Copy Protection a Crime Against Humanity 473
Trevalyx writes "An article over at Wired looks into the relation between copy protection and the reality of a rational amount of 'wiggle room' that is typically provided by the legal system. It's a topic covered often on Slashdot, but it's still a good read. Should be accompanied by a visit to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for your Daily Dose of Defending Digital Freedom." The article does a good job of giving examples of legal leeway that's granted every day.
Aw C'mon (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:3, Insightful)
If the DRM / digital world sucks (for copyright or anything else) I believe that the market will have the right response....
Fair use not available? We will not buy!
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that I am in the minority, however. Everyone insists on racking up insightful mods by saying how Apple couldn't get the "big five" to do it without DRM. Why? CDs don't have DRM (at least, not yet, and not on a large scale, I'm sure this statement is a little bit shaky but I haven't encountered any of these evil CDs yet). Why do the rules change when we are talking about files instead of plastic discs? Because files are easy to copy? CDs are very easy to copy too.
Oh well, I'm sure that everyone will just reply by saying how stupid I am and that they are so much smarter and more insightful that I am. So whatever.
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, they're not. Why not? Reexamine your statement literally. CDs are not easy to copy. Only the information stored on them is.
The entire concept of "business" revolves around supply and demand of physical objects. That concept falls flat where digital data is concerned, and that's why all these political issues exist today. Everyone is used to the bu
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:5, Interesting)
The discussion will hardly be the same, for the simple fact that molecular manufacturing will let loose an economy of abundance (that the 'information economy' alone couldn't do) which vastly reduces the incentive to be a greedy "intellectual property" fucker.
Imagine just some of the implications of an anything-box that can rearrange the molecules of your garbage into gourmet food, clothing, razors, inkjet cartridges, a new computer, whatever ... no more starving artist problem; no more wage-slaves; no more dependance on on fossil fuel if you could fab your own solar cells; open source can extend to the physical world with GnuBurgers, and GnuHDTV's, and GnuDiamond, and GnuArtificialImmuneSystem...
(buy desert realestate now! there's tons of molecules to play with under that sun powered property! :)
--
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, some people will be nice and just share the formula, and others will try the "IP" route and force people to pay for it, and take legal and technological steps to artificially restrict the proliferation of th
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)
When nano takes off, it will start us on a path towards abundance. But it's going to be a long, winding path. The reason is simple: Few corporations are willing to allow a market to grow if it means giving up their control over it.
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not have a protection flag that will limit the maximum sound quality of a recording. Before you object, think about this for a minute:
You would have all the benfits of being able to search and preview music in Napster, Audio Galaxy, Kazaa, etc. and we could have access to some great new services for searching and finding music we like.
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:3, Insightful)
As with any "strong" DRM, in order for this to be effective you have to ban a whole lot of software. For starters, you can't allow any open source encoders because it would be trivial to modify them to ignore the flag.
The only way I see DRM being reasonable is if it is *not* intended to be effective. The iTunes store is an example of this; copying is only made inconvenient, not prohibited.
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right- if you are within fair use, you don't have to worry about the DRM in Apple's AACs. Apple's DRM is enough to keep honest people honest, without restricting their rights. This is much like the way ipods cannot copy music to a computer (without 3rd party software).
If you want to be dishonest, it is trivial to get rid of the DRM, but I hope that you get prosecuted to the full ex
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Remember the old digital video format, what was it called, DVD? It had regional lockout and macrovision copy prevention. A huge consumer backlash ensued and nobody bought any DVDs. The studios changed their minds pretty quickly after that one, heh. I guess we really taught them a lesson there.
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:4, Insightful)
An example on the other side is PC software in the 1980's. Uncopyable install disks used to be the norm. Market pressure eventually forced a change.
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)
You haven't bought many games recently, have you? I can't remember the last one that didn't use some form of copy prevention technology.
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that they are a minority today. The same number of people may well complain, but they will be ignored because the majority of PC users today are clueless and haven't the slightest idea what's going on. The masses will let themselves be manipulated, and the few that try to raise warning flags drown in a sea of ignorance.
So the times are different. You can't compare today, where everyone is ignorant and basically uses whatever is handed to them, to the 1980s, where a PC user was someone who actually knew what he was doing and wasn't going to let himself be stepped on just like that.
Back then, the knowledgeagle geeks were the market. Today, the ignorant sheep are the market.
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:3, Insightful)
As for those that bought DIVX players and are now left with a bunch of expensive coasters, I only have one thing to say, and that is "HA!". That's what you get for supporting a format that has "hardcore consumer fucking" built right in.
The problem is, most consumers are idiots. I'm not saying to troll or flame, they are. They're uneduc
Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)
If the DRM / digital world sucks (for copyright or anything else) I believe that the market will have the right response....
The problem I see with this response (and it is quoted quite often on here) is that "the market" is deciding in favor of DRM as we speak. Go down to your local store and look at the selection of DVDs vs VHS. There's this little thing called CSS on DVDs, remember? That's where the fun all started, at least in the recent round of DRM attempts.
Ask your average person about DRM and they won't have a clue what you are talking about, because it has been implemented so seamlessly. Sure, they might get annoyed at the "no fast forward" parts of DVDs (the ones that infuriate me personally...) and they might have to buy a little box if they had an old TV with only coax in, but overall it does what they want and they're happy.
Oh and remember Macrovision? VHS has also had DRM for years and years, it was just much less sophisticated. Still quite difficult to bypass though.
