New RIAA/MPAA "Customary Historic Use" Plan 444
Random_Transit writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the EFF has dug up plans by the RIAA/MPAA to stifle the consumer electronics market by replacing it's "fair use" policy with something called "Customary Historic Use". This new policy would effectively keep anyone from inventing any new type of media device without the RIAA/MPAA's say-so."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:4, Funny)
Re:RIAA (Score:4, Funny)
You have made a bad pun. Go straight to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
post-mp3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:post-mp3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:post-mp3 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:post-mp3 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:post-mp3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Overall, given the general public's taste in music, wasting fidelity on their ears is pointless, in any case. They can't tell at all, and probably wouldn't care, as long as there was a beat.
----- under this line, I get catty. -----
By the way, calling people 'sheep' exposes you as an asshole. Manually linebreaking your text in an inconsistent fashion so that it's impossible to read doesn't help. Appropriate capitalization is a favor to your readers. And mp3 doesn't mean the 3rd version of some nebulous 'mp' spec, so mp9 wouldn't mean what you think it would.
Re:post-mp3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Based on the noise coming from the neighbor's kid's car they could use a much lower bit rate for what apparently passes for music today. And it sounded like at least one of his speakers was blown. Why people listen to music that loud and distorted is beyond understanding. Makes me wonder if you could package a whit
Re:post-mp3 (Score:4, Interesting)
Millenniumman: Most people won't be able to notice higher fidelity [than MP3]
allelopath: O rly? mp3 is barely tolerable to me.
At what bitrate? LAME at bitrates close to 192 kbps produces MP3 files that are near transparent to most adult ears. Frankly I don't give a shit if your codec cuts off frequencies above 17500 Hz because at age 25, I am incapable of hearing them. And do you listen to music alone, or are you listening on top of house noise, car noise, or bus/train noise? Ambient noise can reduce the required bitrate for perceived transparency.
Bring it on! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bring it on! (Score:5, Insightful)
Though now that I see it, you live in Australia, so please allow 6-8 weeks for the lunacy to reach your shores.
Re:Bring it on! (Score:5, Interesting)
I won't be allowed to wander down to the pub and listen to them play?
Seriously though, the RIAA has already lost this. The cat's out of the bag, the worms are out of the can. Right now, they're playing a stall game to buy time for a response, but I think in the long run they'll be too fat and unwieldy to adapt, so they'll wither, if not die.
There's already too many ways out there that'll allow talented people to make and distribute music for the RIAA to retain their stranglehold on the market. We're already seeing that here (in Western Australia) where our remoteness meant local musicians have had virtually no chance of getting signed with a label. There's a great buzz of talent starting to realise they can do it all themselves with a few thou's worth of recording gear and a friendly web host.
I'm looking forward to it.
Re: Controlling ADC (Score:3, Informative)
Two words: black market.
Alternatively, sell measuring instruments that are very easy to convert to audio input devices. With high enough demand, digital oscilloscopes with USB interface will become dirt cheap.
Re:Bring it on! (Score:3, Interesting)
Though now that I see it, you live in Australia, so please allow 6-8 weeks for the lunacy to reach your shores.
6-8 weeks? Pfft...Real ID made it over in under 3.
Re:Bring it on! (Score:4, Interesting)
This legislation would allow record companies to receive money on ALL digital content and playback devices, whether they produce (via their phony "artists") or distribute it or not.
Further, if the "DRM" scheme requires periodically checking in with a remote database to verify a digital key, the entity in charge of the database could UNIVERSALLY disable any content they deem "inappropriate" any time they wish. The legislation may not explicitly state that, but in order for a scheme like this to work, these adjunct capabilities would have to be present. This legislation goes way beyond copy-protection.
Re:Bring it on! (Score:3, Interesting)
I must have missed that part. I see no error correcting codes or titanium disks or requirements for the seller to provide a replacement copy at cost if yours breaks or gets scratched or any other provisions that would protect your copy.
