Digital Restrictions Management for P2P Systems 261
Anonymous Coward writes "Digital restrictions management for an open-source peer-to-peer network. Researchers at the Georgia Tech Information Security Center have created a content protection system that is a plug-in for LimeWire/Gnutella. The paper argues that DRM is beneficial to everyone including independent musicians and end-users."
I wonder . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright violation is not theft. It arguably deprives you of your ability to collect revenues from your property (or reduces your potential revenues), but it does not deprive you of the actual property, which you can still use since you still possess it.
The rhetoric of "copyright violation *is* theft" is simply wrong, and ignores the fact that the score-keeper here is not revenues generated from a given property, but the property itself.
Theft is taking something away from its owner (Score:2)
Lets take it directly from the dictionary.
: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
Music is not personal property, its public property.
When you release Music, it now belongs to the public.
The Musician only has the exclusive rights to profit from his creation, this means a person cant claim they created it, and they cant sell it illegally. This doesnt mean when a person buys your music that they dont own it and that you actually own it, if thats the case what the hell ARE they buying, and why are you allowed to fool them into thinking they are buying music when in reality they are just paying rent fees to have the right to listen to music.
Its bullshit, music is a right thats not exclusive, you should not be able to control what a person listens to and cannot, and you cant enforce it if you tried so why bother?
You cannot control distribution, you can only profit from it.
Re:Theft is taking something away from its owner (Score:2)
"Music is not personal property, it is public property"
Well, actually there is confusion here. There is a legal doctrine called private property, I am willing to concede that is what was meant with "personal property", but what is public property? Regardless, it is still property and the problem with music requires us to think about the meaning of "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. I choose not to decide what is sufficient for something to be property. That is a quite complex issue. However, one of the necessary conditions for the existence of property is the ability to "exclude" another from the enjoyment of the property. The problem with "media" based property is that by duplication (be it a paper book, or a recording or whatever) one does not exlcude the "owner" of the original. Hence the necessary condition is not met hence there is no property.
It is that simple. Just like other general issues, one does not need to worry about all the complex tests to prove sufficiency when one of the simple necessary conditions is not present.
Re:Theft is taking something away from its owner (Score:2)
Code does belong to the public after released, the information is free for all to see under GNU. However I do not mind if the creator of the code wants exclusive rights to SELL the software package, I just have a problem with them trying to sell the code itself.
Sell the binary, but the code must be free. The code is an expression, its art. Anyone can compile a binary, but not anyone can write good code, this is why we must share good code so more people can write better code.
Re:Insightful??? (Score:2)
The numbers representing my account's cash balance have a one-to-one relationship with "money", and "money" is the principal means by which I acquire property. When he decrements that number, he acquires property and deprives me of my ability to acquire property. Copying my CC# isn't theft, but use of my CC# to purchase things without authorization is.
> Or is it not theft because someone has taken your social security number to use it for himself. After all, he hasn't removed your ability to use your SS#, and he certainly never took it all for himself, you still have it. Therefore, by your definition, it's not theft, so it shouldn't be considered theft.
Wrong again. If he copies my SS#, there's no problem. If he assumes my identity and presents my SS# as his own while he goes on a spending spree, he deprives me of property because I'm the one who has to pay for lawyers to clear up the charges against me.
Actually, I take that back -- identity "theft" is a form of fraud, not theft per se. If he uses my SS#, it's fraud with an individual victim. If he uses my dead great-grandmother's SS# to obtain benefits or credit cards, it's fraud against the government, with costs passed to the taxpayers, or fraud against the credit card issuer, with costs passed on to other credit card holders.)
But neither of these things are like copyright infringment. With copyright infringement, each unauthorized download of copyrighted material constitutes an instance of copyright infringment, but economic harm is done to the copyright holder only when the downloader is copying items for which they would otherwise have paid the copyright holder money.
To summarize: Copyright infringement is not theft. Some instances of copyright infringement cause some economic harm to rightsholders. Some do not.
The current debate is that the law does not provide a way to treat those two types of infringement differently.
The fundamental problem is that the law may not be able to distinguish between the two types of infringement; whether economic harm has been done relies entirely on the mindset of the infringer. (Current law errs on the side of presuming guilt - a law giving carte blance to file sharers would err on the side of presuming innocence. Both laws would likely fail to capture the problem.)
Re:Insightful??? (Score:2)
And some instances of copyright infringement cause some economic benefit to rightsholders, by exposing the material to a wider audience who may decide to purchase it (e.g. myself when I purchased many more obscure CDs during the brief heyday of Napster than before or after).
Re:Insightful??? (Score:2)
The act of taking that person's money to buy goods for you deprives that person of the money you used, so that is theft.
Re:Insightful??? (Score:2)
Of course it is theft. Those numbers directly represent dollar bills. If you are taking dollars out of my account, you are stealing from me. If I build a business on the hopes that some dollars will someday appear in my account but they never do, I should have picked a better business plan.
Or is it not theft because someone has taken your social security number to use it for himself. After all, he hasn't removed your ability to use your SS#, and he certainly never took it all for himself, you still have it. Therefore, by your definition, it's not theft, so it shouldn't be considered theft.
It's not theft. It's fraud. Two things that are just as different as theft and copyight violation.
Theft is the taking of personal property without permissions, or the possession and removal of said property, or otherwise larceny.
If I copy an album from a friend or download a few songs, I have not taken any personal property. Nor have I removed or possessed anyone's property. All I have done is make a copy of some information. If nothing is missing, nothing is stolen.
If you take a DVD, rip it, encode it with DivX, then place it on a public FTP server, you've infringed on that copyright, obviously, and you've commited theft of copyright.
There is no 'theft of copyright' law. There is 'violation of copyright', but even the law knows that it is not theft.
So stop fooling yourself with these generalizations that infringement != theft
Stop fooling ourselves with the truth? How silly.
Re:Insightful??? (Score:2)
I have a general rule about discussions like this (discussions on semantics and definitions, that is): If the original word requires both a long explanation and a qualifier (of copyright, in this case), then the situation being talked about does not fit under the definition of that word.
What you're describing is a lot like calling censorship "murder", because it's the "murder of ideas". After a long, drawn out explanation, you might be able to convince some idiot that censorship is murder, because it "murders the idea" that's being censored by effectively making it as null and pointless as a human being is after they've been murdered. However, that doesn't mean that censorship is murder. It means that you're somewhat good with persuasive writing.
But anyway, here's a quick debunking of your ridiculous examples:
Bank accounts: When someone takes the money from my bank account, it's gone. Even though it was just data to begin with, the system is designed so that once someone has taken the money out of the account, it is no longer accessible by anyone else, even the original owner. This is not analogous to movies, books, DVDs, or any sort of ideas or creative works at all. Once someone "steals" a DVD by ripping it and saving it on their hard drive, that DVD still exists. Once someone else "steals" that DVD by downloading it from a P2P network, the file from the DVD is still on the uploader's computer. At no point in this process is anyone deprived of the goods that they own. Rather, an example copy of those goods is made and then given to the person that requested the copy. Bank accounts don't work like this at all. They work much more like physical property and thus should be governed as such.
