to people willing to pay for them? (because this simply doesn't work seemingly).
Re:Hold on (Score:2)
The movie production industry has already given up. [theonion.com]
They should just keep their content to themselves (Score:4, Interesting)
> a legal right to the key. But as TPM leaves, so do the digital offerings that come with it.
We always hear this crap, that all these just over the horizon but so wonderous digital offerings will go away. But they are all as bad or worse as Divx (the Circuit City crap that was rejected by 'Consumers', not the popular codec) so good riddance. I really don't see how my life will be worse if these wonders never come and can all too quickly see how they will be worse with everything DRMed. So if DRM that actually works is the price for Hi-Def or online content I am more than content to keep buying CDs and DVDs.
Re:They should just keep their content to themselv (Score:3, Insightful)
What I can't believe, however, is that no one will come in to fill the void. It'll be a different kind of person/company/artist/whatever, but someone will show up. There will still b
Kind of funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
So what this means it that it would be legal to say watch an DVD on my linux box but it would still be illegal for me to rip it and publish it using p2p.
So I could rip my CDs and put them on my MP3 player but it would be illegal for me to P2P them.
So any protection will have to stand on it's own and breaking it is perfectly legal.
Hey works for me.
Great legislation! (Score:5, Informative)
H. R. 1201
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 9, 2005
Mr. BOUCHER (for himself, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. BARTON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The limited introduction into commerce of `copy-protected compact discs' has caused consumer confusion and placed increased, unwarranted burdens on retailers, consumer electronics manufacturers, and personal computer manufacturers responding to consumer complaints, conditions which will worsen as larger numbers of such discs are introduced into commerce.
(2) Recording companies introducing new forms of copy protection should have the freedom to innovate, but should also be responsible for providing adequate notice to consumers about restrictions on the playability and recordability of `copy-protected compact discs'.
(3) The Federal Trade Commission should be empowered and directed to ensure the adequate labeling of prerecorded digital music disc products.
SEC. 3. INADEQUATELY LABELED COPY-PROTECTED COMPACT DISCS.
The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 24 the following new section:
SEC. 24A. INADEQUATELY LABELED COPY-PROTECTED COMPACT DISCS.
(a) Definitions- In this section:
(1) The term `Commission' means the Federal Trade Commission.
(2) The term `audio compact disc' means a substrate packaged as a commercial prerecorded audio product, containing a sound recording or recordings, that conforms to all specifications and requirements for Red Book Audio and bears a duly licensed and authorized `Compact disc Digital Audio' logo.
(3) The term `prerecorded digital music disc product' means a commercial audio product comprised of a substrate in the form of a disc in which is recorded a sound recording or sound recordings generally in accordance with Red Book Audio specifications but that does not conform to all licensed requirements for Red Book Audio: Provided, That a substrate containing a prerecorded sound recording that conforms to the licensing requirements applicable to a DVD-Audio disc or a Super Audio Compact Disc is not a prerecorded digital music disc product.
(4) The term `Red Book Audio' means audio data digitized at 44,100 samples per second (44.1 kHz) with a range of 65,536 possible values as defined in the `Compact Disc-Digital Audio System Description' (first published in 1980 by Philips N.V. and Sony Corporation, as updated from time to time).
(b) Prohibited Acts-
(1) The introduction into commerce, sale, offering for sale, or advertising for sale of a prerecorded digital music disc product which is mislabeled or falsely or d
New Coversheets for the TPM... (Score:2)
Mmmm... yeah. You see, we're putting the coversheets on all TPM reports now before they go out. Did you see the memo about this?
Yeah. If you could just go ahead and make sure you do that from now on, that will be great. And uh, I'll go ahead and make sure you get another copy of that memo mmm'k?
The demand a one way street (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny, because every single one of them does it. If you've ever signed a contract for any kind of service, such as cable/satellite TV, DSL, cellular phones, etc, the contract includes the clause: "$COMPANY maintains the right to change the terms of this agreement without notice" or something to that effect. So basically, what he really means is that no sane business enters a contract in which the terms are fair, or that they don't have complete control over their ability to screw the customer in the future. Cute claim, though, since most people don't read that far into the contract (and there's nothing you can do about it, since you need to get your internet and telephone service from them, and you can't get it without agreeing to let them change the terms on you).
