LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Congress Seeks to Expand DMCA

Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 10:24:46 am PDT

LGF reader Mike P. draws my attention to this article on a Congressional attempt to greatly expand the powers of the already highly invasive, Big Brother-like Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Congress readies broad new digital copyright bill.

The 24-page bill is a far-reaching medley of different proposals cobbled together. One would, for instance, create a new federal crime of just trying to commit copyright infringement. Such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison.

It also represents a political setback for critics of expanding copyright law, who have been backing federal legislation that veers in the opposite direction and permits bypassing copy protection for “fair use” purposes. That bill—introduced in 2002 by Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat—has been bottled up in a subcommittee ever since.

But one of the more controversial sections may be the changes to the DMCA. Under current law, Section 1201 of the law generally prohibits distributing or trafficking in any software or hardware that can be used to bypass copy-protection devices. (That section already has been used against a Princeton computer science professor, Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov and a toner cartridge remanufacturer.)

Smith’s measure would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may “make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess” such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else.

“It’s one degree more likely that mere communication about the means of accomplishing a hack would be subject to penalties,” said Peter Jaszi, who teaches copyright law at American University and is critical of attempts to expand it.

Advertisement

144 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Orbit Rain  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:27:25am

iow

free speech for me but not me thee

2 Bubbaman  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:30:53am

G-d forbid that Congress tackle something really pressing, like illegal immigration, terrorism,...

3 RurouniKenshin  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:31:08am

Oh wonderful.

This whole copyright and "intellectual property" thing is going way too far. It's getting to the point where we're not even going to resemble a free market at all.

4 rickmoss  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:31:13am

Well, not first -- but, this post looks vaguely like something I would see on Indy Media, where there is currently a thread dedicated to the notion that the US government is attempting to control the Internet to squelch -- "the lefties".

Bottom-line, copyright infringement is a crime and even planning to commit a crime is conspiracy.

"Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time" -- Tony Baretta or Al Capone (I can't remember which)

5 grayp  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:31:51am

Ok, I'm not getting this. This is a bad thing why?

6 Jack Reacher  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:32:16am
It’s one degree more likely that mere communication about the means of accomplishing a hack would be subject to penalties...

Nice. A couple of programmers discussing how copyright protection systems work could be prosecuted for conspiracy, apparently, under such a law.

...the law generally prohibits distributing or trafficking in any software or hardware that can be used to bypass copy-protection devices.

"Can be used?" Well, it's a good thing that software and hardware with legitimate uses can never be used for illegal purposes. Right.

7 tankdemon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:33:03am

As far as this concerns me, how does it effect cutting and pasting information from one website to a blog? Is it okay if credit is given, or will it require permission from the source? This could have a tremendous effect on bloggers as we know it.

8 Kragar (proud to be kafir)  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:33:14am
“It’s one degree more likely that mere communication about the means of accomplishing a hack would be subject to penalties,”

Seems like more and more, the world's governments want to go after people who bring up and discuss the problems, rather than the issue itself.

9 zombie  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:36:33am
the new language says nobody may “make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess” such anticircumvention tools

Good luck with that. Just how exactly can they prove that any particular person has such software? Only by subpoenaing their computers. But of course, the person being charged can simply supply a different computer, claiming it is their own. So the only way to actually enforce the law is to kick down people's doors and seize their computers without warning.

Seriously: I have an unused old laptop I keep that I think of in terms of "Emergency: In Case of Totaltarian Government, Claim this Computer as Your Main Computer." In other words, if for some crazy reason the government accuses me of some computer-based political malfeasance, and subpoenas my computer, that's the one I'll submit. The one I'm typing on now will "disappear" until the heat has passed. And the old one has nothing of interest on it.

Paranoia, I know, but it's a simple and easy kind of paranoia.

10 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:37:01am

More info here at publicknowledge.org.

11 Buckaroo  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:39:02am

# 5 g

[I'm with you, but see zombie at #9 -- most libertarian types (esp. those of a technophile bent, like, say, a certain law professor) absolutely freak out whenever the government tries to stick their hands into the world of electronic communication ...]

12 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:40:04am

OT: This doesn't seem right...
Mich. Prof Tells Muslim Students to Leave America; CAIR-MI Seeks Disciplinary Action over Islamophobic E-Mail


The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI) today called on Michigan State University (MSU) in East Lansing to take "appropriate disciplinary action" against a professor who sent an Islamophobic e-mail to Muslim students.

MSU engineering professor Indrek Wichman used his faculty e- mail account to send a "Dear Moslem Association" message to the university's Muslim Students' Association (MSA) containing a long list of charges, including a claim that Muslims rape "Scandinavain (sic) girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture)."

The February 28, 2006, e-mail also stated: "I counsul (sic) you dissatisfied, agressive (sic), brutal, and uncivilized slave- trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.' If you do not like the values of the West -- see the 1st Ammendment (sic) -- you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans."


There seem to be a lot of typos and spelling mistakes for a PHD. If he did write it, why would he have sent it directly to the MSA? I've done a bit of googling on this but haven't found anything yet.

13 LibraryGryffon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:42:18am

The whole point in this is that ultimately publishers and studios never want you to actually own the works you think you have purchased. The goal is to have the consumer only purchase rights to view or listen to a work n times, and after that one would have to go back and pony up more money to listen to that CD, read that book, watch that movie, play that game. The library in it's current incarnation would disappear completely, because we would never be able to own anything with a license which would allow our patrons to actually use it. (Or only at such a high cost that we'd have to cut our annual additions to the collection by about 95%.)

If you've ever used a library, whether public or institutional, if this law and it's logical follow-ups go through, you never will again.

And the people who most deserve to financially benefit from copyrighted works, the actual authors, musicians, actors, performers, almost never will.

14 Buckaroo  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:42:28am

# 12 K T

I'm gonna guess English isn't Indrek's 1st language ...


/funnily enough, neither is it much of CAIR's(!)

15 frankp_63  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:42:46am

It's offensive for Gonzalez to play a terrorism angle and say this will deter organized piracy gangs who fund terrorist entities. That's horseshit. I support this administration's war effort, but other times I really feel it has its collective head up its ass. The same week it entertains the Chinese president, who oversees the largest piracy enterprises on the planet, it introduces this crap to go after Amercian citizens who want to burn a copy of software for themselves. These companies have been crying the same game since blank cassettes came out.

I can decide what's more urgent: keeping technology out of the hands of terrorists or off the hands of brain-dead politicans.

16 St. Pancake  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:43:28am

12 Killgore Trout
On for a few, but this is indeed very bizarre. Profs. would normally go ballistic over many spelling and gramatical mistakes. This is truly a mystery.
Cannot truly believe a typical anal-retentive Engineer (please do not take this personally, I love you guys) would allow this type of email to go out.

I smell something, and it is not my perfume.

17 tankdemon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:43:51am

9 zombie-

Hate to tell you this, but computers are just as likely items taken under search warrant as they are to be subpeonaed. Do you really think that an investigative team would just let you submit a computer at a certain time to a certain place after haveing a chance to destroy files or change content?

18 religion of bacon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:44:00am

Yes, DMCA is rather draconian -- but the basic problem is that we've got a culture where everyone thinks it's ok to make free copies of content. That if something can be represented as bits, you can't charge for it. So naturally, content providers want to protect their content from being devalued. Yet only the most totalitarian, Big Brother measures have any chance of stopping copyright violations. What to do?

Sites like Slashdot regularly beat this subject to death, and usually the "information wants to be free" folks dominate the discussion, and make self-serving arguments that amount to "big companies are greedy a**holes, therefore I should be able to copy anything I want." It's not a coincidence that sites like Slashdot (and arguably LGF) generate very little actual original content, and are based on a model of quoting and then discussing other people's content.