Re:Bring it on! (Score:5, Interesting)
I make a movie, and plan to distribute it free to increase buzz about my company before moving to the standard "pay for DVDs or theatre showings" on future movies. If the RIAA requires me to use copy protection, it's certainly hard to me to encourage sharing. Thus aren't they impeding a competitor's business in an unlawful way?
Re:Bring it on! (Score:3, Insightful)
But the RIAA isn't requiring you to do anything. They are lobbying/bribing the government to create laws restricting what you can do and to deny the free market from providing any unapproved products and technology.
That just begs for the mother of all monopoly suits though.
I don't think you can sue congress under anti-trust laws.
-
Re:Bring it on! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bring it on! (Score:2)
I've never quite understood this logic. When you want a specific song, you want that song. Not a similar song by some band you never heard of. The labels have a monopoly on the distribution of songs/albums. You must go through them (to be on the up and up). You can't buy a song from "Bob's DRM-Free Music Store" if Bob doesn't sell that
Re:Bring it on! (Score:2, Interesting)
Once music stops being hugely profitable, people assume music will stop being made. This is complete RIAA propaganda. They suck th
Re:Bring it on! (Score:5, Insightful)
<mode=cynical>
No, but they offer the wannabe rock stars promises of fame, riches, pelt, and doing blow off hookers' asses. No matter how many bands give thier "it's all about rocking/the metal" spiel, it's very rarely about the music.
Until we breed musicians who are immune to the cha-ching factor, the RIAA or it's replacement will continue to have us by the balls.
</mode>
Re:Bring it on! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll go one step further and say that one of the reasons for this is that people are, in fact, consumers in that they don't seek out *anything*, choosing instead to be spoonfed music from broadcast radio. It amazes me how many people are so passive in their listening that they are uninterested in any ways of discovering music except radio. Even if a friend highly
Re:Bring it on! (Score:5, Insightful)
You think it's a good combination to have a state-granted monopoly (copyright) and at the same time let that monopoly gauge you any way they want? That is roughly the worst combination ever. For all the talk about independent music and movies, that doesn't matter to a fan because they're not interchangable. And the mainstream music does have a large fanbase, even though some slashdotters will get on their high horse like an art critic looking down on "The fast and the furious" or a porn flick. So simple, so crude, so stereotyped and yet so successful, so entertaining, so appealing to a broad segment of the population. That's almost a crime when it comes to art.
My point is that this isn't something the market will "fix". If that was the case we could just wipe out all consumer protection laws, all anti-trust laws, all fair use and whatever. The only thing that would happen is that the customer would stay with mainstream media and get even more shafted than he is today. What we're seeing is nothing more than a gross invasion of the privacy and not least the soverignity of my home. They want to be able to tell me what my machines can do to my movies, my music in my living room. Not that anything except the living room seems to be mine anymore.
I want to see LotR in HDTV. And that I'll probably have to pay a small fortune in a player, HDTV and the movie itself in that format is fine. Obviously I wish it was cheaper, but that is simple supply and demand, maximization of profit. I can live with that. What I don't want to live with is all the rest, and I don't see why I should have to or even have to boycott it. The law should restrict the number of latches, catches, hooks, limitations, restrictions, activations, verifications, crippling, self-destructability and so on a product can contain.
One of the greatest evils is that you no longer seem to be purchasing anything, and the courts are ignoring it. Why would anyone sell you anything, if they can license it and unilaterally apply catches at will in the fine print, yet in every way it otherwise acts as a sale? You don't need to license it, copies of books have been sold for centuries without selling the copyright, music and movies are no different. If the courts had any balls, they would simply throw out the RIAA/MPAA/BSAs licenses and say "This has the characteristics of a sale, thus it is a sale. The sale is goverened by common law and your EULA is null and void."
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny, yes, but also similar to a lot of real history.
In a lot of places, when autos started appearing, laws were passed that were attempts to ban them by making them useless. For example, there were laws limiting them to 4 or 5 mph, about horse speed. Some places had laws requiring that a motor vehicle be preceded by a rider on horseback.
Needless to say, these laws didn't last long (though it turns out that they are still on the books in some places). But for some years, they were a good way of collecting a bit of toll money in the form of fines from visitors.
