Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Music Media

Shielding MP3 Databases From Copyright Violations 132

Lost Soul writes: "Wired has an article on a new law being proposed in the United States House of Representatives to immunize databases of songs a la from copyright violations that are now plaguing the company and giving recording companies licensing fees they don't deserve. Please signal your support for this bill to your local representatives." It would protect databases that people could get access to if they had already purchased the CDs, as was set up to do.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bill To Immunize MP3 Databases From Copyright Violations

Comments Filter:
  • It is about time that the legal status of this stuff was really cleared up bigtime. When I purchase a CD or a Video or a Book or a ... I regard this as the purchase of a license to use the content for my personal enjoyment in a non commercial setting in whatever manner I care to. If I want to rip a CD to play on my MP3 player in my car or make a tape of it, or use it for skeet practice, this should be ok under the law. If someone facilitates this, they are adding value to the creator of the media by encouraging purchase of the origional license. It takes an extreme amount of effort to create the origional content in many cases. (Example, I am at the end of a 20 min documentary that has taken myself and the other editor roughly 2 mounths of effort to create) The creator of the content should recieve their tithe, but the present position of the MPA and RIAA is an position that is totally greed oriented and does them little credit.
  • I dont want some dodgy recording from a persons bedroom in the future.

    Better dodgy than stodgy.

    While I can understand your aversion to bedrooms, I would be personally interested in any recordings from the future. Furthermore, I think the simple fact that the artist had access to a bedroom in the future would make their work worth giving a listen, since most artists seem incapable of recording in bedrooms anywhere except in the past or present...


  • The only problem with throwing up your arms and saying "Well, those kids are gonna infringe copyright laws, anyway, so...lets go ahead and allow them the facilities to do it," is that you're not addressing the moral issue. That's just like handing out condoms in high schools. It doesn't make the problem any better. Isn't there a place in cyberspace for good, old-fashioned honesty?
  • I just wrote my Rep. Here's the letter I sent, feel free to use it. Go to Recently Representative Rich Boucher (D-Virginia) has proposed a bill, The Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000, amending Chapter 1 of title 17, United States Code, following section 122 to strengthen the rights of consumers with respect to downloadable music on the Internet. I fully support this move and hope you do as well. I feel a number of court decisions have misinterpreted existing legislation such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in ways that are highly detrimental to the rights of consumers. Representative Boucher's bill affirms the rights of individual consumers to enjoy the copyrighted works they own in any manner they see fit. Many organizations would like to see further restrictions placed on the consumers' fair use of copyrighted material. This bill does nothing to remove protections for copyrighted material, it just clarifies the intent of congress to ensure that consumers rights are protected. I'm sure that the rights of the consumer are important to you and I urge your support of this bill.
  • Brilliant, fantastic, amazing idea, I bet has it's legal people on this right now.

    the only problem is that they didn't invent the idea - like everything on their site they copied it from another 'innovative' site.

    Stilll prior art doesn't seem to have stopped the patent office in the past - so maybe there's still hope for tecyhnology plagiarists like ;-)

    "...provided that the transmission is received only by a recipient who has provided to the transmitting organization proof that the recipient lawfully possesses a phonorecord of such sound recording..."

    Proof? Like a digital signature? Lets use the CueCat encryption for this!

  • I guess I just don't get your analogy. Why do we keep trying to create analogies between physical property and digital property? Why don't we just accept that they are two different things that need to be dealt with differently? Prohibiting a company from making a database of music in order to allow people (who have legally purchased the right to listen to that music) to listen to the music they have purchased wherever they like, after they have proven that they have purchased that right, is asinine. It's just the record companies throwing their weight around and trying to further limit how we can make use of the music that we purchase, as well as extorting money which they are not due. Yes, it's often good that the law is slow to change, but when we see that it needs to change, we should certainly encourage it. That's why I'm sending a similar letter to my congresscritters.

  • Regardless, they lost on legal grounds. They just managed to minimize the damage by settling with the rest of the companies.

  • Sony can already make a site and give all their music away for free on it, or any site that is authorized by Sony for such an operation. They dont need a law. They *are* using the existing law to crush their competition, though, so yeah that is sort of slimy, its like stealing your girlfriend and punching you in the stomach too.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The only thing worse than a legislator serving corporations is a legislator serving the common criminal.
    But alas, you repeat yourself.
  • edged out, and made noncompetitive by the court decision and royalty agreement. Meanwhile, the industry-backed ventures go ahead without that little boat anchor.

    So the new guy on the block, who found the path and showed the way, gets the shaft. The establishment who fought it every step of the way follows the formula and gets the money.

    On the side, a little note in Courtney Love's diatribe seemed to indicate that artists don't get any royalties from "clubs". She stated that she feared that artists would get no royalties from the Napster suits, because the industry would consider Napster a "club". Is this true? By participating in a "CD-club" are we depriving the artists of income, and sending ALL of the money to the poor, starving recording houses?
  • All the mp3 posts and the comments attached are getting more ridiculous.

    If the recording companies don't deserve money for promoting and selling recording than who does.?

    Yes they're greedy (the recording companies), but I don't see ANYONE/ doing anything about it, and they do pay the artist, something NAPSTER users ususally ARE NOT doing. All those people using napster who claim the big companies are ripping off artists are stealing more harming the artists more than the companies that risk money investing in them (by providing capital to record._)

    They're lots and lots of small labels out there, and they all seem the same. You think if they're was a better way artists would flock too it. I haven't seen a single major musical player yet come out of (not that they're aren't good artists on that company.)

    That being said, NAPSTER doesn't bother me as much as the fact that it has all those users , and what it says about peoples respect for other peoples art/music. I think people should be individiually responsible... I used to think the semi / technically savvy were a little more enlightened . They're not and its kinda sad.

    Whats new about this way of distibution is the speed. It used to be copy at 1x then 2x tape dubbers, now music is being swapped anonymously over a network. Times have changed, and I think we will see new laws coming up shortly to cover this stuff.

    That being said those that work often don't have time to scour the net for music, its cheapper to buy music still. (1/2 of my time is worth.....). I think streaming mp3 is a great thing to suck bandwidth at work, like radio but since radio has gone way downhill and I don't get reception in my building its cds or that.
  • ISBN's only identify works themselves, not copies. This means that the ISBN's on all copies of a given work will be the same. All it would take would be for someone to compile a big list of ISBN's, and the whole authentication process is circumvented.

