Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New RIAA/MPAA "Customary Historic Use" Plan

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the evil-written-all-over-it dept.

Media 444

Random_Transit writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the EFF has dug up plans by the RIAA/MPAA to stifle the consumer electronics market by replacing it's "fair use" policy with something called "Customary Historic Use". This new policy would effectively keep anyone from inventing any new type of media device without the RIAA/MPAA's say-so."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

RIAA (5, Insightful)

UPZ (947916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531568)

Monopoly does this to people.

Re:RIAA (4, Funny)

d4nowar (941785) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531761)

Yeah... it also lets you build houses/hotels on your property.

Re:RIAA (3, Funny)

acariquara (753971) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532108)

Humor police

You have made a bad pun. Go straight to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

Bring it on! (5, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531570)

Great, this is what I want to see from the RIAA. The more they restrict how people can use their commercial crap, the more encourage independants who'll value their listeners.

Re:Bring it on! (5, Insightful)

MaelstromX (739241) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531605)

You're missing the point. When the RIAA uses its influence in D.C. to regulate technological progress (or lack thereof), you're not going to be able to enjoy your independent music in the ways you'd like to (i.e. anything that doesn't fall under "customary historic use").

Though now that I see it, you live in Australia, so please allow 6-8 weeks for the lunacy to reach your shores.

Re:Bring it on! (4, Interesting)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531672)

you're not going to be able to enjoy your independent music in the ways you'd like to

I won't be allowed to wander down to the pub and listen to them play?
Seriously though, the RIAA has already lost this. The cat's out of the bag, the worms are out of the can. Right now, they're playing a stall game to buy time for a response, but I think in the long run they'll be too fat and unwieldy to adapt, so they'll wither, if not die.

There's already too many ways out there that'll allow talented people to make and distribute music for the RIAA to retain their stranglehold on the market. We're already seeing that here (in Western Australia) where our remoteness meant local musicians have had virtually no chance of getting signed with a label. There's a great buzz of talent starting to realise they can do it all themselves with a few thou's worth of recording gear and a friendly web host.

I'm looking forward to it.

Re:Bring it on! (2, Interesting)

lachlan76 (770870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531702)

Though now that I see it, you live in Australia, so please allow 6-8 weeks for the lunacy to reach your shores.

6-8 weeks? Pfft...Real ID made it over in under 3.

This makes independents illegal (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531791)

Reread the article.

This legislation is written to prevent any new competition arising from the benefits of the electronic age.

If this legislation passes, there will be no such thing as independent ever again

Re:Bring it on! (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532002)

Great, this is what I want to see from the RIAA. The more they restrict how people can use their commercial crap, the more encourage independants who'll value their listeners.

I've never quite understood this logic. When you want a specific song, you want that song. Not a similar song by some band you never heard of. The labels have a monopoly on the distribution of songs/albums. You must go through them (to be on the up and up). You can't buy a song from "Bob's DRM-Free Music Store" if Bob doesn't sell that song.

The system is bad, and getting worse all the time. But the reason the system is so bad is that each label has a million little monopolies. The product the labels sell you isn't "music", it's *this* song/album, or *that* song/album.

Re:Bring it on! (2, Interesting)

Paraplex (786149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532118)

Yeah I agree completely. The RIAA or any other such organisation no longer offer us *anything*. They used to have control because they had the equipment, the studios, the distribution and the promotional powers, but their time has come to an end. My group Children in the Game [] are giving their album away free for whomever wants it, in an attempt to help topple the RIAA's power.

Once music stops being hugely profitable, people assume music will stop being made. This is complete RIAA propaganda. They suck the life and soul out of musicians, milk them until they are dry and then move on. IMHO buying albums through these huge companies is feeding these parasites to the detriment of anyone who cares about music.

We're battling formats? We're debating HD vs BluRay while these swines continue to fuck us? fuck them! Release your films/music in an open format and i'll record it onto any fucking disc or other storage medium I want!

Another model will be created that links consumers to the artists directly. An open infrastructure that doesn't require middlemen (i'm glaring at you itunes) will be created, but until then, I, and others like me will continue to create music without the promise of riches and bitches and whatever else music has been raped and disfigured into being about.


CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531573)



silverkniveshotmail. (713965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531675)

while you're probably right to an extent, this one steps beyond the severity of something that will only try and prevent you from making copies.

In other news... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531578)

Automobile banned for violating historic customary use laws for the wheel.

Record companies banned (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531807)

Record companies banned for violating historic use law of piano rolls.

One step forward (backward) (4, Insightful)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531582)

This isn't even in the same realm, is it? That's why I say one step...perhaps the better term would be "away" and not forward or backward. Our constitution doesn't cover the issue of fair use rights as far as I'm aware, but shouldn't legal precedent prevent anything this insane from being upheld on challenge?

funny (2, Insightful)

realTremens (947923) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531588)

"At the height of their cultural power, the samurai were authorized to kill peasants for an insane number of reasons, including 'acting in an other than expected manner.' So look on the bright side: at least we don't live in feudal Japan... yet." haha

Re:funny (1)

o_miljac (868340) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531694)

not yet ... but they will be able soon to throw people in prisons doing slave labour to boost local economy.