Anyone have any good early anti-auto laws from your vicinity?
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Cars were not permitted in city parks. They had to dump out all gasoline before going aboard a ferry. Still on some statute books are laws requiring a motorist to come to a halt, turn off the engine, and give whatever assistance was required to get a skittish horse to go by. Roads were pathetic. A motorist had to buy new tags and driver's licenses to cross a state line-in some instances, even a county line. Some states required registration fees in each county through which a vehicle passed. Missouri charged $30 to cross the state east-west and $50 north-south.
There were laws requiring a motorist to send a warning sentinel with a red flag one-eighth of a mile ahead of his vehicle. In Urbana, Ohio, vehicles were limited to a speed of four miles and hour when crossing another road, at the same time ringing a bell or gong. In Flint, Michigan, a law read: "It shall be unlawful for any person to drive an automobile on the streets of Flint, Michigan, while being subjected to the embrace of any other person."
(NOTE: above work not mine. I found it in a discussion forum, poorly attributed as being "from an article")
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I read it right, it's more like walking being banned because it's not customary historic use of a car*.
*Available from all major auto dealers, starting at $10,000.
Some of provisions cited in TFA sound like they could affect people's ability to play and record their own original compositions, even if there was no connection to any of the major record labels at all!
One step forward (backward) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One step forward (backward) (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a lot of confusion about this, because fair use rights were detailed in the copyright act of 1976. Previous to this however, fair use rights were protected by Supreme Court rulings.
IANAL
funny (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They can't kill you, yet (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's what frontiers have often been all about: society's disaffected seeing both opportunity, and the possibility of escape from tyranny and persecution. What concerns me is that when America, indeed Western civilization itself, reaches the point that many of us will want to go somewhere else is that, well
Is anyone here an Oregon voter? (Score:5, Informative)
Why stop there? (Score:2)
Nerd Employment Preservation Act of 2006 (Score:5, Funny)
If we scrape together some money we can easily have this done. Republican Senator Gordon Smith, for example, the genius behind this fair use bill, can be bought for pretty cheap: [wweek.com] Why should record companies get all the status quo preserving laws? If everyone in this thread were to donate $10 to a special PAC, we could probably get the "Nerd Employment Preservation Act of 2006" passed easily. And we could make extra money by taking short positions on the stocks of all our employers before Wall Street finds out about our new law.
Re:Is anyone here an Oregon voter? (Score:2)
Will this eliminate Software Patents? (Score:5, Funny)
If it's "new", it cannot be "customary historic". Thus, at least in the area of multimedia, this law will mean that from now on, no algorithms may be patented.
Either they have to admit that their algorithms are not "new", and they should not be patentable. Or they must admit that they are "new", and thus cannot be "customary historic". Now settle that among you, RIAA and patent sharks!
There won't be any more analog outputs (Score:5, Insightful)
This is covered, which is part of what makes this so evil:
In other words, since analog capture could possibly lead to piracy, new devices will be required to not have analog outputs any more.
Re:There won't be any more analog outputs (Score:2)
or more simply, put a microphone in front of the speaker.
Until they can prevent sound from moving through air in compressions and rarefactions (is that right?), there will always be a way to get a copy- though perhaps not an exact copy. With good enough playback eq
Re:There won't be any more analog outputs (Score:2)
I'm not saying that performing captures and/or copies will be impossible, I'm just saying that to normal people, it won't be very practical, and what a normal person can get will be of extremely questionable quality, probably useless.
Unless, of course, you leave the job up to non-normal people with equipment and rooms like you're talking about and just copy the stuff as a pirate. It's just sad that in order for us to exercise our fair use rights, we have to break the law.
Silly, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Plugging the Analog Hole" can't. In order for you to be able to hear/see it, it HAS to go through an analog hole they can't realistically plug.
It's all friggin' stupid and we need to just remove from office all the twits pushing this BS as it's a waste of taxpayer dollars, etc. to be even discussing this as a law in Congress.
