|
|
| The MP3 Blue Jacket and My Copyright Solution |
 |
|
Monday, July 26 2004 @ 04:50 PM EDT
|
Here's something new. A jacket that plays MP3s: "Infineon Technologies AG and German clothing manufacturer rosner GmbH & Co. said Monday that they have jointly developed a men's jacket, known as mp3blue, that contains built-in mobile telephony via Bluetooth and an MP3 player. A textile keyboard on the sleeve controls the electronic features. The product is scheduled to become available for order on the Internet in August at www.mp3blue.de.
"Electrically conductive fabric is sewn into the mp3blue jacket. It's connected to a compact electronics module and a textile keyboard on the left sleeve. The headphones and the microphone are integrated into the collar. The module contains an MP3 player with 128 Mbytes of memory, a Bluetooth gateway to control a mobile telephone, and a rechargeable battery that can supply power for up to eight hours. When the wearer of the jacket places a telephone call, the stereo system becomes a headset and the music is automatically interrupted when calls come in. To wash the jacket, it's necessary to remove the electronics module from its holder." Somebody better tell Orrin Hatch. He's so busy trying to batten down the hatches for the music industry, he may have missed this one. He'll have a cow.
The INDUCE Act (Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act), which was supposed to breeze through Congress while no one was looking, got placed on a slower track, which you can read about on Corante with more details on Law Meme, which provides a list of attorney Ernest Miller's writings on the subject and a list of the hardware INDUCE would allegedly outlaw. INDUCE would make it a crime to aid, abet, or induce copyright infringement. EFF pointed out that companies like Apple could conceivably be sued for inventing the iPod and inducing its customers to infringe copyrights: "Because the Induce Act defines 'intent' as being 'determined by a reasonable person taking into account all relevant facts,' it's unlikely that a technology company like Apple would be able to easily dismiss any lawsuit brought against it. It would face the prospect of an expensive trial, with all the attendant legal fees and negative publicity. One such company, SonicBlue, recently fought against a group of copyright holders in court over its ReplayTV and spent close to $1,000,000 per month in legal fees alone. In essence, this means that copyright owners can use the 'inducement' theory to inflict an arbitrarily large penalty on any tech company that builds a device they don't like." Imagine such a bill in the hands of SCO. They'd be in court forever and a day. And no hope for summary disposition either. Your "intent" can never be a matter of law, I don't think, so it'd be a fact issue for a jury. A SCO dream come true. Well, that seemed to get folks' attention. Nobody dares to try to rip peoples' iPods out of their hands. So they've been having hearings on INDUCE, they being the Senate Judiciary Committee. You might be interested to know that the representative from the Copyright Office, MaryBeth Peters, the first witness, testified that the bill is superlatively wonderful, except it doesn't go far enough, and that actually Congress really should just overturn the Betamax case. It seems in the digital age, Betamax is extra baggage. Say, who pays her salary? If you would like to read her remarks, here you go. Actually, she needn't worry about VCRs and such. I believe the DRM conspirators have a plan to cripple Betamax anyway. Mr. Hatch introduced the bill, saying: "Criminal law defines 'inducement' as 'that which leads or tempts to the commission of crime. Some P2P software appears to be the definition of criminal inducement captured in computer code." Seth Finkelstein writes that copyright is broken and no one knows what to do about it: "By this, I don't mean something silly, not property-is-theft. Rather, I mean something deep, that the technological change has completely disrupted the extremely complex set of functional compromises that made copyright work in practice (for example, formerly being almost entirely a restriction on businesses, but now turning into a control on users and technology development). . . . "The problem is that there may be no equitable solution which both preserves openness and current industry profits. Repeating that these both should be served, doesn't make it so. We have improvement in the ability to exchange information again colliding with a social regime which says information must be controlled." The screaming rush to pass INDUCE is most likely the Grokster case. The very first article I wrote for Groklaw was about that case, and I covered the oral arguments on appeal in February as well, briefly. A more thorough analysis is here. A ruling is expected soon, and the music industry may be worried. Media coverage of the oral arguments seemed to feel that the music industry lost. If you can't win under old laws, write something to suit. The judge in the Grokster case pretty much said that was the industry's only hope against Grokster, suggesting that maybe Congress could change the law if it wanted to, but until it did, he felt bound by the Supreme Court's Betamax ruling, given the facts in this case. Well, some in Congress wanted to, and that is exactly what they are trying to do. Now that more people have had time to actually notice this bill's details, however, and many see INDUCE as attacking technology innovation, a stand-back has begun. Even the BSA has begun to distance itself. Hatch asked for better language from his opponents, so Mr. Miller has provided alternative language for him. Reading about the new jacket and how copyright is broken and all, I started to muse and here is my suggestion on how to deal with copyright infringement, if Mr. Hatch would like another suggestion. If the jacket were to let one download mp3s, not just listen to them, or heavens! even share, my suggestion is that if the wearer is caught in such criminal behavior, we chop off the electrified sleeve, arm and all. That should be a sufficient deterrent. As for those brainiacs who keep stretching techonology to do more than the Congresscritters can keep up with, I think a public beheading would be fitting. On TV and available on the Internet. Unfortunately, Mr. Valenti retired before getting to be the first with the hood and saber, but Mr. Hatch might ask him to come out of retirement briefly for the ceremonial first beheading. The screams alone should terrify all those criminally induced kids watching what is in store for them. That should take care of those unnecessary brains that keep interfering with people's profits. These guys just know too much. Brains are stored inside the head, aren't they? I think the solution is obvious. You think my solution is too extreme? Surely you jest. We are at a crossroads here. It's people or profits. What are people compared to profits? And the real problem isn't hardware or copyright, after all. It's thoughts. Thinking. If we could just control people's thoughts, we'd solve this problem at the core. The problem is the ability to think up new ways to use technology. We just can't have that and keep the music industry execs in BMWs. So, I say no more mollycoddling. Let's strike at the heart of the conspiracy and solve the copyright problem once and for all. The music industry's problem is P2P is an idea. And it's a better method of music distribution. Not better for them, of course, under their old business model. But better in every other way. How do you stomp on an idea, when as Thomas Jefferson wrote, "[t]he moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one"?