Re:funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531847)

Imminent domain!

They can't kill you, yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531795)

Just try looking weird and strolling through the local mall. We live in a society where we have to enter private property to do almost anything. The property owner (and those who work for the property owner) can kick anyone off the property for any reason. I watched a harmless nut case being ejected last night. As far as I could tell, he had bothered no one. He just looked weird. (really weird)

On the public streets you have some rights but those are eroding. In Britain the cops have much more extensive powers than they do here. They can stop and search anyone on suspicion that they may be carrying something harmful. They don't need a good reason. The result is that lots of people get searched for walking while black.

Our forefathers started this country because they hated repression. What we're getting now is repression by the back door. The RIAA is in the vangard of our oppressors.

Re:They can't kill you, yet (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531990)

>Our forefathers started this country because they hated repression.

Well, except for those that were in it for reasons of tax evasion. Or those that came for reasons of self-repression like the pilgrims.

Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531590)

WTF?... I can't wait for these dinosaurs to kick off and shut the f*sk up. Man I hope this is just FUD! If not- we need to gather teabags, and look out Boston Harbor. Sheesh! Enough of this crap already. **AA: you're obsolete- get over it! Welcome to the 21st century!

Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (4, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531630)

don't use teabags... I know what you're getting at, but , instead, chuck DRM'd CDs and DVDs into a furnace... in public, with the media present, and explain to them exactly why your NOT gonna take it anymore...

reminds me of the movie Tommy, where the disciples were made to wear earplugs, blindfolds and put corks in their mouths and told to play pinball... in the end, the disciples told him where to shove the cork...

we, the consumers, have the ultimate power... we can just stop buying or watching their crap... don't pirate it though, just don't buy it or subscribe to stations which force this on you...

Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531712)

Spoken with wisdom. Yes, you are right- sorry for "losing it", but sometimes letting off a little steam can postpone the blowup. It just gets frustrating, the phenonoma that boinks my brain: as individuals, I have met and enjoyed the company of a lot of bright people; put them in a large group, and it seems the collective IQ drops to 30% instantly. ????!!!!!???? Convincing enough individuals to sway the "collective idiot" seems near impossible from all of my observations so far.... Oh well, just keep trying is all I know.

Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (1)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531975)

please do so in a well ventilated area. I would rather not die of toxic plastic and RIAA poisoning

Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532035)

we, the consumers, have the ultimate power...

Yes, but that power is not organized. We don't use our power rationally, because the disorganized, unfocused collective isn't rational.

We, the consumers, have wielded our ultimate power, and we've chosen to accept DRM, even if an overwhelming majority of us, had we a democratic vote, would emphatically cast it against DRM.

we can just stop buying or watching their crap... don't pirate it though, just don't buy it or subscribe to stations which force this on you...

If your plan counts on this, I suggest you find a new plan. It's just not going to happen.

If I want a particular song, and it's only legally available with DRM, what rational argument do you have to convince me not to either buy it, or "pirate" it? Show me a true movement, with true potential, and perhaps you can convince me to join it, but if it's just me and like 200 other people on Slashdot, we're not going to have an effect. Why engage in self-immolation if you know it's going to do no good?

Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (2, Funny)

TheSalzar (945163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531637)

We should have a boston cd party

Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (4, Insightful)

BrynM (217883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531666)

I can't wait for these dinosaurs to kick off and shut the f*sk up.
People have been saying this for 30 years. It's not going to happen. It's a system. It won't just up and die one day, it has to be changed (which you also note). Young, ambitious people can be greedy too. Especially when they have teachers.

I think we're seeing the stranglehold on music being shaken, but there will always be greedy bastards trying to pull one over. For now it's an arms race between legislative gaming ("them") and consumer education ("us"-ish). Sadly, consumer education isn't as easy as it sounds in a media based nation like the US. I personally have almost given up on spamming congresscritters. I'm afraid it's white noise to them by now. What worries me more than these individual battles is the signs of democracy being injured in the process. As a whole, we're not long-term fighting very much. We're putting out legal fires where/when/if we can.

Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531733)

Yeah, you are right on- I just lost it for a moment. Also, I've had several replies reminding me that I'm livin' in the dark ages- forget the teabags, this is the digital age- Boston CD Party! w00t!! (thanks for the reality check) *treehuggers cringe*!!

Re:Thought Police are patrolling the 'hood (3, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532029)

I personally have almost given up on spamming congresscritters.