This is anti-competitive and worse than you think. (Score:3, Insightful)
Woot, then you have a crappy analog copy of commercial shit. Nicer than nothing, but that commercial shit is going to get worse and worse as the world's big publishers use this legislation to eliminate their competitors. Moreover, I don't even think you will be able to make that crappy copy for yourself long if the RIAA gets
Been there, seen that, bought the T-shirt (Score:5, Interesting)
But the idea is the same: To control the situation, forbid any not yet controlled entity to enter it.
Re:Been there, seen that, bought the T-shirt (Score:2)
I almost want to see them succeed (Score:2)
I am not citizen of the US, nor have I ever visited - my count
20 years or bust (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way, I don't blame the media companies for freaking out. In 10 years physical media will almost be on it's way out. You will see much more use of "keys" and "rights mangement" built into EVERYTHING. Valve's Steam network is a good example of things to come. I would go as far to suggest that there will be one world standard coming in the next 10 years for rights management. You won't be able to buy hardware that won't connect to the internet to verify the intergrated rights mangement.
The way they will get ya, is the "You can download -ANYTHING- now if you accept the new rights management built into everything." This sounds good, but the RIAA/MPAA are greedy a-holes as evidenced by the DIVX (the dvd player, not the codec) debacle; you won't own anything except limited rights that can always be revoked or blocked at any time. Let's say it's 2020 and you want to buy "A Clockwork Orange" only to find out it's blocked by your country for being subversive or obscene (like England did) Pretty much you will have no recourse, no bootlegs, no nuttin, except maybe that old dvd on ebay (if that has not been outlawed by reverse customary historic use).
I guess with the world going to a cashless society in less than 20 years, I can forsee an "all in one" digital rights card/chip that you carry around with you that will not only get you into the movie theater, but buy downloadable movies/games/music/books/etc. Find a chip/card too cumbersome to carry around? well don't worry the new ruler of europe, Anthony T. Christ, just decreed you must have a RFID chip implanted in you, for -ALL- Commerce and as a bonus will throw in digital rights mangement for free!
Re:20 years or bust (Score:5, Informative)
Re:20 years or bust (Score:2)
Countries that don't follow US copyright law are rogue countries now? Choose your words more carefully before insulting the rest of the world.
Re:20 years or bust (Score:2)
Hopefully, with the same effectiveness. Sure, technically it's illegal in the Netherlands...
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Lovely. (Score:5, Informative)
And just so I don't fire people up without giving them an outlet, here's some useful links. We need to hound the government EN MASS to get this proposal squashed.
Contact List
U.S. Chamber of Commerce [uschamber.com] - This law is anti-competitive for the above reasons (and likely more). Let them know.
State-sorted contact list of state senators [senate.gov] - Can you write effectively, and do you want to make a difference? Go here and DO it. There's no reason to sit idle if you, as a citizen here, have an objection. Get others to do it too. Send them the link. Mass email it, mail in an old fashioned petition. Senators don't read Slashdot, and don't consult geeks unless it involves upgrading computers. Go here.
Downloading in Holland (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Downloading in Holland (Score:2)
Quote from 1984 anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed--if all records told the same tale--then the lie passed into history and became truth.
You will study a RIAA/MPAA approved course, work in a RIAA/MPAA approved media job and get your pension from a RIAA/MPAA approved company.
No lost 'clips' from the past - just one RIAA/MPAA view of the past - as they will have the only keys to all the press archives.
Political parties and families can be assured that all the bad stuff is locked away for good now.
No ghosts from the past to upset any political party 20-30 years on.
Images of young men and woman before the courts as minor officials will just not exist away as they move up the ladders of power.
Images of your now top leaders shaking hands with friendly dictators, giving testimony about arms deals or military excesses
will now all be encrypted.
"Customary Historical Use" == "DoubleThink" (Score:3, Insightful)
Listen folks: DMCA, DRM, DVD region-encoding, malware-laden music CDs,
OK by me! (Score:4, Funny)
Prevent Americans, not anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not intended to start a flamewar; I've been to the US and enjoyed it, and I'd be the first to defend all the good things that have come from America (despite the current administration).