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." -- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813. Of course, Jefferson probably hadn't thought of my solution, creative thinker though he was. It is, after all, the fundamental cure to the spread of new ideas, and I hope Mr. Hatch recognizes it as the ultimate solution he is looking for to the problem he wishes to solve.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
| Please put all my mistakes right here. Thanks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John M. Horn on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
Just great! Somehow this bill slipped by unnoticed. Thanks for letting us know
PJ! I find it difficult to believe they were going to try to pass this one
before the November election. There are a LOT of mp3 users out there. Shucks,
the DVD player I just bought this last weekend is an mp3 player as well...
John Horn
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
Here is some space for interesting links
---
When people start to comment on the form of the message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 06:54 PM EDT |
You know, I come to Groklaw to read about SCO. When you discuss German
fashion trends, you lose all credibility. Get with the program!
P.S.
All trolls and off-topics in this thread, please! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
| Why is this nut job Hatch still in office? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJP on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
or so thinks Orin Hatch. The probem is, he doesn't understand what he is talking
about. He thinks "P2P" is some new fangled thing designed specifically
to steal music or video.
But P2P is as old as computing. It just hasn't been widely used on home PCs
until now.
Ban P2P technology as a class and all sorts of things go - such as SMTP (e-mail)
for a start.
The root cause of the problems exemplified by this bill is the tendancy which
has grown and grown over the past few years for governments to not simply
criminalise specific acts (It is illegal to steal), but to write laws to
restrict people's freedoms in ways which make it more difficult (they would like
to think impossible) to commit the act.
Add to this the increasing complexity of technoloty, and the apparently
decreasing IQ of elected representatives and there is a real problem.
PJ's solution is not so far fetched as it might seem - she is ahead of her time,
that's all.
The core of current "IP" thinking is all about ideas. The first
attempt will be to stop you exploiting ideas that someone else already had the
money to patent. The next will be to outlaw the possibility of "little
people" being able to have ideas (other than authorized ones) to begin
with.
Talk with your candidates before November. If any of them believe this sort of
law is a good idea you know what to do about it. Better a Democrat/Republican
representative than one who believes in his heart that you are not to be trusted
and must be controlled.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 07:03 PM EDT |
Pretty sure it had buttons on the sleeve too, wired to your iPod in a special
pocket.
Around $400 if memory serves.
Anyway...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
Hatch asked for better language from his opponents. The best language for this
kind of thing is none. No matter how you state a bad idea, its still a bad idea.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
You know, I still find it amazing that the free (and better, IMHO) Ogg and
Ogg-Vorbis music encoding/playback schemes are not included into all these
"mp3 player" products as a matter of course. One would think that it
would be a no-brainer for the tech-toy people to see that they could caputre a
lot of people like myself (DRM antagonistic tech-toy-o-philes) by adding what is
essentially a "completely free" (both senses) codec.
/sigh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Simon G Best on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
Oooh, I enjoyed reading your rant :-)
If your rulers carry on denying
freedom in order to preserve and increase control and financial gain, you'll end
up having an American revolution - but didn't you already have one a couple of
centuries or so ago?
Oh, and what's that statue that greets people as
they sail into New York? I was trying to think the other day what it is. You
know, the big, green one, holding a flaming torch.
Is it the Statue of
Profit? That would seem fitting for modern America. Or the Statue of Property?
She is, after all, in possession of a flame - which, given what Thomas
Jefferson wrote, would fit nicely with stronger protection for intellectual
property. Oh, except she's holding it high, for all to see, rather than keeping
her light under a bushel.
Or is she offering to sell herself to the
highest bidder?
Oh! I remember: she's the Statue of Liberty!
And the United States is the Land of the Free. But I must have got
that wrong, otherwise you wouldn't have things like software patents, and so
on.
Not that things are looking that much better here in the European
Union. The last draft for the Directive on the Patentability of
Computer-Implemented Inventions I read was certainly extreme (and worded to
pretend the opposite).
