|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 143 responses total. |
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?
|
dbratman
|
|
response 90 of 143:
|
May 2 21:14 UTC 2001 |
If a Napster usage drop of 36% is an RIAA victory, then CD sales -
which dropped a barely accurately measurable 5% or so, and only in some
localities - were never in danger from Napster.
resp:89 - really good point, and one reason I've never bothered to use
any of these services, even at less than equal cost. It's also why I
bought a CD player for my car: I was tired of making tapes.
|
lasar
|
|
response 91 of 143:
|
May 2 22:28 UTC 2001 |
To make this a real victory, we would have to hear news of 36% better CD sales
in the near future, right?
|
dbratman
|
|
response 92 of 143:
|
May 3 00:43 UTC 2001 |
No, only 5%.
|
mwg
|
|
response 93 of 143:
|
May 3 01:58 UTC 2001 |
I see this whole thing as a form of suicide on the part of the
entertainment industries. Looking about at the world, it seems to me that
the popularity of any given entertainment item (and thus the monetary
potential thereof) is related fairly directly to how easy it is to copy
said item.
To be blunt, I am of the opinion that the huge profits in the
entertainment business are basically feeding of the backwash of piracy,
and actually coming up with a working copy protection system would do more
damage to profits than if there were actually any validity to their
phantom loss figures.
I am now of the habit of not buying into new entertainment technologies
until the controls are effectively broken. The fact that I'm off
broadcast TV for other reasons (logos) means I won't be aggravated in the
least by the delay between deployment and breaking of the copyguards.
You did know that the FCC has mandated copyguards be built into all new
digital TV equipment, right?
|
gull
|
|
response 94 of 143:
|
May 3 02:30 UTC 2001 |
Yup. Videotaping your favorite shows may be a thing of the past, soon.
|
krj
|
|
response 95 of 143:
|
May 3 22:19 UTC 2001 |
The move to restrict consumer copying capability rolls on. Here's a CNET
story about chip manufacturers looking at building anti-recording
functionality in home stereos.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5813283.html?tag=tp_pr
Quote: "Also built into chips now rolling off of Cirrus' and other
manufacturers' assembly lines are controversial copy protections, or
'digital rights management' technologies. As these chips become more
widely used, consumers could find for the first time their own home
stereos blocking them from making tapes or other copies.... Analysts
say that it's still far from a sure thing that products that limit
people's use of their own music will be accepted, even if copy-protection
support becomes a basic feature of stereo systems."
|
russ
|
|
response 96 of 143:
|
May 8 03:40 UTC 2001 |
The film studios are working very hard to avoid what happened
to the record companies. They want to make it IMPOSSIBLE for
the consumer (that's you) to get ahold of the raw digital bit
stream of video (movies, TV programs, just about anything) so
that you can put it in your computer and do what you want with
it. The only things they want to have access to video data are
gadgets that will keep the raw data away from you; if you want
to do something that they've decided is verboten, like taking
a 5-second clip of last night's show and mailing it to your
mom, tough luck.
In other words, every piece of digital video equipment will be part
of a conspiracy to let you have access to YOUR data only on the most
grudging of terms, and some things will be totally forbidden. You
may have to kiss time-shifting and archiving goodbye.
They've got a proposal for doing this, encrypting everything that
goes across a wire. It was leaked to cryptome.org; read it there:
http://cryptome.org/hdcp-v1.htm
It's really dry stuff, but it ought to scare you.
|
scg
|
|
response 97 of 143:
|
May 8 05:50 UTC 2001 |
How does this relate to fair use law? Is fair use something you only have
a right to if you have the means to make a copy, such that the means to make
a copy can be regulated separately?
|
other
|
|
response 98 of 143:
|
May 8 17:58 UTC 2001 |
Fair use doctrine is a very complex system of exceptions to copyright
protection. It does not guarantee the right of access to materials, but
rather protects appropriate free speech rights in context of references
to other copyrighted materials.
Fair use is an attempt to balance the extremes of first amendment and
copyright laws. The whole concept of legal protection of technical
schemes which prevent access to original materials is not addressed in
fair use. Such laws throw off the balance in favor of copyright but not
by compromising fair use, just by going around it.
|
other
|
|
response 99 of 143:
|
May 8 18:00 UTC 2001 |
One of the best sites I found in some extensive research on fair use is:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
|