Social Security Numbers: DVDs are put on sale in stores. They are not unique, they are not kept secret by their owners, they are not used as personal identifiers, and they are not sold to anyone, let alone to millions of people across the planet. Comparing a unique identifier for a human being to a creative work that is copied millions of times and sold worldwide by its creators is like comparing apples to automobiles.
Theres a big diffrence (Score:2)
A car is not a thought, its physical, protons neutrons and electrons are actually physically there so you can say you own this set combination of atoms protons etc.
However a thought cannot be owned. Music is a thought, information is a collection of thoughts which produces and creates knowledge.
Knowledge should be shared for free to everyone. The whole purpose of living is to gather and then share knowledge. The only thing the brain does is gather, create, and share knowledge.
To tell a person they cannot share knowledge, is restricting your ability of expression. And for what? So a rich CEO can keep his business running?
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Thanks for the legal advice - but try searching on copyright infringement theft and you'll see that those law books you'd like me to read in fact disagree with your position. Finally, I don't think you'll find much mention of the IP issues in the 'Constition' or the Constitution.
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:2)
Re:Copyrights and patents in the US Constitution (Score:2)
Exclusive right to SELL.
Not right to control distribution.
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright infringement is not theft, as it deprives no one of property. But this is only a side issue.
But now, because of scale, file sharing actually is putting a serious economic dent in the music biz.
so says the "music biz". I, however, would classify this as a straw man. The real cause of the downturn is the industry's overpricing. For a long time they were able to get away with it because there was no way around them. THey had a de-facto monopoly on distribution and are now upset that technology has weakened that control. The fact that people are abusing their fair-use rights does not, in my opinion, warrant revocation of those rights. Instead, the industry should review what they can do to encourage people to acquire music legitimately. Their complaint is along the lines of "We can't get $18 for a CD anymore"; the solution to said problem isn't "curtail the public's rights". Lower pricing is clearly indicated in this case. I'd wager that if the recording industry halved the price of music (and offered it for download even cheaper) it'd make up for the difference in volume. Well, perhaps not anymore. They may be too late. Their abuse of the power of distribution may have driven a great many customers away. I know it has me.
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:2)
so says the "music biz". I, however, would classify this as a straw man. The real cause of the downturn is the industry's overpricing.
You are 100% correct. Music sharing hasn't hurt music sales; music sales are up. What has been hurt is the sales of big name bands. People don't want to buy Britney after they've heard what music can be. The internet has allowed us to preview music before we buy and play the field, so that we can get the best music possible. What the music industry is finding is that people don't want their crappy generated music anymore. People want good music made by real people.
I also agree with you 100% about the pricing. I was talking to a friend about this the other day. Not coming from a rich backgrounds, we can't afford to pay $18 dollars per cd for all the music that we want to listen to. If they brought the price of music down, we could afford to buy cds. Not only that, if they brought the price of cds down, it would be less expensive for me to buy a cd than to download it. Right now the days of hunting for that one last song to complete the album costs me less that the $18 or so that a cd would.
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:2)
Actually, that's debatable. P2P File sharing, from the relatively sluggish viewpoint of solid economic data, has not been around very long. So far, there are only two real facts that have been gathered from the economic data on the two or three years that P2P file sharing has been around:
1) The music industry's sales rose at the time that Napster was around, in accordance with the trend of increased profits that the record industry had had going for years.
2) The music industry's sales dropped after September 11th, in accordance with every other entertainment/luxury industry in the United States.
So far, there hasn't been a time when the recording industry's data has been recorded solely in the context of P2P file sharing without some other larger issue (multi-year economic trends, terrorism, etc.) clouding the data, mostly because P2P file sharing hasn't been around that long. So whether or not P2P file sharing has been a boon or a burden to the recording industry is unknown. Then again, it might always be unknown, because the RIAA keeps pumping more and more money into anti-piracy measures, most likely because they know that they could always just blame the loss of revenue on piracy in front of a congressional committee if they fail.
You cant steal something which cannot be owned (Score:2)
Next you will say we all stole math from the egyptians because they invented forms of math.
Information cannot have owners. You should only have the right to exclusively profit from your information, not the right to "OWN" it.
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:2)
Hate cannot be used to fight hate, the best way to handle a murderer is lock them away from society in a prison or place where other crazy people of their kind can live.
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not to say that I don't support good artists, I actually have bought music legitimately that I found I liked after listening to the MP3. Heck, when I see a local performer, if they are any good I buy CD's right from them (if they are selling any). I know the ARTIST gets the $$$, and they generally charge a fair price for it. The same things cannot be said about the RIAA.
And I'm not bringing you a pony for Christmas, because I know what you want it for, you sicko. That's disgusting, and you need to get some therapy. :P
Re:I wonder . . . (Score:2)
Every song that a person didnt buy, they werent planning on buying in the first place.
No band is hurt, if someone wants to buy their CD they will, if not they'll download it.
The band should not expect everyone to buy their music, they should only expect their fans to.
I never purchased CDs before napster existed, and I'm not going to start purchasing them because p2p is popular now.
Look, someone who didnt buy CDs then wont buy them now, and its that simple,
I cannot afford to waste money on a CD unless i know that every single song on it is good, If I dont, then I wont buy it.
Affecting cover bands is beneficial (Score:2)
You could profile the music and make a "Tolerance Level" where the song would just have to be close
And this is what commercially available audio fingerprinting solutions do.
but would that affect cover bands?
Why would that be a bad thing? When a fellow pirates a song, he breaks two copyrights: the copyright on the recording and the copyright on the underlying song. The original recording and a recording by a cover band are covered under the same copyright on the same musical work by the same songwriter.
BUT:
Pretty soon, songwriters will have the entire space of Western music covered with copyright. There exist only a limited number of notes in a chromatic scale (namely twelve) and a limited number of possible melodies of a finite length [everything2.com], and sooner or later, they'll all be used up [baen.com]. This is why you must petition your legislators to repeal copyright term extensions [pineight.com].
I still dont understand why (Score:2, Insightful)
Good faith effort (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I still dont understand why (Score:2)
If it's playable, it's copyable!
There goes that argument that the DMCA removes our ability to make fair use.
Re:I still dont understand why (Score:2)
WTF ? (Score:2)
Do they really expect that people are going to download this plugin and install it ? Why would anyone want to do that ?
Re:WTF ? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you havn't installed the plugin, or any DRM plugins, you must be a thief!
If you aren't doing anything wrong, then why don't you install it?