Unless you're buying expensive dinners for them, or shuttling them around in your private jet or paying for travel to exotic locations, it's likely you're part of that pesky background noise your legislator's lobbyists are trying to shield them from. To them you're part of a well meaning but ultimately not very bright group of people called constituents who don't understand how things really get done. tion/epaper/2006/01/01/a2a_bellsouth_0101.html

Is anyone here an Oregon voter? (5, Informative)

MaelstromX (739241) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531591)

Please contact your lamebrained Senator [] to let him know what you think of the bill he's introducing.

Why stop there? (1)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531663)

Write both of your own state's senators AND this guy. There's no reason to keep your letter-writing campaign limited just to the guy who introduces the bill. Hit up the chairs of the committees it's sent to as well.

Nerd Employment Preservation Act of 2006 (4, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531690)

I'd like a law like this too. If technology ever makes my job obsolete, I plan to stay at home watching TV and receiving payments from my current employer, as mandated by a proposed law intended to preserve the status quo I enjoy today: the "Nerd Employment Preservation Act of 2006".

If we scrape together some money we can easily have this done. Republican Senator Gordon Smith, for example, the genius behind this fair use bill, can be bought for pretty cheap: []
Between May 2001 and May 2002, Abramoff wrote three $1,000 checks to Smith, followed by a $2,000 check in June 2002 from one of his main clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaws. In late October 2002, right before Smith's reelection, while he enjoyed a large lead in the polls over Democrat Bill Bradbury, the senator accepted three more checks totaling $4,000, two from the Mississippi tribe and one from another Abramoff client, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in California. Since the election, Smith has received two additional checks from Abramoff's Indian clients, totaling $6,000.
Why should record companies get all the status quo preserving laws? If everyone in this thread were to donate $10 to a special PAC, we could probably get the "Nerd Employment Preservation Act of 2006" passed easily. And we could make extra money by taking short positions on the stocks of all our employers before Wall Street finds out about our new law.

Re:Is anyone here an Oregon voter? (1)

feyhunde (700477) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531867)

I'm from Roseburg, and I'm part of his major constancy of rural folks. And I appealed to his belief in the principles of small government, and the fact that this will break Oregon's tech market. While our media market sucks. Really makes no sense for an Oregon senator to vote for, let alone submit.

Will this eliminate Software Patents? (4, Funny)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531597)

Indeed, by definition, a patent describes something "new" (at least, in theory, it should...).

If it's "new", it cannot be "customary historic". Thus, at least in the area of multimedia, this law will mean that from now on, no algorithms may be patented.

Either they have to admit that their algorithms are not "new", and they should not be patentable. Or they must admit that they are "new", and thus cannot be "customary historic". Now settle that among you, RIAA and patent sharks!

Re:Will this eliminate Software Patents? (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531648)

Bottom line:

Until we are *required* to get a neural implant/interface, then just keep an analog recording device around (current PC with decent sound card, tape recorder, etc.) to record whatever audio. Think about it- to output a signal that the ear can detect (listen to), it has to be analog, the human ear don't know adam from apple about a digital signal.

There won't be any more analog outputs (4, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531945)

This is covered, which is part of what makes this so evil:

The "secure moving technology" ensures that whatever you do with the signal that leaves the digital broadcast receiver, it definitely won't be anything you can't already do right now. Furthermore, even some things that you can currently do will be outlawed if those things could facilitate piracy. This probably means that such devices won't have much in the way of hi-fi analog outs.

In other words, since analog capture could possibly lead to piracy, new devices will be required to not have analog outputs any more.

Re:There won't be any more analog outputs (2)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531992)

so hook up to the speaker output.. or if speakers take digital outputs, hook up to the leads into the voice coil.. or if they move to some sort of servo controlled mechanism, hook up a digital micrometer and measure the change in the measurement..

or more simply, put a microphone in front of the speaker.

Until they can prevent sound from moving through air in compressions and rarefactions (is that right?), there will always be a way to get a copy- though perhaps not an exact copy. With good enough playback equipment and good enough recording equipment and the right type of room, theres no reason you couldn't get a near-perfect analog recording.

Re:There won't be any more analog outputs (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532067)

I'm not saying that performing captures and/or copies will be impossible, I'm just saying that to normal people, it won't be very practical, and what a normal person can get will be of extremely questionable quality, probably useless.

Unless, of course, you leave the job up to non-normal people with equipment and rooms like you're talking about and just copy the stuff as a pirate. It's just sad that in order for us to exercise our fair use rights, we have to break the law.

No collision with Software Patents (1)

Gnavpot (708731) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531731)

If it's "new", it cannot be "customary historic". Thus, at least in the area of multimedia, this law will mean that from now on, no algorithms may be patented.

Nice try. But your logic is incredibly flawed, even if it was meant as a joke.

The RIAA/MPAA does not and can not decide if new algorithms can be patented.

Nothing prevents you from patenting a new algorithm. But if you want that algorithm to be used for content controlled by RIAA/MPAA, their approval will be necessary - or at least they want their approval to be necessary.

Bucket. (1)

In Fraudem Legis (937585) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531634)

Maybe it's time for **AA to kick the bucket...