Although bloody revolutions would not be good, I
am increasingly wondering if it might be necessary for the Free Software and
Open Source movements to actively go on the offensive in some way. Obviously,
bloody revolutions would not be the right way, but purely defensive approaches
are seeming less and less sufficient.
---
Open and Honest - Open
Source
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
I think that it is a telling thing that no real coverage of this seems to be
broadcast in the news. You would think that people would want to know that their
iPods and VCRs are about to be illegal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ihawk on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
I still think we should help the RIAA and Hatch-ettes everywhere protect the
Holy IP. Let them keep it. Let them lock it up tight because ideas are, after
all, viral. As Jefferson pointed out, once an idea is loosed upon the world, it
can't be dispossessed. So the DRM types should take the music and the movies and
the ideas and all their precioussssss IP and lock it up in a vault. That way, no
one can "steal" it from them. No one can deprive them of their profit
by accidentally hearing a song on a boom-box on the subway.
So patronize independent artists and musicians who aren't afraid to participate
in the new century and ignore the rest. The RIAA need us, but we don't need
them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 07:43 PM EDT |
Mr.Hatch is going all out for the music and movie monopolies. They nor Mr.Hatch,
it seems, care anything about rights, lost jobs or dead business because of
'INDUCE'.
I have one thing to tell Mr.Hatch, if he owns a camera ?, digital or film, he
will be subject to his INDUCE !. Cameras are like anyother 'recording' device.
You make a 'record' of what you see, you can copy it many times and allow others
(in a format) to do the same. So, copyrights are in danger too by a simple
camera !. Art as, paintings, drawings; technology as, machines, building
structures; and works as printed books and papers, other photographs.
Sorry Mr.Hatch, you will need to give up YOUR cameras too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 07:48 PM EDT |
The first product of the Grokstore should be the The Groklaw MP3Blue Jacket.
It could come in editions for each of the cases, Blue for IBM, Red for Novell,
Silver for Chrysler, and Santa Cruz yellow for the RedHat case since SCOG is the
defendant. If Baystar goes after SCO that one could be black in recognition of
the Deathstar and the dark side of the "pure financial animals"
You could probably get permission for the companies to use their Logo's, except
of course form SCO who would probably accuse you of stealing the IP. You might
even get permission to use the Unix Logo and surely Tux would cooperate, you
might even make a formal TUX-sudo version.
The downside is SCOG would probably sue you for putting millions of lines of
Unix code in the pocket.
On the other had you would probably make more profit than SCOG just on the sales
to the defense teams for all of the SCOG opponents. That has got to be a couple
of hundred people.
These would be very popular at the first Grokfest.
True geek fashion.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: scott_R on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
I've just avoided this whole mess. I haven't gotten any new music in almost 2
years, by any means. I used to buy a CD or two every week. (And I'm over 30,
so this isn't just me "growing up", it's a firm declaration of my need
for freedom.) Add the dollars up. As for movies and DVD's, damn near the same
thing. I don't really miss them much, either, and cable and radio fill in just
fine. Once in a while I'll rent something I really want to see, but that's only
happened maybe 6 times in the last 2-3 years.
I'd love to support good artists, but I refuse to support people who want to
steal my rights. I won't download something, because that hurts the artist AND
helps the people that want to take away my freedom. So, I've just left the
market. Sound familiar? It should, it's part of the reason I use Linux now, as
well.
If most people did this same thing, and remained firm, within a matter of months
the companies involved would be forced to cave in. Perhaps not much, but
anything is better than the situation we have now, where the RIAA/MPAA has more
power than law enforcement. Put simply, complain, don't buy, and let the
RIAA/MPAA figure it out for themselves.
Just my opinion, but I can't see any $20 CD or DVD being worth the problems we
have now, and are facing in the future, if we let this continue. They need
money to justify their efforts, and one thing we can do (besides voicing our
opinion to politicians and others) is take away their source of income. Sorry
artists, but until enough of you are hurt by such a move, those dollar signs
will continue to cloud your vision, even though you only get a tiny fraction of
the money involved.
Okay, somebody help me off this soapbox, okay? :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Unfortunately it adds up as 'piracy' - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 08:00 PM EDT
- My solution, simple and straightforward, if not perfect - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 08:14 PM EDT
- My solution, simple and straightforward, if not perfect - Me to. - Authored by: garbage on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 09:25 PM EDT
- My solution, simple and straightforward, if not perfect - Authored by: mr.mighty on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 09:55 PM EDT
- An Even Better Solution... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 10:14 PM EDT
- Throwing out the baby with the bathwater - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 12:20 AM EDT
- I'll help you off! - Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 12:24 AM EDT
- Where this argument falls wwwaaaayyy flat - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 12:46 AM EDT
- Needed: National Don't Buy Music Week - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 12:50 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
Hatch stated "Criminal law defines 'inducement' as 'that which leads or
tempts to the commission of crime.
IANAL, but I am very curious. Certainly parking a popular expensive car in a
public lot (such as a supermarket or train station or popular restaurant) can be
seen as something that tempts some people to commit the crime of grand theft.
