posted on September 9, 2001 01:55:02 AM new
Forget it - You cannot provide a digital copy and protect it without encrypting the whole thing. They want to circumvent the laws of physics and human nature both. Get real. There is nothing they wouldn't like to control except their own behavior.
posted on September 9, 2001 12:58:29 PM new
Actually, record and movie corps want the copy protection embedded right into the HARDWARE of your PC, DVD player, CD player, etc..
An application will be incorporated right into the chip/board that will prevent copy/transfer of tagged material. It may even be sophisticated enough to use file names in addition to tags in the data.
What this will provide is a business model that will allow digital downloads (for sale of course) of movies and music that can not be copied or transfered off your PC or other device.
There has already been a law suit lauched in CA by a purchaser of a CD that can not be played on a PC. Now the music and movie corps want complimentary technology embedded right into all the hardware you purchase. You buy their music/movie, they determin how and on what equipment you can use it.
I would suggest saving/hoarding old equipment if this passes through Congress. Fritz Hollings of SC is sponsoring the legislation. Disney is the corp pushing the hardest to get the law passed.
There are also fines and prison if you disable the anti-piracy hardware of any piece of equipment connected to the internet, multi file server system, or intranet.
posted on September 9, 2001 03:06:56 PM new
gravid- I hope that the market forces would stop this, but this is being offered as Federal law. ALL new equipment would be mandated to have this diabling device embedded into the hardware.
So how it would turn out is - if you wish to view/listen to the media, you will have to use this equipment.
I should also mention that the CA law suit is based on the issue that the CD did not adequately state on the label that the CD wouldn't play on your PC.
This is an attempt to effect market forces. If consumers are given a choice they will not buy this media or equipment. However, the Federal govt and the media corps are attempting to do away with any choice.
The criminal and civil penalties also would apply to the manufacture and sale of equipment that does not have the disabling application embedded into the equipment. So all equipment offered to the public would be disabled.
If you don't buy the equipment, you don't get to listen to or view the media.
If this passes, I don't think the general public will forego listening to music or viewing movies, so market forces will have no effect if passed into law.
posted on September 9, 2001 05:08:07 PM new
This is much ado over nothing. All this will do if it's adopted is to provide protection of copyrighted material. Unless you plan on bootlegging illegal copies of stuff, it won't affect you at all.
So you have to by new hardware to play the new CDs... I can't play the CDs I have now on my old phonograph, should I complain?
posted on September 9, 2001 05:21:03 PM new
If I read the article right, we are speaking of MUSIC. Backup copies of MUSIC? Changing the format of the MEDIA? Minor issues with music, unlike software, where if on byte is corupt, the disk is junk. I can't blame the music industy for wanting this, it is way to easy to bootleg digital music.
posted on September 10, 2001 11:12:19 AM new
Maybe I'm strange but I do make backups of music. If I buy a tape, I make a copy for playing in the car because the tape decks in the vehicles are more apt to eat my tapes than the tape decks in the house. Then if it gets eaten, I don't have to buy the tape again, just make a new copy for the car. It is cheap to replace a blank tape to copy the stuff onto but prerecorded tapes can get expensive to have to keep replacing. Also, I don't have a CD player in any of our vehicles, so prior to getting a portable CD player with a car adapter, I used to copy the CD I wanted to listen to onto a tape for the purpose of playing it while on the road. I don't have to do that now that I have the portable with the car adapter though. I don't think I am doing anything illegal, it is all for my personal listening pleasure. I don't give away or sell copies, just listen to them in a different location. Although it isn't the same as a computer program on CD with all those bytes or whatever, obviously if a tape deck eats a music tape it either sounds warped after attempting to fix it or it won't play all.
posted on September 10, 2001 11:20:20 AM newI don't think I am doing anything illegal
If someone in your home is listening to the CD the same time you are listening to the tape in the car, it is most definatly illegal. As far as if it's illegal to copy a CD to tape, that would depend on the copyright notice on the CD.
I guess it is not a big issue if you want govt mandated control over how and when you use your media
That is NOT the issue. The issue is what the copyright holder wants. Period, end of story, if they don't want copies made, that's their right as a copyright holder. (that is what a copyright is, it means you have the right to say "you can not make a copy" )
posted on September 10, 2001 11:22:09 AM new
My oldest son has a sizable collection of music on CD's. Rather than keep all of these in his car where they could be stolen, he burns copies of them and keeps the copies in his car. The originals are kept in the house. He doesn't sell any copies or hand them out to his friends.