Like boiling lobsters, you just raise the temperature a tiny bit at a time and people don't realize they're being baked.
I think the true travesty (and this article sort of hints at it but doesn't pursue) is that some day, we won't have DVD players. A thousand years in the future, there are going to be worthless chips of plastic and metal dug up and they will have no clue what it all means. They kept copious records back in "the old days" too, and we are able to piece together some of what happened and the culture back then thanks to it. Imagine how much harder the job will be when they have to go decyphering encryption schemes on top of all the other problems.
Hell, forget about 1000 years in the future -- think 50 years in the future! It makes me depressed just thinking about it. Even without DRM in the picture it's going to be depressingly difficult to keep updating all our media. Add a million DRM schemes and it starts looking like an insurmountable problem.
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)
That's frogs. A lobster couldn't get out of the slowly heating pot even if it did realize what was happening. A frog could jump out but doesn't. Anyway, lobsters are properly thrown into a rolling boil.
gotta love slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
"News for chefs. Stuff that spatters!"
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:3, Insightful)
In the USA and Canada I would say that that's true. Most people here have not heard of DVD regions. But there aren't a bunch of adjoining countries who have other region numbers. Thus in the USA, it's quite hard to run into a DVD region problem. Can any europeans or asians comment on this? Is awareness of DVD copy protections greater in areas where different region
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:3, Insightful)
I see your point though, and the problems you speak of will no doubt take place within 50 years. Take for instance the Library of Congress. They are known for archiving copyrighted works. So if they are all DRM'ed and the DMCA makes it illegal to break it, what then? Kiss this chapter in history goodbye.
But not to worry, the said AI computers can combine the works of Ray Bradbury and G
IMHO (Score:2)
I'm more for the 'Everyone to the castle!!...pitchforks in the middle of the night and let's kill the blut'ee munster!' type of response, m'self...
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM is not the problem, and "the market" can't fix it.
So what is the problem? The problem are laws that try to make DRM work. DRM cannot survive in a free market with equivalant non-DRM alternatives. DRM cannot survive when manufacturers are free to make hardware that does not enforce DRM. DRM cannot survive in a society where people are free to discover and communicate methods of defea
Re:Aw C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually had had an excellent point to make, the problem is that he did not support it as well as he could have. His examples about "may not paint" and "may not copy" were valid, but they lacked impact.
A better example would be the rule against driving throught a red light. That's a good rule. Everyone agrees with it. But what if it were impossible to break that rule? What if you are driving to the hospital? What if you someone is after you with a gun? Or what if the timer on the traffic light burns out and the light never turns green?
The way DRM enforcement works is that your engine would freeze up whenever the light turns red.
That example has impact. It's one thing to have a rule against something, but it is an entirely different thing to make something impossible.
-
Everything can be bought (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhhh... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say this is more like withholding culture from the masses.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Murdering people is a crime against the victims, their friends and their family. Murdering millions is an unimagineable crime.
But what makes it a crime against humanity as well as one against humans is this: The Nazis attempted to wipe out an entire race with all their genes and their unique culture.
A society that restricts the spread of information and ideas hampers cultural progress massively. And making it illegal to transfer our knowledge and works of art to reliable media and new display platforms will deny future generations their cultural heritage.
Our culture, our knowledge, all our achievements will be lost to our children. This is a crime against humanity, too.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, you assume that an author keeps his copyrights. AFAIK this is often not true. In the music industry, the artists usually do sell their copyrights to the labels (correct me if I'm wrong).
Also copyrights are problematic for collaborative efforts. Think of how computer games are created. The artists and programmers are not the ones who can decide about the future of their games.
Now what happens when the publisher goes out of business and the last copyprotected DVD is scratched?
The work is likely to be lost. In many cases no one really knows who owns the copyrights anymore.
You may not care that I wasn't able to get a replacement for my copyprotected floppy of StuntCar Racer. It certainly is not anything remotely on the scale of killing millions of people.
But more and more important information gets published in electronic and copyprotected form. Librarians must be able to preserve it. I want people to be able to make money with their works. But I do also want these works to become PD before they're completely forgotten.
This does also apply to my own works. Authors do want their works to live on.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
The true intent of copyright is to propagate art and literature. Dupes like you have already bought into the ideas that artists have the right to destroy what they create.
Once they let it out of the studio, they do not.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's fascinating. Let's try a little gedankenexperiment.
I'm a...poet, we'll say, for the sake of our experiment. I write a book of poetry when I'm a lovesick college freshman. Legally, it is my right to release that work and retain total say as to how my work is distributed. I do so, all full of the ardor (and feigned weariness) of youth, and it's a moderately popular success among the "candles and angst" goth set.
Two years later, I go back and reread Love and White Makeup, or whatever I call the book, and realize it's crap. Big, steaming, awful crap. So I tell the publisher, "Hey, let's not do any more printing runs on my book." (We'll assume I was savvy enough not to sign the rights over to Nobody Understands Me House Publishers.)
What you're saying is I have no right to do this? Are you insane? The right to the destiny of my own original work is a tradition extending back at least 50,000 years (the Australian Aborigines respected the work of authors and musicians as being akin to physical property), and still respected in nearly every modern society.
I agree that I could do nothing about the copies of the book that were already in existence when I decided not to make any new copies, but I still have the right to say, "Hey, don't archive this in some electronic format that'll last forever, don't get Shatner to do a 'Book on CD' reading this, and don't make a movie version."
