|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 87 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 20 of 87:
| 
Oct 1 22:19 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 21 of 87:
|
Oct 1 22:32 UTC 2001 |
(poor phrasing in resp:20, let me try again.)
Mary's resp:18, predicting that some wonderful way will be found to save
Linus after copy prevention systems are standard, is either overoptimistic
or insufficiently informed.
It is already impossible for a law-abiding citizen to use a DVD disk or
player with a Linux computer. The group that controls the DVD patents
will not allow the needed drivers to be sold; as a result, the only
way to use a DVD on a Linux computer is with criminal software, the
renowned DeCSS program.
From there, it is a small step to making it impossible for Linux to
operate with a copy-preventing hard disk. Then, the legislature makes
a requirement that all new hard disks must use the copy-prevention
system. Voila, Linux is effectively banned.
The whole idea of Linux is that it allows the user total control
of the operating system. This is why the DVD consortium will not license
a Linux DVD player; it is why no successful copy prevention system can
allow Linux machines to exist freely. When the user has total control
of the operating system, bypassing any hardware restraints on copying
is trivial.
|
senna
|
|
response 22 of 87:
|
Oct 2 01:36 UTC 2001 |
I wonder, if this legislation goes through, if there will be a run on
non-restricted computers shortly before restrictions are placed into effect.
|
mdw
|
|
response 23 of 87:
|
Oct 2 01:41 UTC 2001 |
One of the things I'd like to be able to do is to take my legitimately
purchased CD's, record some of the music in the form of MP3's on another
CD, and take that on motorcycle trips. As I understand it, the
compression in MP3's is much better than a regular CD, so I should be
able to record about 10 hours of playtime on a single CD.
|
goose
|
|
response 24 of 87:
|
Oct 2 16:28 UTC 2001 |
There is no compression on regular CDs.
|
micklpkl
|
|
response 25 of 87:
|
Oct 2 16:33 UTC 2001 |
Regarding the plan mentioned in resp:5 to introduce copy-protected CD Audio
and .wma files, there is a good article here:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2815388,00.html
The article contains a link to McFadden's detailed discussion of how CD
copy-prohibition works, and how it can be circumvented. This is in the
cdr-faq, here:
http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#S2-4-3 (for the Macrovision/SafeAudio
scheme ... scroll down to Section 2-4-4 for an fascinating description of the
SunnComm/MediaCloQ scheme used on that Charley Pride CD)
|
brighn
|
|
response 26 of 87:
|
Oct 2 16:43 UTC 2001 |
(Technically, isn't there *always* compression of some sort when storing an
analog image [including sound] in a digital format, from the standpoint that
there's necessarily truncation/rounding?)
|
krj
|
|
response 27 of 87:
|
Oct 2 20:36 UTC 2001 |
The cdrfaq.org description of what seems to be going on with the various
copy protection schemes is the best I have seen. *Highly* recommended
if you want to get into nuts & bolts.
|
mdw
|
|
response 28 of 87:
|
Oct 2 21:37 UTC 2001 |
Given that regular CD's use "no" compression, I think that definitely
qualifies as "less" compression than MP-3's. :-)
|
krj
|
|
response 29 of 87:
|
Oct 2 22:17 UTC 2001 |
I don't know what the word would be to describe what brighn is
getting at, but it certainly wouldn't be "compression."
|
remmers
|
|
response 30 of 87:
|
Oct 2 22:58 UTC 2001 |
"Lossage", maybe.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 31 of 87:
|
Oct 2 23:30 UTC 2001 |
Quantization error?
|
krj
|
|
response 32 of 87:
|
Oct 3 00:19 UTC 2001 |
Bingo, that's it.
|
goose
|
|
response 33 of 87:
|
Oct 3 02:32 UTC 2001 |
Darn, Mike beat me to it. ;-) Although, quantizing error is pretty much a
non issue these days with advanced noise shaping and dithering when combined
with 20 and 24bit wordlengths in the master tapes.
|
russ
|
|
response 34 of 87:
|
Oct 3 13:29 UTC 2001 |
I haven't examined this closely, but you could probably produce
a compressed file with less quantization error than the original
CD by using auto-correlation to distinguish the signal from the
quantization noise, then compressing the result. Adding a few
bits to the volume field of a wavelet descriptor (or whatever
the compression scheme uses) doesn't increase the file size
nearly as much as the compression of many samples into a small
descriptor decreases the file size.
Quantization error comes out as noise, mostly. The dynamic range
(loudest possible level above the noise) of a CD using 16-bit
samples is already 96 dB or more. Your ears can't use that much
very effectively, so it's questionable what an improvement there
would add to the perceived quality. Fewer artifacts and better
handling of transients would probably do a lot more.
Has anyone hacked a personal MP3 player to handle .OGG files?
|
dbratman
|
|
response 35 of 87:
|
Oct 3 19:04 UTC 2001 |
The statement that the record companies can sell their CDs under any
restrictions they care to is, while basically true, somewhat
misleading. They can add provisions to the effect that they can come
and take your computer and your first-born child away if they feel like
it (and reading some software license agreements, that seems to be
about the size of it), but somewhere this passes the legitimate rights
of contract, even if the buyer enters freely into it.
The closest equivalent in the brick&mortar world I can think of to
these new restrictions is property covenants. ("No future owner of
this property may at any time sell it to Jews," that sort of thing.)
Such covenants are being widely voided, circumvented, or just ignored,
and this is generally a wholesome development.