Re: Bucket. (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531707)

> Maybe it's time for **AA to kick the bucket...

Sorry, but that's not a Customary Historic Use of buckets.

Been there, seen that, bought the T-shirt (4, Interesting)

Sique (173459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531636)

I've grown up in a country with a law defining the legal devices to replay recorded music. In this case it wasn't for home use though, but for public play like in a club or at parties. In this case it was probably to enable the state authorities to check the music for subversive content.
But the idea is the same: To control the situation, forbid any not yet controlled entity to enter it.

Re:Been there, seen that, bought the T-shirt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531856)

Was this Soviet Russia?

Because you see, Mr. Quartet, in Soviet Russia, the law defines what devices can play you!

Re:Been there, seen that, bought the T-shirt (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531884)

It was East Germany. But close enough, yes.

This is necessary (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531642)

It may sound draconian, but copyright simply can't be enforced without this kind of legislation. This is absolutely the logical conclusion once you go down the copyright path.

Of course, some might say that the existence of copyright in the first place is indefensible, and who really cares about the details?

Oy (0, Offtopic)

c0dedude (587568) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531644)

Slashdot news cycle:
1. Get whiff of bill potentially adding to draconian copyright protections.
2. Post leaked draft of bill.
3. Bill is introduced. Panic.
4. Bill never sees the light of day due to massive infeasibility and congressional immobility. No coverage.
5. Repeat from the top.

Re:Oy (1)

LionOfMacedon (947932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531773)

I believe that such bills never see the light might partially be because of the publicity the draconian bill gets, which otherwise might have been passed *quietly*.therefore, in my opinion, I think it is necessary for such kind of news of introduction of bills to be posted on places like Slashdot, where the misinformed, and the uninformed can come to know about it.

Re:Oy (1)

jacoplane (78110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531793)

Right. See: DMCA [] , Software patents [] . Maybe your step 3 is not such a bad idea afterall.

Re:Oy (1)

astralbat (828541) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532001)

Hear! Hear!

I almost want to see them succeed (1)

mallie_mcg (161403) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531650)

Now - I say this in the sense of only wishing to see them succeed in getting ONE of these scams err, schemes that limit fair use through. It will only stifle innovation within America on media devices - if the American public believe that they are missing out they will likely be able to get their senator/congressman/representative of the people to enact change that gives back the rights to people and removes them from this monopoly organisation

I am not citizen of the US, nor have I ever visited - my country looks like it will soon be enacting some laws to give fair use rights to consumers that currently do not exist (.AU)

It will not be limited to the US (1)

Poingggg (103097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531868)

Alas, here in Europe the European (not elected) Commission will try to get these laws too when the US decides to enact them. All this in the name of Big Money ^W^W harmonisation of laws.
At this moment they are still (again) trying to push software patents to law, despite noone here does want that.

Europe, like the US, is changing from a democracy to a Big-Dough-cracy, only we are a few years behind...

Simple Solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531651)

A simple solution is to stop watching videos or listening to music. If the **IA crap succeeds, that's what we'll all be doing anyway.

Don't lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531679)

I have thought of assassinating these morons many many times, all the good civil rights and justified people have been assassinated, why not scumbags who exploit capitalism. Either the Gov/Law fixes these assholes, or the people, so called "thieves" or not, WILL! Go ahead and mod me down, like you've never thought of it before.

20 years or bust (5, Insightful)

mrshowtime (562809) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531683)

"Customary Historic use" Something only a lawyer could come up with. Really, in 10 years everthing will be able to be downloaded relatively instantly and there ALWAYS will be rogue countries that will allow copyright infringement. Sites like will become a one stop shop for downloading media. Then, legislation will be introduced banning or making "unapproved" websites illegal to access. Heck, I would not even be surprised for the RIAA/MPAA to use whatever leftover version of the Patriot Act to stop people from downloading movies/music/media from "unapproved" countries in the guise of national security.

In a way, I don't blame the media companies for freaking out. In 10 years physical media will almost be on it's way out. You will see much more use of "keys" and "rights mangement" built into EVERYTHING. Valve's Steam network is a good example of things to come. I would go as far to suggest that there will be one world standard coming in the next 10 years for rights management. You won't be able to buy hardware that won't connect to the internet to verify the intergrated rights mangement.

The way they will get ya, is the "You can download -ANYTHING- now if you accept the new rights management built into everything." This sounds good, but the RIAA/MPAA are greedy a-holes as evidenced by the DIVX (the dvd player, not the codec) debacle; you won't own anything except limited rights that can always be revoked or blocked at any time. Let's say it's 2020 and you want to buy "A Clockwork Orange" only to find out it's blocked by your country for being subversive or obscene (like England did) Pretty much you will have no recourse, no bootlegs, no nuttin, except maybe that old dvd on ebay (if that has not been outlawed by reverse customary historic use).

