Who Owns Your Digital Media? 216
Ren Bucholz writes "In what was designed to be a "safety valve," the Copyright Office is holding its tri-annual search for
exemptions to the DMCA's prohibitions on circumventing access controls. The
Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted comments
last December that outlined four "classes of works" that should be exempt,
including copy-protected CDs, region-coded DVDs, DVDs with unskippable
promotional material, and public domain works that are only available on DVD.
They are asking people to write in
support of the four exemptions that they have proposed. The Copyright
Office is only accepting comments until February 19th, so get on it!"
who (Score:3, Insightful)
Buyer Owns Analog Media (Score:4, Insightful)
who owns the analog media (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who Owns Your Digital Media? (Score:5, Insightful)
I still strongly adhere to the concept that I have purchased a copy of the work, and strongly defend what I consider as my right to transfer that work amongst other media I may have. I do not consider replication of that work for distribution to others so that they do not need to purchase that work themselves to be my prerogative, although I would bend as far as running off a sample.. kinda like I would share a swig of my Stolichnaya, but would be quite miffed if once they got a sample, they expected me to be their free source of it.
Personally, I think the content industry has went way too far though. I must know what it is that I am intending to buy because there is a lot of stuff out there that I have no interest in whatsoever. Walking into a record store and buying a CD, without knowing about it first, makes just about as much sense to me as walking in an auto parts store and buying a water pump, without knowing if the pump I am purchasing will fit the car under repair.
Why is 137? Why exactly 137?
Re:Who Owns Your Digital Media? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I could have a digital locker that had all the music I have purchased, it would be worth something to me (another unserved market). If my ownership was confirmed, I would be willing to give up my old media (yet another unserved market).
After removing all of the cost of manufacturing materials, and middlemen, the actual cost for the media should be so small that it is less convenient to steal. You could get a high-quality copy that is not a few seconds too short or mislabeled.
It is a dream that I have...
Re:Who Owns Your Digital Media? (Score:2, Funny)
>work, much as I see a bag as a carrier for its
>contents.
Yeah, but it is the content you want/buy, otherwise you would go out and buy a blank CD, not a music CD.
>I still strongly adhere to the concept that I
>have purchased a copy of the work,
Yup, and thus you own that copy (just as you own a particular "copy" of a football if you buy it). You do NOT hold the copyright to the copy though. As such, you can do anything you want with your copy as long as it is not one of the things prevented by copyright. Rather simple really.
Re:Who Owns Your Digital Media? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but it is the content you want/buy, otherwise you would go out and buy a blank CD, not a music CD.
Very true. I consider what I paying for with legal tender is a legal licence for my personal use of the work encoded onto the media. The media itself is of little value, as is the bag. Both are just containers.
I often buy a carton of eggs. Its not the carton I want, but it comes preloaded with eggs. I know I could, if I had to, get empty cartons, raise hens, and end up with the same carton loaded with eggs - but the store made it so easy to buy eggs, so why bother? Now if the farmers started playing all sorts of games with me, trying to tell me what I could do with the eggs, and under what conditions I could prepare them, I might have to resort to raising chickens.
I consider it to be my right to transfer the work amongst any media I have, because I have paid for it, and I intend to enjoy it. In my case, its backup to another CD, then rip to MP3, mix, and burn so I can play it in the car and jogging player.
If the original media gets damaged later, its no big deal. As long as the original media stays intact long enough for me to transfer its contents onto my system, with due backup systems, losing the original carrier is about as traumatic as losing the box the hard drive came in, albeit that I do place significant effort to keep my original source media in pristine condition. Thats what backup is all about... the data is the only thing thats really important. Everything else is replacable.
Back to the eggs.. just because they came a dozen to a box does not mean I am forced to eat them in sequence.. I want an egg here, a strip of bacon there, grits there, etc. Same with the music. I have my own unique tastes of what I want, and I compile my own mix. I do not feel some authority can tell me I can not mix my music anymore than some farmer can tell me I have to eat the whole dozen eggs before I can eat the toast. Or telling me I can't fry my bacon in a microwave oven.
I do not believe I have any right to dictate to the sellers what they can do with the money after the trade, nor do I consider they have any right to tell me how I am going to be allowed to enjoy my use of their work after the trade. If I made your car, do I have a right to tell you where you can go?
Yup, and thus you own that copy (just as you own a particular "copy" of a football if you buy it). You do NOT hold the copyright to the copy though. As such, you can do anything you want with your copy as long as it is not one of the things prevented by copyright. Rather simple really.
True, quite simple. I feel I can do anything with my copy as long as it is not one of the things prevented by "copyright".. only problem is coming up with what both parties agree to be the fair use definition of "copyright". I feel committed to the "like a book" doctrine. I feel when I pay the purchase price, I am entitled to personal use of the work. I feel a lot of people get confused with media. Media is only the "box" the "work" was delivered in. I feel I purchased the "work", but the media was necessary just as the carton was a necessary part of purchasing the eggs.
Re:Who Owns Your Digital Media? (Score:2, Interesting)
For some reason, people tend to think of copyright as ownership (which it is not) and then think that just because you don't hold the copyright, you can't own something and can't do anything and so on. When it is actually to the contrary, you can indeed own and do anything you want EXCEPT a few well defined actions in the copyright laws.
In part I think the blame might to be on the intelectual "property" which makes people tend to treat it as physical properties and handle copyright to something as ownership of property. This is of course great for media cooperations since it gives them more power and they certainly do all they can to twist copyright in that direction. To bad people fall for it believeing it is allready like that.
> only problem is coming up with what both
>parties agree to be the fair use definition of
>"copyright".
Could be. In general, I would say it should allready have been resolved. Copyright is nothing new and there are probably in most countries many court decisions to sort it out. The main problem seems to be that for some reason, people think that now with digital "media" (meaning content, not container) the existing copyright laws does not work. I don't see that, they seem to work very well and cover all the nessecary. All changes or additions to the copyright laws done to handle this new digital word seems to actually add new things to copyright that has not existed before, which is bad.
>I feel committed to the "like a book" doctrine.
>I feel when I pay the purchase price, I am
>entitled to personal use of the work.
Actually, you should be entiteled to ANY use that is not specifically disallowed by the copyright law. Media coorperations wants you to believe that you have no rights it seems and that copyright laws forbids EVERYTHING, including use which is not true. In addition they work hard to actually change the copyright laws to be that way as well.