The problem with the CD restrictions, and even more with e-book
restrictions, is that rights we've always had are being taken away to
prevent illegal activity we've never had a right to. They're
eliminating the whole idea of actually purchasing a copy of the
material at all, and turning it into something more closely resembling
a permanent lease. The rights I'm thinking of are the right to sell or
give away the copy, the right to transfer (not to copy: just to
transfer) downloaded software from one computer to another; the right
to copy music to a recordable medium for personal use, and so on. And
the right of a public library to have copies for loan.
|
krj
|
|
response 36 of 87:
|
Oct 3 19:38 UTC 2001 |
The RIAA and the MPAA sue the file swapping operations Music City,
KaZaa and Grokster:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7389552.html?tag=nbs
These three firms are the leading successors to Napster, in terms
of number of users.
All three firms use a peer-to-peer file swapping program
from a company called FastTrack. The software is Gnutella-like, in
that searches propagate from user to user without going through a
central directory as Napster did. This means that the software
will continue to operate even if these firms are shut down.
MusicCity is based in the US. KaZaa is based in the Netherlands, and
Grokster is based in Nevis, in the West Indies. Quote:
> Perhaps more than any previous legal action, the
> latest lawsuit will test the ability of courts
> and one nation's system of law to reach across international
> borders for an online issue--and
> over technological hurdles that many techno-libertarians
> have deemed all but impassable.
The RIAA is considering also suing the venture capitalists who funded
MusicCity.
Quote, repeating stuff we've said before:
> Consulting firm Webnoize estimated that 3.05 billion files
> were downloaded using the
> FastTrack-based network, Audiogalaxy, iMesh and the Gnutella
> network during August. That
> compared with a similar estimate of 2.79 billion files
> downloaded through Napster in February
> 2001, the peak of that service's popularity.
|
krj
|
|
response 37 of 87:
|
Oct 3 19:46 UTC 2001 |
wired.com offers a piece on author Siva Vaidhyanathan and his book
"Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and
How It Threatens Creativity." I'll just pull out one quick quote:
> After the attacks, a shift in priorities
> came that leaves the "Security Systems
> Standard & Certification Act" (SSSCA) in limbo.
> Communications Daily now rates the
> chances that the SSSCA will even show its
> face on Capitol Hill anytime this session as
> "unlikely."
> That suits Vaidhyanathan just fine.
> "The bill as written is so sweeping that it would
> outlaw Linux -- or any sort of
> open-source activity," he said. "It would
> require us to fundamentally change the
> nature of the personal computer.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,47195,00.html
|
krj
|
|
response 38 of 87:
|
Oct 3 21:15 UTC 2001 |
http://www.dotcomscoop.com says they have leaked copies of the
RIAA's legal strategy and analysis of the FastTrack-based networks,
plus a boring letter from the RIAA's Hilary Rosen. Both are posted.
http://www.dotcomscoop.com/riaa1003.html
My summary:
The RIAA thinks they can flip the software company FastTrack to get
the evidence needed to win the case against FastTrack's customer
Music City, the one defendant based in the US, and then get FastTrack's
cooperation to subvert the other two networks operating outside US
jurisdiction by enlisting FastTrack to break the encrypted links
involved in the system.
|
goose
|
|
response 39 of 87:
|
Oct 4 12:57 UTC 2001 |
How does that quote go about killing one and two appear in it's place?
|
polygon
|
|
response 40 of 87:
|
Oct 4 20:49 UTC 2001 |
Re 35. On the real estate restrictive covenant tangent: racially and
other such covenants were ruled to be void as against public policy by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948. More broadly, most states
have laws which provide that covenants are not enforceable unless they
have expiration dates, usually limited to 40 years or so. (I could go on,
but this is the wrong item.)
|
dbratman
|
|
response 41 of 87:
|
Oct 5 21:59 UTC 2001 |
So do you think we can get those restrictions - NOT on illegal copying
and distribution, but on what you can do with your _own purchased
single_ copy of a CD - similarly ruled as against public policy?
Because that nicely expresses the problem with them.
|
krj
|
|
response 42 of 87:
|
Oct 9 22:38 UTC 2001 |
The Register moves another alarmist story. According to their
leak sources, the RIAA held a secret meeting last week with
the record label heads, movie studios, US Senators Fritz Hollings
and Ted Stevens (sponsors of the SSSCA), and the heads of Toshiba
and Matsushita.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22087.html
Some highlights:
Hilary Rosen of the RIAA said, "we are working with sound card manufacturers
to implement technology that will block the recording of watermarked content
in both digital and analogue form." ((That would have to be backed up
with a SSSCA requirement that all sound cards use this system, of course.))
The RIAA intends to push for the adoption of a hard drive specification
similar to the rejected CPRM (Content Protection for Recordable Media)
rules.
Rosen wants ISPs to be liable for the copyright violations of their users.
Disney's Michael Eisner wants to gut privacy rules: he said, "Privacy
laws are our biggest impediment to us obtaining our objectives."
|
mcnally
|
|
response 43 of 87:
|
Oct 10 00:16 UTC 2001 |
<sigh>
|
gull
|
|
response 44 of 87:
|
Oct 10 13:27 UTC 2001 |
Re #23: Recording a CD you own to MP3 files for your own use is one of
the things record companies would like to prevent you from doing.
(It's already technically illegal.)
What the record companies really want to see is for something else to
replace the CD. They're hoping for this for two reasons: it'd give
them a chance to come up with a format that's more difficult to copy,
and they think it would allow them to sell everyone another copy of all
the albums they own. They made out like bandits when people converted
from LPs to CDs, and they're hoping they can do so again. Under some
schemes I've seen, you'd actually need to buy more than one new copy;
some of them would license the copy to the player, so that, for
example, you'd need to buy one for your home stereo, one for your car,
and one for your portable...
Re #42: The Register has published a retraction of that story here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/22138.html
It's likely the meeting never happened. I'm guessing the Michael
Eisner quote was probably made up -- even if he thinks that, I don't
think he'd actually say it out loud.
|