How can it be argued that creating technology that makes it easy to transfer MP3
files be a temptation to commit the crime of theft, but building a parking lot
next to the on-ramp of a superhighway that makes it easy to steal nice cars not
be a temptation to the commission of the crime of theft?
Those behind the DMCA and other such horrors seem to stess again and again that
software is not different from hardware. Yet they apply hardward-like
patentability to software, and apply literature-like copyright to software.
Isn't this rather inconsistent?
And why are companies known for stealing (Microsoft in particular) given such
high status by lawmakers. Sure, they make lots of money. But so do other
successful criminals. Why are software companies who regularly steal IP given
such reign over those who do not?
I guess IWNBAL (I will never be a lawyer), being so perplexed by these
questions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5284190.html
Judge blocks sales of unlicensed DVD chips
By John Borland
CNET News.com
and this is Before induce act
think what is going to happen after that is passed
---
br3n
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw
"sco's proof of one million lines of code are just as believable as the
raelians proof of the cloned baby"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 08:29 PM EDT |
Few of you know that Orrin writes music. Unfortunately, he has been in DC
tooooo long. He, like so many others, think that they are sent to represent
their own interests, rather than their electorate's. I am an architect, and my
designs are not subject to copyrights. Anyone else can copy (and have) those
designs without fear. I just don't understand why my work should not be
protected, when other 'artists' work is. I am not proposing that my designs be
able to be copyrighted, quite the contrary; I don't want the music and video
industries to be beset by the likes of Bill Gates, Darl McBride, and
unfortunately Orrin Hatch. He should represent his constituents, not his
special interests; but he is no better than Brent (what a surprise).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- O. Hatch, SCO, and music... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 09:14 PM EDT
- Professional Guilds - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 09:18 PM EDT
- O. Hatch, SCO, and music... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 09:19 PM EDT
- O. Hatch, SCO, and music... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 12:20 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: whig on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 08:30 PM EDT |
| Read Proudhon's essay, What is
Property? before you cast stones. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
I don't illegally copy music, software, videos, etc., Never have. Never will.
I personally have great sympathy with authors who wish to control their works
thru copyrights. My own work, which I wrote, and which forms the basis of my
living, has been ripped off many times, both by businesses (including at least
one case of a business wilfully doing it for profit) and by individuals. When
this has occurred, my goal has been to get the infringing activity to stop, not
to try to get a massive windfall thru the courts a la SCO.
All that said, I have little sympathy with the RIAA's tactics (for example
picking on students), extending the law, or Hatch's silly proposal.
But all that said, what I sometimes find uncomfortable is the juxtaposition of
the RIAA and SCO in many media articles and comments.
This is a comparison that SCO themselves have long sought: You only need to look
at SCO's May 2003 letter, or the number of times that Darl McBride has mentioned
the RIAA in his rants.
The comparison is false.
Evne though we may not like the RIAA. Even though we feel there are various
faults with the RIAA (monopolistic type practises, limited compensation to
artists, etc). There are still two reasons why the RIAA has a legitimate (in
the legal sense, not necessarily moral sense) in at least some of their cases:
(1) RIAA are representing the copyright holders,
(2) the RIAA-represented copyrights are being infringed
(3) RIAA seek to stop infringing activity.
These three points seem to be the *exact* opposite of SCO.
Point (1) SCO is not the copyright holder in the various public standards they
seek to assert rights over, and it is doubtful (to put it mildly) they have the
copyrights on the non-public aspects of UNIX,
Point (2) SCO's rights, if any, are not being infringed to their knowledge.
Even SCO themselves admit point (2) in court (but not elsewhere) by filing a
rule 56f motion to IBM's PSJ motion, and saying they need discovery to identify
infringements.
Point (3) SCO do not seek to stop supposedly infringing activity. They don't
want to litigate against Red Hat at all. Instead they want to demand a license
fee from each of Red Hat's users. It's as if the RIAA didn't seek to stop
people (the file servers) illegally distributing their files via Kazaa etc., but
instead said all-Kazaa users must pay RIAA $699.
In short, comments that SCO is like the RIAA is not correct, reinforces the
argument that SCO seeks to assert in the media (but not in court), and concedes
things that we should never concede.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
P.S.
I realize Groklaw covers a broader spectrum of topics than just SCO. So I'm NOT
bashing PJ for covering whatever she chooses to cover, about any topic (e.g. she
covers patents too). I'm just saying that we shouldn't let SCO position
themselves as the RIAA-equivalent for Linux - they aren't.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- RIAA v SCO - Authored by: captainhaddock on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 09:45 PM EDT
- RIAA v SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 09:56 PM EDT
- RIAA v SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 06:59 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: captainhaddock on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
The notion of copyright as it is today, that corporations can release data,
music and ideas far and wide, on CDs, on the public airwaves, on TV, and so
on, and then demand the right to control what we do with them is
unworkable. Unless They control everything I do with my computer,
everything I see, everything I listen to, and everything I *think*, the system
is
unworkable.
