Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media Your Rights Online

New RIAA/MPAA "Customary Historic Use" Plan 444

Random_Transit writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the EFF has dug up plans by the RIAA/MPAA to stifle the consumer electronics market by replacing it's "fair use" policy with something called "Customary Historic Use". This new policy would effectively keep anyone from inventing any new type of media device without the RIAA/MPAA's say-so."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New RIAA/MPAA "Customary Historic Use" Plan

Comments Filter:
  • by Sique ( 173459 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @06:02AM (#14531636) Homepage
    I've grown up in a country with a law defining the legal devices to replay recorded music. In this case it wasn't for home use though, but for public play like in a club or at parties. In this case it was probably to enable the state authorities to check the music for subversive content.
    But the idea is the same: To control the situation, forbid any not yet controlled entity to enter it.
  • Re:Bring it on! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ozmanjusri ( 601766 ) <aussie_bob@hoMOSCOWtmail.com minus city> on Sunday January 22, 2006 @06:15AM (#14531672) Journal
    you're not going to be able to enjoy your independent music in the ways you'd like to

    I won't be allowed to wander down to the pub and listen to them play?
    Seriously though, the RIAA has already lost this. The cat's out of the bag, the worms are out of the can. Right now, they're playing a stall game to buy time for a response, but I think in the long run they'll be too fat and unwieldy to adapt, so they'll wither, if not die.

    There's already too many ways out there that'll allow talented people to make and distribute music for the RIAA to retain their stranglehold on the market. We're already seeing that here (in Western Australia) where our remoteness meant local musicians have had virtually no chance of getting signed with a label. There's a great buzz of talent starting to realise they can do it all themselves with a few thou's worth of recording gear and a friendly web host.

    I'm looking forward to it.
  • Re:Bring it on! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lachlan76 ( 770870 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @06:26AM (#14531702)

    Though now that I see it, you live in Australia, so please allow 6-8 weeks for the lunacy to reach your shores.


    6-8 weeks? Pfft...Real ID made it over in under 3.
  • by s7uar7 ( 746699 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @07:05AM (#14531820) Homepage
    ...is a new technology that becomes hugely popular in Japan & Europe, but that is banned in the US because of some law introduced at the request of the *AA. Maybe then people will wake up to how these things really effect them.
  • Neo-Luddites (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Decker-Mage ( 782424 ) <brian.bartlett@gmail.com> on Sunday January 22, 2006 @08:49AM (#14532073)
    So the scribes are going to go crying to mama-government to get a law passed to prevent Gutenberg from using his printing press. I do hope this bill never goes anywhere but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. They do have very deep pockets and it is an election year after all which means the politicians need lots of cash. If it does pass it will come down to the courts weighing fair use against historic use and I don't put much money on fair use as you can be sure the law will remove that privilege (it was never a right, just another provision of the law).

    Let the techno-war begin. Hackers (the good kind) on one side, Neo-Luddit RIAA/MPAA on the other. I think I know which will win (us), but it's going to be messy.

  • Re:Bring it on! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Paraplex ( 786149 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @09:06AM (#14532118) Homepage
    Yeah I agree completely. The RIAA or any other such organisation no longer offer us *anything*. They used to have control because they had the equipment, the studios, the distribution and the promotional powers, but their time has come to an end. My group Children in the Game [childreninthegame.net] are giving their album away free for whomever wants it, in an attempt to help topple the RIAA's power.

    Once music stops being hugely profitable, people assume music will stop being made. This is complete RIAA propaganda. They suck the life and soul out of musicians, milk them until they are dry and then move on. IMHO buying albums through these huge companies is feeding these parasites to the detriment of anyone who cares about music.

    We're battling formats? We're debating HD vs BluRay while these swines continue to fuck us? fuck them! Release your films/music in an open format and i'll record it onto any fucking disc or other storage medium I want!