The intent of copyright is to protect the right of a content creator to determine how and when something is copied. Hence the name. Yes, it provides an incentive for other individuals to create their own art, but only because they know that if they create it, they have recourse against those who wish to arrogate to themselves the right to copy the artist's work.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose 50 years later, they look for a copy of that poem, but they can't find it because you've made it illegal for anyone to produce a copy. At that point, I think your "rights" have made claims to the memories and imaginations of other people that it shouldn't have. Once you've released your "thought children" into the world, I think your rights are not so absolute. At that point, they become enmeshed in the thoughts and lives of other people. While I may defend your right to profit from your own creativity, I'd challenge your right to control every outcome of it.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right to profit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Would people really stop making creative works if there was limited or no monetary reward? I don't think so... look at OSS. Sure some kinds of grotesque works like $1M music videos would become impossible... but... is that actually any loss?)
What has happened in the meanwhile is that the content creators like Disney and the other companies represented by the RIAA and MPAA have fostered the illusion that their precious "intellectual property" is permanently theirs, and anyone who desires free access to it is a pirate and a theif. But the fact is we all are entitled to free access to these works once the copyright monopoly period is up. The only theiving going on is when these evil companies press our representatives to continually extend the copyright monopoly period so the works never reach the public domain.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Our ability to speak and transmit information to future generations is what separates us from the animals. you may soon lose that.
Re:The Definition (for those interested) (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, believe me, I do. But what does she have to do with the RIAA - does she sing or something??
Re:Uhhh... (Score:2)
Guess what? So too is walking out of a store without paying for a pack of gum.
Any crime against numerous people on a large scale qualifies a a crime against humanity, even if that crime is just having a well-organized syndicate abusing the take-a-penny leave-a-penny system...
Re:Uhhh... (Score:3, Offtopic)
That's what it had started with. 70 years ago, in May 1933, books were burning all over Germany. The Nazi regime tried to wipe out "un-German" culture before starting to wipe out "un-Aryan" people.
Just imagine they had had a restrictions management system enabling them to cleanse not only bookstores, public libraries, museums, etc. but also all the private bookshelves with the push of a button.
For more information on Nazi book burnings see http://www.ushmm.org/ [ushmm.org].
Re:Uhhh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh... (Score:2)
Re:Uhhh... (Score:3, Interesting)
Should Be? (Score:4, Insightful)
Should be accompanied by a visit to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for your Daily Dose of Defending Digital Freedom."
Oooohh! It's the leader! All hail the leader. Look! I found a bean shaped like the leader. I'll put it with the others...
Not that I don't agree with at least some of what these groups represent, but sheesh! certainly not all of what they say, and I certainly don't need a "daily dose" of any argument if it is based on logic, morality, fairness, precedent, or other healthy systems we use to judge these matters. To suggest otherwise is to imply that their ideas would fade without heavy reinforcement.
Great truths don't need daily reinforcement. They are either self evident or emerge as truths on their own when we stray from them. You can draw your own conclusions from the fact that most major religions reinforce on a weekly basis.
Re:Should Be? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the problem becomes when people don't really understand the "Great truths" and instead have a daily reinforcement of things like racism. That is how cults attempt to maintain their power over all the members. If your fed a daily dose of a negative and you don't know any better, then there is a very good change you will believe it. There are a lot of people out there that have very akward beliefs and over time some do get a lot worse. I've met quite a few people over the years that had strange beliefs (cult like beliefs) and you would be surprised how normal they seemed til you got to know them. Religions do the same as the cults except they reinforce positives. Then there is the problem that reinforcement does little to nothing to help free thought or creativity. Not enough people question what they are told to believe. I do agree with your statements. Whether it takes reinforcement for people to realise what is meant by the "Great truths" is a matter of discussion. I believe it depends on a lot of factors.
Re:Should Be? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah yes. Witchburnings, persecution, suicidebombings and generally killing those not believing in YOUR god does strike me as a positive reinforcement.
Face it, the only difference between a religion and a cult is the amount of followers and wether or not the size of the hat shows how important you are.
Re:Should Be? (Score:2)
Re:Should Be? (Score:4, Funny)
Religion; A large, popular cult.
Cult; A small, unpopular religion.
um... (Score:3, Informative)
Your dis'ing o' daily doses o' er'wise self-evident truths overlooks the fact that not everyone has learned them yet, thus the need for constant comment therein.
What cloaked agenda lurks in the mind of the man with such missive. Pray said agenda be his, and his alone, for if it be not of this world, nor his soul, the learning may be the end.
Protection or prevention? (Score:3, Insightful)
Copy PREVENTION rather than Copy PROTECTION?
Re:Protection or prevention? (Score:2, Insightful)
However, if its me converting/ripping your content into my digital media of choice, its copy prevention denying me my god given rights :)
Re:Protection or prevention? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think so (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Funny)
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:I don't think so (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so (Score:2)
:-)
Re:I don't think so (Score:2, Funny)
---
Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
I read it as more "de minimis non curat lex" (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to imagine a world in which every detail of every law were perfectly and literally enforced. Imagine going to prison because you didn't file a change of address with the Selective Service when you moved. Imagine getting a ticket every time you switched on your turn signal 199 feet from an intersection instead of 200 feet.
There's an old bit of engineering wisdom that says that systems with loose tolerances tend to be more reliable. A Mickey Mouse watch with some slop in the gears will keep running if a little dust gets in, an expensive precision chronometer may not. Societies seem to work the same way, which is why we have laws full of words like "reasonable" and "prudent".