It really is a dilemma -- don't believe anyone, on either side, who claims to have a simple solution that's fair to all parties involved.

19 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:47:42am

By all means, let's prevent people from looking under the hoods of everything they own. If they want to know how things work, tough. Who wants the plebes scrutinizing how things work, anyway?

/

20 zombie  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:48:06am
#11 Buckaroo
see zombie at #9 -- most libertarian types (esp. those of a technophile bent, like, say, a certain law professor) absolutely freak out whenever the government tries to stick their hands into the world of electronic communication ...

The thing I worry about is this: someone could sue a blogger -- baselessly or not -- for "violating" copyright. Then that blogger could have their computer subpoenaed as evidence in the trial.

Say, for example, Charles does what he (and a lot of other people) always does, posts an entry on a topic, and then quotes some text from the subject in question. Then that person, under this new law, could try to charge Charles for "copyright violation" because the new rules restrict the concept of "fair use." Then his computer could be seized as part of evidence for the trial.

Say, for example, that the Indymidiot the other day (who requested Charles take down the Indymedia photo that he had posted on LGF) instead had SUED Charles for copyright infringement. Charles would probably win in court, but not before his computer could be seized and his whole career seriously disrupted thereby.

It's for reasons like that that I keep my "decoy" computer.

21 Sean II  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:50:43am

Breaking ROP news: Three explosions reported in Egypt with many casualties...

22 Abu Jambon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:50:47am

9 zombie

That second computer might not do the trick. Micro$oft knows the CPU type when XP is activated. Is that info safe with M$ ?

23 Kragar (proud to be kafir)  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:51:08am

#11 Buckaroo

A lot of the time, the government policies regarding computer security have no basis in technological reality.

Several years ago, late 90s, my unit received orders to secure all computers attached to the unit according to DoD mandated guidelines. These guidelines required no connections to a network, no removable media (floppy, CDs, hard drives), hardening scripts that would allow no data to be altered on the system,etc.

CO wanted to make sure we complied throughout the Battalion. After we "fixed" his computer, he canceled compliance.

Dealing with the same crap with the Navy today. Businessmen deciding security procedures with no understanding of the underlying tech.

24 Buckaroo  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:53:48am

# 20 z

Reading the CNET article, I don't see how your Charles scenario could come to pass as they don't say how the "fair use" language is changing. I will concede if that language is poor and they expect the courts (who will, of course, jump in with both feet) to sort it out via test cases, then yes it could be problematic but I'm not seeing direct evidence of that at the moment ...

25 Kragar (proud to be kafir)  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:54:53am

#17 tankdemon

True. If you cant wipe a box in the time it takes to bash in a door, they can get everything in it.

Best to rig a system for total destruction. If they're coming in the door, explaining why your CPU is a smoking heap is the least of your concerns.

26 grayp  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:55:06am

I've read the analysis over at publicknowledge. I remain unconvinced that this is a dangerous amendment.

Intellectual property rights and patent law are a mess - and whatever punks say about downloading 'free' music - it's stealing - from the artists, not just the distributors.

“It’s one degree more likely that mere communication about the means of accomplishing a hack would be subject to penalties,” said Peter Jaszi, who teaches copyright law at American University and is critical of attempts to expand it.

Jaszi needs to get a grip. I remeber back in the '70s the NSA wanted some legislation to fund development of new security software. The algorythym was published in the Federal Register.

Extrapolation of Jaszi's concern in the real world would mean that murder mystery writers would never be able to write how to commit the perfect murder.

If you want a robust market, protecting the profits of the people who create product is not a bad idea.

So, I'm not a lawyer. So sue me.

27 TrueReliever  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:55:13am

Info on contributor's to smith:
[Link: www.opensecrets.org...]


It's a bad law. Just as the DMCA and the many other revisions to copyright over the last 50 years or so have been.

There is a discussion on this topic at slashdot,
[Link: politics.slashdot.org...]

28 bweep  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:56:08am

Breaking: 3 explosions in Egypt.

29 Charles  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:56:58am

Theft of intellectual property is indeed a serious problem, but the DMCA is not the answer in my opinion. It puts way too much power in the hands of film/music companies, and after working in the field for decades I can tell you that these are some of the least trustworthy people on the planet.

30 Killgore Trout  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:57:04am

#21 Sean II
Police: Casualties in blasts at Egyptian resort town of Dahab

A witness said he heard three explosions and saw smoke in the tourist bazaar area of the Egyptian Sinai resort town of Dahab on Monday, part of a five-day spring holiday in Egypt.

Egyptian police have said there were casualties in the blasts.

Police officials said more than 20 ambulances and police cars were rushing to the el-Masbat section of the city.


I believe Big Pharaoh is on vacation there as we speak.

31 religion of bacon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:57:13am

#24 Buckaroo

I'd be very surprised if quoting a paragraph or so for purposes of discussion, scholarship, review, etc., was no longer considered fair use, because that's exactly what fair use is intended for.

32 Buckaroo  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:57:37am

# 26 g

Sound of gauntlet hitting the ground


You tell 'em!
:-)

33 zombie  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:58:20am
#17 tankdemon
9 zombie-
Hate to tell you this, but computers are just as likely items taken under search warrant as they are to be subpeonaed. Do you really think that an investigative team would just let you submit a computer at a certain time to a certain place after haveing a chance to destroy files or change content?

That's what I'm talking about -- literally kicking down doors.

Say I'm sitting here, and someone pounds on my door, demanding to be let in. And let's just say that I don't answer the door. (Which I never do, by the way.) And they want to serve me a search warrant. What recourse do they have? They're gonna kick down the door, that's what. But it's going to take them a little bit of time before they go that far. And all I need is a minute to extract the decoy laptop computer, put it on the desk, press the power button to turn it on, and fold up my existing computer and slip it into my "you'll never find it" hiding place. (And yes, it's that good of a hiding place.) They'll see what they think they're looking for (computer on the desk), so are they going to tear my home apart looking for more computers? Not likely.

Maybe later, when they're analyzing my hard drive back in the office, they'll see that my computer is just a decoy, but by then I'll have had plenty of time to permanently switch out my real computer for a different new one.

34 tankdemon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 8:58:25am

20 zombie

That answered my question in #5. I find it difficult to believe that anybody would have a problem with small sections of a story being quoted, but one never knows.

That raises the next question- who holds the copyright on what I am currently typing? Since this post is my original work, do I own it, or does it automatically become the possesion of Charles' because he is publishing it? If a blogger does get sued over a comment, can he then sue the creator of the comment for damages?

With the exceptions of plagiarism in which the plageriast actually collects a financial benefit and/or can be proved to cost the original author of revenue and libel, I think that the web should pretty much be a no philisophical holds barred match of wits and ideas.

35 windybon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:01:08am

Egyption blasts - they're now reporting at least 100 dead.

36 acwgusa  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:01:37am

See, I read that article incorrectly. I read Virginia Democrat as Virgin Democrat.

37 bianchi_roadie  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:02:31am

#5

There is always the worry that the language in the bill could be so broad as to outlaw ligitimate software and uses. I remember a few years ago several computer use laws were so poorly written that it technically made most IT security research and tools illegal. Thankfully those were killed before they could do damage.

38 Dirk Diggler  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:02:41am
Sites like Slashdot regularly beat this subject to death, and usually the "information wants to be free" folks dominate the discussion, and make self-serving arguments that amount to "big companies are greedy a**holes, therefore I should be able to copy anything I want."