    There's another way I'd considered, but this keeps the service from being free. It involves sending in the actual CD, along with the cost of shipping it back. Since you can't send in a legal CD if you don't have it, that's about as good as you can get (the CD could have been stolen, but thanks to presumption of innocence that can't be taken into consideration).

    Another, possibly equally or more suitable way, would be to send/fax in a photocopy of the disc itself, ot the liners. This has been used in the proprietary software industry for a long time to determine ownership (usually for purposes of upgrade discounts). It can be circumvented, but it's generally more trouble than it's worth to do so.

    Any thoughts?
  • >Eh? You manage to contradict yourself here since you were talking about taxation earlier.

    Not a contradiction in the slightest...
    The primary objective is to protect My.MP3
    The FTP thing is purely a side effect... and posably the fullest extent of freedom that we'd get from this thing..

    Your right in the notion that this is made to LOOK like it's giving us something when it's really just pushing an agenda...

    About the paranoia thing... we ALL get parnaoid.. ehhh it's not a bad thing really... Hay I can expect you'll be there when they come to take me away for speaking my mind.. no matter HOW much you disagree with me... And I'll be there if they ever come for you...
    Being paranoid about ones freedoms is the healthyest thing...

    Anyway... Your right about WHAT they are doing but not WHY they are doing it...
    It sounds stupid but they beat you to death becouse they want to protect you from being beaten to death...
    People like you need to come along and say "Thats Fsking stupid" and well.. you are...

    Anyway... Sorry for being so mean and evil.. but I am and thats all there is....

    On yeah... "It dosn't protect Napster" "So"
    Ehh thats kinda what the jist of this was... "Ohh finnaly Napster is saved" not even slightly... Woulda been nice... Of course you knew better.. but for the benifit of others I thought I'd mention it...
  • Like the ones used by those CD names databases would be one way.

    I don't know that much about those IDs but a verification system similar to what uses might sufice.

    This would be hacked in about 2 days and soon people would be swapping cd ids, but nothing seems foolproof..

    what else could you use. An Encrypted licence number with your music CD? This is starting to sound like Circut Cities ill fated DIV-X DVD player that charged per use....

  • Unfortunately, that means about as much as `information wants to be free` though!
  • Let's see... how is it theft to compile a database (presumably from purchased CDs), and then allow people to stream that music wherever they happen to be, but only after they have proven that they have purchased the right to listen to the music. Sounds to me like something that should be perfectly legal, but that the record industry doesn't like, and they are, once again, trying to control what people do with the music they purchase after the sale. If you and I both buy the same CD, and then we meet and I hand you my copy and you give me your copy, have we broken the law? That's essentially what was doing. I think the RIAA's argument is ridiculous.

  • "It is, however, illegal to DISTRIBUTE such rips to other people, whether they own the material in question or not. "

    If they already own it, it should not be considered distribution.

    BTW, where do you draw the line in this list, and why?:
    1) I rip my own track and play it on my player.
    2) I rip the the track, upload it to my private ftp space, and play it from work.
    3) An identical track is ripped in advance, placed in my private ftp space, played from work.

    In all cases, I have paid for the track. Why is this a problem?
  • Actually, they will release the first single, "Original Prankster" and only that single. Sony threatened suit, and they worked out an agreement to continue the promotional giveaway, and Sony agreed to allow one .mp3 to be authorized on the Offspring's site.

    So, if the said scan takes place, don't they have to exclude all copies of Original Prankster.mp3 since it's authorized by Sony for distribution on the 'net?

  • When the data itself is only to serve as information, rather than actual data, there has to be something to protect it. In the case of, they got taken over because they got big. Of course, u can do a search to find any song lyric on the net, but made it that much easier. Why bother making people abide by copyright violations when you know that there are other blatantly simple ways to get that info? Time needs to be spent on more important issues, like decrypting any new music/sound standards. :p

    Weird Pics []

  • are they the same?
    Was MPPP considered broadcasting the music in the final judgement?

    thats an interesting question and I can't find the answer.

    As an interesting aside, I think there is an extra fee placed on Digital Audio Tapes (DAT) that somehow goes to the music business.

    I think canada has that fee on blank CDs.

    Does anyone know what other fees we're paying for media?
  • ..which bill protects which database.. The'll find a way to sue 'em anyways...
  • I'm not really sure what you mean by all this. No "lobbyist" from the Digital Media Association has ever been with in spitting distance of the tech policy makers on the hill. I'm not even sure they have a real lobbyist. A quick poll of House and Senate tech LA's tells me that not one of them has ever heard of the DiMA (unfortunately, six months ago 90% of them had never heard of Linux either, but that's another story)

    I am all for (hell, I'm calling for) more lobbyists representing the tech producer/user in Washington, D.C., but it is counter productive to give credit to a group that is not accomplishing anything - it takes attention away from those who may be putting together viable efforts., not my favorite company, did hire a lobbyist to draft sample legislation, and had the Pres and CEO on heavy rotation in House and Senate offices around the hill asking someone to introduce this bill. There was no pressure, or even a whisper, from any other source in support of legislation like this.

    Tech users need to get more organized, the only tech lobbies here now are the companies (and they just want H1-B), and groups like the EFF (good group - no real lobby) and the Center for Democracy in Technology (nice, smart guys but not much direct policy input). The closest we have to a representative is the Consumer Electronics groups, because they want to make what the MPAA, RIAA, etc. want to ban, and they want to make it without restrictions. They're not perfect allies (few businesses are), but at least they have their nose to the wheel.
  • by MrP- ( 45616 )
    too bad it wont pass before the whole internet is scanned and reported [] :)
  • What a bunch of symantical horseshit.

    Speaking of horseshit, did you mean semantical or symbolical?

    Even a computer can't tell the difference between my CD and theirs, it is - bit for bit - identical.

    So what? In a digital world all copies are bit-for-bit identical. It has nothing to do with copyright issues.

    And, as a nitpick, two .mp3 files ripped from the same CD will almost always be a teeny bit different from each other. Not enough to be noticed, but enough to fail the bit-for-bit test.

    You'd be better of explaining to us how this physical discrepancy is at all relevant.

    Which physical discrepancy? We are talking about a legal discrepancy here. Your copy and their copy are legally different even though they are bit-for-bit identical. What's so hard to understand about this? My copy of, say, Baldur's Gate 2 and yours are identical, but they are legally different: I can play mine whenever I want and I cannot play yours without your permission. The whole concept of copyright is based on the idea that some copies are more equal than others.