What I Would Love To See... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What I Would Love To See... (Score:2)
I can just see Faux News now, warning us about the "new un-American ter'rist technology" that's "taking over" Europe and Japan...
Copyright owned (Score:2)
Which means that the said "customary historic use" really impairs usage of content by RIAA/MPAA and those who are in the same camp as them.
The independent labels and artists need not enforce this law, and if it's really that bad, what it'll kill in the end is the usage of RIAA/MPAA content, rather than boost its usa
I would assume (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember the MAFIAA calling pirates 'Parasites who feed off of other people's creativity', which I thought was a cunning description of themselves.
Don't call them **AA, they are the MAFIA (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds a lot more appropriate.
My Customary Historic Use (Score:5, Funny)
For more than a year in the historical period of 1999-2001, I customarily used the original implementation of Napster to download and share audio files. Therefore, Napster or any service that models itself along those lines is a customary historic use.
I'm fine with this. You go, Senator Smith!
Michael
Directive 10-289, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Obligatory Anti-copyright rant (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright can't work anymore. I'd say up until 1995 or so, you had copyright laws that were degrading but still were enforceable. It can't be done. It is time for everyone who creates content to find new ways to market it.
My typical reply to "how?" is to move to live performances and tours -- with a push to sell official merchandise on top of it. Some other people in support of my No Copyright opinions have even thought up other great ways to promote art without copyright:
1. You can charge your fans for access to your studio creation time via the web.
2. You can record your live art performance real time, dump it to DVD and sell it to the fans that were at the performance.
3. You can get a job with a larger company and be a salaried artist.
4. You can contract out with local pubs to be a regular live performance artist.
5. You can tour, often, using your cheap/free CDs or free MP3s to promote your music syle.
6. You can play cheaply in order to promote your real job: teaching others to play an instrument.
Copyright has one intent: to enable the cartels to retain control of the distribution. There is no other use for copyright enforcement longer than 3 years. I even think that 24 months sounds too long for me.
I've been debating copyright in real life for 2 years now, and I'm working on opening No Copyright Studios [unanimocracy.com] in Chicago, IL this spring. If you have interest in beating down the RIAA, move away from the law that supports their cartel -- copyright. If you're a band, a painter, a web designer, a sculptor or any other artist, there are ways to sell your art face-to-face for a profit and skip turning over your rights to a cartel middleman.
Re:Obligatory Anti-copyright rant (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought I'd mention that I've added you to my "Friends" here on Slashdot because I find you posts here, and some of the information on your web sites provocative. I disagree, however, with much of your content.
In this particular post, you again assert the idea that, "Copyright has one intent: to enable the cartels to retain control of the distribution." You've made this assertion multiple times recently, and I have to tell you, you couldn't be more wrong. Copyright does indeed have "one intent", but that intent is, to quote the Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Unfortunately, this provision in the Constitution, which might I add, was developed by men who possessed a great deal of both insight and foresight, has indeed become polluted by moneyed interests to the point where the restrictions available to copyright holders outweigh the public interest in progress, but I wholeheartedly disagree that, as you put it, "Copyright can't work anymore." Copyright can work, and has served well for the past 200-odd years of the history of our nation. The problem we currently face for copyright is that the barrier to infringement of the copyright privilege has been dramatically lowered by the availablility of low-cost digital reproduction. People who would otherwise remain honest have, in the face of the pollution of the original intent of the copyright and dilution of moral priniciples in our society, begun to infringe upon the privileged grant of authorship because they can do so easily in a relatively anonymous fashion.
Your assertion that content creators must find new avenues of revenue generation may be a prgmatic reaction to the situation, but the end result is the destruction of a viable way of life for many artists. I find that, in general, those who advocate such measures for artists, and particularly, musicians, as you outline above, are generally not themselves the sort of artists who will find their livelihood placed at a disadvantage. It is all very well for you to advocate a life of constant live performance when you yourself do not seem to engage in such performances. Who are you to dictate what my lifestyle, as a publishing musician should be? Do I agree that the "cartels" have a disproportionate amount of power in the music economy? Certainly, but the answer, in my opinion, is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and relegate my fellow musicians to "walk the long road".