> I feel a
>lot of people get confused with media. Media is
>only the "box" the "work" was delivered in. I
>feel I purchased the "work",
Yes but here is were many people go wrong, they believe in the media's (media coorperations, that is those holding many copyrights) propaganda claiming that you don't "own" (equallying holding copyright with owning) the actual work and thus you can't possibly have bought it since you don't own it you can't do anything with it and have no rights. Oh well.
One of the most important thing in my opinion is to actually educate people about what copyright actual is and mean. Many does not know or understand it, believeing in whatever they are told (often by big media coorperations). WHen enough people believe in it, one claim the current copyright laws does not cover it (well, doh, it was not true what was made people to believe) and that changes are needed and so on. Sad
So with better information about what copyright actually is and how it works, it would be easier to fight that behaviour as well and prevent changes in copyright laws for the worse in the future.
What exactly is Digital Media? (Score:5, Interesting)
a. An ancient country of southwest Asia in present-day northwest Iran. b. A plural of medium. c. A means of mass communication, such as newpapers, magazines, radio, or television. d. The group of journalists and others who constitute the communications industry and profession. e. (Computer Science) An object or device, such as a disk, on which data is stored. f. A culture medium. g. A specific kind of artistic technique or means of expression as determined by the materials used or the creative methods involved: the medium of lithography.
These and many more meanings of the term bring the following thoughts to my mind:
Considering 'a' Digital Media could mean that the ancient country has been restored in a digital form. In that case, the 'owner' the digital media should be the person(s) who created it OR others.
Conclusion (on ownership:)Depends.
Considering 'b' plural of medium: I think the grammar of the language ownes it.
Conclusion: MPAA/RIAA can go to hell.
Considering 'c' means of mass communication,now here's where the picture begins to blur. Going purely by the dictionary meaning; media = means of mass communication; if I own a TV set, I should also own the media, right? In that case, the form of the media does not matter (digital or otherwise)
Concluion: More research needed
'd' is most interesting media= group of journalists. I wonder how the term 'digital media' could be interpreted in this case. A cyber-clone of Larry King???
***At this point, I have lost my ability to conclude. The very idea of a digital journalist has shocked me. Imagine being interviewed by a robot...
'e' makes the most sense. Means of storage....However, if I go to say Best Buy and buy a pack of 50 CDs, then I own the 'digital media', right? Now the contents of MY digital media is a different story. I think nobody has the right to impose upon me what I should keep in my house/ car, etc. The same applies for digital media. (However that does not mean I have a right to steal others' stuff and keep it in my house/car, correct??)
Considering 'f' culture medium: I wish I were a Biology major to comment on it. Any takers????
Finally, 'media' means artistic expression.....so if the artist expresses something be it acting/ vocal/painting, etc...) then the artist is the owner of the 'media'...right? Then why should we even bother about the Music Labels/ Movie Studios? Arent they middlemen who are trying to milk both tte artist and their 'patrons/ audience?' Just a (more than a) few thoughts....
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
public domain audio and e-text (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:public domain audio and e-text (Score:5, Informative)
The sheet music itself may be public domain, but any performances of them are the owner of the performer and subject to copyright. You could download the sheet music and perform it, but downloading an orchestral recording would be a violation of the law.
Furthermore, some public domain music old enough that it must be transcribed and rearranged to work in a modern orchestra because of variations in the pitches produced by instruments of later eras. This arranged music is also copyrighted by the arranger, who is entitled to compensation for use/purchase.
So if you're looking for some music , may I suggest some Irving Berlin? His work is (relatively) recent and quite upbeat. By now, older performances are probably public domain, as well.
Re:public domain audio and e-text (Score:2)
Re:public domain audio and e-text (Score:2)
And if you get a public domain text on e-book, you lose the ability to copy it. And if you listen to mozart on a CD, have a look at the CD and see if it prohibits you from playing it in public. And if you want to copy the charlie chaplin film from its DVD to your computer? Oops, broken the law again. And that's just for copying public domain works
gutenburg (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the DMCA isn't that copyrights are evil and that we should boycott them. The problem is that it protects works on too many fronts. Traditionally you either protect it technologically (touch my book and die, bitch!) or legally (through copyright). If you use the former, anyone who breaks the lock can copy the book and the latter it must become public domain in given time.
What's happening is that companies have enough influence to get both technological and legal protection that will never go away. Better than that, their technological protection has legal protection of its own.
Those of us that don't want to pay $15-$25 for a crappy CD won't habe $15,000-$25,000 to bribe congress.
Re:gutenburg (Score:2)
I think bribery for a public servant should be severely punished. And I believe it is. At the very least, expulsion from public office should be result.
Some people confuse bribery with contributions. It is widely believed that congressmen receive contributions based on work they do for a contributor. It is not illegal to accept contributions and it isn't illegal to listen to constituents. I wouldn't know if a contribution would have an amplifying effect on the constituent's voice, but if one were to humor the idea and assume that this was the case, it could certainly seem as if a bill in congress was conscieved in return for the contribution.
Interestingly, the new campaign finance laws which bar "soft money" in excess of certain amounts are under heavy fire. The preconscieved notion is that contributions fall under freedom of speech and that the campaign finance laws are curtailing those rights. Considering that only very wealthy people and corporations can afford large contributions, some people tend to argue "freedom of speech for Who?"
Re:gee (Score:2)
Cool, in another 3964 or so years we'll be able to read it to our children without buying tokens for their DRM implants.
Re:public domain audio and e-text (Score:2, Funny)
Err? Shouldn't there be... (Score:5, Funny)
Or maybe not. Oh yes. And this comment is ROT26 encrypted so if you read it you're violating said law. kthxbye
--NonToxic
Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously the artists who make it.
But more copy protection isn't the solution to all this pirating going on. Music, movies, TV shows, and other forms of digital media should be made downloadable on the website of whoever owns it. The owner could still profit quite handsomely from advertisements on the website, seeing as how more people will visit it to grab all the free media they would offer. Video media such as TV shows and movies would have built-in ads within them too.