  • I think this is marvellous and I would hope it would apply globally. The problem is how do they determine ownership? I'd like get the mp3 versions of all those tapes I bought which have now started to warp/degrade. anyone got the mp3's for Carcass's Necroticism-Descanting The Insalubrious or Death's Individual Though Patterns? Nope, didn't think so..
  • Ok, so if I license a single, 30 second song to, and then create 3000 bots to continuously stream it, each earning 1/3 of a cent each time, that adds up to $20/minute, or $28,800/day, or over $10 million/year... damn, sounds like a good business model to me... but not for!
  • ... is to have all kinds of databases centrally registered by government agencies such as the NSA, CIA and FBI. You can bet that the first condition of this law is to have each and every user and piece of data registered with the appropriate agencies, for them to look at and construct profiles from.

    And yet again, we'll be cheering them on because on the surface it looks like a win for the "fair use" doctrine. Wake up people! The government exists solely to increase its own powers, not to benefit its citizens. They'd love to be able to have every database in this country on file and available at the click of a button, and when they can play people and organisations against each other so that people want this to happen, they have won.

    From here it's just a small step to identity cards, continuous surveillance and a police state controlled by the abuse of legislation designed to let government "protect" the rights of the people. This is America and we don't need to stand up for this blatent removal of our rights, we can fight back using our Second Amendment freedoms! We need to make the people aware of the dangers that KKKlinton and his cronies pose our freedom before it is too late and we're crushed under the boots of our "protectors".

  • hmm...

    methinks you are being a bit on the too legal end of the stick here. i grant you that there is a great body of law over a great number of things. some of this law is good, some of this law is bad, some of this law is antiquated. in theory under the common law, i can still have the right to trial by combat as an example. (please see coke, etc. if you need the reference) the reality is that the RIAA and the MPA can either embrace and have an influence in the control of the new method of distribution (in the process getting the rights of the copyholders recognized and rewarded) or put the entire process of copyright protection in a position where it will be totally ignored. distribution to folks who can demonstrate that they have paid the copyright holder for the right to utilize the media adds value to the copyright holder, since it is being performed at no cost to them and encourages the purchase of their media. no argument about the right to payment. no argument about the distribution to folks who have not paid.

  • by zencode ( 234108 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @02:14AM (#751254) Homepage
    My mantra to slashdot; put up or shut up.


    To :
    Cc :
    Subject : Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000
    ----- Message Text -----
    Dear Honorable John Joseph Moakley,

    I am writing to you in support of the proposed Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000.

    You have have heard about recently losing a lawsuit to the RIAA. The practice in question was members scanning in their legally-purchased discs (to prove ownership) and would then allow that particular member to listen to their songs wherevery they wish. I would like to emphasize that required that you prove you owned the original. Unfortunately, lost because's copy is not the same physical copy as the customer's copy and is therefore illegal.

    If this is difficult to fathom it is because it doesn't really make any sense.

    The Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000 would allow a company to legally create a musical database:

    ""Simply stated, a consumer who lawfully owns a work of music, such as a CD, will be able to store it on the Internet and then downstream it for personal use at a time and place of his choosing," Boucher said in his floor statement introducing the new legislation." -

    I encourage you to support this bill and bring legislation up to speed with the technical capabilities of the internet.

    Thank you,
    Jason Desjardins

    My .02,

  • That the US government have to come up with a bill to prevent the reactionary tactics of the music industry, when they could have done it on their own and not given lawyers even more money. If you don't change with the times you get left behind, unfortunately, with a legal system that favours the rich and powerful they can delay that to a certain degree. Sooner or later though, there are going to be mass defections of artists to MP3 labels, and then where will they be? But (cynicism-mode on) the cycle will begin again when the MP3 labels start making money and can afford their own pet lawyers.
  • by Malc ( 1751 )
    CDs need a Burst Cutting Area (BCA) number. This is something that can be burnt into DVDs at the moment (which I guess includes DVD-Audio). Every DVD can be given a unique BCA#. This approach would stop people lending their CDs to friends for the sole purpose of allowing them to register to hear it from an online DB. Of course, you would need a mechanism to unregister too in the event of selling the CD, or for the registration to be time-limited.
  • by Carnage4Life ( 106069 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @03:29AM (#751257) Homepage Journal
    If the recording companies don't deserve money for promoting and selling recording than who does.?

    The music studios don't deserve royalties in the case. In case you didn't know debuted a free service called Beam-It at []. This service enabled people to play CDs from an online collection if they had previously proved that they own the CDs by having the CD in the CD-ROM drive and registering it.

    Somehow the record labels felt that owed them money for broadcasting music on the net without paying them licence fees similar to what Radio stations pay. This ignores the fact that all the people listening to the music already own the CDs being played. Of course all the members of the RIAA filed suit and settled with most of them for about $20 million a piece except for Universal that pressed on with a lawsuit and won over $100 million.

    The will return but will be a pay service to offset the damage from the lawsuits. During Napster hearings certain Senators including Orrin Hatch realized that the RIAA was abusing copyright laws in an attempt to maintain a monopoly [] on legitimate means of digital distribution of music. The new laws that are pending indicate that Congress feels that the RIAA did not and does not deserve payment when people are accessing music they already own from an online site.

    Second Law of Blissful Ignorance
  • I thought his name sounded familiar. He's one of co-chairs of the House "Internet Caucus". He has a long history of being involved with Internet-related legislation, some of which was drafted by him and Al Gore (they invented the Internet together... not!). Some of it is listed on his website [].

    I don't see anything specific on his website, but I recall reading elsewhere that Boucher was instrumental in the legislation that allowed the Internet to legally be used for non-research purposes. So he's at least partially responsible for the commercialized Internet of today, as opposed to the elite academic community of ten years ago. Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of opinion, I guess.

  • I bet that right now some RIAA people are accusing of paying off a congressman to get this bill into the books.
  • by Trinition ( 114758 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @03:44AM (#751260) Homepage
    ...what proof is sufficient?

    I believe that is intended to be vague so it could be interpreted by the courts, probably purposely so.

    As for how? Well, click-wrap licenses seem to work for software, so why not for a digital music locker...

    1. ...By accepting this agreement, you agree that you legitimately own the said music recording...

    Personally, I feel the technologically sound process that used would be sufficient.

  • " to have all kinds of databases centrally registered by government agencies such as the NSA, CIA and FBI."

    What the fuck are you smoking anyway?

    If the NSA wants to know who I am, they're going to want more than my goddamned CD LIST! Do you think "Big Brother" cares if I listen to Metallica or Dr. Dre or Yanni or any other suckfest of a CD?