(Maybe now all the people that made that idiotic argument in the past in regards to every sapping of our rights will wake up a little)
Why must be answered. Why not is easy. (Score:2, Insightful)
Because I'm lazy? I've not installed the latest DRM-enabling patch for Windows Media Player either, but its only because I can't be bothered to download several megabytes of information over a 42kb/s connection when it doesn't actually do me much in the way of good.
Sure I'll do it if I'm legally required to. Sure I'll do it if the benefits outweigh the problems by enough. But I won't spend my own time, effort and money to install something that only helps a business I've no particularly good feelings about.
Re:Why must be answered. Why not is easy. (Score:2)
I'm kind of shocked that you would let it get to this point, and then if it does, to roll over so easily.
Mandatory DRM will be somewhat like banning guns in the US. If it ever happens, there will be hell to pay.
Re:WTF ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:WTF ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, can you explain to me what exactly the rights of artists are? And why those rights are relevant to the artist given that 98% of the copyright in the western world is owned by corperations?
The artist is obligated to ensure that, upon claiming protection via copyright, his work is freely accessible 20 years after his death. Should he DRM-ize all his songs to expire after 6 months, and never publish them again, it is the artist that is breaking copyright law (by not making his work available to the commons after his copyright protection has expired.)
Re:WTF ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF ? (Score:2)
If copyright was introduced in order to break the publishers' monopoly on printing (1622, I think)
DRM is not a musical format. It is a technology that, while its bits might sit beside my musical bits, is not technically part of the 'format' that I present my song in
It's not a medium. It's the package _around_ the art. So, doesn't the law of copyright become useless (toothless, worthless, etc) as soon as I'm legally allowed to distribute my work in a package that nullifies any intent set forth by copyright law?
Re:WTF ? (Score:2)
The Statute of St Anne, 1622, the first copyright law, said that the publishers had to pay the author (ie, that the author actually *owned* the work) but also that the work had to go back into the public domain 20 years after publication in order to ensure that there was no monopoly on distribution and publication.
400 years later, the publishers own 98% of the copyrights again, and dont have to reqliquish control until 70 years after the death of the company.
When its all said and done, today is much more like pre-copyright law than post-copyright law. (This is even reflected in the authors slice
Re:WTF ? (Score:2)
Not only that, but upon actually reading it, the copyright code tries to obfuscate as much as possible the actual rights of authors and the commons. The sections specifying exceptions to basic copyright law are filled with "legal spam" about cable licenses, wireless spectrum licenses, and other sorts of licenses that have nothing at all to do with copyright. (Other than that copyrighted material is transmitted over them)
And the law prevents you from creating and enjoying a derived work in the privacy of your own home. I don't know about you, but this seems awfully draconian to me. (And could be used to argue that works inspired by other works are illegal, depending on the definition of "derived".) This seems actively contrary to the "progress of science and the useful arts".
Applying copyrights to encodings of songs (say) and compiled programs is also ludicrous. What exactly is copyrighted? The patterns of bits? (What if I've got a program that interprets them some other way?) The output? (That seems to make even less sense) Some abstract "song" or "program" that is encoding independant?
It makes a bit more sense for source code and writings, as they have an obvious and well-defined existance separate from the digital representation. But still, if I write code in a different language (say, C++ and Smalltalk) that does exactly the same thing in exactly the same way, am I violating your copyright? What about if I write a program that presents exactly the same interface and does the same operations, but does so differently internally?
We need some way of insuring that artists (writers and programmers included) recieved adequate compensation for the use of their work. But we also need to preserve the commons, and avoid crippling the power of generic computing devices in favour of preserving the way things have "always been".
Re:WTF ? (Score:2)
> Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title.
If this is the case in the majority of contracts between musicians and labels, then, to me, it is much like the publishing industry is the sole recipiant of the protections and compensations afforded by copyright law?
Re:WTF ? (Score:2)
From what I understand, the publishing industry doesn't directly take the copyright. That'd make the expiry much shorter. They do, however, reserve pretty much all of the rights provided by copyright law. Same goes for record companies. And thanks to the consolidation of bookstores and record outlets, its hard for smaller publishing houses to start up.
Re:WTF ? (Score:2)
Oh, truly wonderful. I'd noticed this a while back, and concluded that the problem was the people passing laws. Our entire government is composed mostly of lawyers or people advised by them. What's the most probable result of this going to be? A system that insures the perpetual need for and prosperity of lawyers.
Shakespear had the right idea. Now we just need to implement it.
DMCA is toothless without the Bono Act (Score:2)
the DMCA (BOOO!) makes it illigal for you to convert out of DRM to standard format even after copywrite expires.
Bullshit.
The DMCA's circumvention ban (17 USC 1201) [cornell.edu] states: " No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" (my emphasis). A work that has fallen out of copyright is no longer "protected under this title", where "this title" refers to Title 17, United States Code, which contains U.S. copyright law, mask work law, and protections for ships' hulls.
Likewise, the (a)(2) and (b)(1) bans on circumvention devices apply only to devices designed or marketed to circumvent measures that control access to or enforce monopolies on works protected under Title 17. Thus, without copyright term extensions, anybody could say "DeCSS: Watch your Charlie Chaplin and early Mickey Mouse DVDs on Linux" and get away with releasing DeCSS source code into the wild. The DMCA is toothless without the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act [pineight.com].
I'm not going to be the one to tell them that their music has to be released in format X with tempo Y or any of that.
That is, until you write your own song, and another songwriter claims, "You stole my melody!"
Artists should not control distribution (Score:2)
We the public who artists release music to should control distribution.
This is all about control, not making money, Artists can make money with or without p2p, but p2p gives the control to us, and not the record companies or the artists.
Now the fans are in control, we decide what to pay for, artists now will need actual talent to sell their music and they bitch and moan because they know they sell their music on their image.
I dont want to hear manson, or metallica saying they hate peer to peer, people who cant make good music hate peer to peer, peopel who make good music will sell better due to better distribution.
IF I like what you have to say in your songs, or how your music sounds, I will buy it in diffrent formats, i'll buy your DVD, your CD, your vinyl, even your special unreleased tracks that you sell directly to me.
Look, I'm not going to argue in favor of DRM, it takes away my right to choose what I want to buy.
Re:Artists should not control distribution (Score:2)
What music videos do you see? britney spears and people selling on image.
Whats on MTV? All young musicians, you dont see old 60-70 year old classical music composers on MTV.
P2P allows a person to access the music of real musicians, not the musicians choosen by record companies because of their image and their ability to sell.
Re:WTF ? (Score:2)
PS did anyone happen to mirror this article? I'd be really interested in reading more about what they're planning to do.
Re:WTF ? (Score:2, Insightful)
File Sharing and Religion (Score:2)
What if sharing is a central part of my religious beliefs? Lets look at what the constitution says
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all.