I guess with the world going to a cashless society in less than 20 years, I can forsee an "all in one" digital rights card/chip that you carry around with you that will not only get you into the movie theater, but buy downloadable movies/games/music/books/etc. Find a chip/card too cumbersome to carry around? well don't worry the new ruler of europe, Anthony T. Christ, just decreed you must have a RFID chip implanted in you, for -ALL- Commerce and as a bonus will throw in digital rights mangement for free!

Re:20 years or bust (5, Informative)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531705)

and you want to buy "A Clockwork Orange" only to find out it's blocked by your country for being subversive or obscene (like England did)
like england did not. Some copycat crimes happened in the UK, Stanley Kubrick, in no way linked to her majesty's government, retired the film in the UKuntil he died.

Re:20 years or bust (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531970)

Screw you, limey. We're the US - we tell you what your history is!

Re:20 years or bust (1)

quis (737516) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531708)

that's allofmp3 [] ...

Re:20 years or bust (1)

sumday (888112) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531740)

"there ALWAYS will be rogue countries that will allow copyright infringement."

don't be so sure about that. Americans managed to get cannabis(an almost harmless drug, in comparison to modern perscription medicines, alcohol, and tobacco) completely outlawed in pretty much every single country in the world. I think, given enough time and money, they could do the same with intellectual propety law violation.

Re:20 years or bust (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532030)

> "You can download -ANYTHING- now if you accept the new rights management built into everything."

LOL. Do you REALLY think they would then make downloading "legal"???*

Did you know that right now you already *pay* for making copies. (at least in germany) you pay on pcs, cd/dvd-writers and this special media "for audio" (that nobody with the slightest knowledge would use).

And copies are still "illegal"*.
You know that industry has only *one* objective: maximising profit.
So if a company wants to have endlessly grow profit (impossible but still their target), we WILL steer to a world where you pay as much as you can for every singe listening, then pay additionally for your "download everything" connection, next you'll pay taxes going directly to the industry (subsitys for ex.), and finally:
Any copy (including unauthorized listening [=copy from active speakers with digital DRM to ears]) will still be punished with the electric chair.

And any company not following their rule of maximum profilt WILL go down the hill and be replaced by companies with less scruples...

Try to prove me wrong!

* the problem is that a small group (media industry) still has the money to define (il)legality. so we HAVE to change this.

Re:20 years or bust (1)

emakinen (875208) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532068)

I think your dystopia is somewhat exaggerated. For the media industry, there is really no need for all-out control of digital content. It is enough, that the majority of consumers will not download copyrighted content without paying. When there is a DRM system which you can't break without knowing something about technology, it will guarantee sufficent profits. Of course they will harass the people downloading without paying, but that is the name of the game.

Re:20 years or bust (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532113)

and there ALWAYS will be rogue countries

      Countries that don't follow US copyright law are rogue countries now? Choose your words more carefully before insulting the rest of the world.

Fair Use isn't an RIAA policy. (4, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531697)

It's a doctrine of copyright law, which the RIAA and its predecessors have always fought against.


Lovely. (5, Informative)

Jaazaniah (894694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531700)

When technology first came along and swept music into our lives, it did so en mass. Further broadening the broadcasts will cost someone, that's for sure, but locking codecs into laws, linking ridiculous software patents to laws that won't expire without being smited by a judge with common sense? Here's a funny story. When Phillips and Sony finalized Red Book [] in 1979, it was done based off another technology source, Laserdiscs. If someone tried that today, they would be swamped by roughly 30 letters of patent infringment warnings, and if this law passes a startup that builds it's own machine (and for arguement's sake avoids stepping on toes) based on HD broadcasts would get slapped with a violation of this new ridiculous bill. (by way of bypassing the Customary Historic Use hardware regulations) Not only is this a blatant slap in the face for creativity in business, but it is also a "Pay to use our patented broadcast flag technology in your hardware or get sued for not doing so anyways!"

And just so I don't fire people up without giving them an outlet, here's some useful links. We need to hound the government EN MASS to get this proposal squashed.

Contact List
U.S. Chamber of Commerce [] - This law is anti-competitive for the above reasons (and likely more). Let them know.

State-sorted contact list of state senators [] - Can you write effectively, and do you want to make a difference? Go here and DO it. There's no reason to sit idle if you, as a citizen here, have an objection. Get others to do it too. Send them the link. Mass email it, mail in an old fashioned petition. Senators don't read Slashdot, and don't consult geeks unless it involves upgrading computers. Go here.

Re:Lovely. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531894)

When Phillips and Sony finalized Red Book in 1979, it was done based off another technology source, Laserdiscs. If someone tried that today, they would be swamped by roughly 30 letters of patent infringment warnings

Only if you're talking about a newbie company trying to introduce something.

The big media/manufacturing companies have enough overlapping patents that you'd see yet another licensing agreement or organization that forces everyone else to adhere to the standard and pay royalties, just like with DVD and its successors, HDTV, etc.