Hey, what better way to "pollute" or "stop" the P2P networks than making your product perfect quality and free! Who would want to download a movie off Kazaa when you can get it off the corporate website where you know your download won't get cut off? If you rip your own product into a file, you can throw as many ads into it as you wish. Granted, there would still be P2P around, but it'd be harder to find video and audio media without ads. Most people would be subject to ads, still, and the profit would still be there, just not at the expense of the user. This system discourages pirating.
Perhaps if these companies would grow a set of balls and try something new (actually old.. TV has been doing it for decades) then they could stop worrying about copy protection. If a user downloaded your movie off your website laced with Ads you get paid for, then mass distributes it via P2P, their bandwidth is actually making you money. Why haven't these companies thought of this yet?
Two problems: (Score:2, Insightful)
2) The content that makes its way for distribution on p2p networks, will, most likely have the advertising stripped out of it. Have you ever seen an episode of The Simpsons on a p2p network with the commercials intact?
Re:Two problems: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Music, movies, TV shows, and other forms of digital media should be made downloadable on the website of whoever owns it. The owner could still profit quite handsomely from advertisements on the website, seeing as how more people will visit it to grab all the free media they would offer. Video media such as TV shows and movies would have built-in ads within them too.
Cough! Yet another stupid commment by someone who has no clue about economics. If you had been paying any attention whatsoever for the last 3 years you would have noticed that most of the websites that were 100% advertising are now out of business. Then let's consider how much advertising revenue you get from a single hit on your website. It sure ain't the $5 you currently pay to rent a movie or the $17 that a CD would cost you. Plus after someone downloads your movie, edits out the commercials, and sticks it on P2P then you're right back where you started. Get a fucking clue!!!
-a
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
For somebody who claims to understand economics, you sure don't seem to understand why those sites failed. The reason they failed is that they didn't reward the customer for viewing the ad. Instead, they put banners up in the corner that people learned to ignore because there was no value there. If they were smart and put cartoons or something up there, they might have had a loyal advertising audience.
" It sure ain't the $5 you currently pay to rent a movie or the $17 that a CD would cost you."
How many people aren't renting movies because they're too tired after work to do so? I think this would add to their revenue, not replace the rental system. Other than that, I think you're right.
"Plus after someone downloads your movie, edits out the commercials, and sticks it on P2P then you're right back where you started. Get a fucking clue!!!"
Who'd wanna do that? That has to be the dumbest thing I've heard today. If it's free on the website, what's the incentive for somebody to want to download it from your 256k connection? I'd rather get it off a fast server with ads than download the edited from you over the period of a day.
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
The reason they failed is that they didn't reward the customer for viewing the ad.If they were smart and put cartoons or something up there, they might have had a loyal advertising audience.
Cartoons,you say? Yeah, everyone on here has his pet theory on how to make money on the Internet and they all involve giving away your greatest asset for free. I'll believe it when I see it.
How many people aren't renting movies because they're too tired after work to do so? I think this would add to their revenue, not replace the rental system. Other than that, I think you're right.
Well, if they're too tired to go to the video store, they can watch pay per view for about the same price. No need to give away their products for free on the Internet.
I'd rather get it off a fast server with ads than download the edited from you over the period of a day.
Whatever... someone will write an ad-skipping plugin for Mozilla. Same difference. I have yet to meet anyone who thought that downloading a movie and not watching the ads was stealing.
-a
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
Okay, go turn on your TV.
"Well, if they're too tired to go to the video store, they can watch pay per view for about the same price. No need to give away their products for free on the Internet."
You mean like TV does?
"Whatever... someone will write an ad-skipping plugin for Mozilla. Same difference."
Lol okay. Whatever. I'd respond for that if you weren't so interested arguing with me instead of listening to me.
"I have yet to meet anyone who thought that downloading a movie and not watching the ads was stealing."
So? Technically it's not. Unless you want to call me changing the channel during a commercial 'stealing'. Truth be told, I don't think you're really thinking about what I'm saying. It's one thing to say "I understand your point, but I simply don't agree." It's another to say "well, you're wrong because somebody's going to do something to thwart it and everybody in the world will suddenly go down that path." If that were really going to happen, ad skip technologies for TV would be much higher. The truth is that people don't mind breaks once in a while.
Anyway, I await your oversimplified speculations.
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
My comment about downloading a movie and not watching the ads being stealing was in reference to a quote from some TV network bigwig who said that skipping commmercials was stealing. Anyway, my point is that TIVO is rapidly gaining popularity and the ability to skip commercials is a large reason for that popularity. None of the viewers seem to care if the network makes money from ads, so I conclude that the value of the ads will go down and the networks will lose money. People will get used to pressing the pause button on the TIVO when they need a break.
-a
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:4, Interesting)
I pay about $35 or so. I'm curious if you're on digital cable or not.
"Broadcast TV loses market share every year and TIVO is really going to kill it if left unregulated."
Okay, I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. The main reason I disagree is that in order for commercial skip to work, people have to have already recorded the show. There is value in watching it as it comes down. If anything, Tivo gives broadcasters more room to experiment beacuse conflicting time-slots is a real pain in the ass. For example, now they have That 70's Show on at the same time as Enterprise. This sucks for me. Fortunately, Enterprise is on again on Sundays. Not every show is so lucky.
Will the ad-skipping hurt? Actually I agree with you here, I think it could, but only if left unchanged. The main reason that people would want an ad skip feature is that advertising has been abused. I tried watching a movie on TV the other day and commercial breaks happened at critical parts, even messing up the flow of the movie. "Uh, how'd they get out of there?!"
The solution here is simple: Make the ads more interesting. You know how news stations give you little teasers that provide no info whatsoever? Why not place ads in there where they actually give brief news stories? Remember the cartoon suggestion I made earlier? Why not hire a company to do 30-second cartoon spots? The idea here is to make the commercial time more rewarding. This works. When Nemesis came out, they had commercials showing brief clips of the movie plus some hints as to how it was made. I sat in front of ALL the commercial spots to get that info. With a TiVo, I would not have skipped it.
I have one more idea, but this one is arguably weaker. Lure people to the website of the TV show and get advertisements there. I know that comment probably made you grit your teeth, but when American Idol had a marquee at the bottom saying "to see more horrible contestants, go to this url..." my ass was in front of my computer as soon as the next commercial break.
So yes you're right, assuming the industry stays the way it is. Truth be told, though, they were heading that way with or without Tivo.