Ultimately, it's either Guaranteed Corporate Profits (for a select few) or
Guaranteed Individual Freedom.
Choose one.
It's time for the corporations to adapt. Here are a few ways to get started:
1. Sell services and value instead of just software and music.
2. Arrange voluntary copyright contracts with your business partners and
competitors instead of bribing politicians for tyrannical laws.
3. Embrace open source, it's good for more than just software.
4. Give up the idea that society *owes* you a profit. You have to earn those
yourself.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 09:45 PM EDT |
If anybody has a copy of any filings after IBM 206, please, please, pretty
please post a link
Thanks in advance, I would be very grateful
Quatermass
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 10:33 PM EDT |
"The problem is that there may be no equitable solution which both
preserves openness and current industry profits. Repeating that these both
should be served, doesn't make it so. We have improvement in the ability to
exchange information again colliding with a social regime which says information
must be controlled."
I didn't see anything in the constitution saying that protecting current
industry profits was a goal of copyright law. It seems to me that protection of
profits that hinders innovation would be unconstitutional.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chaz_paw on Monday, July 26 2004 @ 10:59 PM EDT |
To all fellow Groklawers:
Just today, I have installed and am running Suse 9.1. I
did have another distro that I tried and absolutely hated
from the start. I know it is really too early to tell, but
I really, really, really like Suse.
The other installation was slow, and it seemed to get
worse the more I tried. Suse is fast and, so far (fingers
crossed), so good.
I had to share this little tidbit with you all. Thanks for
all the encouragement, said and unsaid, in the past.
Did I mention I really, really, really like Suse?
---
IAFTL- I am finally trying Linux.
Charles[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Franki on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 01:19 AM EDT |
How long will it be, till MP3 players come out that have wireless conectivity,
and whenever your in a hotspot, you can join a P2P network with it directly with
no inconvienent PC in the way, and you can download songs directly from Kazza or
one of the others directly??
If the record companies would get of their collective butts here, there could be
a huge bonus in it for them, because the above is surely the way its going.
I am not much of a filesharer, I tried a couple years ago, and lost interest, so
I am not one of the filthy open source users that don't respect copyright that
ADTI keeps going on about. (though I am a filty open source user :-) )
But lets be honest, this is the way its going, convergance is upon us already,
you can do that now if you have a sharp Zaurus or another upspec PDA, how long
is it going to be till all MP3/WMA/ACC players can directly connect and retrieve
music?
And when it happens, the record companies will howl like crazy because they were
to lazy to provide what people wanted, and those people went and did it anyway.
For that matter, if the record companies really wanted to embrace the future, or
perhaps just the present, why not make use of current technology? looking at the
current dual layer DVD burners that are doing the rounds, it seems perfectly
feasable to make a full CD worth of music into a disk about an inch or less in
diameter. A disk that would be small enough to slot into any Music player that
was designed to fit it. for that matter, they could probably make a player for
the disk that fits into a compact flash slot, meaning existing players could use
it.
Just some blue skying, but wouldn't it be nice if the record companies were run
by people with an actual love of technology that extended beyond just using it
to block peoples rights of fair use.
regards
Franki
---
Is M$ behind Linux attacks?
http://htmlfixit.com/index.php?p=86[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Pat Pending on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 01:23 AM EDT |
Musicians are just the doormat of the world, aren't we?
On one hand, we've
been exploited endlessly by the business, a sickening meat grinder run by
vampires, from the club owners up.
On the other hand, the public are sick
of paying way too much for product and getting treated like criminals by the
aforementioned ghouls. Musicians occupy the middle.
I recommend anyone
looking for a taste of our glamorous jet-set lifestyle read
this:
http://www.thebaffler.com/albiniexcerpt.html
(Pay special
attention to part III: There's This Band)
So, if nothing else, support your
independent musician!
---
Thanks again, [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jamBeault on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 01:33 AM EDT |
Hello PJ,
A truly "Modest Proposal." 8^)
jam
---
Pax, Slack, Blessed be[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tydyed on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 02:20 AM EDT |
Gasp! PJ!!! This is Senator Hatch we are talking about here, the one who
thought it was acceptable to give the RIAA the power to remotely destroy anyones
computer that they suspected of file sharing and copyright violation! I would
not put it past him to propose beheading those intelligent enough to think up
better technology!
---
An older member of the "GNU" generation![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 02:38 AM EDT |
If "Induce" becomes a criminal act, then the sale of guns should also
be forbidden ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardcode57 on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 03:43 AM EDT |
<I think a public beheading would be fitting. On TV and available on the
Internet.>
But PJ, who would own the rights to the images? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Greebo on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 03:55 AM EDT |
| If you cut through all the FUD on this issue it comes down to just 1 thing
:
Company Profits
There will always be new technologies that come
along to make it easier to do a certain thing,. People will always be free to
think and come up with new ideas.
The Music companies are worried because
they see their old, highly profitable, price fixing, fleece the consumer,
business model going out the window, so they are lobbying hard to get *anything*
that could make copies made illegal in law.