I ran into this problem myself with SBC DSL recently, wherein they changed the terms of the contract after I signed it, stating that after one year, the price goes up three-fold. They didn't even inform me of the change, and acted as if it had always been that way, even though I read the contract and that was not there, and the person on the phone when I ordered the service assured me that there was no such price hike after one year (I specifically asked).
Re:The demand a one way street (Score:3, Insightful)
Surefire way to stifle innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
Fair Use is Codified (Score:5, Informative)
The Federal Home Recording Act is more empowering since it allows complete copies for purposes of making backups and porting to different media. The only gray area there is the simultaneous use of your copies such as listening to an album legally copied to your MP3 player while a family member listens to the same CD at home.
Dunno about the US (Score:2)
For example, you're usually considered OK if a sci-fi group meets up to watch a video of Doctor Who together. You're
Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
A determination of fair use is made on the balance of a four factors [cornell.edu], including the "amount and substantiality" of the alleged infringement. It is not infringement, for example, to record an entire television broadcast for later viewing (Sony v. Universal, 1984).
Re:Fair Use is Codified (Score:3, Interesting)
Akk, someone mod parent down! It is -5 Missinformative not +5 Informative (as currently rated). It is a serious missunderstanding of how Fair Use operates.
What he is thinking of are the four Fair Use tests listed in US law Title 17 Section 107 [cornell.edu] which reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use
TPM would disappear??!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:TPM would disappear??!! (Score:2)
an album cover
It's even Retro!
Re:TPM would disappear??!! (Score:2)
--Milton Friedman
Who went on to say, "Our battle against government representing 'We the People' must be ruthless and relentless. A Free Market means freedom for corporate personhood only. The Pursuit of Happiness is the Pursuit of Multi-national Corporate Profit and nothing more. Apart from corporate persons, there is nothing but statistics drawn from the population of nameless faceless consumers and the commodity of their labor. With
Yup (Score:2)
Freedom is tricky like that, isn't it?
Yeah... (Score:2)
Makes me feel good to be from SW Virginia!
Who says we want their digital offerings? (Score:2)
I've seen it all.
I say leave things as they are and let some of the brighter bulbs, who grok digital, rise to the top and make some money.
That's what this is really all about anyway.
You'll never own anything again.... (Score:2)
It's a complicated issue, and I'm not sure where I stand. On the one hand, if you rent something, then I don't believe fai
One sided contracts. (Score:2)
That describes every DRMed product out there, every shrinkwrap license agreement, and most agreements that are imposed on consumers every day. Businesses can, and do, change the terms of "contracts" every day. With DRM they can change what you can and cannot do with a device or data at a whim or an update. Phone companies and cable companies change terms of service
Where's the logic? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never seen a more obvious bluff in my entire life. It's like a child threatening to hold his breath until you give in to what he wants. It has no more substance than the "blockbusters" they produce.
They will not stop making movies or television or music because of piracy or anything else. Why? Because then they'd be making no money. They're threatening to stop making money. The TPM argument (I guess "TPM" sounds better than "DRM") is no different. Without (DR/TP)M, businesses and their advocates muse, no one will make digital content.
Good. I hope the MPAA and the RIAA and everyone else bows out because the business is just "too risky" from their point of view. The second they do so, they give away their market. Television, movies and music are a very, very competitive business, and there are thousands of people trying to work their way into it every day. There are thousands of people who want their shot at the billions these companies make and there are thousands more who would pleased with the chance to give their stuff away just for a little recognition. Someone else would step in immediately, hopefully or even probably with a better attitude for the market, and seize what can only be deemed a mythical opportunity.
To suddenly give up a huge position of power and influence... a position that might never been attainable again, is ludicrous. It's a bluff. The MPAA and RIAA have everything to lose by stepping out of the market and we, the consumers, and have everything to gain.
I just don't understand their argument at all.
Re:Where's the logic? (Score:2)
Of course it's a bluff. The RIAA/MPAA/etc. is not going to withdraw from their line of business.
I just don't understand their argument at all.
It isn't an argument at all. It is only meant to appear to be one, and you successfully saw through it.
However, most people, when presented with this statement, do NOT see this bluff as obvious. They are terrified of losing their music or TV from the sources they currently get them from. And how do they learn
he is so out of touch (Score:2)
Contracts frequently contain terms that are unenforceable because some law makes them unenforceable. For example, many employment contracts contain unenforceable non-compete agreements. Unenforceable terms of a contract can, of course, be disregarded at will. Businesses that don't want their customers to disregard contractual terms should simply avoid putting unenforceable terms into their contract
good riddance (Score:2)
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
However I still hold that contract law is more important than Fair Use, and that if you enter into a contract limiting your Fair Use, that is your decision. Once you've entered the contract, don't bitch about your Fair Use, which you bargained away.