Oh so I have the right to practice my religious beliefs, which say I should share whenever it doesnt remove anything from me or anyone else. So why the hell shouldnt I share my files? Its not taking anything away from me or anyone else, its giving to someone who didnt have before
Our country's founders -- who were of different religious backgrounds themselves -- knew the best way to protect religious liberty was to keep the government out of religion. So they created the First Amendment -- to guarantee the separation of church and state. This fundamental freedom is a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart.
This should mean, that the government has no right to create laws which restrict our freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to share or not. We should NOT have a SSSCA or any kinda law like this preventing us from sharing, it should be our choice, and the constitution says so.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of the United States. This means that the government may not give financial support to any religion. That's why many school voucher programs violate the Establishment Clause -- because they give taxpayers' money to schools that promote religion.
This means the government CANNOT claim file sharing is wrong, and that I am stealing, because its promoting the beliefs of big media companies, who is the government supposed to be representing here? Them or Me? Instead the government should allow the people to decide, and tell the media companies to stop complaining and spend their money to fix their problem instead of trying to use our tax dollars without us even agreeing to it.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs.
This says that I cannot be locked up in jail for sharing information, because if my religion beliefs that the whole purpose of life is to share information, it kinda goes against my whole belief system to be forced to not share.
Look I understand some information cannot be shared, information which directly harms other people should not be shared, such as some top secret government information where millions of lives might be in danger.
However, sharing music isnt harming anyone, in fact its helping many people, music makes people happy, why am I not allowed to share happiness with others?
Its a nice try for them to call it stealing, but stealing is only wrong when it harms other people, if stealing helps everyone and harms no one, calling me a theif is just like calling me a hero.
Re:File Sharing and Religion (Score:2)
Unfortunately, this line of argument won't fly. The right to freely practice one's religion is generally interpretted as meaning "free to practice, so long as the rights of others are not infringed". This is why things such as female circumcision, slaying infidels, and burning witches are currently prohibitted whether they are part of your religious beliefs or not. Copyright law is-- as the name implies-- law, and the Feds don't freely grant exceptions based on religious beliefs. Heck, just look at the fit the DEA threw over a bunch of native americans using peyote in religious ceremonies; they weren't infringing upon others' rights and they had to fight like the dickens in order to get the Feds off their backs. No, I'm afraid the "religious practice" angle will never work for anything other than actually practicing religions-- which is as it should be. Finding loopholes isn't the answer. Reforming the law is.
What about my rights? (Score:2)
Theres no right in the constitution saying a Musician has control of distribution of their work!
It only says they have the right to exclusive profit.
What the hell does a musician lose? (Score:2)
What? The Musician loses control of distribution which they never had in the first place?
Yeah ok.
so the real people who lose are the RIAA and MPAA.
Look, If someone makes good music I'll go to their concerts and I'll pay them not because I have to but because I think they deserve it, because they EARNED it.
If a good movie is made, I will go to theaters to see it, I will still pay for cable or satelite to access it, these guys DO NOT need to sell movies or CDs. They make money off of live events, concerts, theaters, and by charging for distribution.
Musicians dont have any control so I'm not taking anything from them, they dont even make alot of money, the middleman does, what I'd do is help them make more money, by directly sellinng to me.
Imagine Musicians releasing new songs by playing them at concerts for their fans, then selling the music through MP3 vending machines at the concerts for 25 cents a song, money goes DIRECTLY to the musician in cash form.
The listener gets to listen to the music on their way home and upload it into their computers, then share it with all their friends causing more people to go to concerts.
You see? This would help Musicians as much as it would help me.
IF i like a band, I'll want to go see them live, I'll pay 25 cents for every song I like, its not like being forced to pay 15 bucks for a few good songs.
We should be able to choose what we want to buy, when you walk into a store, you can look at a toy, and decide if you want to buy it. With music or information they dont even want you to LOOK at it, this harms me, taking away my freedom to choose.
I'm forced to buy something i dont even know what it is, because the dont allow people to share?!
This isnt about money, its about control. Sharing isnt harming them financially, its removing the RIAAs control of our access to music.
We should be able to do what we want with our music, even share it, because music truely has no owners, you can try to own it but its not physical, its impossible to own in the real world, the musicians dont even own their music record companies do, so dont even try to use them saying they are harmed.
Record companies might be harmed but they dont help either side.
Killing removes a person from the earth forever.
Whats lost when I share?
Re:What the hell does a musician lose? (Score:2)
Well the best way to justify it, is the fact that is part of our freedom to have the ability to share.
YOU KNOW what freedom of speech is, the DMCA destroys freedom of speech, intellectual property restricts it.
Computers and ping packets, are 1s and 0s, extentions of our speech, the computer is no diffrent than the telephone.
Freedom of speech is actually freedom of expression. Why should we lose this freedom in exchange for profit? Its selling your freedom to choose what you want to buy, to share what you buy etc, if they dont want us to share it they should make it copy proof, i wont get mad if i cant copy something because thats fair, but to tell me I cant have the freedom to copy something thats copyable, and then tell me that If I copy it I cant share it.
This begins to take away my freedom, what do they have to justify this?
Re:What the hell does a musician lose? (Score:2)
If they make something thats information into a physical object, thats fair. I cannot copy it, so its now no longer information, it becomes a physical object.
But thats impossible, Music will always be copyable as long as its playable. Their efforts to try to turn music into a physical object is useless.
You tell me to get morals? I have morals, sharing music helps more people than making some CEO richer helps.
Why do I want to help a rich CEO buy a new mansion, when I can make millions of people smile and be happier in general, people who dont have a mansion, and who dont have much in life and who actually NEED this music.
Re:What the hell does a musician lose? (Score:2)
I dont support big labels but its big labels who make most of their money off CDs.
The other smaller indies make alot of money from the net and selling directly to their fans,
A viable alternative? Thats what Gnutella is trying to provide, but as long as the big record companies keep fighting people who try to build up alternatives it will never happen.
The day a company makes a p2p system, RIAA attacks it, they dont understand p2p companies want to make money too and eventually they would put in a system to allow artists to make money so they can make money.
Hurts who? Hilary? (Score:2)
First, if you have a small band, stop selling CDs, put some mp3 vending machines at your concert, play new music live at the concert so your fans have to go to your concert to see what new stuff you've released. After the concert, people can download the mp3s from the vending machines then go online and share it. Musicians just need to stop expecting people to just buy their CD without hearing it first.
Also what you are saying is something totally diffrent from sharing, because Time Warner is profiting. Its wrong to "PROFIT" off of something which someone else has exclusive rights to "PROFIT" on, however when you share something for free, no one is losing "PROFIT" you are giving music away to people who normally dont buy music to begin with, if they did buy music they would buy it directly from you.
2. The establishment cause doesn't cover the situation you describe. If your religious practice includes a behavior that is not necessarily part of your religious practice (i.e., that could be engaged in by others for other reasons) and is illegal under a US law which was passed to cover the behavior as such, rather than in the context of religious observance, the law is not in violation of the establishment clause. That's what stops you from just saying "hey, killing people is part of my religion, so it must be ok for me to kill people.