"None of the viewers seem to care if the network makes money from ads..."
I agree with you. However, the fault is their own. They've done a PITIFUL job of educating their audience. And since they haven't educated their customers, then attempts to make advertising more intrusive has resulted in people making $400 purchases in technologies like TiVo. It amazes me they haven't tapped into the demand to avoid commericals by releasing more DVDs of TV series.
I owe you an apology. I made a rude assumption about what your response would be. I regret that now. I'm sorry man.
Cheers.
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
I pay about $35 or so. I'm curious if you're on digital cable or not.
Yeah, I'm on digital cable. My $70 includes basic cable & two extended packages (~60 channels) + movies and hockey. I'm also in Canada, which may skew the economics a bit.
Your solution is to make TV ads more interesting, which might work in theory, but I think it is an unstable equilibrium. You require the ads to be sufficiently interesting that people will watch them, but not so interesting that people will seek them out elsewhere (ala AdCritic). The SuperBowl is an interesting exception, since so many people watch it for the ads (but every day can't be Superbowl Sunday)
Keep in mind that major brands already try to make their ads as interesting as possible. Even so, advertising works by repetition so they have a vested interest in making you watch the ad more times than you care to. About half of TV advertising (by my estimate) is for local businesses who can't afford to spend $100k on an ad with a plot, so you lose half your revenue right off the bat.
The other half of ads are mostly vignettes anyway, but say you want to give them a running plot line. This would necessitate changing the ads more frequently, which would increase the cost. One additional factor is that vignette-style ads aren't particularly effective at building brand awareness. The makers are already sacrificing effectiveness in order to lure you into watching the ad.
You know how news stations give you little teasers that provide no info whatsoever? Why not place ads in there where they actually give brief news stories? The idea here is to make the commercial time more rewarding.
There's plenty of that going on. Watch any talk show where they interview actors or discuss new products (e.g. the Today Show or the Tonight Show). You tune in for the entertainment, but the entertainment is always selling something.
I have one more idea, but this one is arguably weaker. Lure people to the website of the TV show and get advertisements there.
They do this, but I don't think it will have enough of an effect.
So yes you're right, assuming the industry stays the way it is. Truth be told, though, they were heading that way with or without Tivo.
I think they were heading there a lot slower without TIVO. But the fact is, advertising by itsself can't support 60 TV channels in every home. A lot of people were clamouring for more TV choice but they didn't realize that their bill would go up, even if they didn't subscribe to the new channels.
the fault is their own. They've done a PITIFUL job of educating their audience. And since they haven't educated their customers, then attempts to make advertising more intrusive has resulted in people making $400 purchases in technologies like TiVo
I don't think there's anything they could have done. You can shame people into doing something, but it only usually works when there is a personal connection. In the privacy of their own home, people are going to skip ads.
I owe you an apology. I made a rude assumption about what your response would be. I regret that now. I'm sorry man.
No problem. I try to keep things civil by simply ignoring flames.
-a
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
Which brings up the interesting question
Who will pay for the website's bandwidth ? It is costly you know, and I don't think ISPs will allow media producers to provide high-speed movie downloads without charging them big-time in the process. Then they're back to square one.
In addition, considering how that new ubiquitous advertisment for drinking water (in EU) made me shut down my TV this whole week-end (yes, it was awfully noisy, boring, and broadcasted twice every 15 minutes on some channels), I think that _yes_, some ppl will still be willing to spend an additional day downloading content without ads. Count me in, btw.
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
This would be true if the average user of P2P knew that the material they download could be edited.
Truth is editing would be too much trouble for the average viewer. It's not as satisfying to actually do something about a problem as it is to bitch about it.
Someone will write an open source program to do it for them.
-a
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2, Funny)
Will it do something about the problem or bitch about it for them?
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
-a
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
Those work only because the TV broadcast leaves room for the commercial-skipping algorithims to catch. Edit out the blackspace on you digital TV download, and you've got yourself a much more difficult problem.
Plus, TV can always go back the old model of interweaving advertisments with the show. Either a "thank the sponsors" segment, or a direct promotion--both of which are likely to be left in even by commerical-clippers.
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
Before the bubble burst, I was on at least 4 different ad-sponsored mailing lists with readerships in the 10s or 100s of thousands. None of these sites went crazy with IPOs or hiring 50 people, but they all had to move to a subscriber model (or mixed subscriber/advertising) when the ad revenue dried up.
The stupid companies went flat-out bankrupt, but many of the good ones couldn't cut it with advertising alone. I'm talking about online media here, not e-commerce. In addition to developing the website, they also have to provide content, which is no easy task.
-a
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:4, Insightful)
After hearing of all the dot bombs that based their business model on internet ad revenues and failed, it interesting to see that it can be profitable if you give the people what they want.
It's also too cool to see the "pirates" show the Corporations how it should be done.
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, now that we've established that the artist doesn't own the music, the record company does, let's follow that cd to a store. That cd is on a rack. I want that cd, so I buy it. Now, I have bought the recording...it's mine. I am not free to give away COPIES of that recording, however, I am free to give away that recording if I wish..it's mine. If I want to copy that cd and put the original away so it doesn't get scratched, that should be my right. It's my recording. If I want to copy that cd and put the copy in the car, that should be my right. I bought the recording. The record company holds the rights to distribute that recording. I do not. But, I do hold the rights to listen to my recording however I wish.
uh.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously the artists who make it
That's funny, I seem to remember them, of their own free will, selling me a copy of their work and then taking my money.
You're talking about intellectual property rights, not fair use rights. Big difference
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
Ads break the continuity and are most unwanted during a gripping part (cfr. Tivo). So some geeks would edit out the ads in movies especially and redistribute those. Make your filename contain ad-free and voila !
Other than that, I like your idea.
Why haven't these companies thought of this yet?
A lot of users still on dial-up. Broadband users get charged by amount of traffic. Would be reluctant to download it from your site. Rather have 1 guy get it and redistribute it to friends. So advertisements on movie websites are underutilized. They also need to create hardware DivX players, or rather an interface/feature-set similar to DVD but with DivX compression.
Most importantly, record and movie companies have a monopoly to uphold and their salaries to protect
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
Obviously the artists who make it.