    My advice to you is to go take all your little guns, and go into a cave somewhere in the Ozarks with all the other radical right-wing crackheads. Or you can lay off the crack and get your conspiracy theories out of your head.

    It had to be said.

  • by Trinition ( 114758 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @03:48AM (#751262) Homepage
    The thing that bothers me about this is that Sony, BMG, etc. are all involved with ventures to create "digital music lockers" (a term that Sony coined). and now, legislation will be passed making them legal... conveniently after was just (fatally?) injured by a lawsuit centering on that exact same issue!

    Could the sneaky members of club-RIAA have planned it so they'd destory while it was illegal, then make it legal and make money on the exact same idea?

  • This has changed over time, particularly if you include the entire recording chain to final media output.

    Multitrack recording:

    • 70s- open-reel tape consoles, $50,000 (?) for 16-24 tracks 30 ips
    • 90s- ditto at more like $20,000, first digital multitrack but _seriously_ inadequate $50,000 again.
    • Now- 20-24 bit minimum, ADAT available in this class for under $3000, nonlinear DAW recording in a similar pricerange not counting the computer and disk costs. That's for something like Digi Pro Tools: ask the GIS crew about that.
    • 70s- mixing console $10,000? Less tendency for hugeness and a zillion busses.
    • 90s- mixing console $10-50,000. This is where huge consoles really took off- also, lower end consoles developed a terrible cheapness and noisiness, moving into the consumer zone. At this time digital consoles were useless even though they cost the earth- early digital consoles featured 16 bit busses and NO dithering. Any home PC can do better these days with the proper software.
    • Now- analog consoles same as 90s unless you build your own and know your way around audiophile design- low end's a third as cheap as it used to be, but still very cheesy. Digital consoles becoming available with 24, 36 or even higher bit depths on the busses. DAW a mixed bag- you can do work with deep busses and good software for under $10,000, you can kluge the same thing for under $1000 if you know what you're doing, if you can build circuitry you can get in there with analog gear and match the fluidity but _not_ the noise floor (never underestimate the 'bit depth' of analog- no rounding errors at all, and dithering becomes unnecessary- dithering is actually a type of noise at about -110db!). More than ever it's WHAT you know not what you SPEND- demand is turning back towards high end audio characteristics, and industry standards are slipping. Which brings us to-
    Mastering and Release
    • 70s- ouch! Good luck getting anywhere _near_ this stage. Disc mastering equipment in the millions of dollars, owned only by mastering houses- you simply could not play in this area, not even the recording studios did. There was never a consumer market for vinyl disc mastering.
    • 90s- even more ouch! While older equipment would pass into the hands of semipros and rich amateurs for mere hundreds of thousands of dollars (perhaps less), while the Philips cassette became widely available, the top end continued to skyrocket, developing techniques like multiband compression to saturate the tonality of the music while suppressing unruly peaks. The first CD mastering equipment was staggeringly expensive as well. It was an era where there was a huge gap between 'bedroom recording and mastering' and the commercial stuff- you simply couldn't get anywhere near the commercial quality on cassette 4-tracks and 'mastering' to a dubbing cassette deck. For the first time you could do it all yourself, but the technology just wasn't there for other than hobbyist use or demos.

    • Now- it gets _interesting_. People are used to assuming that you _must_ be able to spend millions to get state of the art sound- but, $200 CD-R burners? Free or shareware software that mixes and edits in 24 bit depths? You can get software for _free_ today, right now, that substantially beats what was the state of the art in the mid-90s. The technology is there- intensely there. Processes like multiband compression can be replicated in software... everything that used to take $50,000 mastering house equipment is becoming available in software. There's one major exception- monitoring- you _cannot_ do professional mastering work over Yamaha NS-10s, much less PC multimedia speakers or headphones. By the same token, amplification has to be terrific. And even HERE it's becoming accessible! If you aren't fussy, you could get one of the high-end multimedia systems- for instance, the Klipsch Promedia, which can handle substantial monitoring volumes without distorting- and that would be good enough to work with, at under $1000.
    Summary Obviously, there's a need for more information out there- at this point it's not money that limits a home-recording musician (if you can get a few thousand dollars over the course of a few years you can assemble the required tools), it's information. You could say, 'get a 20-bit ADAT or a computer-based DAW with at least 24 bit mix busses and a CD burner' but that's like saying 'download EGCS, download the kernel sources- great, now write clustering software for i-openers over infrared ports!'. Mixing is as much a craft as an art and treating it like Jackson Pollock treated a canvas WILL result in dodgy mixes that are obviously not professional- and mastering has long been considered a black art, just as much as writing tricky device drivers! The information also tends to be hoarded, but with the Internet this breaks down a bit- for instance, I've read numerous rants by mastering engineers on how the major labels are getting into an arms race with compression and loudness, which is ruining the enjoyable quality of the sound (think later Britney Spears, and listen to the actual sounds being used- that's ruthlessly overcompressed).

    So the final answer would be somewhere between two and twenty thousand dollars for the equipment required to produce the high quality recording (some of which you may already have, like a computer and CD burner), BUT it will either cost you a couple years of determined study or another two to twenty thousand dollars to hire someone who can use that gear properly. It's quite like having precision parts machined with a large and powerful machine shop, routers and lathes and stuff- sure if you have the gear you _could_ do it, the question to ask is if you know what you're doing with machine tools. With studios it's 'do you know what you're doing with recording/mastering tools'. The tools themselves are more and more affordable, and even the information is becoming more accessible, but you have to be willing to learn- it's a discipline as demanding as programming, in its own way.

    Does that answer the question? *creak of dead-from-boredom people falling over in a shower of dust* ;)

  • On a side note .. the digital locker wasnt an idea.. they got beat by 6 months by myplay.
  • Just relax. The black helicopters are on their way to pick you up.
  • It is theft. The courts agreed that the method that was using to verify that people owned the cds was insufficient and so easily susceptible to fraud as to render useless. The agreed that fraud had indeed taken part on a large scale, and that provided music to people who didn't own a copy of the cd.
  • That's just like handing out condoms in high schools. It doesn't make the problem any better.

    I think you may be confusing what's moral with what's theologically popular. Teenage sex isn't a problem. It's a reality. Disease and teen pregnancy are health problems, which condom use could go a long way towards solving.

    So how does your analogy fit with what he said? I mean, unless you think both Napster and condoms keep kids from using the black tar heroin or smoking the crack or something. Then I guess you have a point. Sort of. Or not.

