Copyright Protection

charlieg

Fair use has always been extended to making copies of items for safekeeping. For example, I spend $20 on a new CD. I copy it to use in my car, and I tuck away the original for a future day when the copy dies an untimely death for whatever reason. The DMCA would prevent a consumer for legally doing this. Before you say, "No it doesn't..." ask what happened to all of the DVD copying software. The DMCA in it's present form was used to shut down the makers of this s/w. Charlie Gilley Will program for food... Whoever said children were cheaper by the dozen... lied. My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.

Richard Andrew x64

Well, not being able to make a backup copy is not what has people so upset and emotional over this issue. I'm not saying you in particular, but some people use the "Fair Use" argument as a blanket code term meaning much less benign activities. There are people who argue that they are entitled to download free music simply because the record companies have "enough" money, in their opinion. This is clearly not a "Fair Use" argument. ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

peterchen

For me it's about respect. They respect me, I respect them. They get greedy, I get sneaky. I've always bveen a compulsory buyer. I still cannot enter a record store without purchasing at least something. Even when I was comparedly short on money, I "granted" myself one record a month. There is one personality I hate: control freaks. When I see through which hoops RIAA is willing to jump just to get control over my music habits, I am disgusted. They spend most of their time to make sure I don't get what they don't want me to get, instead of taking care I get exactly what I want. They treat me like a criminal everytime I pay €18..20 for 35..45 minutes of music. I still buy my fair share of music. But I will also keep that trusty 6 year old CD-ROM drive that yet has to fail to grab one "copyright-protected" disc.

Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist

Richard Andrew x64

Why is no one able to be objective about this issue? You say that for you it's a control issue. Everyone is just so emotional over this that it's hard to talk about it openly. ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

Shog9 0

Troposphere wrote:

Well, not being able to make a backup copy is not what has people so upset and emotional over this issue.

Wanna bet? I listen to music while i work. And i work a *lot*. So rather than constantly running the CD drive on my laptop, i rip all CDs after buying them, and listen to them that way. The actual CDs stay safe in their cases, opened only when i need to re-rip them or look at album art. This means that when something like Sony's "rootkit" copyprotection comes along, I will circumvent its attempts to restrict my use of the content, as i will not allow such software to be installed on my computer - especially not the development boxes connected to my employers network. This isn't a theoretical argument, or a thinly-veiled defense of piracy - this is how i listen to legally-purchased CDs, and if i'm prevented from doing so then i will no longer listen to CDs, period.

Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...

peterchen

You want cold facts? What about this one: The contract of a band with a publisher is exclusive, and everything has to go through the publisher. To get the music from this band, I can't pick a publisher whose service I like better. So free market doesn't work, and I am trying my best to put capitalism back into the music industry (Stan would be so proud of me :rolleyes: ) The cost of music is rising, while service doesn't improve. In a way, huge parts of the music industry simply doesn't offer the service I am willing to pay for. Instead of trying to figure out what I like, they tell me what I should like. Instead of scouting for the very music that wins my heart, they shape music to win most purses. Music, by nature, is emotional. I will always be emo about hearing music, about getting music, about a tune I one lost my heart to, ripping the plastic off a new CD and popping it into my CD-ROM drive. As Joel put it so well only recently, the job of the music industry is to create an illusion: the illusion that someone is singing personally for me and to me.

Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist

Ed Gadziemski

Chris Losinger wrote:

i'd be more surprised if they didn't

Because of the nature of the current Congress? Or because you think they should?

KwikiVac Vacuum Cleaner Supplies

charlieg

No offense taken. Besides my example, you've already had several others. What I would like is an even playing field. For example, if RIAA were to show up in my mailbox, my only recourse is (a) send them a check for $3K or (b) find them in court and send $30K to lawyers. If I win, I have a Pyrrhic victory. If I lose, then I lose big. RIAA is bullying consumers. Like someone else said, they mean to be presenting themselves this way. Sooner or later, someone is going to slap then with a RICO or Monopoly complaint. Like Okay, so your point is that "most people aren't copying according to fair use.." Perhaps, but your argument is that the ends justify the means, that piracy has "provoked" this overreaction. Mind you, this is the *exact* argument people make to justify their piracy. "Well, if they didn't charge so much, then I wouldn't have to do this." Same type of argument. So now, you have backdoor licensing agreements that you "agree" to by dropping the CD onto your computer. We have rootkits that damage the operation of systems, expose the systems to malware, etc. - who is responsible? The same company that claims they are doing this to protect themselves also like to claim they are not responsible for their actions via software. Just look at Sony's attempt to explain their root kit. Sorry, this whole situation is a den of thieves situation. Now the RIAA folks have the congress in their pocket, and we're going to get an entirely new layer of bully laws. Charlie Gilley Will program for food... Whoever said children were cheaper by the dozen... lied. My son's PDA is an M249 SAW.