"justify his mp3 collection" -- OK, good example. Dunno about the author, but my MP3 collection consists entirely of imports from purchased CDs and has never gone anywhere except my iPod. In a world where "fair use" is defined by common sense and/or judges, this works. My interests and the interests of the royalty collectors are satisfied. In a DRM world, some bureaucratic twit of a computer might have prevented me from listening in my car.
Re:I read it as more "de minimis non curat lex" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I read it as more "de minimis non curat lex" (Score:2)
The only worth any product has is the worth that's assigned to it by the consumer. The provider doesn't have a say in this equation, at least not in a rational free market system.
Apparently many consumers think that movies, and especially music, are vastly overpriced. If the price is artificially inflated (i.e., price-fixing occurs) and legislatively protected, the consumer will turn to illegal means to obtain the product. This is the logical outco
Re:I read it as more "de minimis non curat lex" (Score:3, Informative)
The recording industry has been "dying" since the start of their price fixing. However, it is important to note that the actual music nor the quality of the music has not been dieing, but only the actual value of the music. (the amount of money the market is willing to pay for the product)
The artifical inflation of
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. You missed the entire heart of his argument.
Not that no one takes laws seriously; rather, that no one takes them literally. And even when taken literally, most laws include quite a lot of subjectivity both in determining whether or not a violation has occurred, and in an appropriate remedy.
This doesn't involve moral relativism, or "justifying" an MP3 collection, or "but mom, Billy did worse and didn't get punished!". It involves the realities of living in a "fuzzy" world.
To summarize his "real" argument, laws allow us recourse when someone has egregiously violated the standards of social behavior. Not one more weapon to beat each other with, not a way to funnel money into lawyers' pockets, and not a means of forcing others to act in the exact manner we so desire. A "last resort", of sorts, when all other means of peaceably interacting have broken down.
Let me put this into another domain, where the law actually allows for an exception:
Violating the speed limit usually breaks the law. If you do so in an emergency (for example, to get a seriously injured person to medical care), the law allows an exception to the normally rigid rules of driving, and changes to basically "do whatever you can, while still driving in a safe manner".
So you might say, "well, the law includes an exception for emergencies, there you go, just plug in the algorithm and turn the crank-o'-justice".
But what counts as an emergency?
Pregnancy usually counts, even though in the VAST majority of cases, no real rush exists to get to the hospital. A really bad bruise usually would not get you out of a ticket, even though you could suffer a thromboembolism and die. "Emergency" in general involves a subjective call of seriousness.
Just because the materials involved use binary to represent information, doesn't magically make the relevant laws suddenly black-and-white.
Re:Is that what you got from it? (Score:2, Troll)
DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
In the past, wars were fought over oil and other precious resources. Today the war is fought over media rights, and the rights to control and supress that same media as decided by the megalomanic corporations. The Rebellion Army is a minor threat, but is enlisting more and more recruits all in the name of digital freedom. The war has been bloody, the war has been long - but the corporations refuses to release it's iron grip..
Mod article +5 Insightful (Score:5, Interesting)
DRM is a perfect solution for an imperfect world - A solution that ignores the fact that people are, by our very nature, unlikely to stick exactly to rules. Grey exists because we don't like black and white as the only two choices, and because we're quite capable of defining our own middle ground.
Until we can develop computers that are able to do the kind of fuzzy matching that the human brain does naturally, turning control of creativity over to them is fraught with risk. All it takes is an incorrect statement somewhere in the source, or the confluence of a couple of seemingly benign factors, and suddenly you can't watch that DVD you just bought - But you can't take it back because you broke the seal on the packaging.
The thing the article doesn't go into is the "analogue hole". Human creativity is very good at working around restrictions. We designed ladders to reach high places, and windows because it's nice to be able to see out without letting the weather in.
They can DRM CDs all they want - I've got a DiscMan with optical out, and a soundcard with optical in. Sure, I'll have to do it manually, but I can still make perfect digital copies of whatever CDs I own. Similarly, people will find ways around this "broadcast flag", even if it's just going back to VHS and a capture card. Old hardware's not just going to disappear.
Finally, as much as xxAA would love to, they don't control the legislative process in other countries. Until they do, there's nothing they can do to make companies build DRM-compliant devices for other markets. Some of them will probably deliberately ensure their devices aren't DRM-compliant, if they've got some marketroids with a clue. How do you stop people importing "un-broken" hardware?
Re:Mod article +5 Insightful (Score:4, Insightful)
Crimes Against Humanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Short answer: No. (Score:2)
Long answer:
Until you actually have citizens being executed or imprisoned for their entire lives for infringing on an author's copyright, it's not a crime against humanity. The current execution of the ??AAs' desires to enforce copyright restrictions may be ill-conceived, unjust, or downright stupid, but it's a gigantic leap from there to "crime against humanity." Call it a "prelimenary [sic]" step if you wish, but you've still got a long way to go before you get to real atrocity.
Kozy Gory in WWII was a
Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM technology and laws ARE crimes against humanity (sure, there are degrees of crimes against humanity) because they put gross profit opportunity ahead of the benefits to the commons. We're all better off if reasonable profits are protected and ideas are open and shared, than if Disney continues to make Megapoltroons indefiniteley off of Steamboat Willie while everything is locked down.
Good examples my ass. (Score:4, Insightful)
If your lease stipulates that you can't paint without explicit permission from your landlord, you will nevertheless patch up the scratches made by your yappy little dog on the bottom of the front door. If the high-priced industry analyst's report warns you on every page against duplicating, you'll still hand out at your weekly sales meeting copies of a page with a relevant chart. You'd snicker at the very suggestion of doing otherwise.