Not at all. I routinely buy DVD's even though bootlegs are widely available on the internet. Why? Because, in addition to the movies themselves, the DVD's are loaded with extras (deleted scenes, alternate endings, director and actor commentaries, etc.). In essence, they're content rich.

I refuse to pay $19.99 for one decent song, and I'm not going to.

If you like a particular band or artist and you want to show you're appreciation for their music, go see them in concert or buy their merchandise.

39 Buckaroo  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:04:45am

# 34 t d

Several weeks ago, H. Hewitt cited a Mass. (I think) court case re: just such an issue which is why he and others do not allow comments on their blogs ...

IIRC, some blogs state that they take copyright ownership of comments on their main page ...

40 tankdemon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:05:00am

33 zombie-

A very well thought out plan, though I am sure that anytime they have to kick the door in they assume you are hiding something somewhere and will make a very thorough excavation.

I'm hoping it never comes to that, but being that you are in San Fransico and follow the lifestyle you do, it is a good idea to expect persecution.

41 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:08:08am

Interesting post over at slashdot:

Running an ISP in a Warzone

Runs Linux.

42 grayp  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:10:11am

#29 Charles

It puts way too much power in the hands of film/music companies, and after working in the field for decades I can tell you that these are some of the least trustworthy people on the planet.

I hear you. It is ACSME(?) that can go into bars and make them pay a fee for playing music they get from a subscription service or something? That's ridiculous.

But I'm not clear as to how the proposed amendment gives these assholes more discretion.

43 darren  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:11:27am
Not at all. I routinely buy DVD's even though bootlegs are widely available on the internet. Why? Because, in addition to the movies themselves, the DVD's are loaded with extras (deleted scenes, alternate endings, director and actor commentaries, etc.). In essence, they're content rich.

Here's a better reason not to bootleg: You have no legal or moral right to the products of somebody else's work. It doesn't matter how many extras the DVD contains; what matters is that the contents of the DVD is owned by someone, and you have to meet their terms if you want their work.


I refuse to pay $19.99 for one decent song, and I'm not going to.

I hope you don't use this as an excuse to steal that one decent song. If you don't want to spend $20 on a CD, then don't spend $20 on a CD.

Or better yet, just spend $1 for your song at any of the online music stores.

44 Dirk Diggler  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:16:52am

darren,

Here's a better reason not to bootleg: You have no legal or moral right to the products of somebody else's work. It doesn't matter how many extras the DVD contains; what matters is that the contents of the DVD is owned by someone, and you have to meet their terms if you want their work.

Thank you for the sermon. Now piss off.

45 grayp  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:17:04am

#34 Tankdemon

That raises the next question- who holds the copyright on what I am currently typing?

I don't mean to be flip, but this brings back a funny memory. Penn State back in the '70s, the old Comp(utation) Center. PSU had some remote terminals, but most of us did our work off keypunch machines. PSU gave the punch cards away for free - 2k to a box. While a project was in progress, we'd all store the cards in the boxes and write our names on the boxes.

A friend of mine came in to work one day and his boxes were gone. He was pretty sure he knew who had taken them and reported a theft to the campus police (aka 'The Keystone Cops).

They decided that the cards actually belonged to the University. The only thing my friend owned were the holes he had punched into them and they couldn't figure out how to find those.

They weren't lawyers, either.

46 jonturner  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:18:00am

#4 rickmoss

Bottom-line, copyright infringement is a crime and even planning to commit a crime is conspiracy.

I don't think you understand just how far-reaching this is. Let me give you one not-too-unrealistic example: Watchagonnado when Ford Motor Company/GM/Toyota/whoever sells a car to you but only "licenses" the engine technology? That licenese, by the way, expressely forbids any unapproved mechanic (e.g. you) from working on the vehicle and if it detects "improper" tampering (such as an oil change without an encryption keycode, it disables the vehicle until it's unlocked by a licensed garage (who will undoubtedly charge you for this privledge).

This is simply about forcing people to spend money on things they ordinarily wouldn't. Making consumers, where they otherwise wouldn't exist.


Besides, a copyright violation is not a criminal act, but a civil act. The framers set up the idea of copyright to protect innovation for the public good (in exchange for registering the idea which guarantees it's completely described so that others may, after the copyright expires, build upon that invention). It was never meant to be a permanent protection racket for large media companies based on illustrations of mice.

47 tankdemon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:20:16am

45 grayp

What if they found a hanging chad? Would the University and your friend have had to split it in half?

48 grayp  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:21:16am

#46 jonturner

Besides, a copyright violation is not a criminal act, but a civil act.

AH HA! Now I get it.

49 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:22:47am

How is this more important than steroid use in baseball?

/need i?

50 grayp  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:23:13am

#47 tank

What if they found a hanging chad? Would the University and your friend have had to split it in half?

Nope. Everything about those cards belonged to PSU except the holes.
;-D

51 jonturner  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:26:50am

#46 jonturner

Sorry folks. Brain short circuited & I left out a pretty important part of sentence. PIMF.

Meant to say that copyright protects original works (which may or may not include innovation) and patent protects novel invention which necessarily is innovative.


[I guess I've gotten my Senior Moment our of the way. I'll start to worry when I have more than one/day...]

52 zombie  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:29:32am

I'm less concerned about the law being used to track down intellectual pirates than I am about it being twisted to be used fro political purposes.

I'm technically very un-savvy and wouldn't have a clue how to "disable copyright protections" on some product or other. And I wouldn't ever buy a "pirated" DVD or whatever -- wouldn't even know where to find one.

Instead, I wory that the law could be used to initiate trumped-up cases against bloggers or others as political retaliation. And once they have your hard drive in their hands, all sorts of mishigass could start emerging.

I, for example, sometimes troll jihadi sites, or other extremist sites, on all sides of the political spectrum, to see what the enemy is up to. I might check up on Islamofascist sites to see what conspiracy theories they're promoting these days; or go to David Duke's site to see if he has any more endorsements of Cindy Sheehan; or poke around various communist sites to keep tabs on them, etc. So, my "search history" might look pretty checkered. And an investigator could drag this all out in a trial, even though it may have nothing to do with the case in question. But the context of your visits to those sites will not be explained.

Think about every Web site you've ever been to, for any reason. Well, odds are, even if you've "erased" your Web surfing history, the bits and bytes of that history file most likely are still there on your hard drive, and a block search could bring it all back. (Just ask Monica Lewinsky about her emails.)

And if a nuisance lawsuit is brought against me or any other blogger who sufficiently pisses off someone in "power," who knows what will come to light.

Imagine this law passing, and Hillary winning in 2008, and it suddenly becoming a tool for political repression.

Of course, I do realize I'm being overly paranoid, and the likelihood of my scenario is very slim, but that old decoy laptop on the shelf gives me comfort -- just in case.

53 Catttt  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:31:14am

I wonder what Kevin Mitnick thinks about this development.

I really need to find my autographed Free Kevin bumpersticker. (It was too nice to put on my truck.)

54 wargammer2005  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:32:44am

Zombie

a better solution is to use the decoy computer to remote control the other, real one.

the real one is hiding somewhere that it wont be found.

the decoy is just there, all set to be taken.

55 Dirk Diggler  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:37:16am

zombie,

Of course, I do realize I'm being overly paranoid, and the likelihood of my scenario is very slim, but that old decoy laptop on the shelf gives me comfort -- just in case.

Of course you just revealed details of your cunning strategem to the website's 2,891 online visitors. You may need to devise a new strategy now.

Perhaps purchase a "decoy, decoy" computer and stuff it in an easy to find hiding place.

56 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:40:26am
57 Lizard by the Bay  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:44:28am

"Fair Use"? Consumer rights? What's that?