    When was there honesty, again? I keep looking for it in theology and history books and I'm coming up empty...

  • You show me where in the judge's ruling he says any of the things you claim.

  • In your first post, you wrote regarding the proposed law:

    " got in trouble because it was they, and not the consumer, that stored music on the net and downstreamed it. Looks like a stupid law. "

    My question to you is so what? It is simple to say "that's the way the law is worded", but can you explain why this is logical?

    My .02,

  • My question to you is so what? It is simple to say "that's the way the law is worded", but can you explain why this is logical?

    Come on! It's trivial.

    A consumer, having bought a CD, has certain rights with regard to the music on this CD. For example he can copy it to a different medium, like a file residing on a remote server. This right comes with the CD he has bought and he cannot just transfer this right to somebody else while leaving the CD for himself. Now, said: we have the right to make copies of CDs for the consumers. Bzzzt, sorry, you do not. The consumer himself can -- I can upload my mp3s to, say, iDrive, and get them from there anytime I choose. But does not have any rights with regard to my copy of the CD.

    Basically, said: all copies are the same and there's no difference. The court reminded it that while there may be no informational difference, there is a big legal difference.

  • by Elwood Blues ( 127255 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @03:48AM (#751271) Homepage

    Having worked on the Hill over the summer, here's some advice for those of you planning on contacting your elected official:

    a) Write them a snail-mail letter. There's a sneaking suspicion that one person is sending them all those form emails.

    b) If you do want to write an email, include your NAME and ADDRESS. Without your NAME and ADDRESS, you might not be a constituent, they don't really waste the time to figure out the difference.

    To contact your representative: Write-rep []

    To contact your senator: It's not as easy, go find [] their e-mail address.
  • Uhmmm. have you tried BUYING a ripper program????
  • by dkh2 ( 29130 ) <dkh2&WhyDoMyTitsItch,com> on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @04:01AM (#751273) Homepage
    No matter what your views on this or other issues, it has become VERY easy to write to your congressional representatives. Start at [] and www.senate.gove [] and locate your Rep. or Senator through the search tools provided.

    Your rights as a music buying consumer are at stake. If you think the recording industry has entirely too much power, tell Congress! If you think Hemos should be banned from the internet, tell Congress!

    Most issues before congress are decided by members voting in the way they think will get them re-elected, without any input from the constituency. The saddest thing about this is how easy it is to let your views be known.

    People all over the world participate in their own governments at levels we in the U.S. are privileged to but don't. Participation in the governing process is a privilege. Failure to use it could be failure to keep it.

    If you think G.W. is the greatest thing since sliced bread, register to vote before October 8 and vote in November. Similarly, if you think G.W. is a cocaine snorting, S&L crashing, frat boy weasel, register and vote. If you don't vote you have no right to complain when the candidate you loathe most gets elected.

    Code commentary is like sex.
    If it's good, it's VERY good.

  • That is a bit paranoid...

    You do read the news right? Even on places like /. we see the trends which are leading towards government oppression and the loss of all of our freedoms.

    If information wants to be free, power wants to grow. Certainly, there are trends to increased government control. Some of this is driven by finances. UCITA, DMCA, etc. aren't so much concerned with power as they are with money. Some of it is driven by the best of intentions. Pat Bradey truly believes that banning guns would make the US a better place. Recognizing the creeping erosion of our rights is one thing. Creating a sinister conspiracy where every new law, no matter how innocent seeming, has an ulterior motive designed to advance the cause of government oppression is something else entirely. That IS paranoid.

    The government exists to protect.. The way it is done leaves a great deal to be desired.. but thats the main idea.

    No, the government exists to govern a political unit, usually a country. Protecting its assets is merely good sense for such a body and means no more than me defending my home against a burglar.

    That depends upon your definition of exists. The US government was created by the US Constitution. It was created by the founding fathers with the purpose of protecting the rights of the new nation. Over time, it has drifted far from its original purpose. The checks and ballances have been only partially successful. We in the US still enjoy a tremendous amount of freedom compared. But that freedom IS threatened, and the powers of the government have been hugely expanded.

  • the guy from VA gets paid off by mp3.

    Anyone wanna guess how many people the RIAA are going to pay off to make sure it doesn't get into the books?

    Gonna be some even richer congressmen before long.

    Each congress person should be paid the average income of their state (or the country) to force them to better the state of the nation.
  • Otherwise they wouldn't need to write a law to allow it.

    Imagine that you order a milkshake from an ice cream shop, and they make them two-at-once. One half of the batch is given to you, and the other half of the batch is kept behind the counter.

    You can do whatever you want with your milkshake, but you can't touch the other one--even though they're the "exact same milkshake."

    Of course, the "milkshake" here is bottomless, but the law is filled with this kind of grandfathered sillyness. Blame the world for changing, not the law for remaining just what we want it (slow to change.)

    (And no, I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not a doctor, a politician, or a programmer. Of course, I might be a God...)
  • See, the concept that's causing the problem here is that I was pointing out a troll, not trolling myself. Thus, my post was not the one which should have been moderated "Troll". I even pointed that out in my post, but apparently actually reading before moderating is no longer a requirement.

    Or perhaps I should have included the magic words "I'll probably get moderated down as a troll for this, but...".

  • You say it's illegal, I ask you to defend the logic. You reply with "it's trivial ... there is a big legal difference".

    I'll give you one more chance and even repeat myself verbatim:

    It is simple to say "that's the way the law is worded", but can you explain why this is logical? Don't worry, nobody is reading this, I just want to see if you can explain why I shouldn't be able to prove to that I own Bjork's "Post" then listen to their copy of the same album. Please.

    My .02,

  • an you explain why this is logical?

    Open your mind and re-read carefully.

    You has certain rights. does not have these rights even if you prove to it that you have them. Sounds logical to me.

    It's not your right to listen that is in question. It is just that has no right to broadcast the music to you, even if you have the right to listen to it.

  • Damn Kaa... I'm not sure if you were trolling the poor guy or what. That was a pretty pathetic performance though. You still didn't explain why the law is logical. You just reiterated it and said that it sounds logical to you. If I purchase an album, that currently gives me the right to listen to the album and any copies of the album that I make. What the law doesn't do is explain why it's legal for me to upload the bits to my own server and listen to them from wherever I like, but it's not legal for me to prove to that I have paid for the right to listen to the album and then listen to the identical bits coming from their server. If I have purchased the right to listen to the album, what difference does it make whether the bits come from my CD, a copy of my CD, my server, their server, or anyplace else, as long as I have proven to that source that I have paid for the right to listen to that album? You have done nothing to explain this, and that is why you frustrated zencode so badly. At least he was polite and patient.