I find it disturbing that you find this "obvious". I don't. The creators do own their works at the time they create it, until they decide to distribute it to public. Once the work is distributed in public, then everyone who received the said work or creation, owns it too!
However, in most countries, there is this notion and law called copyright. This grants the original creator of the work to the monopoly over distribution of his/her work for a limited period of time. In other words, for such given period of time, public, who also owns the said work, does not have the right to reproduce and redistribute the work without the original creator's permission. This by no means implies that public does not own the work, just that the creator is given a limited monopoly over distribution.
Big media corporations that want you to believe that they own everything you see and hear, and that they are lending and/or licensing some content to you, are, in most cases (especially recently), lying to you. In fact, that's what they want public to perceive, so then they can call people they don't like such names as pirates and thieves, and, as a result bribe Congress to enact more laws in their favor.
Re:More copy protection isn't the answer (Score:2)
Incorrect. That's the answer to "Who Owns Digital Content?".
The media--literally, the medium(s) on which the content resides--belong to the person who bought it. Whether this is a shiny optical disk that you buy with the content pre-installed, or a pack of magnetic platters that you connect to your computers and later move the content onto, you own the media.
Video media such as TV shows and movies would have built-in ads within them too.
Considering that video editing software costs somewhere between 'free' and 'practically free' these days, those ads aren't going to stay in there for long.
Some people already capture their favorite TV shows to MPEG, edit the commercials out, compress them, and distribute them to the world within a day of the episodes' original air date. The content owners allowing direct downloads from their site, even if it were a pay service (which it would almost certainly have to be to justify bandwidth and server expenses), would only serve to make the TV pirates' job much easier.
Unlikely... (Score:4, Informative)
Commenters should familiarize themselves with the Register's recommendation in the first rulemaking, since many of these issues which were unsettled at the start of that rulemaking have been addressed in the final decision.
Like that's going to happen...
Educating the Public (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my $0.02
Letter writting campaign changed organic standards (Score:3, Interesting)
So yes, a similar campaign may work in this case.
Write the letters. Send your e-mails. Getting the issue before the media would help, too!
-
Re:You missed the point; you're probably dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the same people who say what you've said usually just turn around and bash the next course of action someone suggests:
"Challenging the DMCA in court will never work, we need Congress to repeal it!"
"Congress will never listen to us, so vote them out."
"Voting is useless because both parties suck and third parties never win."
"Boycotting the media industry is hopeless; they'll just blame the loss on piracy."
"Civil disobedience won't work, they'll just use that as an excuse to pass even more stupid laws."
It's all a bunch of defeatist crap that gets us nowhere. Forget choosing. Do all of the above! Or as many as you can. No one says you have to pick one tactic and cling to it forever. Nor does it have to take an inordinate amount of time. I wrote and submitted my comments in the time it took you to reply to my first message.
Here's one scenario:
No it won't save the world by itself, but it's something.
Re:Protests (Score:2)
Actually, this is how "protests" are managed here in Hong Kong now. You're allowed to protest as long as you do it in a place where you're well out of sight of any of our unelected leaders (one thing we have in common with the US). Though it beats the Mainland way of arresting and locking up protesters within seconds of their unfurling their banners and taking them away to labour camps (even less salubrious than Guantanamo Bay).
In one celebrated incident a year or so ago the police played Beethoven at high volume to drown out the protesters so they wouldn't offend the cadre attending some meeting.
Come and get me. (Score:5, Funny)
As for the others, anyone want any War3z copies AOL 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0?
Sorry folks, DeCSS is a criminals tool. (Score:5, Funny)
Leesburg Raid (Score:2)
Federal Agents Raid Leesburg Home [leesburg2day.com]
"Some neighbors reported being told by agents that the investigation involved a copyright issue."
But if the agents really are jack-booted thugs, do we take them at their word? (Assuming the neighbors got it right in the first place.)
too little too late (Score:5, Insightful)
If we keep be reactive, the opposition will always be a step ahead of us, because they will continue to control congress and write the laws.
Re:too little too late (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... yeah, I've done all that. Your point?
The problem is that there are virtually no congressmen left who won't support big business over personal rights. Most congressmen don't actually read your letters. Most people you try to inform don't know how this will hurt them in the long run and it's hard not to come off sounding like some Art Bell-like conspiracy theorist in explaining it.
Re:too little too late (Score:3, Funny)
So, uhh...
Who are they again?
Re:too little too late (Score:2)
Sorry, as much as I hate the DMCA, there are many things that are FAR worse. I'd rather petition my officials asking for them to reject the DMCA, rather than voting for a complete moron who happens to go against the DMCA.
Re:too little too late (Score:2, Insightful)
I doubt any citizen with a brain supports corporations, its just important to let them know what they're voting for.
Re:too little too late (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
One more (Score:4, Insightful)
and materials adopting silly encryption that insults the intelligence of citizens.
Otherwise, next time Adobe would publish ebook with ROL-26 encryption and sue those who merely look at it and don't pay up. (am I going to an extreme? that's just an example to inspire thoughts)
Go EFF! (Score:5, Informative)
* The labels don't tell people which cd's include copy protection.
* A large number of stores won't take the CDs back (accept for an exchange of the exact same cd).
* Many works are only available on CD as vinyl cassette and 8track have died (ok i added the 8track part).
* CD copy protections measures will not ever be 100% fool proof (in providing copy protection AND in ensuring playback on devices that should be able to playback the material)
* The problem is only going to get worse. As this problem occours on any device that is capable of reading multisessions disks. Your DVD Player, Game Console, MP3/CDPlayer, and PC are all affected.
Remember this is specifically under fair use! That is the exemption would only be for modifications that allow playback of the material on a device that was not previously able to.
I think this is common sense. Its certainly not far reaching. Consumers should have the right to buy products and use them for their intended purposes (and maybe not their intended purpose, but that out of the scope of this argument!). Most people 90% or more of america would be really pissed if they found out that cd companies were selling cd's that might not work in their equiptment - and that making a simple modifications to their equiptment or cd to make audio playback work could put them in serious trouble.
If 90+% of the people in the US would support the EFF here, that means an open minded group like slashdot should be around 112% right?
Re:Go EFF! (Score:2)
You probably mean "except".