The high priced report is high priced because your company is paying for it. So its not a big deal to photocopy it and give it to people in your company. That might go against the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Try passing it out for free to your friend who works for the competition who doesn't subscribe to said report, and see who gets you first, the analyst firm or your boss (assuming they know about it of course).
The painting your house example doesn't even qualify here. File sharing of copyrighted material happening today is akin to someone creating an exact replica of a house thats up for rent and living in it rent free. Doesn't harm the landlord? Yes it does, cos now he/she/it will never get any rent. So logically, its akin to squatting. I live in NYC, and I've seen people try squatting the best they can, but I don't see much leeway given by the law there.
I do not support the RIAA, MPAA or any other Association of Assholes, and no, I don't deny using P2P networks in a manner that would violate the spirit of the law; but lets not get hypocritical here. Its stealing, and we (meaning us folk who do use P2P) need to see it as that. I am frankly surprised to see so many posts that try to portray it as otherwise on Slashdot. I would've thought that programmers and other techies who sell ideas for a living would've respected the rights of others that do the same to protect their livelihood.
Re:Good examples my ass. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now does this imply that they are all missing the truth that you see so clearly? Or that your own beliefs are the ones in error?
If programmers and IT workers attempted to unionize in order to weild technological mastery over the heads of their employers, then yes, I would agree about "protecting livelihood." But the majority of programme
Copy Protection for our Genes (Score:5, Insightful)
The battles being fought here and now raise very important questions for our society. How much of what we create should be deemed personal property? To many, the very concept of "Intellectual Property" (Intellectual Robbery?) is absurd, due to there being no cost of distribution for an idea. This is summarized in the cliche idiom "information wants to be free".
But, what value does this artificial monopoly on an idea give to us? It obviously costs something in time and money to create ideas and technologies. Has anyone done a scientific study comparing the creativity levels of countries with differing copyright systems? I'd love to see one done, as its results could shed light on the (non-)benefits given by extending copyright terms.
"Copy Protection" is a lovely euphamism that hides the true nature of the technology. That is, robbing the public domain for the benefit of a single entity or person. It's a benefit to the few at the expense of the many. Its effects have already been taken to their logical extremes in many articles and posts (such as the article in question), so I won't go into them here.
Someday, scarcity for physical objects will be reduced to the level that we see for "intellectual property" on the Internet. That is, the cost of producing cars, gadgets, and MP3 players will be next to nothing. Will we battle over patents then just as we battle over copyright now? Will a future MIAA (Manufacturer Industry Association of America) sue dozens of college students for $96B because they "printed out" a copy of a new gadget?
Already, in genomics, the cost of discovering the function of a gene in the human genome confers upon the discoverer a monopoly on its use in drugs and treatments. This allows research firms to plant flags on the genes in our bodies, and charge whatever licensing fees they could imagine for their use. Even if the cost of the retrovirus to be distributed into our bodies to flip this genomic "switch" is virtually nothing, we will end up paying thousands of dollars per treatment, not just to fund the development of new therapies, but to line the pockets of the company's shareholders. In essence, we are turning our own bodies into a natural resource to be raped and pillaged by corporate interests, at the expense of the poor and less-fortunate of the world. We uphold these injustices with patents and law, humanely defending the inhumane capitalism which drives the pharmaseutical industry.
Someday we may see copy protection for gene therapy. What if a company found a way to control the ability of your body to propogate the benefits of a genomic treatment? What if your cells could not reproduce the gene after X cell generations, and you had to go back and pay for another treatment to continue seeing the benefits? Such a situation is not much different from the plight of AIDS sufferers, whose lives depend on a stream of artificially expensive, but lifesaving drugs.
I believe the copyright and copy-protection battles of today merely foreshadow a larger and more fundamental battle to come, one that will see the current government monopolies confered by Patents and Copyright turned on their heads.
The Irony (Score:4, Interesting)
The best way... (Score:4, Interesting)
OTOH, if a not-so-perfect copy is all that's needed, most anyone can manage that. Witness the bootleg recordings of movies made with camcorders that get distributed all over the net, sometimes even before the official release date. Or the sealed-in-the-discman demo cds that people have managed to copy, sometimes by just cutting the headphone line and attaching it to a line-in jack.
I don't know when it will happen, but someday the media producers have to wake up and realize that DRM only costs them money for imagined protection, and in some cases -- when DRM doesn't allow legitimate playback -- hurts the very markets they are trying to cultivate.
Why it's irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope, not iTunes. And definitely not some POS p2p spyware app laden with crappy rips. But free nontheless... (say it with me) usenet.
The other day I burned a CD for my cousin to listen to on his way to work. He bought a CD player for his car that plays MP3 discs despite the fact he rarely uses the net and probably doesn't even know how to spell usenet. He's into country but I make it my mission to widen people's horizons - the CD has music from the US, Sweden, Mexico, Russia, the UK, and even Egypt - all brought to him, via me, via USENET.
I'm working on "remastering" a few rock concerts that were sent to me (in a box of CDRs) by way of a friend of a friend in germany. See, the US hardly ever has live concert shows any more - but "rockpalast" is, so far as I know, still running. So, soon as I am happy with the results I'll commit these shows to MPEG2 streams and share'em with the world - most likely on DVD, since uploading even one would take me weeks online. What those broadband equipped friends do with this "data," however, is beyond my control.