Downloading in Holland (2, Informative)

tsa (15680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531713)

In my country (The Netherlands) downloading for your own use is legal [] (sorry - the links you get are mostly in Dutch). I hope it stays this way for a long time; this prevents moronic laws as the one described in the article to enter Europe for a long time to come. Hopefully.

Re:Downloading in Holland (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531718)

Grrr, something went wrong with the link. I meant this one [] .

Quote from 1984 anyone? (5, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531726)

So they want total control over the next generation?

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed--if all records told the same tale--then the lie passed into history and became truth.

You will study a RIAA/MPAA approved course, work in a RIAA/MPAA approved media job and get your pension from a RIAA/MPAA approved company.

No lost 'clips' from the past - just one RIAA/MPAA view of the past - as they will have the only keys to all the press archives.
Political parties and families can be assured that all the bad stuff is locked away for good now.
No ghosts from the past to upset any political party 20-30 years on.

Images of young men and woman before the courts as minor officials will just not exist away as they move up the ladders of power.
Images of your now top leaders shaking hands with friendly dictators, giving testimony about arms deals or military excesses
will now all be encrypted.

Re:Quote from 1984 anyone? (1)

Mancat (831487) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531809)

Okay. I know they're bad and all, but maybe you should tone it down a little? You're more than paranoid.

More information on the Broadcast flag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531735)

From Wikipedia:
  1. Broadcast flag []
  2. Digital Content Protection Act of 2006 [] (Not yet written, maybe someone feels up to the task).
  3. This one is kind of unrelated, but also in the same vein: Digital Transition Content Security Act []

OK by me! (3, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531737)

I still have all my old wax cylinders. That damn punk Rudy Vallee - I showed him at last.

Prevent Americans, not anyone (5, Insightful)

jemnery (562697) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531746)

Sorry, but the article refers to American trade associations. I live in a country (the UK) that used to rule a large part of the world, and be by far the most advanced in industry and technology. This is no longer true. If the US wants to go the same way, just keep on stifling innovation in this way. There's nothing to stop China, India, Sweden etc etc from innovating with complete freedom.

This is not intended to start a flamewar; I've been to the US and enjoyed it, and I'd be the first to defend all the good things that have come from America (despite the current administration).

Re:Prevent Americans, not anyone (0, Troll)

mrscorpio (265337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531785)

Nothing except the fact that China and India (the former especially) have a distinct lack of freedom, and who takes the Swedes seriously?

Re:Prevent Americans, not anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531841)

and who takes the Swedes seriously?

Especially since we (the swedes) introduce our own laws, e g the recent one that makes it illegal to download copyrighted material that isn't explicitly permitted to be freely distributed.

And also, I wouldn't get my hopes up too much. As a part of EU, legislation seems to converge on the most evil/least permissive of the regulations of the participating countries. And EU is more or less bought by USA anyway.

Re:Prevent Americans, not anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531843)

China and India (the former especially) have a distinct lack of freedom

You should really try travelling outside of your own borders once in a while before shooting your mouth off.

India lacks freedom? Excuse me? Have you seen the chaos that is India? China - please, as long as you don't criticise the government you're arguably freer to do whatever you want than in the USA - if anything it's too much anarchy. Your point about Sweden is peurile. There was a time when nobody took the USA seriously, and that time is approaching again - it is already the subject of snickering the world over.

Hey, the Swedes are awesome! (1)

Voltageaav (798022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531874)

I love their colorful Monopoly money. It's even more colorful athn the Euro and the Canadien Dollar. As to starting a flamewar, I'm a US citizen and I agree with you 100%. You won't be getting any flames from me.

Re:Hey, the Swedes are awesome! No it's not! (1)

HeavyMS (820705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531916)

I live here and we have our share of stupid and retarted politicians that have no clue about the real world!

And taxes did i mention taxes... 32% income tax, 25% sale tax, and the eployer must pay the govermant 30% of your paycheck before it's tax to the goverment just becuse he whants to pay you to work for you.

A consumer in sweden pays about 50% tax overall. And if you stupid enuff to start a buissnes you get to keep 1/3 of what you sell.. the rest is tax..

But that is the smal problem the real problem is the polar bears that are roming the streeets eating children.. :P

This is Bullshit!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531766)

Abuse of Public Trust.

The truth is the **AA has within it's capacity to protect **AA content today and has had that capacity for at least the last ten years. Their reason for this are likely to stifle potential rivalry of new services and new content providers which is not provided by them and possibly to gain revenues from consumers who do not use their content in the first place (their actual market spans less then 1/4 of the US population).

This legislation makes their authorized content the only legally available content consumers can legally digest. If I make a comical short in blender and rendered in POVray, you cannot watch it because I cannot pay the extortion fees leveed by the **AA. If we find a way around this, we will go to prison. My band and I have a web page with 20 downloadable mp3's for promotional purposes, it's the same thing.

If Senator Gordon Smith understood the implications of what he proposed, he should be in prison. If he didn't, then he has no place in the Senate.