Chris Losinger

Ed Gadziemski wrote:

Because of the nature of the current Congress?

yup Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker

Chris Losinger

Troposphere wrote:

Well, not being able to make a backup copy is not what has people so upset and emotional over this issue.

*tweet* mind-reading, ten yard penalty, repeat first down.

Troposphere wrote:

but some people use the "Fair Use" argument as a blanket code term meaning much less benign activities.

then they are breaking a law that already exists.

Troposphere wrote:

There are people ...

so what? there are also people who don't... Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker

Chris Losinger

Troposphere wrote:

Why do you need to bypass copy protections in order to do fair use?

besides the backup issue, there's the fact that you can't legally make a copy of a portion of a DVD (for academic use, for example) without breaking one or more copy protection schemes (DVD region encoding, Macrovision-type signal encryption things, etc). even ripping an album for use on your iPod[^] might be considered illegal (by the RIAA). Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker

Member 96

Right on!

Member 96

Who is going to bother to write any new books if they can't make a living at it. Who is going to write software for those niches that no one else is going to unless it pays money to do it? Some system of reward for effort has to be in place or we will be living in a very dull world.

Shog9 0

John Cardinal wrote:

Some system of reward for effort has to be in place or we will be living in a very dull world.

Absolutely - i just don't think the price of those rewards should be greater than what is expected by those granting them. When you or i, as a customer, purchases a software product or music album, or whatever, we do so with the expectation that we will be able to use our purchase in certain ways: listen to the music, execute the software, etc. I do not think it acceptable to allow the person writing software or publishing music to add non-obvious restrictions without also allowing the customer ample opportunity to either circumvent those restrictions or make an informed decision to refrain from purchasing the item should we find them unacceptable. To put the force of criminal law behind the seller, while leaving only the power of the marketplace to protect the buyer seems - at best - excessive.

Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...

Member 96

What? Why on earth? If I go through the trouble to make something new in the world and you merely buy it you think your rights to the work should be equal to my rights to my own work? :wtf: That pretty much sums up the phrase "culture of entitlement" better than most descriptions. Clearly this is what is increasingly wrong with the world today: "I spent my 2 cents and so you should bow down to my mighty dollar, you merely made the product, I actually spent money on it" Not a chance in hell would I ever agree with that mindset. This is not about non obvious copy protection schemes, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that disagrees that it's a bad thing when a cd you put in your computer does something nefarious behind the scenes without telling you. On the flip side this is a natural reaction people have toward being robbed. If your house is robbed some time you will be surprised at how your attitude changes about these things. Clearly there has to be some system in place to protect copyright owners that is clear and open. We're not there yet, but I sure as hell want all the weight of the law on my side when I'm robbed.

Member 96

Actually re-reading it I can't figure out what your talking about. What in the world does the "constitution" have to do with it anyway? We're living in a global society, the U.S. isn't in some hidden backwoods village. International copyright law and agreements may be more applicable here. Even ignoring that, to bring the weight of the constitution onto something like music sharing when it's clearly a matter of trade and not civil rights and protections seems to cheapen the very idea of a constitution somehow. Any use of music (for example) that ensures that the person that bought the music or the person who later buys that music off the person how last owned it is the only person that ever get's to play it is fair in my eyes. Hidden, nefarious copyright protection software is clearly not a good thing in anyone's eyes but the people who dreamed it up in the first place and only for a short time until they were caught. Giving the impression that it's ok to violate copyright because some idiots put a rootkit on their cd's or a protected player or something is hurting content producers who deserve to make money off the sweat of their brows and the consumers who fairly purchased and item.

Member 96

But in the case of the U.S. for example do you really think it's the cost? I doubt it very much. Pious people stand up here and say "I don't buy cd's any more because they are too expensive" well that may be, but the vast majority of the U.S. consumer market for music is not represented by the demographic here, it's represented by U.S. teen agers who let's be honest here, have what is about as close to unlimited sources of wealth as the world has ever seen in all of recorded history. I think it *is* in fact more about moral decay and ethics than price. Let's face it, stealing anything no matter the justifications you can come up with for it is still a moral and ethical problem.

Chris Losinger

John Cardinal wrote:

What in the world does the "constitution" have to do with it anyway?

in the post at the top of this thread, Troposhpere: "I didn't realize that the constitution grants everyone the right to steal copyrighted materials."

John Cardinal wrote:

International copyright law and agreements may be more applicable here.

don't look at me, i didn't start the thread.

John Cardinal wrote:

it is fair in my eyes.

yes, well.

John Cardinal wrote:

Giving the impression that it's ok to violate copyright because some idiots put a rootkit on their cd's or a protected player or something is hurting content producers who deserve to make money off the sweat of their brows and the consumers who fairly purchased and item.

no doubt Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker

Chris Losinger

John Cardinal wrote:

Who is going to bother to write any new books if they can't make a living at it

many people have motivations other than money. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker

Member 96

Sure, but how many books can they write and how good are the books if they can't devote their whole attention to it and do it full time? I guess they could get thrown in prison, there's an alternative.