/your Congress at work

58 grayp  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:49:26am

#56 buzzsawmonkey

So, I'm not completely off-base thinking this amendment is not so bad?

Could you please cure me of my ignorance regarding Charles' concern, i.e., it puts far too much power in the hands of the music industry.

(you should post here more often, ya know?)

59 wargammer2005  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:52:35am

funny how Microsoft and other companies seem to rake in the profits with the current laws.

instead Congress should out-law current license agreements that make us "rent" software and no longer onw it out-right.

but we all know who Congress works for (themselves)

60 Avner.  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:56:29am

Israeli Ambassador: No Israelis Injured in Dahab Terrorist Attacks

[Link: arutzsheva.com...]

Baruch Hashem

61 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:00:34am
62 religion of bacon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:07:01am

#56 buzzsawmonkey

I agree with some of what you're saying, but you've conveniently left out the FUD from the other side (content creators & industry). When I buy a CD or DVD, I want to own that copy in perpetuity; I don't want it to be some sort of revocable license. I don't want the act of playing a disc to silently install spyware on my machine without my approval. I don't want my listening or viewing habits to be reported, or to have to be connected to the net to verify my content license.

the people opposed to the DMCA are, most likely, suspect

Sorry, I can't agree with your basic position that anyone who's opposed to the DMCA (or any part of it?) must be a lefty moonbat. The DMCA is extremely intrusive -- it has all the signs of catering to the industry lobbyists at the expense of consumers.

And trying to ride the DMCA on the coattails of the Patriot Act is just plain wrong...

63 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:09:53am
64 grayp  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:10:03am

buzzsawmonkey

Public Knowledge has a pdf link to a draft of the bill. It's coming from the House side and does not yet have a bill number, which is why I couldn't find it in Thomas.

65 Athens Runaway  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:11:34am

I happen to fall on the libertarian side of things when it comes to techie matters.

The DMCA is a farce, to be frank. Did you know that, according to the wording of the DMCA, singing "Happy Birthday" in a public place, say, a restaurant, is illegal? That's right, kiddoes. "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted. It's owned by Time-Warner, iirc. "Mary Had A Little Lamb," "Frere Jacques," and pretty much every universally-recognized song in human history has been copyrighted, and those copyrights don't end until the sun expands and swallows the Earth whole, give a take a million years.

Techies like myself believe that the Internet has inherent qualities that no government or entity should be allowed to take away or infringe upon. I can think of the Two Biggies right now.

-Anonymity: anyone can speak freely and not be forced to reveal the link between his/her online persona and real-world identity. This has eroded some, but you can still make up fake personas and go into chat rooms, or register for membership in sites with false ID's.
-Neutrality: All bits of data are created equal, and preference or favoritism of traffic flow should not be given to bits from a certain source or entity on the Net.

There are more, but I can't recall them off the top of my head.

66 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:20:34am
67 Han_Solo  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:23:27am

I am for security as much as the next guy... BUT....


The DMCA is KILLING the software industry and has single handedly brought innovation in technology to a near standstill in the last few years.

68 sammysdad  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:26:16am

Hahaha

Do they actually think that the technology for burning DVDs was only going to be used by people wanting to splice together their home movies.

When I pay for a DVD I've only BOUGHT the right to watch the contents so why can't I get a free replacement when they no longer work ?

That's pretty much the argument for burning "backup" copies.

69 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:27:39am
70 mattm  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:30:00am

Just look at the Sony incident where a virus was put on a music CD. No matter what the laws say people will try to find a way around copy-protection, espically if "fair-use" guldelines are infringed upon.

71 religion of bacon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:35:01am

#66 buzzsawmonkey

to prevent people from decrypting works which they are not entitled to decrypt. What's the problem with that?

One problem is that it prevents users from making legitimate backup copies, of DVDs for example. Another problem is that if I buy media that's encrypted, and that media can only be played by certain players, then if those companies go out of business, I may be stuck with inaccessible content. Or one media item may use an encryption scheme that interferes with, or is incompatible with, other vendors' encryption schemes, or custom hardware that I've installed in my PC. Or the vendor may decide to phase out players that support the current encryption scheme, in order to force me to repurchase content I already own.

and why is the comparison to the Patriot Act not relevant?

Preventing unauthorized copying of DVDs has nothing to do with national security, last time I checked.

72 locutus  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:37:15am

Oh well, I guess now I need to get rid of my collection of Square Pegs episodes that I taped on Betamax back in the 80's..

73 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:39:51am
74 locutus  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:39:55am

#70

Just look at the Sony incident where a virus was put on a music CD. No matter what the laws say people will try to find a way around copy-protection, espically if "fair-use" guldelines are infringed upon.

As my father says, "Some a**h*le invented it, so some other a**h*le can figure out how it works"

75 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:52:34am
76 piglet  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:54:37am
to prevent people from decrypting works which they are not entitled to decrypt. What's the problem with that?

Also, I need to know if in addition to encrypting, they have also dumped mal ware, spy ware, or that sony cd viris crap on my PC.

Just wait until some smartass makes a copy protection "crypt" that makes you first illegal copy contain the big-mo cartoons, then calls the rioters on ya butt.

77 sammysdad  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:54:42am

#70 mattn

Yeah Sony. They are the industry leader in encryption tricks placed on DVDs. They put in "bad sectors" "puppet shows" etc. in order to prevent people from making copies on their SONY DVD burners.

I'm not overly concerned about the music and movie industry kingpins getting all the money they feel they deserve.

78 tankdemon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:58:58am

Think of Sony's encryption tricks the same way you think of banks adding dye packs to the bags of cash they hand bank robbers.

79 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 10:58:59am

buzzsawmonkey

You're kidding. You play 78's? Hell man, digitize those babies, play the copies, and save the 78's as masters. These days it's trivial, and a good thing, too.

80 jonturner  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:02:18am

#74 locutus

As my father says, "Some a**h*le invented it, so some other a**h*le can figure out how it works"

As it should be! However, this law would prevent disassembly, discovery of mechanism, etc. IOW, it's a black box, don't look inside! And if you dare, you risk fines and imprisonment. That's what's so wrong about this proposed law.

Sure, it's unlikely that some jerk with a screwdriver (or a disassmebler, or a logic probe) will take something apart and be sent to prison for mere curiosity, but that it's even a remote possible is IMO a perversion of the foundational idea of property rights and freedom for intellectual curiosity.

It's just un-American.

81 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:03:45am

buzzsawmonkey

You know, I have all these valuable papyrus documents in my basement from ancient Egypt (long story). At night I like to take them out, fondle them, rub them all over my body, and then put them back in their alabaster tubes.

I thought about taking digital photos of them, but I really felt bad about the rights of all those Pharoahs.

82 jonturner  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:03:57am

#78 tankdemon

Think of Sony's encryption tricks the same way you think of banks adding dye packs to the bags of cash they hand bank robbers.

Think of a bank adding dye packs to lawful withdrawls from legitimate customers who attempt to use their money in a way the bank doesn't like.

Now your analogy fits.

83 FabioC.  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:05:07am

#78

Not really; that Sony "protection" system damaged perfectly legit users and caused security flaws.

The issue of copyright is thorny. I think that absolutes in both senses will be detrimental to the society as a whole - the difficult part is to find the proper balance.

On a slightly different note, there will always be thieves, like it or not. The idea that a perfect protection system can be implemented without at least causing a big pain the back to legit users is absurd.