But they are missing the point
completely.
I beleive that people copy because they are fed up with the high
price of music / dvd's.
I for one would much rather own an original, but
it is much to expensive a lot of the time. A DVD here in Europe is about 20
euro for a new title. A new CD album is about 15 euro. The music companies
make a massive profit on this. A more realistic price would be 5-10 Euro for a
DVD and 2-3 Euro for a CD. We all nkow these things cost pennies to
make!
Now how many of us would wait for hours for a DVD to download off the
web if you could walk to your nearest store and but the latest title for 5-10
euros?
This approach has been validated by Apples iTunes. People are
willing to pay for music/films if they are reasonably priced.
Lets hope the
corporations wake up and smell the roses. Sure their profits go down, but then
people will buy more music and some balance will be reached.
Oh, and the
same applies to software. If M$ priced it's software at what it was
actually worth, say 40 euros for Win XP Pro, then i would be quite happy buying
that. I'm *not* going to fork out 400 euros for something that ties me into
every propritary standard M$ has.
So now i have Suse Linux, and i
payed for it, because i felt i was getting value for money. Thanks Bill, for
pricing windows at such a stupid price that i looked into Linux! I should have
done it years
ago.
Greebo. ---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Galik on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 04:37 AM EDT |
So it's okay to make guns and sell them in supermarkets and that doesn't induce
people to crime but you can't make photocopiers and sell them to people because
they do induce people to criminal activity? Did I miss stuff here?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Guns okay - yeah - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 11:28 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 05:29 AM EDT |
Why?
The guy is a maniac.
First he wants to allow RIAA to distroy
people's computers with viruses, and now this.
Soon he'll start setting up Copyright Infringers' Camps.
Who's voting for this idiot?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: k9 on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 06:21 AM EDT |
| Given the esteemed senator's impressive record of intellectual consistency, I
would assume he's also in favor of more gun control. On the grounds that
possession of firearms tends to induce people to commit crimes that they
otherwise would not.
Hey, look, here's an Economi
st article (sub req'd) where he's mentioned: "Though the killings of nine
people last October by a sniper in the suburbs of Washington, DC, led to calls
for tougher gun laws, the Republican chairman of the Senate judiciary committee,
Orrin Hatch, this month proposed a bill to overturn a ban on private ownership
of handguns that has been in force in the American capital since 1976". And
here he is in a recent statement to the Senate:
"Arbitrarily taking guns away from law abiding citizens does not assist the
President in making the neighborhoods of America safer".
What? He wants
less gun control? I'm shocked, truly shocked! Surely it can't be true
that it be that Orrin Hatch is just a hypocrite of the first order, with no
consistent sense of ethics, who on any issue simply takes the side which has the
most effective and cash-disbursing lobby? But if he's not, why is he now arguing
that arbitrarily taking technology away from law abiding citizens will assist
the President in protecting the works of artists and companies in the creative
industries?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gbl on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 07:20 AM EDT |
Copyright laws have always operated with the implicit understanding that the
cost of reproduction was significant. When Holbien got his Act passed to
protect his cartoons, the cost of a printing press was a significant impediment
to widespread copyright abuse. It was relatively simple for Holdiens lawyers to
target the few presses that were ripping off his pictures.
Now, the cost of reproduction is very close to zero and many people do not
understand why they can't copy music that they hear for free on the radio.
Deep down this battle is over two different views of the value of a tune. The
public assigns almost no value to a pop tune whereas the record industry assigns
a high value to the same tune. It will be impossible to change these two views
without radical changes to the music industry.
---
If you love some code, set it free.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nivuahc on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
Why doesn't someone come up with a GPL for music? A license to copy and
distribute. Make it to where it can't be used for commercial purposes without an
additional license but, for personal use, the M-GPL enables the person to copy,
download, burn CD's, distribute it to others...
It would seem that such a license would solve a lot of problems. Not to mention
that it would enable the actual artists to make the money off of their 'art'
through concerts and commercial licensing.
I don't know... it's early, I just started my first cup of coffee...
---
My Doctor says I have A.D.D... He just doesn't understand. It's not like... Hey!
Look at that chicken![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: techgrrl on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 10:32 AM EDT |
There is a book I would urge everyone to read:
The Anarchist in the
Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control is Hacking the Real World and
Crashing the System
This is an excellent discussion of exactly how our
'fair use' rights are being taken away by the corporate interests, and exactly
how the DMCA and other laws are being used to create restraint of trade and
monopolization by means that bypass most of the consumer protection laws and
anti-monopoly laws already in place. Not to mention skipping right over the
First Amendment!
Do we really think that Congress' intent was to protect
the monopoly position of a garage door manufacturer? Or take away the right of
consumers to buy non-branded printer ink? The next logical step is for the auto
manufacturers to add chips to oil filters, and take away the ability to use FRAM
in your Chevrolet!
The 'suits' in all the companies don't realize that
free access to 'stuff' doesn't mean lost sales; quite the contrary. BAEN BOOKS
has made it's backlist available for free downloads; it has PROVEN that this
INCREASES sales for those books, and the rest of the authors' canon! People try
something out, they like it, and they go buy it.