I have several CDs worth of live SNL music performances (as well as a few favorite skits) that were ripped from my direcTV tivo. The quality is typical sucky direcTV, but let's face it: that's about as good as you're gonna get nowdays, and it's still (arguably) better than VHS. I also have pretty much every video PJ harvey has made - again, thanks to rips I made from my tivo when M2 was having its "women in rock" week.
All real world examples illustrate just exactly why most of this is irrelevant. I used to be pretty zealous about these legislations, but frankly I jsut don't care any more. Why? Because there's nothing at all stopping your fave garage band from producing their own release and getting exposure via the internet. (In fact, I've downloaded several this way and still have a few of these "underground" releases in my collection because they were actually GOOD.) There's also little (ie pretty much nothing except bandwidth or time) to stop me from ripping my fave music and sharing it with the world - or to prevent me from sharing my collection of SNL skits and music vids - in fact, I've shared Cdds with several friends.
None of these laws matter because they relate only to commerce. Sure, a few folks have put them to the test (and more power to them) by intentionally breaking the law and then taking the case to court. But for the "average user" (or even the "power user") who isn't an activist or a business owner, the laws mean pretty much nothing. They didn't stop the worldwide digital release of the new Matrix, they didn't stop me from recording countless hours of TV via my PC - nor could they.
I don't support these new "corporate legislations," nor do I support most publishers (no magazines, no pay tv, never listen to radio and watch TV only until I get so fed up with commercials I close the damn window on my desktop to bask in the silence.) Yet I'm still (again, arguably) better informed than most people I know because "most people" let Dan Rather spoon feed them their only news each day and probably have never even heard of WIRED or /. My music collection is more diverse than it's ever been in my entire 40 years of life (and I was pretty "out there" even in the 70's). I have hours and hours of various TV shows, movies, and music videos. And even if we woke up tomorrow and all media (including TV) was digital and had these "broadcast flags" and watermarks, you know it would be only a matter of days before workarounds were spread across the world. In the meantime the greater audience wouldhave been alienated and the proverbial other shoe would, no doubt, fall.
The problem is... (Score:3, Interesting)
I therefore think your actions are morally wrong, and should (at least partly) be illegal.
DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all based on a personnal observation on the ticket writer. If the "officer" thinks you pushed that yellow light to the point that it bleeds, then you are guilty, no matter how much time or money you spend in court.
You have no way to dispute it,no "instant replay".
In this case, DRM will know that you have already viewed/listened to that data.
Hello Mr. Orwell.
What ever happened to that "American Spirit"?
Lets get Real (Score:2, Insightful)
The reality of it all... (Score:3, Insightful)
And it goes along the lines of renting cabin. I set off to rent a cabin the other day. Everyone kept asking me how many people were staying there. I said "The cabin says it sleeps 6. I want to rent the cabin. How much?" And come to find out I have to pay based on how many people sleep there..... It's still just one cabin... I get the whole thing... I still don't get it. Is that 20$ a person for the water bill? The electricity? I don't think so. It's for their pockets.
In the future we'll live in a world where we will pay each time we watch a movie or listen to a song. We'll pay for each pasanger we give a ride to in the car we rented for the weekend. We'll pay based on the number of people staying in the cabin regaurdless of the fact that we rent the whole thing. It goes on and on. Hell, some of that happens now.
It's all about people making money for free. Does it cost the recording company ANYTHING if I watch their movie twice? No. Does it cost the cabin owners more if I have an extra person over? $1.00 in water if they take a shower maybe.. Does it cost the car rental company more if I give a friend a lift? Wear and tear? $1.00 maybe?
It's comming, and nothing we can do will stop it. I'm just going to sit back and enjoy my right to bitch until that's gone too.
The author doesn't allow any leeway, either (Score:4, Interesting)
Aside from his poor taste in word choice, the author makes the flawed fundamental assumption that all works will employ DRM in the strictest terms. This, I'm quite sure, will not be the case. There will be some recording that come with limitations like "this can only be played once, on a tuesday between 12:14 and 12:18," and that sucks, but that will be the exception rather than the rule. Leeway can be programmed in, too. I use iTunes and the Apple Music store. I can buy a song once, and then copy it to my other authorized computers and my iPod, and burn it on a CD. That's reasonable. However, I can't make a million copies and send them to everybody on the internet. That's reasonable, too. I think that passes the authors "snicker test."
Look, if you don't like the terms of use on the product, you don't have to buy it. Crimes against humanity? So, we have some kind of inalienable right to listen to the latest Britney Spears blather, and DRM infringes upon this right? Since when do you have a right to any piece of information somebody else creates?
Re:The author doesn't allow any leeway, either (Score:5, Insightful)
How about resale? Can you alter the DRM signature on those files you've paid for to reassign them to someone else, i.e. can there be a second hand market for those tracks?
How about sampling parts of it, or reproducing it for use in teaching or research? Ah, you say, I can burn it to CD, and copy that into MP3, and work from that - substantional artifacts and all, on top of which you need a CD on which you've paid a tax because it's assumed you're using it for illegal copying. Admittedly, that is not a direct result of DRM, but it still an impact on Fair Use.
Now, what happens when the copyright on those apple DRM'd files expires, in 95 years + the lifetime of the author. Will we still be able to read those DRM'd files? will the DRM magically disappear as the files enter the public domain?