Killing people removes a life forever, What does sharing remove? I proved it does not remove profits. Sharing has nothing to do with copying and then selling at someone elses expense because nothing is being sold when you share. To assume every peice of musle is automatically a sale is to treat all music as if its stock or something, as if every single song or CD would have sold to every single person who wants to listen to it. Cds only sell to the fans, its the fans who buy cds, the majority of people just listen to music for free. Just like only fans will go to the concerts.
To compare sharing, with killing, is to say sharing removes something from someone else. So what exactly would be removed from Michael Jackon, if I share his invincible CD with you?
Does this mean that suddenly Michael Jackon has lost a sale? No it doesnt, because you wouldnt buy anything from Michael Jackon if you just walked into a store and saw a weird looking guy named Michael Jackson, never heard any of his music before, and hes expecting you to just buy his CD?
Fans buy CDs, people who use p2p to share music, its the fans who own the CDs, people who arent fans just want to listen to some nice music and Michael Jackson is just another song to them, they werent going to buy the CD, they just want to hear some music.
For you to assume everyone whos sharing is removing a sale, is just like me to assume everyone who looks at my painting on display, wont buy it because by looking at it, its removing the possible sales, so what do I do? Hide my painting, then no one will buy it and again I can complain that my sales are bad. But I'd think more people would buy it, if they actually were exposed to it, than if it was under a cover and I'm just trying to tell people to buy my painting and they dont know what my abilities are.
This is about freedom vs control, not profit. If I'm going to buy a CD, every song on their CD must be good. In order for me to know this I have to have heard every song. This is why I own so few CDs, before p2p, I didnt have a clue who made good music and who didnt, now I know who makes good music and I buy more music now than I ever did.
finally (Score:5, Funny)
Tentatively earns my approval... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all about the balance of our rights against the rights of content owners to protect their investment and realize their returns in the open market. Building in DRM where it's needed most as opposed to just dumping it into every piece of consumer electronics on the market seems quite sensible and reasonable. I'm certain people who have been getting a free ride off of the artists won't appreciate it, but I believe that besides cutting off an avenue of exploitation this will also help return the Internet to a responsive state as well as encourage the media giants to finally embrace this medium without hesitation.
It's got to end sometime, folks -- otherwise, we're gonna kill the golden goose.
Re:Tentatively earns my approval... (Score:2)
The golden goose is already on its last gasp, and DRM is the cage for the rest of us that will make sure that not only does it stay dead, but that nobody finds an alternative source of gold, 'cause we'll all be locked in the RIAA cage.
DRM is not about protecting artists, it's about protecting music companies. At least that's the way it's working now. Rest assured were it just about the artists that the RIAA would not bother buying laws that makes DRM impossible to crack.
Follow the money.
Re:Tentatively earns my approval... (Score:3, Funny)
Are you a moron or a shill?.. (Score:2)
Free ride? Make that a free promotional tool for independent artists. I'm working on promoting one right now, and my biggest headache is that most of the places I had planned on uploading our promo MP3s to no longer exist thanks to the suits at the major record labels whose rights you are trying to protect. If you really believe DRM is about protecting artists, you belong in an AOL chatroom with the other tards, not here.
If the only MP3s you download are N'Sync and Britney Spears, I really don't give a shit about your "free ride". MY rights are worth protecting. Yours aren't. DRM is about control of your computer by content industry suits and Micro$hit. If you want your computer 0wn3d by those scumbags, maybe if you sit on Jack Valenti's lap and beg him, one of his tame "black hats" will write you a Trojan. Of course, there's no guarantee your computer will work any better than your brain does afterwards.
Personally, I don't download MP3s much, particularly from the brain-dead crop of what passes for entertainment your buddies at the RIAA spew forth for the public.
I'm not going to argue with you about how DRM directly conflicts with the traditional concepts of "fair usage" and the intentional tradeoff built into copyright law between the rights of end users and creators of material, those arguments have been made over and over here and in other places and often, by artists you think want DRM protection. The only reasons why anyone would argue pro-DRM/pro-RIAA at this point are:
1. You work for RIAA/MPAA/PR firm
2. You're too fucking stupid to understand the fair usage arguments you've seen so far. Perhaps you'll get what Janis Ian [janisian.com] has to say about it. Presumably, you can point and click, can't you?
I believe you to be in the second category.
Benefits fro the end-users? (Score:2, Interesting)
From what I read, it would benefit the user only because "content providers" would be more willing to provide stuff over P2P network.
i don't think this is "benificial" at all to the end user.
It's like if they were telling me: Hey! If you accept to loose control over what you have, can do, their will be so much more content distributed!
Yeah, and so what? I don't give a dam what COULD be distributed online which is not right now!
I already can go out and buy what I need or want.
And If I'm a "bad" guy, I can download movies and MP3's anyway.
I don't want anybody having the control over what information I make available on a network. If this information ever is copywrited, come on home and arrest me.
If not, go away.
Frankly, I agree. (Score:4, Interesting)
So, what? It's not easy to do it and still actually engineer a restriction plan? Yeah?
Bugger it, who said it has to be easy to do this properly, and not end up with the complete social nightmare like what the good ol' U$ofA is currently happily building?
As an independent musician, as a technology freak (I work for Access Music, I make synthesizers for a living, and I use Linux extensively), and as a renegade from the New World Odor, I think it's good to have a system like this that works so that *ANYONE* - any musician, signed or not, represented by RIAA or not - can actually make their work available and get rewarded for doing so.
But it's gotta stay open, folks. Secrecy behind a corporate stigma is not the way this is going to be done
Re:Frankly, I agree. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not personally for preventing Fair Use, mind you, but for stopping the unchecked spread of other peoples' property across the Internet merely because it's convenient and made of electrical impulses. An effective DRM system, in my mind, would not impede the easy transfer and playback we've gotten used to with dumping CDs to tape and MP3 or the like locally but would prevent (the convenient) bulk network transfer of content. I'm positive this would be possible if the major companies would sit down and work this out together rather than trying to figure out how to weasel cash from the whole scheme.
Re:Frankly, I agree. (Score:2)
That could actually be done. Using the system layed out by the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance [trustedcomputing.org], you could construct a system that would only work if the code is authenticated by the Trusted Platform Module (TPM). All of the code could be open sourced, but only certain implementations would be signed. If your code isn't signed, the computer will refuse to run it.
The protocol could encrypt all communications so no one can 'sniff' the contents. The protocol could also require you to cryptographically authenticate that you are running trusted code before it lets you access content.
I have a problem with this. It means that you have to get permission from whoever holds the master key(s) in order to create a compatible client. The key holder will dictate the terms under which you may develop your client. It's kind of like the british government deciding who may or may not use a printing press.