The last couple of
days, I have spent hours and hours ripping my CD collection to harddrive in
preparation for buying a portable jukebox. And burning some new CD's for use in
the car and at the office. I'm doing what Apple says to do: "Rip, Mix, Burn".
Does Orrin Hatch really think I shouldn't have the ability to do this, since I
PAID for those CD's??? I am not selling millions of copies, nor am I even
sharing with a friend.
I use MusicMatch Plus, and I subscribed to their
'Music on Demand' service. So I was able to try out a couple of albums I wasn't
sure of. I then went to Amazon to BUY the albums. If I only wanted ONE TRACK,
I could have bought it from MusicMatch, although there would be some
restrictions on how I could use it. FREX, I couldn't make an MP3 out of it to
load on just any device.
Anyway, the point is, this is pure
anticonsumer, pure 'protect the current profits', and congresscritters are
driven by contributions. Another great book to read is by Fareed Zakaria: The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home
and Abroad which ties nicely into the other book and pretty much throws the
whole problem into stark relief.
The question on the table is, will the
American Public continue to go quietly to the slaughter while the politicians
sell us down the river to the big corporations? I am reminded of a science
fiction book that pretty much foresaw this: The Space Merchants by Frederick Pohl and
C.M. Kornbluth[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 10:56 AM EDT |
Opportunity to do something about this problem.
Have music sales drop, don't buy any CDs, not even a song, for six months and
see how big Mr.Hatch looks in the eyes of the RIAA. RIAA depends on individuals
buying monthly; not buying for six months would destroy a great deal of needed
profits.
I do not have to buy anything for that matter, only those things I need. No law
can make me buy otherwise !. A slowdown in buying (U.S.) about 2 years or so
ago, was a bad time for retailers, at the high point of the slowdown, they knew
nothing they could do, to get buying back on track again: They were powerless !.
Point is keep your money and spend it on other things then movies and music.,
Just for six months !.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thanks! - Authored by: Pat Pending on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 11:29 AM EDT
- Thanks! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 02:23 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 11:52 AM EDT |
| FYI Orrin Hatch is Brent Hatch's father. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
Who do we vote for.
Who do we donate to.
Who can we pressure during the critical pre-election period to committing to our
agenda.
Let's get organized. We need an organizational website.
PJ -- you would make a good leader.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
You really should check out Larry Lessig and his book Free Culture which PJ has
even read some for.
http://free-culture.org/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ujay on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
There are a number of things I would like to point out. The first item is that
the RIAA do not create any music, yet they claim to own the copyrights to the
musicians work. Are musicians required to sign over thier rights to the RIAA
before they can be recorded and distributed. If this is the case, I can see a
probable case involving the RICO act.
The RIAA is a collection of businesses that are services to the musicians, such
as recording, manufacture and distribution. As the manufacturer, they have
certain rights to thier physical product, and I have no problem with them
enforcing those rights where applicable. Some sucker creating CD's and selling
them for profit is a clear violation of the rights of the manufacturer.
Joe Average, making a copy of a CD to play in the car is not infringing the
manufacturers rights. Having a party where all your friends can hear the music
is not infringing thise rights. Singing songs around the campfire is not
infringing those rights.
The electronic distribution that is happening today has more wrinkles than a cat
has whiskers ( oops, I think I just infringed on Bob Heinlein), so I won't go
into that subject in much detail except to state that the technological
evolution that created the capacity for electronic distribution is a fact of
life that all people involved in work that has an electronic fromat need to take
into account, and adjust their business processes and habits accordingly.
Simply trying to legislate the demise of technology where it affects your
distribution chain is a no win scenario that will only damage a business in the
long run.
When the Patriot act was enacted, there were a number of assurances that it
would only be used against terrorists, and not in normal law enforcment. Today,
that no longer holds true. The FBI used the Partiot act at the behest of the
MPAA to invade a Stargate fan site. While I do not condone this site for having
downloadable clips and episodes, I fail to see how the Patriot Act applies in a
civil criminal matter dealing with copyright law on an American citizen. This
is a direct result of the RIAA and MPAA petitioning for the enforcement of
copyright to be a matter of the federal and State legal systems and enforcment
agencies, removing the cost from the MPAA/RIAA and placing it on the taxpayer.
I see the potential for this INDUCE act to follow a similar path, albeit in a
different area of constituional law, specifically the first amendment. It is
the right of all citizens to voice their dissent, approval, greivances and
opinions without the threat of imprisonment, censure or other legal
consequences, with the tacit provisio of not harming the public.
Earlier today, I saw a quick item on CNN, but as I had just woken up, was not
focused enough to get the full story. What little I gleaned was that a web site
had placed a movie using a South Park style John Kerry head jumping around over
different background images, while a parody of 'This Land' played in the
background. Apparently, the RIAA want this site shut down as it infringes on
their copyright of that song. CNN only covered it because it dealt with John
Kerry in an election year, I'm sure. Yet they did comment about parody and
political statement of this nature being exempt.