84 piglet  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:05:43am

Frank zappa had these greedy people pegged:

The ladies' shame must be shared by the bosses at the major labels who, through the RIAA, chose to bargain away the rights of composers, performers, and retailers in order to pass H.R. 2911, The Blank Tape Tax: A private tax levied by an industry on consumers for the benefit of a select group within that industry. Is this a "consumer issue"? You bet it is. PMRC spokesperson, Kandy Stroud, announced to millions of fascinated viewers on last Friday's ABC Nightline debate that Senator Gore, a man she described as "A friend of the music industry," is co-sponsor of something she referred to as "anti-piracy legislation". Is this the same tax bill with a nicer name?

The major record labels need to have H.R. 2911 whiz through a few committees before anybody smells a rat. One of them is chaired by Senator Thurmond. Is it a coincidence that Mrs. Thurmond is affiliated with the PMRC? I cannot say she's a member, because the PMRC has no members. Their secretary told me on the phone last Friday that the PMRC has no members . . . only founders. I asked how many other D.C. wives are nonmembers of an organization that raises money by mail, has a tax-exempt status, and seems intent on running the Constitution of the United States through the family paper-shredder. I asked her if it was a cult. Finally, she said she couldn't give me an answer and that she had to call their lawyer.

[Link: mars.superlink.net...]

85 sammysdad  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:09:27am

#78 tankdemon

"Think of Sony's encryption tricks the same way you think of banks adding dye packs to the bags of cash they hand bank robbers."

Sorry, that analogy simply doesn't work for me.

I would think it's more like well armed security guards that prevent robbers from getting the money in the first place.

86 piglet  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:12:36am

I there a "sockpuppet" in here:

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

Sony's controversial anti-piracy CD software has been labelled as spyware by Microsoft.

The software giant said a key part of the XCP copy protection system counted as malicious software under the rules it uses to define what Windows should be protected against.
-----
Specifically XCP uses a "root-kit" to conceal itself deep inside the Windows operating system.

"Root-kits have a clearly negative impact on not only the security, but also the reliability and performance of their systems," said Mr Garms in the blog entry.

As a result Microsoft will put utilities to find and remove the root-kit in the next update of its anti-spyware software.

87 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:13:08am
88 piglet  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:13:56am

Sony's cd's were kinda like buying a x-mas tree filled with termites. :-)

89 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:14:51am

I have a massive collection of 8-track tapes. Unfortunately, my 8-track player broke years ago, and so there all my tapes sit, sorely neglected.

I bought the sonic reproduction of this music in perpetuity for my own use! I kept my end of the bargain!

The various record companies haven't reissued my favorites, so I'm totally screwed. I'm thinking of suing the record companies for releasing this material on technology that became obsolete.

Do you think they'll settle and give me all my albums as CD's?

I think there are at least a few hundred.

90 Milo Minderbinder  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:15:40am

buzzsawmonkey

You're kidding. You play 78's? Hell man, digitize those babies, play the copies, and save the 78's as masters. These days it's trivial, and a good thing, too.

That would seem to go against his arguments and beliefs. Heaven forbid the consumer actually be able to use content that he purchased without being in conformance with idiotic laws drafted by the RIAA and MPAA.

91 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:17:08am
92 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:20:00am

buzzsawmonkey

But there is a difference hearing it from the actual disk, which carries the (honestly-earned) mileage of its existence.

Ah, sentiment. It's honest, though. The actual difference, I suspect, is that you're more sentimental about the medium than the message. Which is ironic, given that repeated playing is going to degrade those things and ruin them for everybody.

If it's the message you want -- the actual sound coming out of the thing -- then stick a good microphone in front of the victrola and make a 24 bit recording.

All the gain (yuk yuk), and none of the pain!

93 jonturner  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:21:47am

#75 buzzsawmonkey
>>Which is merely by way of saying that your suggestion that a platform change justifies content theft does not find a sympathetic ear here.

But you have a right to build your own phono player for your 78s, if you wish. You can copy that music to a new format and listen as you like. These are rights denied to those who wish to view DVDs on systems they have built with software they have written (Linux). Are you comfortable with this disparity?

94 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:22:44am

buzzsawmonkey

You're right, I was going for a cheap laugh.

I'm serious about the transfers, though. If you love those 78's so much, why not enable your great-grand-children to hear them?

95 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:23:12am
96 piglet  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:23:43am

Of course the hard part of digitizing from an 8-track is getting the full impact of the "trackchange thunk" to come thru without blowing out any of the weakling modern "non-vacume tube" components. :-)

97 cktheman  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:24:38am

I get so sick and tired of hearing that only left-wingers are opposed to this type of legislation - it simply is not true. These bills (along with absurd patent law) are in the process of destroying the software industry and do nothing but stifle innovation and put massive $ in the hands of entertainment DISTRIBUTION networks (not the CREATORS of the content!). All at the severe cost of your civil rights.

This new bill is horrendous - more jail time than someone who has committed armed robbery, rape, or manslaughter for 'attempting' to copy a DVD? I think our constitution calls that cruel and unusual punishment, and I think any sane American should as well. Imprisoning Americans for something 1/2 the population thinks is 'OK' is a gross violation of civil rights. My kids scratch DVD'd regularly - so I shouldn't be able to back them up to save my investment? Please. The Fair Use Doctrine permits that, but that is all but gone now.

And you thought outsourcing was the enemy of the industry? I think not. Intellectual property laws are WAY OUT OF CONTROL. They are out of control because the entertainment industry has bought off Congress - on boths sides of the aisle.

And, yes, I am a staunch conservative - laws like this are not a conservative/liberal issue - the text of this bill is an outrage, and everyone ought to write their congressman about it.

Chris...

98 religion of bacon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:27:26am

#75 buzzsawmonkey

Tough. There is no inalienable right to cross-platform content.

Nice try. You're basically saying I have a right of perpetual ownership of the physical media, but no guarantee that I'll be able to continue to be able to access the contents. Then you wonder why people dislike the entertainment industry...

As for your 78 rpm example, the DMCA equivalent would be to make it illegal to publish the spec for how audio information is encoded in vinyl grooves, so that no one could ever make their own LP cartridges. Once the last record player dies, you're SOL.

Which is merely by way of saying that your suggestion that a platform change justifies content theft does not find a sympathetic ear here.

Not surprisingly, you're assuming that any objection to copy protection is based on a desire to make illegal copies. Wrong.

Laws against messing with encryption do indeed have to do with national security, or can.

Once again, bogus argument -- it's fairly well established that "security through obscurity" (trying to hide the encryption algorithm) is a bad idea: you'll never get wide peer review of the algorithm to insure its strength, and the "secret recipe" will eventually leak or be reverse-engineered. The idea that an ideal encryption scheme is one that's developed in total secrecy has been proven wrong many times; it typically results in weak schemes with serious holes that would've been fixed by a peer review process.

That they also protect people from stealing other people's property is merely a bonus.

Again, I'm all for preventing piracy, but there are serious side-effects of these schemes which deserve a better answer than "tough."

99 piglet  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:32:36am

Just wait until the militrary cloning projects are declassified or leaked. Then crimminals are gonna be poking supermodels with needles and the next week, 20,000 Kate mosses running around, running her career. :-)

100 Milo Minderbinder  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:45:01am

#90 Milo Minderbinder

Your comment does not make sense.

And yet it accurately reflects the position of media groups helping to draft these laws. When I buy a CD or DVD, I expect the ability to transfer the contents into whatever device I like for my own use. So would most Americans, including President Bush, who claims to have recordings of the Beatles on his iPod. Obviously the recording companies would prefer that I pay repeatedly for the same content in different packaging. It's not clear to me why the preferences of recording companies should prevail over the preferences of consumers, nor is it clear to me why Congress finds it necessary to pass laws catering to the preferences of these companies at the expense of the citizens they claim to represent.