Re:Frankly, I agree. (Score:2)
Ironically, copyright law was enacted to *combat* that problem
Re:Frankly, I agree. (Score:2)
You'll notice that today, 98% of copyrights are owned by the publishers again, and that most authors have to sell thier copyright in order to be published anyway
I'm not aware of how the U.S.Constitution prevents the scenario as described above, save for that your government can't *force* the situation on the people. That really doesn't prevent the private sector from effectively influencing public perception and dominating the market enough to duplicate the effects of the Licencing Act you refer to.
I'd add one other condition... (Score:2)
One more thing, and I need to understand TCPA better to know if this is the case, or not. In content creation and modification tools, there must be general recognition that the tool producer is not the copyright owner. The copyright owner must always be able to:
1 - Remove the copyright/DRM from the data and place it in the Public Domain.
2 - Extract the content from the tool, in order to exercise the Free Market right to select a different tool.
Still one more thing that's missing from any DRM I've ever heard of - Copyright expiration. Even with the perversion of the Constitution known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, the copyright expires. A quick google of "trusted time service" shows that there is indeed a supply that could be used as a trustworthy means of copyright expiration. Lest we be tempted to say, "This media won't last long enough for the copyright to expire," remember the two-digit date fields that gave us Y2K.
Yet one more thing is posterity. We're taking an important slice of history and locking it away. IMHO every piece of DRM media should include a clear-text description of how it may be cracked in the future. Sounds silly, but I mean something like "brute-force factor these 2048-bit keys" that we can't do readily today, but future archaeologists who can read the CD/DVD should.
Stating the obvious... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just like many other [slashdot.org] places in the world, we have dissenting opinions running around the office, too.
Censorship is never beneficial (Score:5, Interesting)
My 2 cents
(I spell crappy... I know... Shashdot needs a spell checker... ispell plugin anyone?)
Re:Censorship is never beneficial (Score:4, Insightful)
But then you'll set an EULAs-are-good legal precedent that M$ would just love to exploit...
Re:Censorship is never beneficial (Score:2)
Every Time I read "Content" in this article (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm young and naive, but it seems to me that the entire notion of "content" is offensive. Like the music or pr0n videos or what have you was simply items in a box, with no regard for what's inside.
Though I suppose you could fairly call Britney Spheres, Backdoor Boys, and We'Stync to be nothing more than worthless coporate content, I cannot equally call the 405 short, Mudhens, Indigo Girls, or a great number of other independant, thoughtful works "content."
It's their blood & sweat, not a packaged good.
The notion of content is what allows them to call copyright infringement "piracy", what makes them want to license every listening. The music/videos/whatever are cheap, taiwan-made products to be whored around as much as possible for the greatest profit.
What they're really exchanging is ideas, peoples feelings, and as Jefferson once said (paraphrasing) 'When I give an idea to you, I am not deprived of it's possesion, but we are both richer for it'
I'm not saying anything about the entire legality of it, or what I think of this paper (Gee, I didn't know academics were whoring themselves to the entertainment industry lately) but this talk of 'content' is cheapening to the work serious musicians, directors, and artists perform.
Just venting. thank you for yer time.
Re:Every Time I read "Content" in this article (Score:2)
The record companies find musicians, pay for the production of their stuff, and then get it into stores worldwide. Unless the musicians were filthy stinking rich already, that probably wouldn't happen without the record companies. Many artists don't get rich off their music but it does pay the bills or supplement other income. Getting paid to play music and go on tour is a dream for a lot of people.
Yes, any musician can put their stuff on mp3.com and go play in local bars.. but unless your stuff is really, really good nobody's going to hear it. Really, who's going to notice yet another mp3. So you sign your rights over to the record company, they send you on tour, promote your music, get it on the radio, lots of people hear your music, and maybe you succeed and maybe you don't - but it's a chance you wouldn't have without them.
- Steve
How is the RIAA any better than Caesars Palace? (Score:2)
So you sign your rights over to the record company, they send you on tour, promote your music, get it on the radio, lots of people hear your music, and maybe you succeed and maybe you don't - but it's a chance you wouldn't have without them.
So in other words, selling your soul to the RIAA is no better than playing your music in a local venue and then blowing the proceeds at a Vegas casino.
Re:Every Time I read "Content" in this article (Score:2)
<Devil's Advocate>
Some "ideas" cost over 100 million to produce, which is what the enforced legal fiction of a limited copyright is supposed to help incentivize.
But if that legal fiction isn't recognized by society (it doesn't seem to be), and it can't be enforced (*laugh*), then what? Well then artists will still create, but giants won't be able to produce "Oops!..I did it again", or The Lord of the Rings, or Waterworld... (unless a new form of compensation emerges like variations of Bruce Schneir's street performer protocol, or "communist" peer-production).
What a tragedy.
</Devil's Advocate>
--
I think it's a good idea... Think of shareware. (Score:2)
However, DRM can be use in way not to restrict restict the consumer but to make him know that someone took time to create the content and may want to be rewarded for it's work.
Picture this. I create a song or a nice little movie. I want to distribute it but also it would be great that if people want it, that they can send me money.
So I put it on the DRMuttela network (a p2p network that implement some form of DRM). Now a consumer find the content I created. When (or while) he download the content, a small window appear with asking him to send me some $$$ if he likes it. Also whenever the file is played, the player check if the content has been payed for. If not and the nag threshold has been reached, then the small window appear again.
If the user decide to pay me some $$$ then I send him a key or whatever that will tell the DRM system not to nag the consumer anymore.
Note that the DRM system should allow the user to actually transfer the file to another format. (I know this can probably allow the user to bypass the DRM altogether. But transfered file can be stamped in some way so the author can know retrace the key that was used to transert the file to the other format - this will be a deterent to user that want to share the transfered file)
If the system is not too annoying, then most people will not try to bypass it.
This will be like most shareware we have today. You can download them freely and some will nag you from time to time so you buy the software if you use it.
I know that big media cie will not like a system like this because there is not enough control but the small label or independent artist will see great advantage in such system.
Re:I think it's a good idea... Think of shareware. (Score:2)
I have at least 5-10 apps that I paid for that are MINE and I cannot use because the moron-over-greedy programmer wrote it for a special key that changes each time. well now he is long-gone and I haveto scour warez and crack sites looking for either a keygen or a crack for that program.
Many many of us got burned by shareware and the overzealous control of the programmers. and those of us that got burned made sure we told many many others that we got burned. and Thus... shareware dies... It is nothing like it was in the 80's only a faded shadow of it's former self. because of their damned DRM they wrote into it.
Microsoft is doing the same now (Funny how shareware programmers were ahead of microsoft in this innovation) and starting to annoy their customers..
Now you want me to have to track you down every time I buy a new computer, reload the OS (if I'm a windows user... that's required almost yearly) or have to deal with hard drive failures? No thank you.
