|
|
| Author |
Message |
gull
|
|
The Nineteenth "Napster" Item
| 
Jul 27 19:00 UTC 2004 |
We don't have a Napster Item yet this Agora, so I thought I'd start one.
krj's introduction from last Agora's item:
"Napster the original corporation has been destroyed, its trademarks
now owned by an authorized music retailer. But the Napster
paradigm, in which computers and networks give ordinary people
unprecedented control over intellectual property, continues.
"This is another quarterly installment in a series of weblog
and discussion about the deconstruction of the music industry and
other copyright industries, with side forays into
'intellectual property, freedom of expression, electronic media,
corporate control, and evolving technology,' as polygon once
phrased it.
"Several years of back items are easily found in the music2 and music3
conferences, covering discussions all the way back to the initial
popularity of the MP3 format."
|
| 10 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 1 of 10:
|
Jul 27 19:07 UTC 2004 |
First up, we have the INDUCE Act. I'll quote from CNET's summary:
"A bill called the Induce Act is scheduled to come before the Senate
sometime next week. If passed, it would make whoever "aids, abets,
induces (or) counsels" copyright violations liable for those violations."
"If passed, the bill could dramatically reshape copyright law by
prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices
on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes."
(http://news.com.com/Antipiracy+bill+targets+technology/2100-1028_3-5238140
.html
)
INDUCE stands for "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation"
-- essentially, they're using the fact that some peer-to-peer networks
are used to distribute child pornography as a way to help bolster
support for this bill, a classic "won't someone think of the children?!"
argument. The bill was introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Sen.
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont).
The problem is the law is written so broadly that it would effectively
overturn the Betamax decision, and could make whole categories of
consumer electronic devices illegal. The tech industry strongly
oppposes it for that reason, while the MPAA and RIAA are lobbying
heavily in favor of it.
Congressman Rick Boucher opposes the law, and has said, "Anyone making
ANY kind of recording device, even an innocent recorder that has many
other fair uses, could be in breach of this law just for making that
technology available. Frankly there is no need for the statute at all."
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/06/inducement_bill_under_fire/)
Wired also has some coverage here:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64315,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5
|
krj
|
|
response 2 of 10:
|
Jul 27 19:33 UTC 2004 |
(( Summer 2004 Agora 964 linked as Music 181 ))
(( and thanks for sticking to form :) ))
|
gull
|
|
response 3 of 10:
|
Jul 27 19:56 UTC 2004 |
Well, if I'm going to be so presumptuous as to create someone else's
item for them, I figure I can at least follow their format for it. ;>
|
polygon
|
|
response 4 of 10:
|
Jul 28 01:32 UTC 2004 |
I am VERY disappointed in Sen. Leahy for consponsoring this.
|
gull
|
|
response 5 of 10:
|
Jul 31 02:38 UTC 2004 |
I'm disappointed in the response I got from Sen. Stabenow:
Thank you . . .
. . for contacting me regarding your opposition to the Induce Act.
I understand your concern that this legislation may limit the ability
of consumers to use file-sharing technology.
The Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004 was
introduced on June 22, 2004. The bill is narrowly tailored to stop
people from encouraging others to violate copyright laws. The
same tools that can be used to steal a copyrighted song or movie
can be used for many legitimate purposes; by fighting copyright
infringement, we make it easier to defend the fair use of
technologies like file sharing that might otherwise be outlawed
completely. Although I am a cosponsor of this bill, it still has a
long way to go before it would become law. As this bill moves
through the legislative process, I assure you that I will keep your
thoughts in mind as we look for ways to improve this legislation to
make sure that we can enforce copyright laws without creating a
burden on individuals who are using these technologies in good
faith.
Thank you again for contacting my office. Please feel free to do so
again whenever I can be of assistance to you and your family.
Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator
|
tod
|
|
response 6 of 10:
|
Jul 31 14:06 UTC 2004 |
HAHHAHAHH!
Sounds like she just wants to pass the bill while blowing smoke up the asses
of true patriots that want their freedom intact.
|
gull
|
|
response 7 of 10:
|
Aug 2 14:38 UTC 2004 |
It struck me as a "we have to burn the village to save it" sort of response.
|
gull
|
|
response 8 of 10:
|
Aug 6 13:06 UTC 2004 |
The FCC has settled on a DRM system to go with the HDTV "broadcast flag":
"The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved the use of
Video Content Protection System (VCPS), the DVD+RW Alliance's preferred
copy-protection system.
"VCPS essentially governs the recording of digital TV shows onto DVD+RW
media. The FCC has defined what it calls the 'Broadcast Flag', a code
that can be transmitted with digital broadcasts that indicates the
broadcaster's willingness to allow consumers who've recorded a programme
to make further copies of it.
...
"The FCC's Broadcast Flag rule comes into force on 1 July 2005, and all
digital TV receivers must be capable of supporting the DRM technology
from that date onwards. The technology is not mandatory for recorders,
but equipment and discs without VCPS capability will be unable to record
or play TV broadcast in the US that is protected with the Broadcast Flag."
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/06/vcps_thumbs_up/)
According to the article, the encryption method used is 128-bit AES,
with the key blocks coming from a track on the disc and the player's
firmware. If I'm not mistaken, this is pretty similar to the keying
method used in DVD encryption.
|
gregb
|
|
response 9 of 10:
|
Aug 6 16:16 UTC 2004 |
That sucks, plain ahd simple.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 10 of 10:
|
Aug 6 18:05 UTC 2004 |
This will certainly not encourage the adoption process. What will be
interesting is whether broadcasters bother to pick and choose what to
protect or just protect everything except maybe infomercials.
|