  • What the law doesn't do is explain why it's legal for me to upload the bits to my own server and listen to them from wherever I like, but it's not legal for me to prove to that I have paid for the right to listen to the album and then listen to the identical bits coming from their server.

    You are still confused. It's completely legal for you to listen to whatever streams to you. Again, your right to listen is not in question.

    What the court said was illegal (and agree with its interpretation of current laws, but not necessarily with the laws themselves) was for to stream the music from its servers. It's important to understand the difference between the right to send and the right to receive. One does not automatically create the other. You have a right to listen, but that right to listen does NOT automatically create a right to transmit for

    You can also think about that in this way: when bought the CDs that they used to make the online library, they were bound by the standard copyright law. Specifically, the law prohibits them from broadcasting/performing/disseminating/etc. the music on these CDs. Now you having the right to listen to a CD does not change anything in's obligations under the copyright law.

    as long as I have proven to that source that I have paid for the right to listen to that album?

    You have the right to listen to your. But that right by itself does not give some other entity the right to send this music to you.

    If you don't find this logical, I am sorry. What you probably mean is that this defies common sense and in some way it does. Logically, however, it holds.

  • Again, you repeat the claim that it just is. And to cover it up you equate having an open mind with agreeing with you.

    You keep saying it's not my right, it's not's right, but you have not yet supported why that should be so. Worse, you've tried to pass of "just because" as an argument.

    You can have the last word on this, I'll reply if you substantiate anything seriously.

    My .02,

  • What you probably mean is that this defies common sense and in some way it does. Logically, however, it holds.

    That's exactly what I meant. If I have the right to receive such streams of music, then why should not have the right to send them to me? It makes no sense. While the interpretation of the law may be logical, the law itself is not.

  • The primary differences here are that it is Your right to listen to the music that is not being questioned, but their right to broadcast it to you. If u would put a copy of your cd on the mp3 server than it is legal for you to download it anywhere. If uses their copy of the cd, they are broadcasting to you, just like a radiostation, wich is a complete different thing. The real problem here is not that it is logical in a normal way, its logical for lawyers.
  • Yes are rights are being taken away. I can site many specific examples in my own home town to prove it. The problem - people don't get involved. It's easier for them to set back and be armchar congressmen than to write letters, get involved with there local goverment. I'm guilty of it. My questions is, What about Seems like a slap in the face for them to possibly have a law passed that would have protected them. Just another example of keepen the little man down
  • Hey, that's a good idea.

    Selling it would be as easy as buying it--you just register "selling this CD", or even go to the database, bring up your entry, and delete that CD.

    RIAA (or whoever) could even justify it as a way to gather consumer info... and the consumers benefit by being able to give feedback about the music they don't like, and that they do.
  • by Kaa ( 21510 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @04:30AM (#751287) Homepage
    "Simply stated, a consumer who lawfully owns a work of music, such as a CD, will be able to store it on the Internet and then downstream it for personal use at a time and place of his choosing," Boucher said in his floor statement introducing the new legislation.

    Ahem. A consumer who owns a CD can legally store it on the net and downstream it for personal use right now without any further legislation. got in trouble because it was they, and not the consumer, that stored music on the net and downstreamed it.

    Looks like a stupid law. It's like having your left ear itch and making a law that allows you to scratch only your left ear and nothing else. The courts will later interpret this law to mean that you can scratch your left ear a reasonable number of times per day, and other courts will say that the word "reasonable" means "five".

    If your right ear starts to itch, though, sorry. You are out of luck.

  • I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your juridiction.

    Also, I've never heard an MP#, nor do I have an interest in having them streamed to me. :)

    A quick note: the ban in the Constitution on "ex post facto" laws--those passed after the fact--only applies to criminal cases. If the law were passed quickly, and written to do so, it *could* apply to pending litigation.

    Whether or not that would be a good idea in this case is left as an excercise for the reader :)
  • <blockquote>You can bet that the first condition of this law is to have <i>each and every</i> user and piece of data registered</blockquote> <p> Have you even read the legislation? There is no mention of any sort of registration in the article (which of course must be a conspiracy by the government controlled media). Do you have any evidence of this at all, or are you just spouting conspiracy theories out of habit? </p> <p> Why is it that someone posting totally unfounded paranoia is modded up as "insightful?" It looks to me like someone in Congress is finally getting a clue about technology issues (or at least this issue). We should be cheering them on, not inventing conspiracies where none exist.</p>
  • b) No artist is REQUIRED to deal with the RIAA. They can't force you...

    For that matter, nobody is REQUIRED to buy pasteurized, homogenized milk. But just try to buy any other kind. You can't.

    Yes, an artist can try and distribute music on a minor label, or by him/her self. But by that path the artist is also guaranteed to remain small-time. If you want ANY chance at wide distribution or airplay, you MUST sign with an RIAA member.

    There's even less choice than trying to buy a PC without Windows.
  • What people seem to forget, is that MOST musicians don't do it for the money. It's the fame, prestige, and the simple fact, that someday, they could be opening for Ozzy, or Tori, or the Dumb Ass Back Street Boys.

    Digital music is only going to take money out of the hands of those who depend on CD sales. If you go to, how many musicians put their music online with NO remuneration? Someday, one of those musicians are going to be the next Metallica, or Ozzy, or Britney Spear (ick..)

    The artists have to embrace it, or they are going to get left behind. I for one, am sick of paying an extra 5 dollars to get a fricking CD, when a CD is cheaper to manufacture than a tape. I'm through. I haven't bought a CD since went to trial. Why subsidize an industry's lawyers, when I disagree with them 100%.

    I used with pleasure. the RIAA ruined that for me. I owned every CD I put up there, about 150 or so, some I don't really listen to anymore. Screw them, and screw their artists. I'll just make copies off the radio, MP3 em, and listen to em off of my webserver somewhere.


  • ...if it passes.

    FWIW, this is H,R. 5275, submitted 25-Sep-2000 it seems to the Committee on the Judiciary. (from the Congressional Record [].

    But why, one must ask, does it only cover music? The same logic theoretically should apply to all dual-media creative works, such as books (at least for methods that preserve exact formatting, like PDF and PS, in constrast to ASCII text), visual arts (paintings as JPEGs, and so forth), and likewise.