If someone wants to distribute TPM without a contract, they are indeed fools, because then Fair Use would certainly come into play.
Would the content dry up? (Score:2)
What alternative to providing digital offerings is there? The cartels would have to provide content that complies to the new law one way or another or go out of business.
That sounds too simple to be plausible though.
Depends on what side you're on (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Then there must be a lot of insane business operators out there. Just about every one of them in fact.
Software EULAs are often completely one-sided, reserving all kinds of rights for the publisher, revoking most rights for the licensee (aka user), and often include provisions that allow them to be changed at nearly any time. Generally they don't change except in the case of a patch -- but if you need that patch to run the software as advertised, or to prevent a potential security breach, then it's not much of a choice.
Heck, have you ever read through the mice type of your credit card agreement? They can change any of the provisions, including fees and rates, at any time with minimal notice. And implict acceptance is presumed.
Sorry, but there's plenty of contracts that people and businesses enter into everyday that are completely one sided -- and there is no realistic alternative to them in many cases because it's an industry wide practice. I'd love to see a real business try to go without a bank account of any kind.
In this case, it's we, the people of these united states, who are getting tired of the presumed guilt and revokation of rights by the media conglomerates. HR1201 simply tries to push the bias back toward the center.
Oh, and you're going to claim that this will make media companies stop distributing? Really? Honestly? You're claiming that they'll simply close their doors? What complete bullshit. It's a completely toothless scare tactic.
More pageviews for CNet... (Score:2)
I find it amusing that his line is, "Hollywood was going to find a way to bring you online movies, but not now that you're attacking our precious DMCA!" I saw folks downloading movies in 1998 (remember, the dark ages!). I think we'll do just fine without them. After all, the p2p community was willing to figure this out back when the reward was an MPEG-2 of Titanic.
I'm not sayi
Laughable! (Score:2)
At no time in history has maintream consumable entertainment products ever suffered from people being able to use the works they paid for. I have yet to see anything that actually indicates the damages that have been claimed for decades. Does anyone have any examples? They just keep making more and more money... somehow they never think it's enough.
That hated TPM would disappear from the market, as there's no reason to employ a lock if everyone has a legal right to the key. But as T
Arms Race (Score:2)
I've seen people claim that there's no such thing as unbreakable DRM. This would seem to be flatly untrue - DRM is really just a use of cryptography, and, fascinatingly enough, the code-makers have so far kept pretty far ahead of the
Terrible Contracts feel familiar (Score:2)
Sounds like my cell phone contract.
some correct, some wrong (Score:2)
Re:some correct, some wrong (Score:2)
No. It is not enough to say that anything printed on a DVD case becomes a contract. There must be clear limits on what you can impose on someone when you are acting as if you are selling them something. If someone prints "Must send us first-born child" on a box it is ridiculous to imagine that anyone should be held
Re:some correct, some wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
EULAs and the rest of it are just varieties of fraud, pure and simple. They exist only to make the consumer give up rights and safeguards that should be, and actually often are, protected by law.
I could agree with this sentiment. I look forward to the "contracts" line at Best Buy. My intended general point is that -this particular bill- gives too much carte blanche in the whole area of dominion of Fair Use over -real- contracts. I.e., the kind where we have a lawyer, or a handshake.
Ind
Show him the $1B satellite radio extortion by RIAA (Score:2)
Bad economics reasoning that jumps to conclusions. (Score:3, Insightful)
No. This means that content providers will have more choice about what restrictions they can place on the content that they produce. To the degree that a competitive market exists, this may lead to content providers experimenting with a variety of more restrictive methods of distribution. However, I don't see that this will increase consumer choice. It will increase supplier willingness to continue to make the products available... but that's not the same thing. Will it increase the rate of new creation of material? Encourage new and more talented artists to try their hand? How many currently existing items not currently available in present forms will be put out in these more restricted forms?