Yes, Apple's DRM is below most people's pain point, and I think it's good that the music companies have started to relax the death grip a little. But all DRM still has a serious knock on effect on our fair use rights, our right of resale of a good, and the entry into the public domain after the expiration of copyright (eventually. Assuming disney fails at some point in their quest to make worldwide copyrights continue to extend in length so that no work ever returns to the public domain - but that's another post)
The problem is, CD's are coming up to same restrictions of apple's DRM, not the other way around. And that DRM ignores the 'wiggle room' that is part of our actual rights.
On top of which, there is genuine breach of copyright, often as part of using those fair use rights. For example, it has been judged in court that you can 'time shift' a broadcasted work as part of your fair use rights. Technicially though, you cannot make a library of that work. So if you were to use your Tivo, or record a song off a radio, or use your tape machine to watch a work later, you're fully within your fair use rights to do so. Because DRM and the 'broadcast flag' don't include that wiggle room, you'll be stopped from doing so. "Ahah" you say. "That's a limitiation of the techonology, it can be fixed". well, that's the point. It's an on/off limitation. Even assuiming the DRM is fixed (unlikely) to allow you to record it for legal timeshifting, you'd only be allowed to watch it once, then the DRM would make it delete itself off the Tivo, as that is what a strict intrepretation of the law demands. Only watched it half way through before the phone rang? Tough.
Don't forget, these industries are the same ones that have accused people (and sued some of them) for 'theft' for singing happy birthday round a campfire, playing music on the radio when there are passengers in the taxi cab, and fastforwarding through the adverts.
Common sense and wiggle room are part of how any system of law works. People break several laws every day, technically (in the UK, just parking your car is technically causing an obstruction, and just have a look at some of the really obscure state laws in the US). Certainly, if we applied driving laws with the same strictness they're trying to apply copyright law, then nobody would be able to drive.
Oh, and by the way, your last point 'if you don't like the terms of use of the product, you don't have to buy it' is not a get out clause for corporations. The recording industry has an effective group monopoly on the production of music. That's why they are often called an oligarchy. since they produce all the recorded music, and additionally are trying to control all outlets of digital distribution as well, there simply isn't a market alternative to their works. If I could buy the same artists' music from different providers with different DRM schemes, at different prices, you might have a point. As it is, they are using DRM to not only enforce their existing rights rigidly, they are using it to give themselves extra restrictions they do not have under the law.
Let me give you one example. Imagine when you bought a book,
I against I (Score:3, Insightful)
Given a choice, I'd prefer strict, principled laws. There should be no ambiguities ("Help me god, I'm hallucinating again") where law is concerned. I would like to know I'm well within my rights to copy a file, and not have to rely on 'wiggle room'.
The problem with DRM is that there is no choice.
Market Regulation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Market Regulation (Score:3, Insightful)
Big business want regulations that keep away the competition. Many small businesses and individuals feel the same way. This has been true since the first business that discovered it could use government as a competitive tool.
Guilds, unions, professional licensing, etc., are all supported by the very people who are subject to the regulations. They're all ways of limiting the competition. Big business has
Re:Market Regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are people against this article? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm really wondering when we'll see DRM viruses. (Score:4, Funny)
DRM for cars (Score:5, Interesting)
All this is technically possible today. Drivers of big trucks have had their performance monitored at that level of detail for a few years now.
A decade ago, people would have objected. But today? It could happen. It might be applied first to teenagers, the elderly, and people with lousy driving records. Who could object to that?
It might not be a Government mandate, either. Insurance companies might insist on it.
The Day the Earth Stood Still (Score:2)
The visitors explain that they have ended war on their planet by turning over civil authority to robots which are programmed to recognise violence and automatically come to the defense of the victim of any violent crime. They explain that they have t
SCO's crime to humanity (Score:2)
Check out Commission file number: 0-29911 [sco.com]:
"On AugustÂ26, 2002, Caldera International,ÂInc. announced that it would change its name to The SCO Group,ÂInc. ("SCO") pending stockholder approval. The name change is in response to the strong brand recognition related to the SCO OpenServer and SCO UNIXWare product lines that has been created over the last several years.
The Company has an
Re:SCO's crime to humanity (Score:2)
To sum up the article.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Copy protection rant (Score:5, Insightful)
If something is copy-protected well enough, then it will never become available to the PD. Imagine modern scholars trying to brute-force the 128-bit-IDEA encryption on Shakespeare's Macbeth. (Assuming they were licensed to use the IDEA patent, of course. ;-) (Have they had enough time, or would we need a few more universe-ages?)
If it doesn't reach PD, then when can the progress happen? It can't be built upon by the population at large, unless -- do you really think it makes sense that I should purchase a license to build upon "Steamboat Willy"? (Whoever thought that up, is dead and he got the 28 years that he expected. His incentive was fulfulled.) And while I know they are probably out there on the MAME-warez sites, I remember there are many C64 games that I don't have today not just because I got bored with them, but because they were inconvenient to take into the future. Would any of that stuff still be around in 2073 when it falls into PD, without the w4r3zd00dz? Funny: I bought Doom from ID and it wasn't copy-protected at all, but I know Romero's beautiful WADs will still be around in 2083, and no help from the w4r3zd00dz will be necessary. Little Johnny will find the files on grandpa's old file server, because grandpa was able to maintain continuous storage and migrate data, even though he never interfered with ID's rightful monopoly. And Grandpa learned from history so that's why there weren't any more Library-of-Alexandria-like incidents.