    Another model will be created that links consumers to the artists directly. An open infrastructure that doesn't require middlemen (i'm glaring at you itunes) will be created, but until then, I, and others like me will continue to create music without the promise of riches and bitches and whatever else music has been raped and disfigured into being about.
  • How? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @09:13AM (#14532137) Journal
    How can RIAA/MPAA have any say in how electronic devices are made, and what they can support and can't? How can they even propose anything about it? They're just an organization, not owning electronics companies, and not a political party. I can understand *AA protecting their distributed discs as they have the rights to do so (because the record labels being so are members of *AA), and conversely they don't have any say in protecting discs where labels aren't members, but this is looking like power on a government level when not being part of the government.
  • Re:Bring it on! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pallmall1 ( 882819 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @09:49AM (#14532231)
    you're not going to be able to enjoy your independent music in the ways you'd like to
    Also, you won't be able to enjoy any personal recordings the way you'd like to. The hardware will only play the content if the content is tagged with explicit permissions, even if the permission is "unrestricted." So if I record something on my own equipment, much of it home-built from the chip-component level, I will have to include special "DRM" code if I want to play the recording back on ANY commercial device. And you can be assured that the "DRM" code will require a non-free license.

    This legislation would allow record companies to receive money on ALL digital content and playback devices, whether they produce (via their phony "artists") or distribute it or not.

    Further, if the "DRM" scheme requires periodically checking in with a remote database to verify a digital key, the entity in charge of the database could UNIVERSALLY disable any content they deem "inappropriate" any time they wish. The legislation may not explicitly state that, but in order for a scheme like this to work, these adjunct capabilities would have to be present. This legislation goes way beyond copy-protection.
  • Going around this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gnaythan1 ( 214245 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @10:58AM (#14532478)
    If I was a small manufacturer of electronic devices, and stupid rules like this were the law of the land. I'd make my devices with firmware that can easily be modified on a USB connection.

    I sure as hell would not officially make if open to all formats... but the day I started selling the machine, somehow would be the day the hacked firmware version was available on the internet.

    I'd also not hold press conferences on exactly how to install and upgrade to this hacked version. That would be wrong. I'd probably yell at some consultant who used to work for us(and was paid handsomely) when he held the conference. I'd probably re-hire him at some point, because I am forgiving that way.

    I'd denounce this hack publicly, calling it by its accurate name, so people wouldn't mistake it for some other, double-plus good firmware upgrade.

    I'd even denounce my loyal and faithful software partners, who somehow seem to be giving this firmware upgrade away, in multiple formats for different operating systems, and with no spyware whatsoever... I'd make sure to expose exactly how this upgrade gets to the public. Of course, this bad behaviour by my partners would not interefere with future business relationships, all water under the bridge, really.

    It would be an act of kindness of course, not to press charges on anyone who would hack their device in this way... and a demonstration of goodwill to pick up the legal tabs for anyone sued by some other party who didn't like what the consumer did to our device. Keep it in the family, as it were.

    Or maybe something like Henry Ford's "lawsuit insurance" is an alternative plan. http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/catalog/display.p perl?isbn=9781400050093&view=excerpt [randomhouse.com]
  • by j0nb0y ( 107699 ) <jonboy300NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Sunday January 22, 2006 @11:05AM (#14532510) Homepage
    While fair use rights are not specifically in the Constitution, the US Supreme Court has ruled that they are implied. Free speech implies that you have certain fair use rights.

    There is a lot of confusion about this, because fair use rights were detailed in the copyright act of 1976. Previous to this however, fair use rights were protected by Supreme Court rulings.

    IANAL
  • Re:In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @11:08AM (#14532525) Homepage Journal
    Automobile banned for violating historic customary use laws for the wheel.

    Funny, yes, but also similar to a lot of real history.

    In a lot of places, when autos started appearing, laws were passed that were attempts to ban them by making them useless. For example, there were laws limiting them to 4 or 5 mph, about horse speed. Some places had laws requiring that a motor vehicle be preceded by a rider on horseback.

    Needless to say, these laws didn't last long (though it turns out that they are still on the books in some places). But for some years, they were a good way of collecting a bit of toll money in the form of fines from visitors.

    Anyone have any good early anti-auto laws from your vicinity?

