Hardware Copy Protection Battles 375
substatica writes: "Law.com is running this article on the content industry working to convince congress that not introducing hardware copyright protection ( as well as copy protection built into OS, Software, Web Browsers and Routers ) would eventually lead to the "industry's destruction", as put by Michael Eisner. We've been able to copy VHS for over a decade and they're still making movies. Does anyone really think that the movie industry will be eradicated due to copyright infringment?" Consideration of the SSSCA has been put off a few months, but it will be back. The Register covers one part of the split between content and hardware with this story about Philips getting more uppity about their Compact Disc logo, a follow-up to this story. The Reuters article that the Register refers to is here.
Hardware and content companies usually the same (Score:5, Interesting)
It's possibly scary because now, instead of facing inertia from the electronics firms in terms of integrating DRM, now it changes the economics of the sitation, because now it will be in the hardware companie's best interests.
I don't know about this, but could this be perceived as possible anti-trust violation? Could you imagine if Microsoft bought a stake of a major PC maker?
Hmmm.
The only thing that will destroy the movie indstry (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Hardware and content companies usually the same (Score:0, Interesting)
Wow, and if they modified their OS to only run on that PC Maker's hardware they'd be almost as bad as Mac.
Cringes and waits for the flames and mod downs
Re:Good old Walt (Score:2, Interesting)
I find that most talented artists care more about sharing their talent with the world than they do about protecting it to the point of hiding it. It is those with less talent (i.e. Mettalica) that insist on holding all rights. I think a lot of the business that is Disney nowadays is all Eisner. He saved Disney from the crap Roy had done but at the same time he changed it from an artists studio to a multinational conglomerate.
Providing shit for us to do since 1823 (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand...if they do...we'll have plenty to keep us busy for a couple years!
Mandatory Computer Upgrades? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, if this gets passed, would we all be forced to upgrade our computers before we can legally log on to the internet? I can't imagine that most Americans would be able to afford this. Will the Cyber Police haul away Joe Poorman for not being able to afford an upgrade? And what about people in other countries? Could they use their old computers?
Re:Funny, I just got a letter from my Senator (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it possible that the industry already has a form letter written for the legislators or do all legislator's staff write the same thing?
The Great Lie (Score:4, Interesting)
The Great Lie is as follows: Without us (your friendly neighborhood content conglomerate) the entire well of human creativity would dry up!
Let me elaborate. They're saying that without the RIAA and it's member companies, nobody would create any more music! Without the MPAA and the big studios, we'd never see any more new movies. The Lie is that without big, greedy corporations continuing Business As Usual, nothing new or original would ever produced, ever.
History proves otherwise, though. Already we've seen small bands create their own music and give it away online, just for the exposure. In a few years of technological advancement, any talented bunch of people will be able to make their own "Hollywood style" movie at home. Writings? Ha! People will gladly write free work on any subject imaginable [fanfiction.net].
Heck, some people [somethingawful.com] even lose money bringing original content to the masses.
So you see, whatever happens, you can't stifle human creativity. No matter how hard you try. We don't need Them to entertain us anymore; and the only reason they're still around - the only reason they were ever around in the first place - is by our good graces.
Hardware copyright protection is already spec'ed (Score:5, Interesting)
It "trusts" the hardware from a special chip on the mainboard, which trusts the BIOS, which trusts the Harddisk bootblock, which trusts the OSloader, which trusts the OS, which trusts the software application, which trusts the stream. This is done through a "privacy certificate agency" that just identifies your pc uniquely (and really, we will not keep records of who you are, those will be destroyed after you've submitted your identity and we have checked it!)
Ofcourse, trust here doesn't mean that YOU can trust your PC, but that THEY can trust YOUR PC.
If this standard makes it, the opensource community has a big problem.
killing bambi (Score:3, Interesting)
Two things. One, such a statement is gross hyperbole.
But two, so what?! The argument IP proponents always make is that they need more and more government protection or their industry will suffer. Well maybe it should suffer. If you build a business method on an anachronism, you will, and should, suffer. You should suffer, because this is how the economy minimizes the amount of total suffering. Which is what lawmakers should really be concerned about. The economy as a whole - not particular outdated outliers.
Re:Our industry under threat (Score:3, Interesting)
The vehicle code in California (can't remember the article number on top of my head) states that all vehicles (including motor vehicles, obviously) must carry a bunch of straw in the trunk (for the horse, what do you think?)
I stumbled into this when I moved to California 4 years ago, and had to go to the department of motor vehicle for a written exam. There was a question which asked about this obscure article, and the choices were true or false. I thought someone must be kidding, and obvisouly, I got it wrong.
Re:The question is... (Score:4, Interesting)
P.S. I don't condone the existence on the above mentioned bands, it's just an example.
Real World Copyright Police (Score:5, Interesting)
Woman: "I'd like a copy of this please" (holds out inkjet print of a picture)
Attendant: "I'm sorry, but that picture is copyrighted. I can't copy it."
I was floored. I got really, REALLY angry for a moment, then started thinking: do these people have a neural link to the Library of Congress? How do they know it's copyrighted? What if it's public domain?
The woman was crestfallen. So I said:
"She might be planning to make Fair Use of that picture."
Attendant: "Still can't copy it. It's our policy. It's only Fair Use if it's educational."
To which I replied:
"or journalistic, or non-commercial and limited in other ways, or for criticism, or properly attributed. There are four criteria for Fair Use."
So I asked the lady, "what's it for, school report or something?" and she says yes, that her daughter was going to use it for school. So I turned to the attendant and said
"There you go, black-letter Fair Use."
He just shakes his head, still refusing.