I will be one of them that will happily download a crack to completely defeat your protection so that my purchase stay's exactly that... a purchase and not the rental that many want it to be. I bought your song "balls on fire" and I demand the right to still have and play that song in 30 years.
ruh-roh (Score:3, Informative)
"We are working on a content protection system for decentralized peer-to-peer systems. The goal of the system is to allow individuals and content providers(large and independent) to be able to distribute content using peer-to-peer systems but maintain some control over their work. We concentrate on maintaining an open peer-to-peer file sharing environment. Our implementation uses open-source components and standards-based security. Feel free to email me if you want more information."
Anybody copy the paper?
What other content? (Score:2, Insightful)
Cough it up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, I wish people could understand that the reason user hostile software stinks has nothing to do with utilitarian advantage to any group - but the basic principle of liberty in the information society that the computers which are our eyes, ears, and mouths in this new world must serve us, and us alone.
Saying that "users will benefit from user hostile software" is like saying, "patients will benefit from doctors killing every third one to use his organs for the next two" or "people will benefit from lawyers not defending scumbags." We set down certain principles of the integrity and freedom that every individual deserves, and then we build our society and laws on top of that. Trying to restrict peoples actions by implanting control devices in the machines they use to communicate is such a hideous breach of that principle it can be considered no less than the 21st century answer to the totalitarian state.
Thirdly, it wasn't even an interesting paper and didn't deserve any attention for better or worse.
Re:Cough it up! (Score:2)
Sit down and think about it for a second. How would that work exactly?
Open crypto systems work because the software is serving the users - and both sides want to keep the communications secret. The whole point behind these technologies is that they are user hostile - they decrypt the file not for the user, but for themselves and then decide what the user can do (which is what makes them fuckware, so yes, all such technologies are fuckware). If they were GPLed, then we could modify the program to do whatever we wanted with the file (and redistribute it for the programming impaired) and then the whole digital restrictions thing have achieved completely nothing (which is actually the situation we have today, it justs takes a little more work to fix the object code, and which is why MS wants to integrate fuckware into every part of every computer.)
Here comes the /. effect... (Score:2)
Shhyeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt.
"We argue... we argue... we argue..." (Score:4, Insightful)
"We argue that the lack of content protection is currently hindering the introduction of richer content systems." Yeah, right... and here I thought the INTRODUCTION of Napster and AudioGalaxy had been VERY successful.
"Content owners will not make content available in the variety, quantity, and format that users want until adequate protection measures are in place." Bullpuckey. I own a Rocket eBook (= REB1100) which has hardware-based DRM locked to a serial number in the device. When I go on a trip I like to load it up with nice easy-reading current mainstream books. And, you know what? They're mostly not available. Never have been, even before the whole eBook scene died. I recently did a check--of about 44 titles on Oprah's book club, which I think is a good test since they're good books, widely distributed, have been out long enough to give plenty of time for conversion, etc.
In eBook format, with good DRM, about 6 titles are available.
In audiobook (cassette tape) format--with no DRM, and a much more expensive production process, about 35 titles are available.
So don't tell me that DRM will increase the choices available to me. It exists, and it doesn't.
Indeed, one of the whole premises behind the Rocket eBook/REB1100 was good hardware-based DRM. Why did it fail? It was (and is) a pretty good device from a techical, UI, and product point of view. The screen is a lot more pleasant to read than a Palm; it's a lot more portable than a laptop; I can settle in and have a fine "immersive" reading experience with it.
It failed BECAUSE of a) lack of content--I have more choice in the average airport bookstore than I do in the online "bookstore" for my device; b) overpriced content; and, c) BECAUSE of DRM.
What if its against my religious beliefs? (Score:2, Interesting)
What if my religion or my spirtual beliefs say that we should share all information?
There is a law, which specifically says that your religious beliefs come first.
Even if it werent an openGNU religious kinda thing as it might be for me, Its still very difficult to prove to anyone who has any morals, that sharing is bad.
People who want to buy a CD to support a musician, thats just fine, they will do that even if they own the Mp3s, to support the musician, The musician could sell mp3s and or CDs at their concerts and everyone would buy them.
The RIAA and MPAA however want to continue to be th e middleman. I'm not going to pay the middleman, I want to pay directly to a musician, Musicians should sell their own Mp3s directly to their fans via the web, peer to peer, and at concerts.
I agree peer to peer should allow us to pay if we CHOOSE to pay, If i listen to a song I like i should be able to push a button, and 25 cents should go DIRECTLY to the musician who made that song, no RIAA, no middleman, DIRECT payment via paypal or some other system not built yet.
We should choose what Music should be paid for, and what shouldnt. If Musicians dont want us listening to their music, they shouldnt release it to the public. If they release it to the public, its not their RIGHT as a musician to get us to buy every single thing they release, we should buy only what we want.
Thats how alot of other industries work, you try it, and then you buy it, or you pay the creator for the service and then they release their songs.
Copyright Really Is Against Some Religious Beliefs (Score:2)
That isn't as far fetched as it sounds. Islam believes all knowledge comes from God, and apparently the most respected, leading islamic intellectuals believe that the entire concept of intellectual property is against islam and against God. Not the government appointed lackey in Saudi Arabia, mind you, who will echo whatever values and opinions the government tells him to, but the leadership to whom the rest of the population listens.
Personally, I'm an athiest and find religions of pretty much every bent (Buddhism perhaps excepted) obsolete in the extreme, but this goes to show you that politics can make for strange bedfellows, and that if freedom of speech AND freedom of religion truly are paramount, then Copy Restrictions and Intellectual Property must lose.
Unfortunately, I think the reality is quite different. We can pay lipservice to the constitution, to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc.
Hell, they just got done pilfering the life savings of the entire middle class of this country, and aside from a few sacrificial, symbolic arrests nothing fundamental is being changed or repaired. In any other country, where the populace isn't as well trained and conditioned into submission, this would be the stuff of revolutions. Not here in the US, though...gotta worry about them nasty terrorists instead (who have killed less than 1/10th as many people as common car accidents have within the last year).
Re:What if its against my religious beliefs? (Score:2)
Umm...dude? Paypal is -- wait for it -- a third party. Some Other System Not Built Yet, unless either you or the artist in question ran it personally, would also be a third party system.
Since you want your push-button system that can deliver twenty-five cents on demand to whichever artist you choose, you'll probably want to build and maintain it yourself. You may want to consider using a Very Large Quarter Catapult, a Good Pair of Running Shoes, or even possibly an Envelope Bearing The Artist's Name And Address With Proper Postage And A Check Enclosed Which You Then Carry All The Way To A Mailbox, You Lazy Cretin.
Wait, no, that last one would go through a third party. My bad.
Re:What if its against my religious beliefs? (Score:2)
IF people can build gnutella they can build this, its only a matter of time. Currently the Gnutella builders are too busy fighting the RIAA and MPAA to build something like this. I think Mp3.com was a nice effort.