Perhaps you could explain why the preferences of recording companies should prevail over those of ordinary citizens in a way that makes sense. I'm looking forward to it.

101 xenophobic  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:51:29am

The courts often allow companies to allow reverse-engineering for compatibility:
reverse-engineer

This is the reason free products like OpenOffice [www.openoffice.org] can not only read Microsoft Word documents, but can write Microsoft Word documents, and PDF's.

102 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:56:18am

buzzsawmonkey

By the way, thanks for a clear exposition of your point of view.

103 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 12:16:32pm

buzzsawmonkey

Hmm, I see that the sponsors of the very restrictive Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (which did not become law) were nearly all Democrats, not property-sympathetic Republicans. It was killed before committee by Leahy.

Doesn't seem like a cut-and-dry Republican / Democratic issue to me.

104 rickmoss  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 12:35:15pm

"Besides, a copyright violation is not a criminal act, but a civil act."

That's not 100% true. While there is a civil aspect to copyright infringement, here in Singapore, and in many other countries, policy are empowered to confiscate and destroy counterfeit goods that infringe on copyrights, and to arrest those who traffic them. Police aren't allowed to act in this manner in merely civil cases -- unless a specific court order or injunction is issued. If that were the case, the police would only be allowed to seize those items specifically cited in the order.

105 George guy  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 12:44:49pm

The whole problem with this is that the entertainment and software industries are trying to hang on to a business model that will simply not work in the 21st century.

For the sake of the point i'm making, the legality and the morality of copyright infringement is not relevant. The fact of the matter is that it is insane to continue trying to make money from a product by trying to control the distribution of that product, when current technology makes it possible for anyone to make dozens of perfect copies with minimal effort.

Ultimately, attempts to criminalize copyright infringement with steeper penalties, to create more and increasingly pernicious protection mechanisms -- are an exercise in futility as far as actually stopping the practice of copyright infringement. All they're doing is putting temporary stumbling blocks in the paths of the hackers and making life more unnecessarily tedious for the rest of us. If the big names in the entertainment and software industries do not give up on this, and we don't stop them, it will bring about the age of technofeudalism, where our productivity is governed by proprietary formats, and software is no longer purchased but subscribed to. Whether or not this can be avoided depends on whether or not our needs can be fulfilled by people operating on different business plans.

Again, a business model that depends on controlling the distribution of the product will be no good in years to come. IMAO, a comparatively better business plan in years to come will be the hostage technique. Announce your product, provide a demo/teaser for free, declare that the real thing won't be released until you receive a certain amount of money, and accept the fact that once it is released people are going to propagate copies amongst each other.

106 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 1:24:51pm

george

announce your product, provide a demo/teaser for free, declare that the real thing won't be released until you receive a certain amount of money, and accept the fact that once it is released people are going to propagate copies amongst each other

Why call this the "hostage model"? Maybe call it the "Renaissance model" instead. A company could say "Here's our idea/plan, here's a teaser, and we think it'll take $10,000 for us to produce and release it." Then they set out a tip jar.

If people like the idea/plan and like the teaser, they chip in something. Could be a penny. Could be $1000. Then, when the company gets $10,000, it produces the article for download and free copying. It has recouped its costs, made some money above fixed costs, and has made all its consumers happy for the moment. Consumers who are especially happy might make copies and distribute it to friends (free publicity, exposure). That would generate more eyeballs and perhaps interest in the next release.

If the company makes consumers happy reliably, it will continue to have customers and be able to charge more and make more money.

This makes sense to me. Maybe some companies will say "Dangit, that thing was really popular, we should've asked for more!" But market analysis will sort it out. This model would avoid the phenomenon of someone making only one huge hit and then milking that thing for all its worth. Companies would have to *continue* to be productive to be profitable.

What's not to like here?

107 Fiery Red XIII  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 2:03:47pm

I apologize, but I don't really understand it, could some1 put this into layman's terms for me please? (sorry!)

Red

108 ggt  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 2:29:21pm

Well, this thread has been an education. And like any good education, it leaves me with many questions.

First of all, I understand that copying another person's work, intellectual, artistic, etc is illegal, as it should be. I understand that these things have a time limit.

As an artist, I take such things very seriously.

Now, if someone takes another's work without permission, and does not use it to make money or profit in anyway without permission (i.e. high school project or scrapbooking)--is it still illegal or worth prosecuting?

At one point, they said copying a movie from the TV or other medium for home use was legal, you just couldn't sell tickets to your living room premiere.

109 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 2:30:50pm
110 ggt  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 2:30:52pm

and does any part of this bill prevent Cisco from creating and selling data mining software to China?

111 religion of bacon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 2:32:37pm

#106 godfrey

Why call this the "hostage model"? Maybe call it the "Renaissance model" instead. A company could say "Here's our idea/plan, here's a teaser, and we think it'll take $10,000 for us to produce and release it." Then they set out a tip jar.

It's also referred to as the "patronage model." Some artists have tried it, e.g. Todd Rundgren had an entire online system called Patronet. It has several problems. For one, only hardcore fans are likely to pay for something in advance; the majority of fans will continue to download free copies if they can get away with it, so the patrons have to subsidize the freeloaders.

In addition, in this model, the artist receives no ongoing revenue stream from past releases; the only way for him/her to capitalize on especially popular releases is to increase the "patronage fees" for future releases, which makes it harder to attract new fans. Another issue is that since the artist pretty much lives or dies from release to release (as opposed to receiving ongoing revenues from past hits), there is serious pressure (even more than now) to "play it safe" and not try anything that would disappoint fans who have paid in advance for the content. The old model is "here it is, if you don't like it, don't buy it. maybe you'll like the next one." The new model is "you've already paid me for it, so now I'm under contract to you to deliver what you want and expect." We already have this problem to some extent due to huge record company advances which put artists in the position of having to produce material to spec as determined by the record company, since they've loaned out a lot of money to the artist.

There are other issues, e.g. if you send out free teasers in advance, then you're under pressure to make sure the rest of the album is similar, or fans will feel they've been bait-and-switched.


#107 Fiery Red XIII

could some1 put this into layman's terms for me please?

1. Many people won't pay for something if they can get away with making a free copy. The Internet makes it trival to violate copyright and not be held accountable.

2. Record companies want to squeeze every dollar out of consumers they can, and would like to have total control of how consumers use what they've bought, forever.

3. CDs and DVDs are overpriced, most bands suck, and most CDs are padded out with lots of crappy tracks.

I think everything else follows logically from there. ;)

112 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 2:46:18pm
113 religion of bacon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 2:48:58pm

#109 buzzsawmonkey

Your third and fourth paragraphs (I'm not going to quote them) I pretty much agree with -- the problem of unauthorized copying could kill several industries (music, software, digital books, etc). The problem is, as it stands now, without totalitarian control over PCs and playback devices, it appears to be impossible to stop illegal copying.

For example, even if you have some sort of encrypted audio format, at some point that audio is converted to an analog signal, and can be copied in the analog domain, with a tiny bit of loss of quality. So now they're actually talking about things like an encrypted data path all the way to the speakers or headphones, and digital to analog converters with decryption built in. The next version of Windows will probably have some restrictions built in that are a step in that direction. As soon as it goes beyond "You are attempting to listen to unregistered content, do you want to continue (yes/no)?" a lot of people are going to be seriously upset.

The pathetic thing, of course, is that all these sophisticated moves to secure the content is coming at the same time that the content is on the average becoming more and more worthless and disposable...

114 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 3:20:08pm
115 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 3:23:26pm
116 religion of bacon  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 3:33:32pm

#114 buzzsawmonkey

ok, my last post on this...

