|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 143 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 65 of 143:
| 
Apr 26 20:50 UTC 2001 |
I'm glad you feel that the DMCA is "unconstitutional on its face."
I'm sure Eric Corley/Emmanuel Goldstein, the publisher of "2600," will also
be glad to know this, since he's lost all legal procedings in the DeCSS
case so far.
http://www.inside.com had an essay by Roger Parloff yesterday arguing that
the RIAA/SDMI attack on an academic was a masterpiece of bad timing,
since the Corley/2600 case goes up before an appeals panel next week.
Corley is seen as an unsympathetic defendant by the court because of his
hacking background -- even though 2600 is a traditional paper publication
presumably protected by the first amendment -- but with Leonard Felten
the anti-DMCA forces now have a clear case of the law being used to chill
speech which should be protected.
The link will probably only work for a day or so, inside.com moves stuff
to the subscriber-only area pretty fast these days.
http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=29356&pod_id=13
|
brighn
|
|
response 66 of 143:
|
Apr 26 20:52 UTC 2001 |
#64, para 1: the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the "freedom of
speech" clause of the First Amendment does not apply to every single act of
speech. There are many contexts in which other societal factors play as
important a part, and may mitigate freedom of speech. Relevant examples in
this case would be encouraging people to engage in illicit activities,
although to my knowledge, I believe those are generally protected (IANAL).
So, while I agree that the law is unconstitutional, I disagree with its
obviousness.
Copyright protects the creator's right to decide how their work is presented,
as well.
|
krj
|
|
response 67 of 143:
|
Apr 26 21:06 UTC 2001 |
Moving sideways, here's an interview with the CEO of Real Networks
about the subscription music plans (Napster replacements) Real is
working on with the major labels.
http://www.latimes.com/business/20010426/t000035201.html
Note the broad hint that users of such services will be expected to keep
paying their monthly subscription fees if they want to keep playing the songs
they have downloaded.
I still expect consumers to reject anything which comes with noticable
"Digital Rights Management" packaging.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 68 of 143:
|
Apr 26 22:40 UTC 2001 |
Until/unless they come up with a "rights management" scheme which looks
nothing like the ones introduced up until now, I agree with Ken.
Everything proposed so far has been nightmarishly bad from a user-experience
standpoint -- inconvenient, confusing, anti-privacy, unreliable, etc..
None of the current schemes have even a remote chance of succeeding in a
marketplace where there is any competition at all from unencrypted media
and, as much as they might want to at this point, the record companies
can't uninvent the CD, nor can they easily stop selling them.
|
russ
|
|
response 69 of 143:
|
Apr 27 00:40 UTC 2001 |
Re #62: The censorship thing came up on Slashdot yesterday or the
day before.
Anyone want a copy of the paper? It's on cryptome.org. ;-)
(When is the RIAA going to learn that you can't obtain security
through obscurity? And how many toes are they going to shoot off
before they do?)
|
gull
|
|
response 70 of 143:
|
Apr 27 01:17 UTC 2001 |
Re #66: Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that computer programs are not
"speech"?
I think people will probably reject any "rights management" system that
makes them pay repeatedly for the same piece of content, or that
prevents them from using a piece of content on multiple players without
paying for each one. People like being able to buy a CD and play it at
home, in the car, and at work, for example. It's the sneaky ones that
will succeed, like that plan to selectively damage CDs to make them
unusable in CD-ROM drives. This has a precident in Macrovision, which
is a violation of the NTSC specification and caused problems for some
VCRs when it was introduced.
|
jp2
|
|
response 71 of 143:
|
Apr 27 02:03 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 72 of 143:
|
Apr 27 03:10 UTC 2001 |
USA Today has a big piece today trumpeting the commercial arrival
of WMA, Windows Media Audio, with players pictured from Rio and Intel.
"When you 'rip,' or copy, a song from a CD into the WMA format...
copyright-protecting "digital rights management" tools are automatically
inserted into the music file." Microsoft and the big music business
hope to get you to swallow this with claims that file size is cut by
50%, and sound quality is improved, compared to MP3 files.
The USA Today writer encountered issues with downloading the DRM files
into the portable players.
Sorry I don't have a URL, I'm reading from the dead tree edition.
|
krj
|
|
response 73 of 143:
|
Apr 27 17:21 UTC 2001 |
Sorry this is sort of turning into a weblog, for those who are bored by
such things....
http://www.latimes.com/business/20010426/t000035197.html
"Napster Filters Cost It 20% Of Its Users In March."
One select quote: "Despite the drop ((in usage)), 18% of U.S. Internet
users visited Napster's web site or used its music-sharing system in March."
|
goose
|
|
response 74 of 143:
|
Apr 27 17:39 UTC 2001 |
Well they wimped out...
|
goose
|
|
response 75 of 143:
|
Apr 27 17:40 UTC 2001 |
er....