I'm only pointing this out because putting the wrong word there gave your sentence the opposite meaning - it implies that it would be satisfactory for stores to accept a returned CD and exchange it for a copy of the same CD, and that they don't even do that.
who owns your digital media? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I bought it, I should have the right and ability to use it as i see fit. If I want to load my new audio CD into my MP3 player and take it with me without having to lug around a player and CDs, I should be able to do that easily.
The P2P problem is another issue alltogether. People have been sharing music and videos for decades, but now that we can do it online in such great numbers it's starting to hurt(so they say). This battle should not be fought by changing the media. Besides, I can still make an MP3 or Mpeg from a CD/DVD with copy protection --- Analog Inputs. This method just makes it a much longer and difficult process to manipulate MY media.
Question - Why have we not heard so much as a buzz from software companies? Software is shared via kazaa(and others) in the same way music and video is.
Re:who owns your digital media? (Score:2, Insightful)
Many software companies (including Microsoft) use this tactic to make sure their software sells more, and this method has been shown to work.
Even the unskippable FBI warning is atrocious (Score:5, Interesting)
I find the fact that the FBI warning isn't skippable on my DVDs disturbing. A message pops up on my television from my DVD player that my DVD is disallowing me from jumping to the main menu. My DVD player is *disallowing* me to fast forward. No where else do we suffer being controlled by our own devices. Imagine if CD players imposed such bizarre rules such as forcing you to listen to something as obnoxious as the this before you could play the disc, "The following music you are about to listen to is copyrighted material. Any unauthorized copying of this material is a felony offense."
Re:Even the unskippable FBI warning is atrocious (Score:4, Insightful)
What I find even more distirbing (and I have commented about it) is how hypocritical and pointless such tactic is. It is unlikely that people who illegaly copy a movie from DVD will include the FBI warning when copying. Even if they do, the pirated version uses some mpeg player and will be able to skip anything. Yet I, a *legal* owner of the DVD, have no way of skipping the warning aimed at people who don't see that warning. What do they expect, that I will recite it to people that use P2P??
Re:Even the unskippable FBI warning is atrocious (Score:2)
I have some better questions.... (Score:5, Interesting)
...who is your representative in Washington? How do you contact them? Do you know what their position is on the issue? Have you (intelligently) made them aware of your position on the issue? Do you still buy Digital Media? Are you just bitching because you want to be one of the people who steals it?
I think a lot of people need to stop talking and start doing something. This issue pops up on /. what... every 20 or 30 minutes? What good is it going to do you to keep voicing your opinion here? You're just preaching to a choir of people who are preaching to the choir.
If you're so absolutely lazy that you can't be bothered to write up a logical, intelligent e-mail, join EFF [eff.org] and at least use their default e-mails to mail your reps and let them know that corporate ownership of your life is NOT acceptable and you WILL help "throw the bums out" if they don't do something about it.
I'm sure a lot of people here do take action against the crooks in Hollywood, but I also guarantee it's not enough....
Links that help you do that (Score:2)
Who owns my Digital Media? (Score:2, Insightful)
Get the format right (Score:5, Informative)
You'll notice that only 50 comments made it in on the first round. Now you're supposed to comment on the accepted comments. Format is everthing. When they say number the class, they mean it. Start the paragraph with a 1. class, 2. class, etc.(although I notice they are not asking for a number this time?)
--Provide a fact, a legal argument, or something from the news, or incident that happened.
--A summary means your paragraph must start with "In summary" or identify the paragraph as a summary paragraph.
--Don't forget to include your name on the attachment.
This time they are also adding "whether in opposition, support, amplification or correction", so state it.
Missing just one of these steps will get your comment rejected.
(Mine was rejected, but after correction (I added the words 'In summary') they were accepted. We still don't know how many were actually submitted the first round.
DVD purchase vs. rental (Score:4, Interesting)
In the days of VHS, there was a difference between tapes that you rented and tapes that you bought, as I recall. If you went out to the video shop and rented some movies, then you would likely sit through three to five "upcoming features" trailers (as time went on, they were advertising things other than films as well) before the "Feature Presentation" was to begin.
And, that to me is fine. After all, it's a rental and they do have the "right" to attempt to get my attention about upcoming films, right? Sure, that's no biggie. But, those ads were never present on VHS tapes that were purchased (naturally, we're not talking "Previously viewed" purchases from that same video store).
And that's also the way it should be. After all, this isn't a tape/DVD that you'll be watching once or twice this weekend and taking back. You'll be watching this thing maybe once a month for the next ten years, and losing lots of time watching the crummy previews (likely for movies that you also bought later on). That's just unacceptable.
Skippable or not, ads at the *front* of a DVD are an affront to the purchasing public. Sure, put those ads in, but do it in the same manner you might put in the bonus features, in a menu option. Why is this so hard for the movie moguls to do?
But, more importantly, why is this sort of bad behavior on the part of Hollywood less vilified by the public?
I'll stop here, before I digress....
Re:DVD purchase vs. rental (Score:2)
VHS tapes typically had a lot of trailers in them, even purchased from say, Wal-Mart (ie: not previously viewed). It was always fun to watch one from 5-10 years ago and see "coming soon" for movies that were long since history
Another very nice thing with DVDs is, sure, they cost $20+, but you get an awful lot of bonus material with them - not just the same movie you already paid $10 to see in the theatre. The Spider-man DVD alone was several hours of extra stuff. All good in my books. Too bad more releases aren't done this way.
Re:DVD purchase vs. rental (Score:2)
Skippable or not, ads at the *front* of a DVD are an affront to the purchasing public. Sure, put those ads in, but do it in the same manner you might put in the bonus features, in a menu option. Why is this so hard for the movie moguls to do?
Because "moguls" usually don't have anything to do with how DVDs are put together or marketed. It's usually done by subsidiaries or contractors, who are usually boneheaded scum -- not exactly Ivy League marketing MBAs, or MIT MediaLab veterans. Before they got into big time Hollywood DVD distribution, they were probably creating popups for porn websites.
Write in favor of the other comments too! (Score:5, Informative)
As another proposal submitter from the first round, I would like to point out that there are a variety of proposals [copyright.gov] put forth by commenters on the table. If you find that you are more comfortable supporting a proposal other than the EFF's, more than one proposal, or a combination of several people's proposals, you may freely comment about as few or as many proposals as you choose. If you disagree with a proposal, and wish to have it modified to make it acceptable to you, you may comment about what changes you feel need to be made as well.