    We may not have book-digitizing services now (to my knowledge, but I haven't been looking), but when PDAs or other devices are developed that ARE pleasing for books, or if good-enough laptops become common -- then there may be a potential market.

    This seems overly... tailored, shall we say.
  • I sense a DoS coming the way of Network Recovery Solutions (or whoever) in the near future. This kinda thing requires a lot of balls on the part of any company. Somehow I get the feeling they didn't think too hard about this possibility, but who knows.
  • Just an addendum to the above post: when you do write your congressmen, make sure to include the title of the bill. The copy [] I found on Rep. Rich Boucher's web page did not include a house bill number. The title of the bill is . . .

    Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000

    It is very concise and well written as others have already pointed out. Read it over before you send your vote of confidence to your congressmen.


  • The Offspring are also going to be releasing their next album in MP3 format before it is avaliable on CD.

    Finally some bands are starting to use the power of the internet instead of just complaining about it!
  • I wonder if a digitally signed affidavit, if it were strongly linked to a verified, actual, physical, real-world identity, plus a Beam-It-style series of random spot checks on a CD would suffice to absolve them of liability.

    Otherwise, it would seem to be an impossible problem.

    A has a valid, legitimate CD bought from, say, Tower Records or a NRM.

    B can, among a nearly infinite variety of possible actions,
    1) buy the CD from A online, perhaps even pseudo-anonymously;
    2) buy the CD in person, using cash rather than credit or something else that generates a trail,
    3) buy the CD from A, who surreptiously burned a copy (which he kept and uses) and duplicated anything else that came with it
    4) break into A's apartment and steal the CD and all associated materials,

    In case 1, the only copy is legal, but it wasn't noted in any registry (of which I doubt any exists...). Electronic payment probably generated a trail, 'tho.

    In case 2, ditto, minus trail but plus probable memories of faces.

    In case 3, A and B *both* have copies, plus all the materials that may be needed to "authenticate" legal ownership. Thing is, at most one of them IS legal. So who's MPPP or its ilk going to trust?

    In case 4, B now has everything required to authenticate and there are no other identical CDs running around to cause (in theory) serial number problems, yet it's an illegal copy. Unless A recorded all such unique IDs, reported them to police as stolen, and then this information is made available to MPPP or its ilk... Hm.

    And we don't, say, have stores custom-burning CDs tied to one's retinal scan or other biometrics (which admittedly would make this verification problem a LOT easier, but cripple end-user sales).

    So one hopes that "proof" would be interpreted a bit less rigorously than *absolute incontrovertible proof*.
  • Just to keep this tread going, how about using the LIST command? Ohhh, you are not using telnet to connect to that FTP server? :)

  • I have spent 25 years as a professional performer, recording artist,and small publishing house owner. I deal with these issues on a daily basis.

    The licence terms are very clear and there is a HUGE body of law regarding them.

    That is WHY lost.

    Under the law you have every right to do as you describe. Note that the RIAA * did not* come after you or anyone like you. Rip away, there's no law to stop you.

    It is, however, illegal to DISTRIBUTE such rips to other people, whether they own the material in question or not. You can rip your own, and they can rip their own. You can't pass them back and forth. Broadcasting, whether it is over the radio or the internet, is a form of distribution. had no right to distribute under the law.

  • How much does it cost to use a studio and actually produce a high quality recording of work? I dont want some dodgy recording from a persons bedroom in the future.
  • by HBergeron ( 71031 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @05:07AM (#751302)
    1) This has been stated, I cannot stress this strongly enough - Send a letter, and send it by snail mail. You can thank a whole industry that used to specialize in spamming Congress by snail mail, and has now moved to e-mail, for this.

    2) Include your full home mailing address - you will only be logged ("Senator, we've gotten 1,200 letters this month encouraging you to support the MP3 bill") and receive a reply if they are sure you are a constituent.

    3) This bill will not pass this session (which is supposed to end in a week, but will likely last a few weeks longer.) It just doesn't work that way - If Hatch or Wyden had introduced a Senate bill at the same time there might have been a chance, but it still would have been unlikely. The legislative process is meant to encourage sober ;) reflection. If this moves, it will likely move in Feb-March of next year - however, you letters now will make a difference in that move.

    4) To all those who seem to think this is part of some NSA conspiracy, I think you may have left your aluminum foil hat at (the) home today

    sorry, but this is a fairly well written first step toward the kind of public policy that has been advocated on /. - it is extraordinarily irritating to see parinoid people attacking it - hell you just might have given the RIAA lobbyists an idea - go back the the Congressmens districts and tell their constituents that the congressmen supports tracking all of the music you listen to in a top secret database. The bill would die a quick and painful death.

    5) Laws are written in a generally vague way - open to courts interpretation - because if you write them very specifically, there will be loopholes - it is almost impossible when dealing with a human based system, to write iron rules. Human beings are flexible and creative - either way we will have court interpretation, be being vague we insure deference to "legislative intent" (in this case, to allow and its' followers to keep doing what they do).

  • whole business model right now depends on this kind of legislation - because, lets face it - there's no way they could become profitable with the current record deals. of course are the innovators on the whole online storage (beating by 6 months). I guess that if this kind of legislation goes through this makes them even more legal in the eyes of the Music Industry.

    Personally.... can go the way pof the dodo for all I care - I've never liked them.
  • Why not let the RIAA know too..

    I have followed with interest your dealings with the popular internet music sites Napster and While I do not advocate piracy I feel that you have been somewhat heavy-handed filing law suits left, right and center. I also feel, personally, that these law suits are unnecessary. After all, having read through the list of artists on your web site I doubt that anyone with any sort of musical interest would be the slightest bit inclined to download the popularist pap they tend to release.

    As posted to the form [] on the contact page of the RIAA site less than 2 minutes ago.
  • The same site MrP- links to has an article on the bill being introduced:

    Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000 []

  • Here's their page on their anti-MP3 service. Hopefully someone out there will send them some nasty emails and a lot of extra packets. ml []

  • Yes, finaly, the political system is getting caught up to the rest of the world.
    Record companies have no right to tell thier customers how and when/why/where to use the music they purchased.
    Once anything I paid for enters my house, its MINE
    Just like the electricity I pay for, PGE doesnt say "your a mad scientist, dont use our electricity to make evil experiments", they just charge me more =)
    If this bill passes it will be one step forward to getting the rest of the political system caught up int he digital world.
    Next step, get the patenting office caught up as well and ban patents of frivelous things such as One Clock Shopping and shit like that.
    Only one question, are there any websites set up that have forms, and send the form out to the state represetitive of our choosing? If not, who wants to help me set one up?
    If you want to help me set up a form for theis MP3 Bill thatll have a premade, or variable form field that lets you choose what state your in, then send your plea to your corrosponding state representetive, mail me,
    I think that would be a real effective way of getting people easier access to thier state officials, and will probably get a bigger show!
    Just my 2 cents though.