This INDUCE act, if enated, could very well be used in a case like this, where
it could be argued that the site itself induces others to create political or
other parodies and satires using legitimate copyrighted works. Any blog site
that contains controversial subject matter could conceivably fall under the
INDUCE act, such as inducing civil disobedience. Whle I have seen no mention of
inducement other than IP infringement in the act, an enactment of this nature
sets a precedent for enactment of similar vague application of law.
The holders of the most holy IP have no moral, ethical, constitutional, or other
qualms about using existing law against citizens on their behalf. If a law can
be used in any capacity whatsover to enforce their point, they will use it, and
pay off congress or whoever they need to to get it done.
---
IE is not a browser, it is a scream.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RPN on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
Billyshank is correct but unless my vague knowledge of such things and of the
birth of cassettes is off there is another factor too. With analogue there was
never any scheme I was aware of that could apply 'protection/copyright
management' with analogue so the industry had to give up pretty quickly on
technical grounds. However with digital recordings and the involvment of
processing in them the music/film industries got real hope they could apply such
controls. The fact the first attempts fell flat on their face very quickly
doesn't seem to have put them off at all. They are still convinced the
technology can provide the answer if they get clever enough.
Which of course is to ignore the human element, always very dangerous in
anything, and the fact people will keep finding ways round such nonsense while
they can then find alternatives. You can ignore your customers only so far and
my sense is that that boundary is not here yet but approaching fast. If they
don't change their approach they will die and it will be their own fault so I
certainly won't feel sorry for them.
Same is starting to apply in the software industry I think. Same problem.
Ultimately your customers rule. Period. You can only sell them so many features
and 'bells and whistles' , rip them off so far, product activate/copyright
protect/whatever so far. Keep ignoring them/not paying them enough attention and
you die. There are already companies I will not buy from again, including
Microsoft, for such reasons. Linux and FOSS is helping ensure there are plenty
of alternatives.
Richard Neil[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: philc on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 05:10 PM EDT |
Mark Twain go tit right. The ONLY time we Americans are safe is when congress is
not in session.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seeRpea on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
If you have a movie you would like to see at another time,
setup your camcorder to record the movie off the TV screen.
ps: nice to see that people picked up my post last week :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: techgrrl on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
A lot of the force driving copyright extensions is the fact that Mickey Mouse
and other such cash cows were close to becoming public domain. It seems that it
is a valid concern for an enterprise for something like that to suddenly be
'free'. Is there room for compromise, for example, allowing a company to
TRADEMARK something like Mickey Mouse, and so maintain control over something
that IS critical to the ongoing success of the enterprise? The executives
fiduciary responsibility would seem to demand SOMETHING be done to protect the
business!
Of course, that doesn't help the whole "Elvis' music is
approaching end of copyright" thing...what to do, what to do.
Could the
top legal minds of the FOSS movement (Stallman, Moglen, Lessig???) put together
a gathering to hammer out what SHOULD be in the laws to address a digital
world?
---
--
Reality is for those who can't handle science fiction [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick Bridge on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 11:36 PM EDT |
Can we refrain from bringing religion into these discussions?
I would vote for a complete ban.
The resulting chaos and vitriol from religious (and necessarily irrelevant)
posts only serves to undermine the credibility of the work done here.
Badly done.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 28 2004 @ 07:40 AM EDT |
Suppose there would be a device, an MP3 player, that allowed music (or file
sharing) trhough BlueTooth. To make it even more interesting, it could come with
the Audioscrobblerr plugin: http://www.audioscrobbler.com/index.php which builds
a music profile for me. Alternatively I can make a list of my own with music I
want. All communication anonymous and encrypted, of course.
As soon as the mp3 device 'discovers' someone with a similar music profile as
myself. Or I meet someone that has/needs the songs I have/need.
So I run into mister B.
1. Can I give a song of mine away to mister B?
2. Can we both give 1 song to each other ("trade")?
3. If we trade, does the original mp3 have to be deleted on our hard drives?
4. Can I give the song away for free, or charge for it. Do I *have* to charge
for it? What if I want to sell cheap or expensive?
5. What if we want to trade albums?
6. What is missing is: in this situation, how can the artist be 'payed'? Or does
my purchase of the original mp3 is sufficient?
In other words: what are my rights and my limits in such a situation?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 29 2004 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
I just had to laugh. The first sentence of one of the linked-to Register artcles
starts: "The Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) ..." Oh, that's
just too precious! And you have to suspect that they did that deliberately...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/08/20/riaa_mpaa_appeal_against_grokster/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ~tv~ on Saturday, August 21 2004 @ 05:39 PM EDT |
I have no sympathy with the recording companies. They had their time, but now we
have no need for middlemen. The music can flow from the artist straight to the
customer.
They had a role once: to find the best artists, to tell us about them and to
offer their works to us. The artist created, the companies selected and
distributed. Now, they _create_ "artists" and feed them down our
throats.
Technology allows us to find what we want and get it straight from its author.
The Titans are not needed any more. No wonder they fight their destiny.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