To state the obvious: DO NOT COMMENT BLINDLY WITHOUT READING THE RULES. Before I wrote my proposal of possible exclusions, I spent several days simply doing research on what was accepted/not accepted during the previous cycle. I also read the details of what was wanted during the current comment request, and the results of the prior comment period. Doing so greatly helped me tailor my arguments to better address what was being looked for.
Another issue you should note: THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE WANTS TO SEE REAL EVIDENCE THAT NEAR-TERM HARM WILL OCCUR UNLESS AN EXCLUSION IS GRANTED. Contrary to what many slashdotters' think, the copyright office is being very good as to telling us what they want. If you comment during this reply period, *please* provide real-world examples as to why an exclusion should be granted/not granted/granted in modified form/etc. Simply stating "if this is not granted, I will not be able to enjoy my l33t p0rn" likely will not sway anyone to your cause.
Finally, BE SURE TO CITE ALL SOURCES YOU USE SO EVERYONE CAN CONFIRM THE HARM YOU DESCRIBE IS REAL. By doing so, you prove you did your homework, that you read previous commenters' work, and your comment *will* stand out as being from an intelligent person. Try to get reliable sources that have not been used before; simply repeating previously used evidence will not get you very far.
Re:Write in favor of the other comments too! (Score:2, Funny)
THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE WANTS TO SEE REAL EVIDENCE THAT NEAR-TERM HARM WILL OCCUR...
I cut myself on a "do not copy" warning label from my CD. Does that count?
Also let me take the time to mention that using too many caps is like yelling.
Microsoft patents ones and zeros (Score:2, Funny)
meeting half way? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exemptions are good. However by supporting the four exemptions, are we also supporting the fact that other items are not exempt? I admit the proposed four exemptions are very broad in scope so to have them all pass would be good.
The situation sort of has the feeling of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Remotely. But it's still there.
'defecive' disks ... 20 ywears ago it was VHS (Score:2, Interesting)
I those days, many people put garbage in the 'vertical sync' signal, which wouldn't affect the display of the movie, but would produce garbage if you tried to dub the movie on your boring home VCR.
I have no idea who won that war, since I could never figure out why people would want to use up a $5 cassette on a movie they could rent for that price
So the studios put garbage in the table of contents section of the disk, users come up with ways to decode it anyway. Studios demonstrate their total deddication to profits, fans display their insatiable need to listen to music
TomDLux
Re:'defecive' disks ... 20 ywears ago it was VHS (Score:5, Interesting)
So, add macrovision in, and the cost of pirating the movies goes up the price of a Time Base Corrector. No more casual piracy (not that it was all that casual as VCRs cost $500 at that point).
So, what's the result? Pirate movies become more valuable, prices go up, and once the pirates have covered the cost of the Time Base Corrector (perhaps $5,000 back then? I don't know) they're raking it in.
Eventually movie companies realised that the tighter their grip, the more piracy, and the more money pirates would make. Huh? I'm sure you're saying. Pirates don't follow the rules (obviously), so why the hell should they care how much it angers the MPAA when their stuff is pirated? It's like the Black Sunday ECM DirecTV sent down a couple of years ago somewhat earlier to this time... It only served to make sure professional pirates got another boatload of loot getting people back up and running. I know for certain it never stemmed the tide of piracy. If anything, the advertising that the DirecTV signal was infact piratable drove users _away_ from paying for it!
So, they got a clue (the MPAA, certainly NOT DirecTV), figured out what it really costs to dupe a movie, and simply lowered prices to a point where they made money, and made piracy a waste of money.
Of course, just like DMCA of today will likely hang over the head of Americans as a reminder of the bad old days, Macrovision is still with us as nothing more than an anachronism that costs about $20 to defeat. Not that it's really worth even that much to bother.
Any of that sound like a certain other group of people?
Re:'defecive' disks ... 20 ywears ago it was VHS (Score:2)
The DirecTV ECM signal didn't cost DTV any money (other than the R&D involved in the operation). It didn't kill off any existing, PAYING users, or even "advertise" the fact that pirates were getting cut off. The embedded message was only triggered on hacked cards, and regular users saw absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. It inconvenienced the pirates in a big way - That was the point, wasn't it? Sure, it may not have been effective long-term, but it certainly put out a lot of moochers, right? And quite a few of those people probably went and screamed at their sources, who had to fork over a good bit of cash for new H-cards (since the old ones were now looped) and figure out work-arounds.
I fail to see where you're going with this. You seem to claim that copy-protection hurts nobody but the regular consumers, which is a claim I'd normally agree with. However, the examples you're citing certainly don't lend much weight to your point.
"Write in support"--but carefully! (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a very, very big irony here. The Bush team just got caught with their pants down by bloggers and others including Mike Magee at the Inquirer [theinquirer.net]. It turns out they were sending out massive fake form emails to papers around the country, and bribing folks to sign their own names to them with "GOPoints" they could trade for prizes.
That story is now crossing over to the mainstream press with articles in Monday's New York Times. [nytimes.com] and (more intelligently) Paul Boutin's Slate article [msn.com].
Another big irony: this story has been riding Blogdex for a week--a long techno-duel of marketing droids versus nerds armed mainly with Google. And the nerds won! Probably the only place you couldn't follow the action was here on Slashdot, the story was rejected three times. So the Superbowl is a better example of news that matters?
Inquirer article with screenshots of prizes [theinquirer.net] you get for spamming your local paper.
Re:"Write in support"--but carefully! (Score:2)
This is just a big trick (Score:3, Insightful)
handicapped access (Score:5, Interesting)
I've ripped hundreds of gigs of these items to the computer and have been developing an interface she can use to access these items. My understanding is that this is a criminal act because it involves breaking CSS and various other stupid technologies. This software could help others but it's probably illegal to share.
Somehow I worry more about my little sister then I do as to if rich media companies manage to squeeze an extra penny out here and there.
Join the EFF you have no... (Score:3, Insightful)
I see UIDs' in the high 6 digits now on a regular basis. Just for arguments sake, lets say there are a percentage inactive for one reason or another.
That leaves easily 200,000 to 500,000 users bitching here that could each send in 5 bucks or so at a minimum.
Why not skip that next pack 'o smokes, fast food, or movie rental and just write a quick check?