    Systems Administrator
    Servu Networks
  • PS. did you know that smashin pumpkins have released their final album free on the internet? You can get it at : /index.html

    Cool eh?
  • by werdna ( 39029 ) on Wednesday September 27, 2000 @02:26AM (#751320) Journal
    As with most bills, the devil is in the details. Consider the following section:

    "(b) As used in this section, the term "personal interactive performance" means the performance of a sound recording and the nondramatic musical works embodied therein by means of a digital transmission and includes any digital phonorecord deliveries associated with such transmission, provided that the transmission is received only by a recipient who has provided to the transmitting organization proof that the recipient lawfully possesses a phonorecord of such sound recording and who has conveyed to the transmitting organization a specific request to receive the transmission of the performance."

    How does one transmit "proof" of "lawful possession," and what proof is sufficient? Clearly, proof of possession is understandable, but "lawful possession?"
  • I had to register my MP3 database with the Government! And now my FTP logs show 8000 hits a day in my Metallica directory from! An 10000 hits a day in my Live_Goat_Porn/Sounds directory from! The bastards!
  • by jjr ( 6873 )
    I can see then now where those damn lobbiest. This is one bill I need to see how its handled.
  • If a huge portion of the actricles on Slashdot link to Wired, why the hell don't we all just read Wired?

    Last time I checked (60 seconds ago), Wired didn't have threaded discussions.

    ( \
    XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! []
  • hired a lobbyist to help push this bill through. Three was a blurb about the guy on NECN the other night.
  • Actually, the guys at MP3 should get patents on the idea /business method of music lockers online. Then, if RIAA members want to use the idea after it is "legalized", they get nailed.

    - - - - - - - -
    "Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem."

  • General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.
    Group Captain Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.
    Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?
    Mandrake: Aye, no, no. I don't Jack.
    Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? Its incredibly obvious isn't it. A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
    Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first...become...well, develop this theory?
    Ripper: Well, I, uh...I...I...first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
    Mandrake: Hmm.
    Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue...a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I...I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
    Mandrake: Hmm.
    Ripper: I can assure you that it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh...women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
    Mandrake: No.
    Ripper: But I...I do deny them my essence.
  • Ok, it sounds great at first. can still have its jukebox, and other companies can come forward with similar services.

    But what happens in a few years when I want a similar service for my DVD's? When I'm travelling it'd be nice to have my whole DVD collection availiable to me on airplanes or at hotels.

    Really, the law should have been aimed at any digital copy of a work you own. Artwork, music, movies, sculpture (captured in 3D of course), scents, software.

    Perhaps that is too much for the government to handle for now. With any luck this bill will set a precedent enabling bills with more vision to come forth - I just hope I get to see it pass before I have a longing for
  • I know this would open a whole new can of worms, but....

    what would happen if we had to register our music in a way similar to the way we're supposed to register our software?

    If there were some easy way to register, such as an automatic registration with credit card purchases, maybe something like this could work.

    But I suppose somebody would have to handle the owner database (Record labels perhaps).... and it would probably make it a pain in the ass to purchase/sell used music.
  • Exactly. There is no reasonable way to determine whether the owner(s) of an .mp3 database actually own the tapes/CDs that the music files were originally from. Unless the RIAA is going door-to-door (not that I'd let them in) to check ownership, there is no way to enforce this law. You know, innocent until proven guilty and all...

    Actually I kind of like this idea now. I can just see someone with thousands of .mp3s. The RIAA is sure that at least some of them are pirated, and jump the gun, only to find out that this guy owns a lot of music CDs. It only needs to happen once for them to be hit with counter-suits.

  • Other Companies did it before

    I mean even copied their catchphrase from
  • Is Owned by
  • don't know that much about those IDs but a verification system similar to what uses might sufice.

    It more than suffices to prove that they have the possession, and it's unhackable (unless the client stores an entire copy of the CD, which makes the whole thing pointless anyway). But what werdna called attention to is that it doesn't just say "possession", it says "lawful possession". How do you know the CD wasn't borrowed from a friend, or stolen?

    It's going to have to involve some sort of transmission of a sales receipt, (or a history of receipts and transfers in the case of a used CD). That's the only way anyone would be able to tell if the possession was lawful or not.

  • The Digital Media Association has been working on getting all sorts of laws changed for a long time - this is exactly the sort fo thing they would like to do so I wouldn't be surpised if ultimately this turned out th be their idea.

    I see a few people suggestin ghte hired some lobbyinst to get this bill, but somehow I think DiMA is more likely to be responsible.

    And you know what? aren't a member of this digital media lobbying group, so they probably had nothing to do with it. I'm not sure if this is because don't want to be a member of an association dedicated to the legal side of things... or whether DiMA just won't let a company like join for fear of damaging it's reputation - note that their memebers ( don't include other controvesial companies like Napster.

    So my guess is that they are probably the ones which may ultimately save (ironic since the concept was stolen from DiMA members....)
  • too many rights is just as bad as too few

    Um, no. Tell that to survivors of Nazi concetration camps, US concentration camps (Japanese "internment" camps during WW 2), survivors of the Soviet Gulags, etc.

    Freedom is precious. Freedom is more precious than security. And once you lose it, you may never get it back. And oppressive regimes can do, and have done, terrible things.

  • Maybe it's time that the Recording Industry put a unique ID on each CD case (different for each individual CD, rather than for each artist or album) so that it can be used to uniquely identify it & validate ownership....
  • Hey, let's build a giant communication conduit! And then after we are rolling in a fancy, kick-ass economy, created by brilliant independent individuals, we can take credit for it. And then, all who have refined and CAPITALIZED on it can be hung out to dry. We can do this because the old-time money holders, special-interest groups and politicians on the take say we should. Golly that's a great idea. Can anyone say "Coup d'etat" ? Why not just barcode everyone, stick a CueCat in one hand and a PalmPilot in the other and get on with the Borgification of mankind. I can't wait to rule the world after the Politicrats and Technonazis get done illegalizing it. Rage Against My Machine!

The wages of sin are high but you get your money's worth.