|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 143 responses total. |
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/
|
krj
|
|
response 100 of 143:
|
May 8 18:14 UTC 2001 |
The simple answer to scg's question in resp:97 is that the courts
are rejecting "fair use" as a principal to invalidate the DMCA's
prohibitions on breaking encryption. If the copyright holder encrypts
it, they are allowed to do anything they want to control access and
the law will back them up. It also appears that the "First Sale
Doctrine," which allows a second-hand market in books/cds/videos/whatever,
is likely to get tossed out in the new era.
|
russ
|
|
response 101 of 143:
|
May 9 04:35 UTC 2001 |
Re #97: To elaborate on Ken's explanation, the push appears to be to
make fair use impossible to exercise by outlawing every tool you might
use to achieve it. Fair use may entitle you to quote from a work, to
make archival copies of a work you own (so long as you do not sell any
of them apart from the work itself), to view it as you see fit (e.g.
magnifying the text and projecting it on the wall to make it easier for
a person with limited vision to read it) and to make any other use of it
that does not infringe on the owner's ability to profit from the right
to make and sell copies.... if you can do it without breaking the law.
The media companies are most definitely trying to make fair use
impossible to achieve in practice, via technical means which prohibit
you from e.g. quoting a work, making an archive copy, altering how the
work is displayed (like skipping the ads they put in your DVD)... The
problem with the DMCA is that it backs up the media companies in their
attempt to eliminate fair use, and the beknighted courts have been all
too willing to throw out the long-established principle of fair use to
uphold the DMCA.
I'm starting to agree with the WTO protestors, that corporations have
achieved far too much power over the laws which are meant to be to the
benefit of people in general. They're all take and no give. The
current terms and conditions of copy"right" aren't right, they are
blatant theft from the public domain.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 102 of 143:
|
May 9 21:45 UTC 2001 |
I'm trying to think of pre-digital attempts to restrict fair use. One
that I can come up with from my college days in the '70s: the firm that
sold course notes at U.C. Berkeley distributed them dittoed in faint
green ink. This was (supposedly) impossible to photocopy.
|
scg
|
|
response 103 of 143:
|
May 9 22:49 UTC 2001 |
I remember supposedly non-reproducable blue ink in software manuals from the
1980s. The approach seemed to be that you might be able to copy the disks,
but you had to buy the software to get the manual.
|
gull
|
|
response 104 of 143:
|
May 9 23:03 UTC 2001 |
The RIAA tried to ban cassette recorders, as a way to restrict fair use.
|
i
|
|
response 105 of 143:
|
May 10 00:27 UTC 2001 |
Weren't 'most all attempts to prevent copying by technical means in the
field of PC software defeated by the 100%-legal, low-tech strategy of
people not buying the copy-protected software?
It the problem that consumers are way too addicted to the music, video,
etc. that the mega-media companies are pushing to ever use that strategy?
|
russ
|
|
response 106 of 143:
|
May 10 01:30 UTC 2001 |
Re #102: Except that the kind of use frustrated by un-copyable ink
is typically wholesale copying, which is not fair use. If you want
to look back to attempts to restrict fair use, you should think of the
attempts of publishers to prevent the re-sale of used books; this
led to the first sale doctrine, which is (not coincidentally) under
attack in the new media as well.
Richard Stallman has some words that ought to horrify you:
And this changing context changes the way copyright law works. You
see, copyright law no longer acts as an industrial regulation; it is
now a Draconian restriction on a general public. It used to be a
restriction on publishers for the sake of authors. Now, for practical
purposes, it's a restriction on a public for the sake of publishers.
Copyright used to be fairly painless and uncontroversial. It didn't
restrict the general public. Now that's not true. If you have a
computer, the publishers consider restricting you to be their highest
priority.
http://media-in-transition.mit.edu/forums/copyright/index_transcript.html
|