<< A group of computer scientists at Princeton and Rice universities has
decided to withdraw an academic paper that was to be presented at a
conference this week, because the Recording Industry Association of
America said that public presentation of the work would violate the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, because it would describe how
to evade the systems used to protect copyrighted music. Princeton
computer scientist Edward W. Felton explained the group's decision by
saying: "Litigation is costly, time-consuming, and uncertain, regardless
of the merits of the other side's case. We remain committed to free
speech and to the value of scientific debate to our country and the
world." John McHugh of Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon
University commented: "This was an excellent technical paper. This was
pure and simple intimidation. This paper didn't do anything that a
bright technical person couldn't easily reproduce." (New York Times 27
Apr 2001) http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/27/technology/27MUSI.html >>
|
brighn
|
|
response 76 of 143:
|
Apr 27 17:48 UTC 2001 |
You're right! How dare they... all they had to risk was their careers, and
years of litigation with one of the most powerful cartels in the world, and
you had so much to gain... the right to "borrow" music with greater ease.
SOME people are so selfish. They should be ashamed of themselves.
|
goose
|
|
response 77 of 143:
|
Apr 27 18:33 UTC 2001 |
Some of us see this as much more than "the right to 'borrow' music"
To think that's all it is to me is quite presumptious. :-P
Note: I make my living in the recording industry.
|
brighn
|
|
response 78 of 143:
|
Apr 27 18:40 UTC 2001 |
I'm quite presumptious, and have never denied that. ;}
My point was, to call somebody a 'wimp' for not wanting to put their entire
life on the line is also presumptious. Some people just don't have the mettle
to be that kind of hero.
|
gull
|
|
response 79 of 143:
|
Apr 27 23:32 UTC 2001 |
Yup. Unfortunately, because they aren't willing to do that, we may all lose
another little chunk of our first amendment rights. In the same situation,
I think my decision would be the same, though. No individual has the kind
of deep pockets you need to fight the RIAA.
|
krj
|
|
response 80 of 143:
|
Apr 28 04:42 UTC 2001 |
News story in many sources: I have it here from the Associated Press
via http://www.sfgate.com :
Trial court judge Marilyn Patel "essentially threw up her hands and
appealed for help" regarding the Napster preliminary injunction.
She said she cannot do anything to make Napster's filtering
process more effective, and she invited the RIAA to return to the
appeals court panel to "seek clarification," which probably means
to get a ruling with more teeth in it.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 81 of 143:
|
Apr 28 21:13 UTC 2001 |
How often has it happened in the U.S. that a scientist has withdrawn
research results, previously expected to be published, under threat of
legal action? Regardless of the fate of copyrighted music, THIS is a
very sad event for freedom of speech.
Sure, those research results could be used for nefarious purposes. If
that's the concern, then I expect the follow-up to include a clean
sweep of all murder mysteries from the bookshelves of the land.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 82 of 143:
|
Apr 29 02:35 UTC 2001 |
If paying consumers are going to be paying additional x for
the copy protection, but it is thawrted almost as easily, I would
rather the voice come forward to show the system to be not worth
it.
|
gull
|
|
response 83 of 143:
|
Apr 29 17:53 UTC 2001 |
Hmm. Good point. If this scheme is easily circumvented, isn't it
better for the RIAA to find this out *now* than after they've put a lot
of money into distributing stuff on it?
|
other
|
|
response 84 of 143:
|
Apr 30 00:50 UTC 2001 |
I've been wondering why they haven't caught on to that. I mean really.
Haven't they figured out by now (since DeCSS) that they cannot stop the
release of information just because they have the law on their side?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 85 of 143:
|
Apr 30 03:37 UTC 2001 |
Uh, we're talking about people whose lifeblood is controlling the release
of information, right?
|
drew
|
|
response 86 of 143:
|
Apr 30 14:14 UTC 2001 |
My response is, get another lifeblood. The rest of us have to from time to
time.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 87 of 143:
|
Apr 30 17:45 UTC 2001 |
Oh, no disagreement there. My response was to the question, "Why haven't
they caught on?" That's been their livelihood from time immemorial (for
them ;) It's always worked before. *We* know it's doomed to failure, and
they may even, but they aren't quite ready to start hunting new prey.
|
krj
|
|
response 88 of 143:
|
May 2 19:32 UTC 2001 |
The RIAA declares victory over Napster:
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,43487,00.html
Some quotes:
"In April, Napster use fell by nearly 36 percent from the previous
month... The average number of songs available by individual
users dropped from its all-time high in March of 220 to a paltry
37 by the end of April. That led to nearly 1 billion fewer
downloads."
Hilary Rosen of the RIAA talks up the coming MusicNet and Duet systems
from the major labels, but she says that music purchased through these
systems will cost about the same as CDs, because of marketing costs.
(*wheee!*)
|
gull
|
|
response 89 of 143:
|
May 2 19:35 UTC 2001 |
If it's going to cost the same, I sure as heck want the physical disk. Why
should I pay the same amount for the privilage of supplying my own media?
|