Fact: the RIAA and MPAA are competing for my (and other consumers) entertainment dollars. Fact: basic economics dictates that I will spend my money on the goods that provide me the maximum happiness. Competitors for my entertainment time and money include: Music, as CD, iTunes, or various independent music downloads; Movies, theatrical or DVD; video games; DSL available free-for-bandwidth downloadable web entertainment such as Flash animations, calling people names on Slashdot and other forums, and the good old standby of pr0n; the occasional dinner out, or even cooking in with something a little higher quality than Kraft Mac Books, magazines, and all the other fun hiding out at the local Barnes and Noble; overpriced coffee serving as excuse to flirt with the cute barristas from the local coffee shop; Beer, Wine, and other forms of booze; Tobacco, Marajuana, and other less socially acceptable poisons.
The US economy is nigh-stagnant, especially for most individual consumers. Median individual disposable income is getting squeezed. Most big-label music of late sucks; I've bought only four albums (Joshua Tree, The White Album, Billy Joel's Greatest, and the Remains of Tom Lehrer) in the last five years, none with material newer than 1990. I've also got about a hundred CDs I picked up pre-2000, that I've ripped onto my Archos player, hooked up (most) of the time to the living room computer. (Zap2It is faster to scroll through than the TV Guide Channel.)
On the other hand, I've seen Serenity, the LOTR, Harry Potter, Underworld, and the Brothers Grimm in theatres. I've bought DVDs for all of Farscape, about fifteen classic DVDs (Harvey) and as many more from in the cheap bin — matinees are $5.50; modest DVDs are $7-10 each, and I can make better popcorn for cheaper. (Lets leave the one porno video alone, shall we?) While I have HBO as part of my rent, I don't bother taping much, but caught a few of the biggest titles like Spiderman when they went there. I've found three new favorite SF authors via the local library (whoops, filesharing), and B&N is much happier for it. I've also picked up a newer edition of Joy of Cooking than the one I inherited from mom, and my grocery bill has risen nicely. (Alas, so has my waistline...) The owner of the new Sushi shop that opened two years ago knows me by name, and sent me a Christmas card. I've picked up about twenty video games in the time, perhaps half "new" a year or two after they came out, half old classic releases second hand on Ebay; Two of the new titles are still in box, waiting for the day that I finish MOO3.
There's a LOT of high-quality excelent value competition for my entertainment time and money. If the various content industries want more money, they need to either (a) fix the economy so that more people have higher disposable incomes — which they're not in a position to do, or (b) increase the perceived relative value of what they provide.
DRM does neither.
Contracts? (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming for the moment that these "contracts" actualy exist outside of publishers' heads, the only reason they exist is because Congress is constitutionally authorized to allow protection of intellectual property to begin with. It isn't a case of Congress giving more powers to the people but less power to the copyright holders, which, as representatives of the people (if only in name), is their prerogative.
There is no entitlement, no inherent right to intellectual property. And Congress has the right to trash these contracts just as it has the right to let hired killers break their contracts.
Yeaaaaah right. (Score:4, Informative)
Suuuuure. Yet, half the products I buy have a licensing agreement that not only tells me I don't actually own the product, but that the "licensing company" has the rights to revoke my rights at any time they please.
So what the original post really means to me is, that no sane Business would accept a contract like that, but hell, every consumer already has to.
Television? (Score:5, Funny)
Contract "right to disregard" (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not quite they way it works in the real world. There is almost ALWAYS one party that has the right to disregard its terms at will (hereafter, Business). Business has the right to modify these terms and conditions upon written notice to its client (hereafter, Client). Client cannot change the terms of its contract with Business. Client is completely
Re:It Is Too Complicated to Understand (Score:2)
It hasn't been near as hard as you described it above for years. Modern GUI installers require none of that work.
Nevermind the next generation systems, like klik:// (avaliable on the SuPER SuSE 1 cd install). With klik:// , when you want to install software, you download it, and double-click to run. There is no 'install' per say; where ever you put the
Firefox.cmg , or OpenOffice.cmg , or Gimp.cmg
When you want to 'uninstall', you delete the
Grammar Nazis coming to town... (Score:2)
Here ya go. (Score:2)
OK. The idea is that companies won't create content when it can be easily replicated at will with little or no barrier to duplication. They won't be able to make money, or so the story goes.
I say horsecrap because 1) we hear this EVERY TIME any new technology comes out ("The VCR is to the movie indutry what the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone,") and 2) It's not like companies will just stop making content even
Re:It's always the non-creators who want free stuf (Score:3, Insightful)
My only response to Mr. Ross is "You say 'bitch' like it's a bad thing."