Computers, with their formidable infringement abilities, enable people to exceed the (copyright) speed limits in all sorts of ways. And, though we have rules of the road in place, most of the people who buy an infringement machine have absolutely no knowledge of the rules.

Some of the content protection schemes that are being proposed are the equivalent of putting a governor on every car that would prevent it from going over the speed limit. Or having GPS in every car which enables the police to monitor its location at all times. Which could be justified by the reduction in deaths, crimes, etc.

it would be wise to institute basic copyright education as a portion of the upper elementary/high school curriculum

I think a good course on personal finance, or recognizing propaganda techniques in politics and advertising would be a higher priority, but that's just me. ;)

Seriously, some schools have started instituting copyright indoctrination, er I mean, education classes.

For South Park fans, this is starting to sound an awful lot like the "Sexual Harassment Panda" episode.

ok, feel free to have the last word...

When you violate the terms of the license agreement, it makes me a sad panda!

117 toddhisattva  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 3:37:26pm

#63 buzzsawmonkey

Ever consider this?

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.

118 jonturner  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 3:39:22pm

#114 buzzsawmonkey

And how would one develop such a machine, except by disassembling and studying the workings of an existing machine -- an act which becomes illegal due to this proposed law.

Therein is the problem. To a degree, it criminalizes curiosity and innovation. It is the Market Protection Act.

119 toddhisattva  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 3:48:08pm

DMCA is gun control for bits.

120 Perpetual Student  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 3:48:15pm

#69 buzzsawmonkey

"Happy Birthday" is not [in the public domain], but singing it in a public place is not an act of copyright infringement covered by the DMCA.

While singing "Happy Birthday" in a restaraunt without the expressed permission of AOL Time Warner wouldn't be covered by the DMCA (that'd be kind of hard as one's voice is rather analog--though I'm certain a crafty lawyer could make a case otherwise) it would constitute an infringement of copyright. Though I haven't a Zogby poll regarding this issue handy, I'm going to assume that most would find that factoid rather asinine.

This "sun expands, million years" stuff is garbage promulgated by the public-domain crowd, and it is both simplistic and wrong.

If that phrase was replaced with one in which the sun goes nova (something that will almost certainly happen), would it still be "garbage?" After all, the time between 1923 and that moment constitutes "a limited time" in the grand scheme of things.

#66 buzzsawmonkey

[...]why is the comparison to the Patriot Act not relevant? The Patriot Act is intended to take down barriers between intelligence services;[...]

Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, I've noticed a disturbing trend of groups and individuals placing activities that they find offensive under the umbrella term of "terrorism." As evidenced by Gonzales's comment, the apparent intent, here, is to do just that regarding copyright infringement. And I find that despicable. I fear that the term "terrorism" will soon be as worthless as "racism" and "fascism."

And buzzsawmonkey: I am not some filthy Marxist GNU Stallmanite SlashBot. I support the concept of copyright: that of a limited monopoly upon one's creative works--not "limited" from the lawyeresque cosmic timeframe perspective, but rather as in, oh, I dunno, 28 years. But I understand that your bread and butter is in that former view "limited," so I'll understand your vehement disagreement.

121 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 3:48:23pm
122 darren  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 3:52:53pm

I don't see how any business model will work when you're dealing with people that don't respect your property.

123 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 4:01:03pm
124 toddhisattva  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 4:29:03pm

#123 buzzsawmonkey

Quotations are always more convincing when they are source-referenced.

Well, if you really are an IP attorney as you said in #56, and this quote does not ring bells, you should get a refund from your law school.

Me, I'm merely an unfrozen caveman programmer, and my solution to piracy is to make better software.

Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned, the casual pirate is the best damn salesman I've ever had. The industrial pirate is scum.

Oh -- the source of the quote: Thomas Jefferson. I absolutely love the way he writes! All that Promethean imagery. I hope Isaac McPherson appreciated it.

125 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 4:53:51pm
126 piglet  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 5:27:27pm
BTW, "Happy Birthday," and most other songs subject to copyright, are administered by either ASCAP, BMI or SESAC.

Infamous for shaking down mom and pop pizza places over playing the radio.

[Link: cbs13.com...]

(AP) FRESNO A Fresno restaurant is being sued in federal court by a group representing songwriters for playing tunes written by Van Morrison, Dwight Yoakam and others without a license.

Broadcast Music Incorporated says it filed the lawsuit against Porky's after trying unsuccessfully over the last year-and-a-half to get the restaurant to sign a licensing agreement to play the songs.

The complaint lists 18 compositions that were allegedly played over Porky's sound system without a license. The songs include Hank Williams' "Born to Boogie"; Morrison's "Brown Eyed Girl" and "Down on the Corner," written by John Fogerty.

B-M-I says damages could reach 750 dollars per song. Eating and drinking establishments typically page around $600 a year for a license to play BMI-represented songs.

127 Taro  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 6:04:49pm
But a little bit of draconian enforcement will--hopefully--educate the majority of the populace to the fact that rules of the road exist, and encourage a generally law-abiding public to abide by them. In the meantime, it would be wise to institute basic copyright education as a portion of the upper elementary/high school curriculum.

The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.

Leadership of the Evil Empire passes from Moscow to Hollywood in one generation. I'm impressed!

128 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 6:13:35pm
129 Taro  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 6:25:10pm

I love how wonderful the entertainment industry is with my property! Why, telling me what I can and can't do with it. Like the new, wonderful Sony BluRay disc. It displays the old movies I own, except in incredible new detail. Now, I would be fine with purchasing these, except that, oh, I can only get full high definition if I have an HDTV with HDMI inputs.

What? Your HDTV doesn't *have* HDMI inputs? The copyright fairy taketh away! I'd buy HD-DVD, but from what I hear, they also have massive silliness.

The Star Wars reference apparently slipped past you. If you remember, Leia told them that mindlessly tightening their grip would only cause more rebels. The more companies diminish the perceived value of their products by accompanying their product with cumbersome - and sometimes dangerous, as in the rootkit case - 'protections', the more likely people are to either cheat, or, if they're like me, just flip the industry the bird and ignore their content.

Amazingly, you can live a very full life without consuming copyrighted movies/music/what have you, either legally or illegally. I don't go to the theater, buy movies, or (with the occasional exception from iTunes) buy music. The industry can suck wind.

130 godfrey  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 6:28:41pm

buzzsawmonkey

As far as popular music is concerned, you've completely convinced me to embrace copyleft musicians and support the return of live music.

131 Taro  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 6:35:04pm

To summarize my opinions on the matter: People will, on average, happily purchase a product - even if it's trivially easy to steal, simply because most people aren't consciously evil. This is why Apple makes money hand over fist with iTunes, and yes, I know Apple copy-protects and uses a proprietary format, but they make it easy to transfer your CDs to AAC format and don't hamhandedly step all over you, which is what everyone else is doing.

132 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 6:44:01pm
133 Taro  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 6:54:33pm
You are under a misapprehension if you think you "own" a movie or recording simply because you have purchased a copy of it.

I am not under a misapprehension. The entertainment industry has made their unwillingness to let me freely use their products abundantly clear through repeated sponsorship of bills. The entertainment industry can therefore kiss my ***, for the most part. I will spend my money on other things; there are plenty of other things to buy, and the movies and music nowadays are lousy enough that I'm not missing much of anything.

134 aFriend  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 6:55:34pm

It is interesting how people from all sides come down on both sides of this issue.

I'm a software architect and developer, and I certainly understand the concept of intellectual property. However, I am also a consumer, and I certainly understand the notion of paying for something, then expecting to be able to use it in a reasonable way.