Anyone remember the days when software came on floppy disks? What was the first thing you were told to do? Make backup copies, put the originals away, and use the copies. I've made copies of cd programs too so that I can protect the originals against scratches etc. I've had my kids ruin software cd's by scratching them, and I cracked one myself.
The music industry is trying to close the barn door after the horse has escaped. If I decide to use cd's that I have bought and paid for to make myself MP3's to use on my MP3 player, I should be able to do that.
posted on September 10, 2001 11:26:42 AM new
It's a bit of a slippery slope. Next will be that we can't tape tv shows for our own amusement.
Disney has been a pig company for many years. Everybody thinks they're so wholesome because of all the cute animals, etc. In the meantime they have a dress code even for their professional employees that makes some Catholic schools look liberal. They treat the minimum wage workers like garbage. And their theme parks, which they build while trashing marshlands, are just more expensive bubblegum for the mind. I lived in FL for about 8-10 years (the mind's going) and I am proud to say that not only did I never give them a penny of mine, but I kept a few people from wasting their money also. It's no surprise to me that they're big proponents of this.
Of course these fools never realize that every time some old fart thinks up a rule, some smart young thing whose brain hasn't turned to cabbage yet thinks up a way to get around it.
posted on September 10, 2001 11:27:44 AM newIf I decide to use cd's that I have bought and paid for to make myself MP3's to use on my MP3 player, I should be able to do that
Again, that is for the copyright holder to decide, NOT you. If the license says you can do that, fine. If it says you can't, and you do it anyway just because you don't like the license, it's wrong.
posted on September 10, 2001 11:29:19 AM new
Music CDs can become defective too. I have all of my music backed up in MP3 format on CDs. I have at least 5 factory CDs that are now defective, but no problem because they are backed up.
I use MP3 players in my vehicles so instead of having 100 CDs in the car I only have 6. A great situation for when thieves break into the car to steal your CDs, and no hassle changing CDs with all your library on a few CDs instead of dozens. I also have a "juke box" of MP3's on my PC that takes up 1/10th of the space in MP3 format.
As I said before, this is no big issue if you don't mind the govt making laws that tell you when and how you may privately use your media.
As a matter of law, you can make copies for your private and personal use of music and movies, it is part of the Fair Use doctrine - the Beta Max case affirmed this. However, the recent DeCSS case asked the question if media makers can make the media so this legal right can not technically be performed. That question has not been answered. This legislation addresses that question.
So you can make legal copies for private and personal use, but the technology will be forced upon us by law that actually prevents us from making these legal copies.
[ edited by REAMOND on Sep 10, 2001 11:36 AM ]
posted on September 10, 2001 12:03:47 PM newMaking personal copies is part of Fair Use which you are allowed to do.
If this is a "slam dunk" how has Disney gotten away with copy protecting their VHS tapes for YEARS?
The real issue is that rom burners have gotten SO CHEAP that releasing music on cd is almost like putting it into the public domain, and it has cost the music industy millions of dollars. (do you dispute that?)
posted on September 10, 2001 12:09:50 PM new
The music industry hasn't lost much. The record companies are ripping off the artists if the truth were told. There is no reason also why a 5 inch piece of plastic should cost $18. Remember when albums were released with inserts, posters, the words to songs etc? What do you get with most music cd's? Nada...just an inflated price, of which the artist is lucky to get a few cents.
posted on September 10, 2001 12:12:15 PM new
The "copy" protection has become the whole issue.
They are using technology to prevent you from doing what you have a legal right to do. The DeCSS case asks if the DMCA can stand if it prevents you from by passing the protection to something you have a legal right to do.
A govt mandate for putting the protection into all hardware sold in the US has the same effect.
Should companies be allowed to prevent you from doing what you are legally allowed to do by using protection technology which is illegal to by pass ?
posted on September 10, 2001 12:19:07 PM newThe music industry hasn't lost much
They must think otherwise, or they wouldn't bother with this. Everytime a CD is "burnt" for any use except "backup" the $18 you are talking about is "lost". I was at a flea market the other day, and saw at least a THOUSAND "burnt" copies of Music for sale. This is what they really want to stop, and I have to say, I don't blame them.
posted on September 10, 2001 12:39:46 PM new
I don't disagree with that either. Most of us who burn cd's are doing so for our own use. I've never sold a burned cd in my life. The only ones I've copied or ripped to MP3 were either for backup reasons or to be able to use the music on my MP3 player.
I know that pirated software etc is a huge problem, but the shotgun approach to fixing the problem isn't the answer. It punishes the good guy more than the crook.