Is this what we're looking forward to? Copyright police behind the counter at copy places? Taking an I.P. attorney's pager number along as well? I really felt bad for this lady. It was late and she looked very tired and the report was probably due the next day. I'm sure whoever made that picture would have filed an immediate Federal injunction to bar this woman's daughter from turning in her report before requesting a licensing fee schedule.
(uh huh). I actually considered going back to the office and making something similar in Bryce for her to use with a signed letter placing my picture in the public domain.
I kind of wished she had brought her daughter along. Imagine the media frenzy/public relations disaster possibilities of a copy place attendant, arms folded, refusing to copy a picture for a crying 5th grader's school report. heh heh heh.
It's sad, and it has absolutely *nothing* to do with the original purpose of copyright law. This needs to be fixed, and soon.
Re:The biggest problem I have with protection... (Score:3, Interesting)
I would like DRM legislation IF... (Score:2, Interesting)
...it was accompanied by 1) a significant increase in the definition of "fair use," and b) a serious reduction in the length of copyrights.
I like the musicians I listen to enough to pay them for their work. And I have little interest in making massive copies of the latest albums to distribute on the net for free. I understand that these people need to get paid for the investment they make in artists.
So they can put DRM stuff in my CD burner, I'm cool with that. But the trade off for them doing so is that they have to release their choke hold on creative works. I want copyrights that last for an absolute maximum of 10 years before the work goes into the public domain. I want to burn my sister one of my CDs for her birthday. I want to be able to remix tunes and post them on the Internet. Or add a soundtrack to my home movies.
Basically, if the content industry wants all of this additional ability to protect their copyright, I want something in return: COMPULSORY LICENSING. I have no issue with paying a nominal fee to these people so that I can remix their music and post it online as my own work. That seems rather fair to me.
It breaks down like this: copy protection is going to happen. There's too much money in it for the tech companies. Now as I see it, we have two choices here- we can either 1) fight this legislation, and spend valuable game playing time figuring out how to crack the latest encryption schemes, or b) utilize this opportunity to get some copyright laws that make sense.
Wanton copying and distribution is good! (Score:3, Interesting)
Why am I saying this? Because the biggest problem with the media today is that the producers, and the government, and especially the distributors exert entirely too much control over how and where their products are used, which is precisely the reason the US constitution was so specific regarding copyright and patenting. There is nothing inherently wrong with copying someone's idea or work, despite people's territorial urge to the contrary. Art and invention rest on foundations of previous ideas and works laid down over the years, to the benefit of everyone. The free dissemination of ideas enriches all involved and in turn allows further improvement and better understanding. Governments (or at least the US government) and companies have no business telling you whether and how you use that information - that's censorship. This is why allowing people to modify works is so important. Excerpting clips, commenting (via additional media tracks in the case of video), parodying, and most importantly translating (as in the case of fansubs) works allows people to fully utilize them.
The only argument (besides matters of national security like nuclear technology, or products of criminal acts like child porn) against allowing people to copy freely is that it would remove the profit motive (and how strongly the profit motive is relative to other factors is a matter of some controversy), thus encouraging secrecy or discouraging people from innovating altogether. Thus patents and copyrights are granted for only a set period of time to allow their makers to recoup their expenses. They are a bargain created to serve the public good by encouraging innovation and dissemination of those innovations. People used to understand that, but greedy companies and their lawyers have obscured that through intimidation (as in the case of Disney) and legal loopholes (as in the double whammy of restrictive software licensing and anti-circumvention legislation) to devastating effect.
(I apologize, this is a repeat of an earlier post I made on a story that was already off the front page - so I decided to reuse it)
They don't care about piracy (Score:2, Interesting)
Keep you eye on the prize, they say, and the prize is this: pay for play. These guys won't rest (because they're out for profit) until you are paying for every single viewing of their movies. This kind of legislation facilitates that and the piracy issue is a diversion to hide that fact.
It's a control thing.
I'm just waiting for their next trick when it becomes mandatory to watch their movies.
Re:Funny, I just got a letter from my Senator (Score:3, Interesting)
law.com is challenging us to do something (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know how many people noticed this part of the article at the end, but Mike Godwin at law.com clearly has a pretty poor opinion of the Hollings bill. And he's challenging us to take notice and do something. Are slashdot and the EFF going to bark all day like little doggies, or are they gonna bite?
What gets lost in the debate is the voice of consumers -- whatever they are called. Maybe they are willing to trade away open, robust, relatively simple digital tools for a more constrained digital world in which they have more content choices. But maybe they aren't. The Hollings bill is unlikely to attract them to the debate, pitched as a "security standard" rather than as a new copyright law.
Like the larger philosophical war that is raging around the world in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, the looming war between these two sides has the potential to be a long, difficult fight without a foreseeable conclusion. And if and when peace talks begin between the two sides, there's no guarantee that the rest of us will have a seat at the table.
Re:The question is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Men preached of equality and challenged the divine right of kings.
At stake was the right to earn a living from the land. Catching a rabbit on the Lords Hunting Chase was punishable by death in many places. Ordinary people were driven from common grazing and farming lands for the gentry to have it's hunting pleasure.
Brother fought against brother, father against son until down stepped the bishop and up went the weaver.
Although the Royalists regained some of their power the separation of church and state has continued to this day, where high ranking members of the Church of England have a part to play in the day to day running of the country.
Power can and will be defeated but the struggle will always continue.
Sequential Articles (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously, with how powerfully piracy affects the Asian market, piracy IS a legitimate matter for businesses to worry about financially. The real question isn't whether it affects them, but rather whether or not copy protection abuses the consumer far too much for businesses to be allowed to use it.
Re:Our industry under threat (Score:1, Interesting)