  • Re:In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AlterTick ( 665659 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @11:47AM (#14532702)
    A list of "suggsted" automobile laws:
    "Rules of the Road" published in a bulletin by the Farmers Anti-Automobile Society included:

    "All motorists must carry sugar to make friends with the horse. When a horse approaches, the motorist must drive into the nearest meadow or forest and cover his vehicle with a camouflaged blanket."

    "If a car should cause a team of horsed to run away, the driver shall be fined $50 for first mile and $100 for each succeeding mile until the horses are stopped."

    "Cars at night must send up red rockets every mile and wait 10 minutes for the road to clear. Speed shall never exceed 5 miles an hour. And the motorist must proceed with caution, blowing horn and shooting off Roman candles."

    "Upon approaching a corner, the car must be stopped not less than a mile from the turn. To ascertain if the road is clear, the driver must sound his horn, rind a bell, fire a revolver, hallo, and send up three bombs at intervals of five minutes."

    "Cars must be painted to merge with the scenery-green in the spring, golden in the summer, red in the autumn, and white in the winter."

    "Speed limit on country roads this year will be secret and penalty for violation will be $10 for every mile the offender is caught going in access of it."

    "When a horse approaches, the driver of the vehicle must take the automobile apart and conceal the parts in the grass or bushes alongside the road until the horse has passed.

    Ridiculous, right? Not at the turn of the century, when the rules of the road condemned the motorist and pampered the horse! In the early days, the motorists were a beleaguered few, hemmed in by a variety of animosities and jealousies. Admirers of the horse, together with all industries that had grown up around horse-drawn transportation, and the diehards who wanted no change in the easy tempo of like, had little trouble persuading rural-dominated legislatures and city and town councils to adopt highly restrictive laws and regulations.

    Cars were not permitted in city parks. They had to dump out all gasoline before going aboard a ferry. Still on some statute books are laws requiring a motorist to come to a halt, turn off the engine, and give whatever assistance was required to get a skittish horse to go by. Roads were pathetic. A motorist had to buy new tags and driver's licenses to cross a state line-in some instances, even a county line. Some states required registration fees in each county through which a vehicle passed. Missouri charged $30 to cross the state east-west and $50 north-south.

    There were laws requiring a motorist to send a warning sentinel with a red flag one-eighth of a mile ahead of his vehicle. In Urbana, Ohio, vehicles were limited to a speed of four miles and hour when crossing another road, at the same time ringing a bell or gong. In Flint, Michigan, a law read: "It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile on the streets of Flint, Michigan, while being subjected to the embrace of any other person."

    (NOTE: above work not mine. I found it in a discussion forum, poorly attributed as being "from an article")

  • Looking from the performers side it looks pretty dicrininatory, it give the power to the "performing rights organizations" which are not really organizatons but corporations instead. Sure limits the ability of the poor struggling artist from making an honest dollar.

    I think some legislation to abolish the MPAA and RIAA and create some more fair public organization is in order if these things go into place.

  • by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @12:37PM (#14532988) Homepage
    And what are you doing to change it?

    You should try the "search" feature before putting your dick in the dirt in front of thousands of people.

  • Re:Bring it on! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Yartrebo ( 690383 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:02PM (#14533112)
    This legislation goes way beyond copy-protection.

    I must have missed that part. I see no error correcting codes or titanium disks or requirements for the seller to provide a replacement copy at cost if yours breaks or gets scratched or any other provisions that would protect your copy.
  • Re:post-mp3 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Millenniumman ( 924859 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:33PM (#14533295)
    I have never heard anyone complain about mp3 quality, or even note it outside of Slashdot and similar sites. I don't notice a difference either. Now, I do realize that doesn't prove anything, but I think that it the opinion of the majority of average people. But are there any efforts to bring higher quality music download services? If there was much consumer demand I would think there would be. But your probably right in that expectations will change with new technology, or that people will just want what is better regardless of whether they can tell. I don't think taking up less space will ever be an issue. How much does it cost to fill up an iPod 60GB with music legally? ~$15000 . It might differ with mp3 rather than AAC or buying lower price CDs, but it would still be quite a lot. So with the new mp3 standard plus much bigger HDs the iPod 1TB with mp9 taking up one tenth the space you will be spending ~$3 million dollars to fill it up with music. Subscription services might change this but no one wants to wait 7 years to download all of the music on the music store and fill their digital audio player with it, even on their 1Tbps fiber optic internet connection. Especially when it will all stop working when they don't pay the monthly fee. At the risk of being "people will only ever need 64k"esque I think modern digital audio players already have all the storage that most people will ever need for music. Now digital audio/video players will need more storage space, and will probably replace DAPs.
  • Re:Bring it on! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by idunno2112 ( 852110 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:38PM (#14533323)
    There's already too many ways out there that'll allow talented people to make and distribute music for the RIAA to retain their stranglehold on the market.