I'd like to use an analogy, before I get to one of my beefs with ever increasing restrictions on our rights with software. Yes, yes, I know, we don't actually "buy" the software, but only license it - how convenient, much like when people do some particular bad act then respond, "Hey, it's only business." I imagine there will be a great deal of people someday telling God, "But, but, but! It was only business!"

But I digress, so on to my analogy.

We buy quite a few dvds. I like to own the real thing, and I'm raising two children, and I just might find it difficult to explain how it's ok for me to copy friends' dvds while telling them they shouldn't steal. Besides, I like collecting good dvds; I simply do not buy bad ones (nor do I go to bad movies).

Now, my whole family can watch that dvd. In fact, I might have friends over to watch it with us. In the case of some dvds, we watch them over and over. One price, one dvd, but shared by several of us as a family.

I buy a book. I can read that book to my family, and again, we can enjoy it together.

However, I also like to buy computer games (again, I'm very selective, we buy just a few each year, but then play them over and over). I also have a LAN, and I really enjoy playing multiplayer games with my children. BUT now I can't buy just one game and have all three of us enjoy it together. No, I'm supposed to buy three individual copies, usually at around $50 each. And, if one gets scratched, I have to pay $5 for a replacement (it happened twice, then I decided the heck with that, and starting using daemon tools - I still have the original CDs on my desk, but I use the image to protect the CDs).

That burns my butt. I understand, if I'm playing with a friend across town, that we each should purchase the game, but for playing on a LAN at home, it galls me to have to buy three copies.

Now, if I understand this new law, I'll get in trouble just for having CloneCD, Alcohol 120%, and Daemon Tools, even though I never give a copy of any game to anyone; I simply rip images onto my hard drive for our use.

Great use of government resources, going after guys doing that. Sheesh.

135 aFriend  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 6:57:21pm

BTW, I do see that several here share my disgust with the state of the "entertainment" industry. Well, sadly, we've allowed it to get to the state where people can glibly say "You are wrong if you think you own a CD, movie, game, etc" and not realize the horribly slippery slope that implies.

136 Taro  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 7:06:38pm

#134

Yeah... but I don't get on the software guys' cases because they generally don't let whatever copyright protection scheme they've come up with get in the way of the legitimate use of their product. The entertainment guys do, and then push for laws like this to justify their overreach.

The vast majority of the piracy vexing them would be taken care of by better packaging and marketing of the product for a digital age. Again, look at iTunes. People will generally do the right thing. Those that still don't were never really potential customers in the first place.

137 aFriend  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 7:19:05pm

Taro - well said. iTunes is a great success and, far as I can see, hasn't had to resort to any kind of heavy-handedness.

I think the MPAA and RIAA are pretty lazy and want to push junk on us, then blame their lowering profit margins on piracy rather than on their junk.

Maybe it is a mind view. You point out that most people do the right thing. I agree. But the people who push these laws (and I just may skip my first election in decades, if this kind of crap continues) don't trust most of us to do the right thing.

Ironically, I may be wrong, but my perception is that copy protection hurts the honest consumers but does nothing to stop real pirates.

Ironically, it costs some sales. I bought all of the Splinter Cell games as they came out. However, when I discovered (too late) that Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory had the abominable Starforce copy protection on it (which installs low level drivers on your machine), I swore I'd never buy another game without first researching what protection scheme it has - and if it has anything which requires installing intrusive drivers or other software on my machine, then I just won't buy it. I told several friends, and so apparently did a lot of other people, and now Ubisoft has announced they'll no longer use Starforce on any of their games.

I don't know the answer, but the extreme represented in the law isn't the answer. Between junk like this and continuing allowing more outsourcing, while ignoring real issues, I'm pretty irritated with our pols in Washington right now.

BTW, there is an interesting change in gaming. We now play an online game, and I think there's such a potential market there as well. We pay $15/month *each* for three accounts, and several of my co-workers have similar setups with their kids. We've all commented that some enterprising company needs to come out and offer great discounts to families; we'd flock to the game(s) in a heartbeat (if they're good, of course).

138 George guy  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 7:26:14pm
#122 darren

I don't see how any business model will work when you're dealing with people that don't respect your property.

The reasoning for a release-oriented business model (patronage/ransom/whatever) is that while distribution can't be controlled these days, release can.
As the great Scott Adams said, people are weasels. Even the most seemingly flawless moral argument is insane if it involves expecting people not to behave like weasels. It's all well and good to call out the scum who ignore copyrights. That doesn't make it any more sensible to try to cling to a business model that is based on trying to control the distribution of a product that anyone can propagate copies of with a few mouse clicks.

The wrongness of shoplifting doesn't decrease if a Wal-mart's staff and walls suddenly vanish, but the stupidity of expecting people not to shoplift most certainly does.

It is my belief that it would ultimately be more profitable to the makers of the product if they would stop trying to make a profit on distributing the product, and make their money on releasing the product instead. My complete thoughts can be read here.

139 Taro  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 7:33:33pm

You apparently work in the software industry, and therefore would probably have more chance of running into someone from the game industry than I would, but here would be my idea for a 'group discount' - for most of these games, EverQuest or City of Heroes or what have you, people usually play in groups *anyways*. So why not sell copies that have a 'group' online account, so that if I purchase a copy of the game, I can dole out slots in the group to my friends - they can just bring their computers over and bring the beer and chips to 'pay' their share of the fee - you could hand them out to your kids, etc.

140 aFriend  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 7:41:25pm

You're right, I think that's a great idea. When I'm not playing with my children, I play with coworkers (it's true, I have no real life ).

Right now, no gaming company has done that, because they haven't had to do so. However, if just one would, I think we'd see people flock to that game, and others would be forced to follow suit or lose their customers.

I bought Guild Wars (which has no monthly fee), hoping it would be the answer. It does have gorgeous graphics, and is fun if grouping. Unfortunately, I found the solo aspect lacking, and really miss the character development found in other games like World of Warcraft.

We probably will eventually get there (the group discount you suggest), and whichever company does it first will own for a year or so, as it picks up loyal customers.

Well, have a great night. I just pray that some sanity will eventually get to Washington before my children grow up.

141 darren  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 9:17:26pm

George guy, I guess you are more pessimistic about people than I am. I think people are capable of acting rationally, especially if they are exposed to the right ideas.

142 rickmoss  Mon, Apr 24, 2006 11:27:05pm

"Amazingly, you can live a very full life without consuming copyrighted movies/music/what have you, either legally or illegally. I don't go to the theater, buy movies, or (with the occasional exception from iTunes) buy music. The industry can suck wind."

I'm sorry -- I got lost for a moment. I THOUGHT I was coming to "Little Green Footballs", but I somehow found myself on "Indy Media" where it's all about "fight'n the powa-s" and "Stickin' it to da man".

Although, I may not be on "Indy Media" after all. I haven't seen a post saying that property rights and copyright laws are a Jewish Plot.

143 Taro  Tue, Apr 25, 2006 7:15:25am

#142

I'm sorry -- I got lost for a moment. I THOUGHT I was coming to "Little Green Footballs", but I somehow found myself on "Indy Media" where it's all about "fight'n the powa-s" and "Stickin' it to da man".

No one is obligated to be the customer of an industry that treats its consumers like crap. This should be blatant common sense.

An Indymediot would be pirating stuff and justifying it with random Marxist rhetoric. Me, I'm simply spending my hard-earned dollars on other stuff.

144 Protagonist  Tue, Apr 25, 2006 11:58:18am

To paraphrase Andy Warhol, "In the future, we'll all be sentenced to 15 years."


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Mystery Sale - Buy 1 Mystery Paperback, Get a 2nd 50% Off!
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Whip it out!


Holiday Gift Finder - Save up to 46% on the perfect gift!