The way to interpret this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531787)

The way to interpret this is to go back just a little ways in history and define "customary historic use" based on the highly-useful first Napster, before the RIAA censored it to smithereens.

What I Would Love To See... (4, Interesting)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531820) a new technology that becomes hugely popular in Japan & Europe, but that is banned in the US because of some law introduced at the request of the *AA. Maybe then people will wake up to how these things really effect them.

Re:What I Would Love To See... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531985)

Great, but since all the media is controlled by the *AA, who's gonna tell us about it?!

I can just see Faux News now, warning us about the "new un-American ter'rist technology" that's "taking over" Europe and Japan...

Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531824)

Somebody needs to develop a digital media device for musicians and film makers to deliver their work directly to the consumer, then it is no concern of these fuckheads.

Oh wait...

It's all moot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531831)

What everyone seems to forget is that at some point, at least for music, the signal has to be transformed into analog to drive the speakers... thats how speakers work! At that point you can record it some how, some way and there you have it... all that DRM and stuff goes right out the window.

Re:It's all moot... (2, Informative)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531846)

Even the analog signals will contain a "broadcast flag" which means they're not allowed to be copied It will be illegal to build a device which ignores this flag and copies the signal anyway.

Re:It's all moot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531948)

Because we all know how making things illegal related to copying has stopped it from happening.

I don't see how the flag in an analog signal can be used in the last step of the electrical impulses driving the speaker cones...

If the RIAA wants to figure out a way to do that, I would love to see it, then I would love to seem them try to get everyone to buy these new speakers...

As long as you can see or hear something its able to be copied... lets just hope they dont bring DRM/Broadcast flags into the eyes and ears of us all!

These laws expose the real goal of big media (0)

jonwil (467024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531853)

Big Media wants a world where if you want content, you can only buy/use the content they say you can buy/use.
Contact your congressmen (preferably with a donation) to protest against Big Media. Promise to vote for the other guy if your congressmen support bills that are friendly to Big Media.
There is a mid-term election comming up in america so now is the prefect time to drum up anti-big-media support (i.e. votes).

Unfortunatly, it seems as though most of the sheeple voters in america care more about whether a woman can terminate an unwanted pregnancy or if two men can have a sexual relationship or what their kids should learn about the formation of the earth and the species that inhabit it than issues that really matter like the loss of civil liberties or the increasing power of Big Media or the various wars their givernment has gotten involved in or even wether someone in india or china will take their job tommorow.

Thankfully I live in australia where this kind of crap doesnt happen.

Re:These laws expose the real goal of big media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14531947)

no, the same laws are just implemented in australia under the 'fair trade' agreement - and the 'fair trade' agreement is flogged to the people as something completely different.

so, is canada still lookin good?

Copyright owned (1)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531854)

Even if copyright infringement is made a criminal offence (it's not right now as far as I know), to complex reality we live in means still the owner has to take some actions to sue the infringer.

Which means that the said "customary historic use" really impairs usage of content by RIAA/MPAA and those who are in the same camp as them.

The independent labels and artists need not enforce this law, and if it's really that bad, what it'll kill in the end is the usage of RIAA/MPAA content, rather than boost its usage.

So I say let's go with it and see what happens. They won't stop until their ruin themselves.

RIAA Mandate? (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531886)

Forgive me for asking, but what is the mandate governing the RIAA?
This is a US organization and have powers only in the US? Is it a semi-federal government supported body?
What are they mean to do?

Re:RIAA Mandate? (1)

swilver (617741) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532048)

RIAA is actually part of the US government.

I would assume (1, Insightful)

binkzz (779594) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531901)

the MAFIAA are afraid of losing power. The Internet weakens their position as artists can release their creativity directly to the users. Maybe they know they're fading away and are trying to lash out in panic to try and keep their position to some degree.

I remember the MAFIAA calling pirates 'Parasites who feed off of other people's creativity', which I thought was a cunning description of themselves.

Another example of capitalism hurting progress... (1)

daddyrief (910385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531906)

In the beginning, capitalism fed the growth of technology. Competition helped spur new technologies. In roughly ten years, computers went from unknown to everyday life. It seems to me that today, things are evolving at a slower pace than in the past...[please don't flame, my opinion]. Things are starting to stagnate...home technologies have been roughly the same for a few years. The companies have consolidated and monopolized and less pressure is on to innovate and 'push the limits.' Look at cell phone carriers -- there are only about 4 major ones today (in the US)...but I digress. What the RIAA is going to do is hurt the future growth of technology in the field of recordable media, in general. First, I believe they tried to prosecute various tape companies back in the day (I have no link; i could swear i heard it though), but then that led to CD's and P2P. Suddenly the RIAA was getting involved in what you could own on your computer. Now, suddenly, for some reason unbeknownst to me, they are going to have jurisdiction over what --equipment-- I have to use?! RIAA Approved, full of their shitty Anti-Piracy stuff? In the end, (and they are already starting to), they are going to hurt their own supporters; their consumers. They are going to be very inconvenienced -- after owning a cd they could pop into any player, it sure is inconvenient to have to go buy another $.99 allowance fee to play this song in the car radio, isn't it...? I hate that music is an 'industry.' When I hear the word 'industry,' words like 'factory' come to mind. Maybe I'm crazy. Hm.