    I completely agree: the RIAA was good to set standards for the recording industry when studios were expensive to build and maintain.

    Today, any band can put together a decent compilation of songs (a.k.a. album or CD) and distribute it themselves. A little word of mouth advertising and playing local gigs, and if the stuff is good, it will get out there.

    How do I know it will get out there? Because of sites like slashdot, digg and delicious: the digital "word of mouth". After all, if some loser's blog about his pet kitty's bowel movements can get hits, I'm sure good music can too.

    For example, not that these guys are losers or rant about kitty poo, I ran into Beatallica [beatallica.org] on digg and it's pretty funny and good: they supposedly even have Metallica's blessing, but there's an issue with the record label which prevents them from putting out an album, but doesn't prevent them from distributing their songs in mp3 format... strangely enough. BTW, "Hey Dude" rocks... ;)
  • Re:Bring it on! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:44PM (#14533352)
    That just begs for the mother of all monopoly suits though.

    I make a movie, and plan to distribute it free to increase buzz about my company before moving to the standard "pay for DVDs or theatre showings" on future movies. If the RIAA requires me to use copy protection, it's certainly hard to me to encourage sharing. Thus aren't they impeding a competitor's business in an unlawful way?
  • Re:Bring it on! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vettemph ( 540399 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:49PM (#14533381)
    >>>they can do it all themselves with a few thou's worth of recording gear and a friendly web host.

    Sadly, the RIAA thinks they will be able to limit the supply of microphones, analog to digital converters and Digital to analog converters and perhaps speakers.

    Microphones are just air pressure sensors that produce a relative voltage.
    ADCs are used amost anywhere any sensor would get used to convert voltages to numbers.
    DACs are used for controlling various mechanical devices and optical systems by converting numbers to voltages.
    Speakers are just voltage controlled solenoids with a cone attached.

    Everything between the ADC and DAC are just data points. (voltage levels that change at a moderate frequency.)

    If you look at a stock chart, you are just looking at data points over time.
    Recorded digital music is the same thing, Just data points over time.
    (usually 44.1 thousand data points per second)

    Not only will this be technically imposible for the RIAA to enforce, But it will never go though because it would allow the RIAA to be the ONLY Recording Industry Association in America. As much as our Government and lobbiest would like that, they wouldn't be so bold.

      This would also be pointless unless the RIAA could become the Recording Industry Association of Earth. Currently we can get our MP3s and OGGs from France. :)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:55PM (#14533412)
    Let them stick DRM tech in screens, PC hardware, players, content sold in various formats and so forth. Lets see how much of it gets sold and how much stays on the (virtual?) shelf and gathers dust.

    My personal guess is that DRM protected content and players will have very slow sales and that the whole DRM project will eventually get scrapped.
  • Re:Bring it on! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FLEB ( 312391 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @02:00PM (#14533441) Homepage Journal
    I'd say the problem rests with radio. DJs that actually played music are replaced with talking heads and remotely-programmed playlists from the Central Office. The problem is that with radio regulation (and the underlying fact that there is only so much bandwidth between 88 and 108), broadcast is a nearly impossible arena for new players to break into, and assembly-line LCD radio, as sad as it is, has the competitive advantage.