It *will* matter more than you think.
Forgot to add the important part (Score:3, Informative)
Multi-Region DVDs... New class of Copyright laws? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a very important legal distinction, and one that congress didn't address enough of when creating the law. In theory, copyright holders do not have the legal right to prevent you from bringing their content across country lines for personal use (assuming the other country has similar laws). The obvious intent of the DMCA was to support the legal rights already given by the existing copyright laws, not to create an entirely new class of de-facto (and actionable) rights defined by those who currently have the right to mass-reproduce the material. EULA not withstanding (and, let's be honest, they don't), there is no legal framework for region control of copyrighted material. If such a thing is allowed to stand, the next logistical step is to segment the captive market by state and / or metropolis. This would reduce competitive pressures from surrounding communities, and reduce online sales to a few, more highly profitable mammoth corporate entities. I'm not being paranoid here: regional access was implemented in order to increase the sale price of overseas copyrights by segmenting the market and asuaging fears of competing with offshore copyright holders. This has been a part of the video game industry since Nintendo offered the US rights of the NES to Atari. Thankfully, without a DMCA provision, importation of videogames was available to the sub-market of any hobbyist who really wanted access to the material, a market not so large that it would reduce the attractiveness of a copyright that is likely to be purchased, but large enough that a truly significant game would not be completely missed by those who might consider gaming an emerging artform (Seiken Densetsu 3? Radiant Silvergun?).
This is just one point of the new generation of copyrights being taken by those who hold the traditional copyright. For example, they are taking the sole right to control access to the fast-forward button... preventing the user both physically and legally from advancing through anything they might have a financial stake in you watching. They have taken playback medium rights, ensuring that their content can only be seen in a particular set of circumstances, like on a Windows(tm) computer, or a Sony (tm) DVD player. Translations of media for personal use are gone, as are backups... an often abused right that is necessary for anyone who A: has lived through a fire or B: has no idea where they put that CD that they love so much.
Some of these new rights are being taken (backups) in an understandable attempt to enforce the rights they already have. But many (regions, commercials, resale rights) are simply a way to use the legal framework to squeese out more dollars from end consumers, and should be fought against.
Nowhere in the DMCA [dfc.org] does it state that it is an intended framework for the non-congressional creation of new rights for copyright holders. Chapter 12 is titled "Copyright Protection and Management Systems," and the first and second sub-clause 1201 and 1202 (referred to in the above article), are entitled "Circumvention of copy protection systems" and "Integrity of copy management systems," respectively. Thus, when they referred to the circumvention of ''(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS.--(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- ''(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
Hence, as restricting region traversal is not a defined right of a copyright owner (holder), multi-region DVD players, and in fact the sale of region-free (but not copy-free) DVD players should be completely within the confines of the law. While it does, in certain points, refer to devices that circumvent access controls, it should be recognized that these two terms are being used interchangably by our elected officials, but that the overriding intent is the protection of existing rights, not creating a new class of rights. Intent is not the sole criteria of the courts, but many rulings have fallen upon the side of intent when explicit statements have failed. No court would believe that Congress intended to define the fast-forwarding of commercials as "theft."
I'm sorry, this was going to be a quick little ramble. It sort of grew a life of its own.
-C
Money for nothin' in 8 easy steps (Score:2)
2) ISPs balk - Big Media "lobbies" lawmakers, enforces ISP tax
3) Profit!! (for lawmakers and Big Media)
4) Big Media now claims ISP tax isn't enough, content sales still down dramatically
Big Media "lobbies" lawmakers for help
Gets subsidies to save industry to cover losses
on content they never sold
5) Profit!! (for lawmakers and Big Media)
6) Big Media catches on..can get income without producing any content
Big Media "lobbies" lawmakers for help enforcing monopoly
Non-authorized content made illegal
No content is authorized (except government media)
7) Profit!! (for congressmen, senators and Big Media)
8) Music is now illegal - Zappa predicts future
Go figure. (Score:2, Funny)
This story appears and as of yet I don't see anyone saying: "IN SOVIET RUSSIA... Digital Media owns YOU!"
Coincidence? I think not, my friends....
The answer is easy. Jack Valentini (Score:3, Funny)
Just like when you buy a car you only have the right to drive it. I really feel for those people losing their cars and going to jail for lifting up the hood and repairing them without going only to the car dealership or asking the car manufactors permission in writing. Cars are copyrighted right? Then they are not yours! We all know copyright holders have godlike and patent like powers so we should not even be debating this. Ask any lawyer from Hollywood or even experts like Senator Hollings. Anything otherwise would be bad for the economy and costs jobs and the whole American way of life.
When will you slashdotters relize that you only exist in life as a right to live granted by the government and all the corporations.
You should be on your knee's and begging Jack Valentini for forgivenss for such blasphemic thoughts.
Re:The answer is easy. Jack Valentini (Score:3, Funny)
Buissnessplan [salon.com] here.
What about remixes? (Score:2)
I'm not a big fan of the original songs in most of those cases. It's not clear to me that having the original song on CD either would put me in the clear. Can anybody enlighten me?
Re:What about remixes? (Score:2)
Re:What about remixes? (Score:2)
Here is My List (Score:3, Funny)
* The Flumtreble invented in 2007
* The worselhorn invented in 2020
* The Flangtrimble invented in 2066
If we don't get these exempted then they might never be invented because they would be illegal.
Thank God the copyright office is giving us this chance to protect future ideas!
I'd support the EFF, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
I know that it's the US regulators who they will be talking to, however it goes without saying that anything passed in the US migrates north almost effortlessly.
Sure would be nice if they'd take comments from other countries... Especially those right next door...
N.
Re:I'd support the EFF, but... (Score:2)
I'm not going to support it... Neither should anyone else.
Why is that site so incredibly biassed towards US? It's supposed to be international.
> Ever bought a foreign DVD only to discover it
> won't play on your American DVD player?
I leave you with this classic article:
http://www.satirewire.com/news/0010/international
Exempt ALL copyrighted material (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, copyright is granted in exchange for the public's fair-use access to the copyrighted material.
DRM prevents that.
In fact, it ought to be illegal to put DRM on any work that claims copyright....yadda yadda.
Re:They're shooting themselves in the foot. (Score:3, Insightful)