Re:Another example of capitalism hurting progress. (1)

daddyrief (910385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531915)

I forgot that you had to do HTML for line breaks, sorry for the long paragraph...

Don't call them **AA, they are the MAFIA (2, Insightful)

Timo_UK (762705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531941)

Music and And Film Industry Associations, or short MAFIA.
Sounds a lot more appropriate.

The good news? (1)

baKanale (830108) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531942)

Well, maybe we can look at this in a good way. They won't be able to try to make another DivX player because, since the "customary historic use" of my DVD's has been that I own the right to view that content in an unlimited fashion! The irony in the bill, too, is that the "broadcast flag" is not within the "customary historic use" of television media! They've locked themselves in, the stupid fools!

My Customary Historic Use (5, Funny)

mcubed (556032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531952)

For more than a year in the historical period of 1999-2001, I customarily used the original implementation of Napster to download and share audio files. Therefore, Napster or any service that models itself along those lines is a customary historic use.

I'm fine with this. You go, Senator Smith!


Directive 10-289, anyone? (3, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 8 years ago | (#14531961)

Sounds a lot like Directive 10-289 [] from Atlas Shrugged...

Obligatory Anti-copyright rant (4, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532003)

The slippery slope of government's renting of their monopoly on the use of force is being proven right here.

Copyright can't work anymore. I'd say up until 1995 or so, you had copyright laws that were degrading but still were enforceable. It can't be done. It is time for everyone who creates content to find new ways to market it.

My typical reply to "how?" is to move to live performances and tours -- with a push to sell official merchandise on top of it. Some other people in support of my No Copyright opinions have even thought up other great ways to promote art without copyright:

1. You can charge your fans for access to your studio creation time via the web.
2. You can record your live art performance real time, dump it to DVD and sell it to the fans that were at the performance.
3. You can get a job with a larger company and be a salaried artist.
4. You can contract out with local pubs to be a regular live performance artist.
5. You can tour, often, using your cheap/free CDs or free MP3s to promote your music syle.
6. You can play cheaply in order to promote your real job: teaching others to play an instrument.

Copyright has one intent: to enable the cartels to retain control of the distribution. There is no other use for copyright enforcement longer than 3 years. I even think that 24 months sounds too long for me.

I've been debating copyright in real life for 2 years now, and I'm working on opening No Copyright Studios [] in Chicago, IL this spring. If you have interest in beating down the RIAA, move away from the law that supports their cartel -- copyright. If you're a band, a painter, a web designer, a sculptor or any other artist, there are ways to sell your art face-to-face for a profit and skip turning over your rights to a cartel middleman.

Let the RIAA keep their music. (5, Insightful)

sticks_us (150624) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532044)

Some points:

1) Of all the music being made out there, the standard industry practice guarantees you'll only ever hear an insiginficant fraction of what's available, and most of that is successful because it sounds like something else. What you get is the tiniest sliver of what's possible. Most of the greatest music being made will never make it to your ears.

2) Until recently, music was a social activity (people used to be able to play instruments and entertain family and friends, for example, and they'd also leave the house at times to hear others make music). Take off the headphones.

3) Enroll in a music class. Pony up the bucks, take some lessons, learn some techniques, and -- gasp -- make some of your own music. Music is OK when it's a passive activity (listening), but nothing compares to being able to make your own.

Music is something you make, share, and become a part of. When it becomes something you buy (like cereal or beer), it's *always* going to be fettered by copyright laws, etc.

Take it back, make it your own.

Neo-Luddites (4, Interesting)

Decker-Mage (782424) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532073)

So the scribes are going to go crying to mama-government to get a law passed to prevent Gutenberg from using his printing press. I do hope this bill never goes anywhere but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. They do have very deep pockets and it is an election year after all which means the politicians need lots of cash. If it does pass it will come down to the courts weighing fair use against historic use and I don't put much money on fair use as you can be sure the law will remove that privilege (it was never a right, just another provision of the law).

Let the techno-war begin. Hackers (the good kind) on one side, Neo-Luddit RIAA/MPAA on the other. I think I know which will win (us), but it's going to be messy.

How? (3, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14532137)

How can RIAA/MPAA have any say in how electronic devices are made, and what they can support and can't? How can they even propose anything about it? They're just an organization, not owning electronics companies, and not a political party. I can understand *AA protecting their distributed discs as they have the rights to do so (because the record labels being so are members of *AA), and conversely they don't have any say in protecting discs where labels aren't members, but this is looking like power on a government level when not being part of the government.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?