    Sure, there are new media out there, such as XM or Web radio, but they lack broadcast's "critical mass", so any buzz they might generate is a flicker at best. Broadcast, in its simplicity and 88-108 limitedness, does have the advantage of being a single-point resource for getting content you know is up to a certain standard. The problem is that radio stations have taken that to an extreme, producing lukewarm mush that won't revolt anyone enough to change the station, but as such lacks any meat or substance. On the other end, there's web radio or other alternative delivery: Edgier music, but the more involved method of delivery and the much smaller, more geographically diffuse market means that they'll rarely have radio's ability for listeners to converse over what they "heard on the radio", and word just won't get out in a big way.

    A fair amount of people could really care less about finding higher quality music, once it reaches a certain acceptable threshold... it's just not their interest. As such, the simple delivery method, easy categorization, and common shared cultural references airplay music gives make a whole lot more value than something obscure that might have an edge on quality.
  • by zotz ( 3951 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @02:18PM (#14533552) Homepage Journal
    Going on the Offensive.

    I think we need to stop just defending and reacting to these sorts of issues.

    We need to go on the offensive. We need to think of some initiatives that we could push for that would help or just not affect the little players too much and yet would put a monkey wrench in the game plan of the big boys who are constantly trying to pull these stunts.

    Push for this change for instance:

    No more taking works from the Public Domain and making derivatives with all rights reserved types of copyrights. You can sell public domain works fine. You can make derivatives and put them under a copyleft license fine. But you cannot make a derivative of a public domain work and lock it up as you can if you had made something completely new.

    I think something like this might give them the kind of scare that their stunts give us.

    Any thoughts on this idea. Any other better ideas to go on the offensive?

    all the best,

    drew
    -----
    http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261 [ourmedia.org]
    Record a "copyleft" song and you could win a thousand dollars.
  • Re:post-mp3 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Sunday January 22, 2006 @02:58PM (#14533741) Homepage Journal

    Millenniumman: Most people won't be able to notice higher fidelity [than MP3]

    allelopath: O rly? mp3 is barely tolerable to me.

    At what bitrate? LAME at bitrates close to 192 kbps produces MP3 files that are near transparent to most adult ears. Frankly I don't give a shit if your codec cuts off frequencies above 17500 Hz because at age 25, I am incapable of hearing them. And do you listen to music alone, or are you listening on top of house noise, car noise, or bus/train noise? Ambient noise can reduce the required bitrate for perceived transparency.

  • by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Sunday January 22, 2006 @03:03PM (#14533761) Homepage Journal

    How much does it cost to fill up an iPod 60GB with music legally?

    It's a lot cheaper than $15,000 if you fill it up with music videos, as you allude to later.

    Especially when [all-you-can-eat music rental] will all stop working when they don't pay the monthly fee.

    Say you keep such a device for 3 years. Then at $5/mo just add $180 to the cost of the device, and you have the entire top 100 for the last n years at your fingertips, which could be a strong selling point to many buyers.

  • by trawg ( 308495 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @10:58PM (#14535921) Homepage
    This new policy would effectively keep anyone from inventing any new type of media device without the RIAA/MPAA's say-so."
    Umm, how many countries are there that are out there aren't owned by the RIAA yet? I can't imagine China (or stacks of those other Asian nations that have been cranking out mp3 players for years before the ipod became cool) suddenly stopping. In fact, surely the opposite will happen - they'll produce more of them.

    The big issue for people living in RIAA-ruled countries (ie, where the RIAA have spent enough money to buy the politicians that are helping shape the laws) will surely be import laws on items like this (ie, no importing of items that don't enforce some sort of DRM). Then we're really fucked.
  • by David Webb ( 883154 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @11:44PM (#14536110)
    The RIAA and MPAA have declared WAR on all consumers! War!We did not ASK for this war. So now that we know we are at war what do we do? We retaliate and fight back. Media is produced for the consumer. How do you ask someone to buy your products when you behave in a heinous manner such as this? Let the examples of SONY BMG and BLIZZARD software not be forgotten.Nor the lawsuits brought about by greed and fear. This is yet another clear example of tyranny. Write to your senators,congressman and any other politician you think will listen. Boycott thier products and sign petitions against these villianous houligans.Support the EFF. We must band together and do everything we can to win this WAR!

"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger

Working...