Re:What if its against my religious beliefs? (Score:2)
So how do artists get paid?
How do concerts end up sold out?
P2P for the enterprise (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize there are a lot of posts here like "WTF, who would install such a plugin?" People need to look past P2P as just Internet file sharing. There are many uses for P2P in office networks, academic networks, and with wireless pdas, laptops, tablets, etc..
useless plugin. (Score:2)
If it is going to do decryption so you can recieve a good file from an allowed source I dont see the point. All it will take is one person to get a good file and re-share it.
If they want to do DRM they HAVE to do it at the player and that will only annoy people not stop them. The best examples are the "protected CD's" defeated with a 95 cent magic marker.. it stopped nobody from ripping that CD and was easily defeated for all to enjoy.
they need to give up as the people that want the music/media will always win.
On the same note (Score:4, Informative)
Not to say they have everything right, but "THE NEW VERSION, set to launch Thursday, will add to the flexibility of the subscription service by allowing unlimited song listening, as well as more compact-disc burning and permanent downloads that consumers can keep even after their subscriptions run out."
They're offering different levels of service depending on how much you pay (makes sense), but it looks like a step in the logical direction.
Company Website [pressplay.com]
Yes, but they have a ways to go. Here's why: (Score:3, Informative)
They want $18 from me if I want to burn and keep 10 songs a month. That's like paying full price for a CD, except that I have to supply the CD and make it myself, and don't get any liner notes, cover art, etc.
Conclusion: it's still overpriced.
Show Me The Money (Score:5, Interesting)
EPICS, Georgia Tech Receives Software Grant to Improve Retention For Minority Students [gatech.edu] (2000)
This year, they'll have even more to celebrate, as Microsoft Research's University Relations Group announces a grant that will put "bundles" of its latest software and publications in the hands of 1,000 underrepresented students over the next two years.
EPICS, Microsoft Partnership Donates Software to Hands On Atlanta [gatech.edu] (date unknown)
"Thanks to the partnership of the nationally based Engineering Projects In Community Service (EPICS) and Microsoft Corporation, a generous software gift was recently donated to HOA. This software, Microsoft Project 2000, will allow the organization to implement a system to improve its special events planning. "
Microsoft Exec to Address Georgia Tech Grads [gatech.edu] (1999)
Deborah Willingham, vice president of Microsoft Corporation's Business and Enterprise Division Marketing, will address Georgia Institute of Technology's 205th Commencement ceremony on Saturday, December 18.
Microsoft grant gives OMED another reason to celebrate at Tower Awards [gatech.edu](date unknown)
This year, adding to the excitement, Microsoft Research's University Relations Group announced a grant that will put "bundles" of its latest software and publications in the hands of 1,000 underrepresented [Georgia Tech] students over the next two years.
This was just a quick check on Google.
Again, there might not be a cookie jar that Microsoft doesn't have their fist in, but it might be nice to know.
Re:Show Me The Money (Score:2)
Sure, they're also mucking around with DRM, but that's it. Oh, and there is a Limewire port for Windows. Ah-ha! Now I see their sinister claws in this matter.
That's not the cookie jar... (Score:2)
Ouch!
Are they wrong, or do they lie? (Score:2)
They may be wrong. Or they may be lying. I do not see a third alternative. DRM is being used to cut people off from their cultural history. This is not just bad, this is evil. Companies that either use or support it deserve to be destroyed. Taken to pieces and auctioned off to the lowest bidder. And the results used to pay for the management's pensions, golden parachute, etc. I'll bid 2 cents, who'll bid less?
I can conceive that under some set of circumstances, with some conceivable implementation and in some environment there might be an advantage to DRM. But I cannot believe that it would ever be to the benefit of the end-users. And I can't see it being used to the benefit of independant artists. That's just too improbable.
Re:are you stupid or dumb? (Score:2)
I don't feel that this strengthens his argument.
The meaning of life is to die? (Score:2)
Will it be: this machine builds itself for the sole purpose of destroying itself?
We need Digital Payment Encouragement, not DRM (Score:2)
Howard Greenstein [howardgreenstein.com] thinks Janis's idea will only work with DRM, and puts up an outline of requirements for an Open Source DRM implementation.
The trouble with DRM is that it is trying to solve the wrong problem. The problem is not people copying digital works, it is creators not being paid.
We don't need 'Digital Rights Management', we need 'Digital Payment Encouragement'. If I liked three letter acronyms, I'd call it DPE, but I prefer mangled classical phrases with internal capitalisation, so I call it 'mediAgora'.
Let's take this point by point.
1. Enables purchasing, anonymously.
OK so far.
2. Contains or works with business rules that allow the content owner to designate a package of rights, including "fair use" rights. How would this be done? Allow users to certify that the current play/viewing/use is a 'fair use' one. (Oh, you're saying, people will just abuse this. Fine. They're already doing it. Come up with a better idea. That's the intent of this writing...)
Now this is silly. How does this work? Every time you try to copy it you get an EULA-style popup accusing you of being a thief and asking you to assert that you aren't? What purpose does this serve? Is it just to annoy me and encourage me to hack the message out?
3. Enables resale or transfer of rights
4. Enables copying to some devices for one fee, copying to additional devices for another, etc.
These don't take any enabling - they are possible by default. It is attempting to disable them that makes DRM systems annoying, offensive and value destroying
5. Makes sure money flows back to the correct parties, lowers friction.
This should be number 1, not number 5. I agree absolutely, but I think that you need to think through who the correct parties are. By rewarding those who copy the work in a way that leads to a sale, you align their incentives with the Creators of the work. Being able to be paid for Promoting like this does imply giving up anonymity to the extent that payments can be tracked.
6. Is open so people who wish know how the system works, can correct and improve it. It can work on whatever platforms can attract dev resources.
Good idea.
7. Is STABLE - the protocols and formats can't change all the time because keys are written into hardware.
Where did that come from? The protocols needn't change but I expect formats to continue to evolve; as long as they have a way of attaching a short metadata reference to an ID, I think mediAgora can work with any format. By being based on consent and trust rather than coercion and restriction, the technical prerequisites are far more relaxed, and unlike a 'lock it up' DRM model, you don't need to be able to repudiate the whole thing and abandon the content when it is (inevitably) compromised.
Re:YES! I've been looking for one of these! (Score:2)
Well, unless you happen to be a mouse of course. The mice will run the other way.
I leave it to the reader to decide if they are inventor or mouse in a DRM situation.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Publicity, not technology (Score:2)
The corralary is when you place values, responsibility and accountability in the hands of technology, you free up people (or the collective social conciousness) from having to adhere to said behaviour.
There is a subconcious belief these days that *if* you can do (get away with) something, it must be OK
Re:Did anybody mirror the paper? (Score:2)
Although it seems quite risky to mirror something that was meant to be about right management.
I would be interrested in a system that would in a way distribute content and restrict it at the same time.