It may be that ultimately, it may become impossible for artists to make a living off of the proceeds of recorded works, whatever their form, but I predict that if this comes to pass, the end result will be a dramatic reduction in artistic output of all forms, with the added reality that under such a system of mandatory live performance, access to artistic works will very quickly become restricted to an elite subset of the population with sufficient means and lesiure time to enjoy them. Now, I'd like to examine some of your suggestions, specifically:
1. You can charge your fans for access to your studio creation time via the web.
Yes, I can, but this requires not only a large expenditure in equipment (as you yourself should know), but a large store of technical knowledge. This of course, does not take into account that artists may not wish to allow access to "unfinished works".
2. You can record your live art performance real time, dump it to DVD and sell it to the fans that were at the performance.
This suffers from all the same problems as #1, but adds the burden of live performance, plus fails to account for the ability of those DVD's to be pirated easily.
3. You can get a job with a larger company and be a salaried artist.
Do I really even need to dissect this idea? A salaried artist? I can imagine the societal and artistic value of the creations produced by such a system.
Re:Obligatory Anti-copyright rant (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all bands are live (Score:3, Insightful)
My typical reply to "how?" is to move to live performances and tours
How would this work for people who produce music in the genres that are commonly called "electronic music"?
2. You can record your live art performance real time, dump it to DVD and sell it to the fans that were at the performance.
This is patented.
3. You can get a job with a larger company and be a salaried artist.
This is the record label business model.
4. You can contract out with local pubs to be a regular live performan
Let the RIAA keep their music. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Of all the music being made out there, the standard industry practice guarantees you'll only ever hear an insiginficant fraction of what's available, and most of that is successful because it sounds like something else. What you get is the tiniest sliver of what's possible. Most of the greatest music being made will never make it to your ears.
2) Until recently, music was a social activity (people used to be able to play instruments and entertain family and friends, for example, and they'd also leave the house at times to hear others make music). Take off the headphones.
3) Enroll in a music class. Pony up the bucks, take some lessons, learn some techniques, and -- gasp -- make some of your own music. Music is OK when it's a passive activity (listening), but nothing compares to being able to make your own.
Music is something you make, share, and become a part of. When it becomes something you buy (like cereal or beer), it's *always* going to be fettered by copyright laws, etc.
Take it back, make it your own.
Re:Let the RIAA keep their music. (Score:3, Insightful)
Neo-Luddites (Score:5, Interesting)
Let the techno-war begin. Hackers (the good kind) on one side, Neo-Luddit RIAA/MPAA on the other. I think I know which will win (us), but it's going to be messy.
Re:Neo-Luddites (Score:3, Insightful)
How? (Score:4, Interesting)
RICO (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm kind of surprised it hasn't happened yet - IANAL, but these shitbags are clearly working a racketeering game.
Price fixing? yup.
Stifling competition? yup.
The list is long...
RS
"Piracy" is "customary" (Score:3, Insightful)
It may not be legal, but it sure is embedded deeply in our customs.
Would this legalize file sharing ? !
Going around this (Score:5, Interesting)
I sure as hell would not officially make if open to all formats... but the day I started selling the machine, somehow would be the day the hacked firmware version was available on the internet.
I'd also not hold press conferences on exactly how to install and upgrade to this hacked version. That would be wrong. I'd probably yell at some consultant who used to work for us(and was paid handsomely) when he held the conference. I'd probably re-hire him at some point, because I am forgiving that way.
I'd denounce this hack publicly, calling it by its accurate name, so people wouldn't mistake it for some other, double-plus good firmware upgrade.
I'd even denounce my loyal and faithful software partners, who somehow seem to be giving this firmware upgrade away, in multiple formats for different operating systems, and with no spyware whatsoever... I'd make sure to expose exactly how this upgrade gets to the public. Of course, this bad behaviour by my partners would not interefere with future business relationships, all water under the bridge, really.