Wow, think of it: that great level, E1M3, will still be in people's minds a century from now. I really believe that. People will still see it and it will be an almost "real" place. The ideosphere was permanently enlarged. The arts were promoted. I won't kid anyone; I think the w4r3zd00dz might end up being responsible for that, but ID's decision to not use copy-protection is what guaranteed it.
If there are restrictions on access, then the very purpose of copyright has been subverted. It's a trade secret, not a published work. If it's copy-protected, then the progress of the arts and sciences is not being promoted.
And that's ok -- nobody should, of course, be required by society to act so altruisticly, because we are free men and not servants of some dystopian collectivist society, and we live for our own desires. But there are consequences that go with not working with Us. If it's copy-protected, then We should not extend copyright-protection to it. Society offered the creator a deal and the creator declined and decided to market his effort a different way. Fair enough. I think that's probably foolish, but it's his call to make.
But people who claim the privileges (monopoly) and yet reject the associated obligations (ease of data migration, format conversion, etc), are dishonest and not acting in good faith. Those who try to get such Free Lunches should, IMHO, be treated to "special" standards of respect or consideration, that are different than the treatment extended to decent folk. Their kind should not be encouraged. And remember that true Law is not set by those people in Washington, but by We The People. You can subvert my government, but you can't subvert me. Whitewash and social-engineer and bribe and play your games, but the ethical principles from which decisions are made, remain immutable.
And so I choose for the reality to be: copyright exists .. in situations where it is appropriate. The use of copy-protection influences my judgement of that situation. Catch up, Washington.
The burning of the Library of Alexandria again (Score:5, Insightful)
Eratosthenes, who i've always been a personal fan of, is credited with measuring the earth with a stick, or rather, by making measurments of the shadows cast at noon on a stick between Alexandria and Syene. No rockets, no computers, simple geometry established, assuming the earth was a perfect sphere, he determined represented 1/50th of a circle. Using modern mesurements, that's 500 miles * 50 = 25,000 miles (mental reference from scientific american sited verivied on the web) Pretty useful for people like Columbus, oh but wait.. we lost alot of our useful navagation knowlege cause it was burnt. Guess it wasn't christrian enough for Emperor Theodosius of Rome.
[http://www.planetarybiology.com/science_philos
There are so many other scientists, artists, pholophiers from this era. Hell Galileo wrote his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Principal Systems of the World" was published in about 1632, which chalanged Aristotle's geocentric view, something debated by atleast Aristarchus of Samos circa 230 BC or so. Who else might have published works who's theories can be proven by modern day methods.
[http://bell.lib.umn.edu/map/PTO/WRITE/erat.htm
Now would you consider this act a crime against humanity. Lost wealth of knowlege leading to the fall of knowlege it self?
---
Now... can we compair private libraries of books and music by users of P2P networks to the Library of Alexandria, a center of civilized thought? Could be, because for the first time in history distance has become obsolete. What survived from this era are not what could be considered the holy grail of wisdom, but literal scraps of information scattered from a varity of sources, not employed researchers or librarians, but something close to our amature collectors.
If it wasn't for this new Eutopia, I wouldn't have been able to find Eratosthenes's experiment, and been able to reproduce it, for the benifit of my nieces and nephews. A simple experiment over 2000 years ago that shows someone good evidence of the fact that they live on a planet.
While some would agrue that music and movies are not a human right. This is true. Got to make a living, we do presently have an industry, stuff costs money. Ok.. great! But DRM threatenes to permit the loss of works. At present i'm willing to pay for a CD... to play for my self and a friend. If I really like it, i'll keep the CD for 5 years, 10 years, and until I am dead. Someone who is curious about me, my life, like at the dawn of the 21st century might be at a loss if no one can obtain the right anymore. While you may think a obscure mixed metaphore like "the way the beach is kissed by the sea, poluted now but in our hearts still clean" {Insane Jane in a tribute to Pete Townshend) is important enough to preserve... but what about the works of Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, or Einstein. With DRM... if the companies who published their work digitaly no longer exist, how can we access it.
We no longer need a natural disaster, global war, nor fanatical zeliot oh a quest for our welfare in the afterlife in order to drive this planet into another dark age. All we need are hard core encryption schemes, criminal penalities for circumventing them, and the loss of ability to lock them, a loss by some site on the net shutting down after declairing bankrupsy.
This isn't about depriving copyright holders of their rights to publish their works, nor about our distaste for an established system of enterprise. This is about standing at the edge of a new dark age where we stand to loose countless millenia of history, and a responciblity we have to the human race, and so long as we continue to permit these actions we are as guility as those responcible for the loss of the library of Alexandria.
Moraly it's wrong, their for it must be politicly correct.
A flaw in the logic of DRM... (Score:5, Insightful)
Put copy protection on your CDs? Fuck you, I don't want anything you sell. Use that Palladium thing to put copy protection on your analyst's report? Fuck you, I won't use your services.
Hell, here goes a big Fuck you to anyone who can't respect that I am a rational person and assumes that I am incapable of following the law (if there even is one).
stallmans short story about the right to read ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Jesus Christ (Score:5, Insightful)
Your view of history is far too limited.
Society is what it is today because of ancient versions of Napster.
Re:Talk is cheap (Score:3, Insightful)
However, at a less trivial level, DRM technology is essentially oriented toward the inhibition of communication. This is promoted under the auspices of the "benefits" (from the view of corporations) of preventing "theft" of intellectual "property." However, inhibition of communication is a tool that, like many, can be put to nefarious uses well beyond that which would fit nicely into