It would be an act of kindness of course, not to press charges on anyone who would hack their device in this way... and a demonstration of goodwill to pick up the legal tabs for anyone sued by some other party who didn't like what the consumer did to our device. Keep it in the family, as it were.
Or maybe something like Henry Ford's "lawsuit insurance" is an alternative plan. http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/catalog/display.
I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Where's the ACLU and other Civil Rights groups (Score:3, Interesting)
I think some legislation to abolish the MPAA and RIAA and create some more fair public organization is in order if these things go into place.
but everyone does it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of trying to ban all the fun new toys before they've been fully developed maybe they should encourage their developement so the price drops and everyone has one and downloading will stop because everyone can legally record things for their own personal time-shifting use. But that's just for stuff on tv.
'permit' not 'limit' (Score:3, Insightful)
(b) permit customary historic use of broadcast content by consumers to the extent such use is consistent with applicable law;
Nowhere does it mention that the devices should be limited to customary historic use. It states that customary historic use should be permitted provided that it doesn't break nay applicable law. I'm not an *AA defender, but crying wolf over something that's not there does not help the fight against them. In this case, the ArsTechnica article simply states a line out of context (Notice how the same quote in the first paragraph of the story conveniently edits out the word 'permit' to completely change the tone of that line)
How is this worse than the DMCA? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a modded xbox. This is illegal under the DMCA, but it plays every format, open or closed. This would have been available as a cheap set top box under every manufacturer if the DMCA were not there giving these greedy ****s complete regulatory control over the consumer electronics industries.
Why do they need this law, and why do we need to oppose it? after all, these jerkoffs in hollywood already have complete regulatory control over all devices used to access their releases, and after the transition to HDTV will have complete regulatory control over all devices used to access tv (and don't say the broadcast flag is dead.. cable has rules stricter than the flag and has an 80% market penetration in the US). So exactly how does this make things worse than they already are.
Going on the Offensive (Score:3, Interesting)
I think we need to stop just defending and reacting to these sorts of issues.
We need to go on the offensive. We need to think of some initiatives that we could push for that would help or just not affect the little players too much and yet would put a monkey wrench in the game plan of the big boys who are constantly trying to pull these stunts.
Push for this change for instance:
No more taking works from the Public Domain and making derivatives with all rights reserved types of copyrights. You can sell public domain works fine. You can make derivatives and put them under a copyleft license fine. But you cannot make a derivative of a public domain work and lock it up as you can if you had made something completely new.
I think something like this might give them the kind of scare that their stunts give us.
Any thoughts on this idea. Any other better ideas to go on the offensive?
all the best,
drew
-----
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261 [ourmedia.org]
Record a "copyleft" song and you could win a thousand dollars.
RIAA-owned countries? (Score:3, Interesting)
The big issue for people living in RIAA-ruled countries (ie, where the RIAA have spent enough money to buy the politicians that are helping shape the laws) will surely be import laws on items like this (ie, no importing of items that don't enforce some sort of DRM). Then we're really fucked.
Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (Score:5, Insightful)
reminds me of the movie Tommy, where the disciples were made to wear earplugs, blindfolds and put corks in their mouths and told to play pinball... in the end, the disciples told him where to shove the cork...
we, the consumers, have the ultimate power... we can just stop buying or watching their crap... don't pirate it though, just don't buy it or subscribe to stations which force this on you...
Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (Score:2)
Yes, but that power is not organized. We don't use our power rationally, because the disorganized, unfocused collective isn't rational.
We, the consumers, have wielded our ultimate power, and we've chosen to accept DRM, even if an overwhelming majority of us, had we a democratic vote, would emphatically cast it against DRM.
we can just stop buying or watching their crap... don't pirate it though, just don't buy it or subscribe to stations which force this on you...
Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we're seeing the stranglehold on music being shaken, but there will always be greedy bastards trying to pull one over. For now it's an arms race between legislative gaming ("them") and consumer education ("us"-ish). Sadly, consumer education isn't as easy as it sounds in a media based nation like the US. I personally have almost given up on spamming congresscritters. I'm afraid it's white noise to them by now. What worries me more than these individual battles is the signs of democracy being injured in the process. As a whole, we're not long-term fighting very much. We're putting out legal fires where/when/if we can.
Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you're buying expensive dinners for them, or shuttling them around in your private jet or paying for travel to exotic locations, it's likely you're part of that pesky background noise your legislator's lobbyists are trying to shield them from. To them you're part of a well meaning but ultimately not very bright group of people called constituents who don't understand how things really get done.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/na tion/epaper/2006/01/01/a2a_bellsouth_0101.html
Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (Score:3, Interesting)
You should try the "search" feature before putting your dick in the dirt in front of thousands of people.
Yes and what do we do about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that does any good whatsoever is to get together 5-10 friends, and go make a personal visit to your Congressman's office. Not Senators, mind you, since they all think they're little potentates and don't give a crap what you think. But House members can be influenced, especially by a motivated group of citizens in their district.
Why is that? Because in the eyes of a politician none of us is just one person. Rather, we're a node in a network of an average of 150 friends, family, and acquaintances. They piss you off, and you become a message repeater to that network telling them not to vote for that politician, which in turn could echo from each of those 150 people in your network to the 150 people in their individual networks. That sort of math adds up quickly. Sure, it could be no more than a person two or three hops removed from you saying, "Yeah, I heard that guy was a real dickhead." But you'd be surprised how many people vote based on such vague hearsay. Definitely enough to cost someone an election.
Then you throw in the possibility that you might be the niece of their biggest campaign contributor, or that you might be one of those people Malcolm Gladwell talks about who has a personal rolodex of 5,000 contacts, and suddenly the math takes off even faster. They don't know, so better for them to play it safe and not piss you off.
House members have a much smaller pool of constituents than Senators, so they're much more vulnerable to the math. For state and city elected officials, even more so.
And what happens if they do piss you off? You and your 5-10 friends make up a simple flyer, go out to the Walmart/supermarket/mall whatever for a couple hours on an weekend and hand them out like crazy. Guarantee you'll get action then. I did it with three friends for two hours on a Saturday outside a supermarket in Greenwich Village last year after a snotty state senator told us she wasn't going to support legislative reforms (like being required to actually vote) in Albany. Next day I got a nasty call from her Chief of Staff asking us what the f*ck we thought we were doing. Apparently they had gotten 2-300 phone calls from their constituents asking her to change her position. I asked her if I could quote the senator on that, and forward it to a friend at the Village Voice (a widely read paper in NY). I also said we were prepared to do the same every weekend until she changed her mind. We heard through the grapevine that the woman was so panicked that she complained to the chairman of the state party; the story pretty much reverberated throughout the state. Ultimately when the reforms came to a vote, she voted for them. 4 people, two hours, vote changed, reforms passed, worst legislature in country cleaned up.
You can make a difference, but complaining about it on Slashdot doesn't do anything. Writing letters to congressmen does make more of a difference than you think, but it's still not much. Small groups of people can make a big difference if you do it right. I'm no expert, but I've been through lots of experiences like the one above and have some idea about what works and what doesn't. Drop me a line at dakong27 at yahoo.com.
Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't wait for these dinosaurs to kick off and shut the f*sk up.
People have been saying this for 30 years.
Actually, it's more like a century. Since the first recordings came out, there have been new technical advances in recording and playback equipment every few years. It's hard to find a single advance that didn't get this reaction from the companies making money from the older technology. Almost always, they try to ban the sale of new equipment to anyone except themselv
Re:HAHAHA (Score:2)
Re: Bucket. (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, but that's not a Customary Historic Use of buckets.
Re:Oy (Score:2)
Re:Oy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:RIAA Mandate? (Score:2)
Re:RIAA Mandate? (Score:2)
They're a trade group composed of the recording industry oligopoly.
They wield lawyers and bribe money the way the Bush Administration wields the US Military.
Re:RIAA Mandate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all US record labels are members of the RIAA, though it often acts as if they are. Their list of members [riaa.com] is rat