Beta
×

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!

DRM Critique Airs On National Public Radio

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the getting-the-word-out dept.

The Media 353

An anonymous reader writes to point out that a critique of Digital Rights Management made it onto the mainstream media this morning. NPR's Marketplace Morning Report ran a piece noting that with the demise of the VHS format we risk losing fair-use rights since we now have only digital media. From the article: "As our country moves forward to regulate digital copying, I urge us all to bear in mind T. S. Eliot's famous saying. 'Good poets borrow; great poets steal.'"

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

Missed it. (5, Interesting)

sporkme (983186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308066)

RealMedia, barf. How appropriate that a commentary on the restrictive nature of digital media should be distributed in that format.

I think they are looking at the past through rose-colored glasses a bit here. The owners of copyright material have always made efforts to restrict duplication, even in the not-so-good-ol-days of analog tape. Drop a quick "VHS copy protection" into Google and you will see countless references of the restrictive nature of that media, both on the audio and video tracks. Analog audio tapes included a pleasnt high-pitched screeching boobytrap (spoiler signal) for would-be copiers.

It is not the death of the analog media that represents the end of part of our culture--and the risk of lost rights--as the commentary claims. It is the lack of spine in our leaders to stand up for what is right. It is the lack of foresight and hindsight on the part of the copyright owners and the consumers that patronize them. Make some noise about that, NPR.

I would also like to point out the self-destructive nature of the analog media they are pining over. About one third of the VHS tapes that remain in my collection are playable. The first DVD I ever bought does not skip once.

Re:Missed it. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308244)

They have a podcast [publicradio.org] , so you can download the segment as MP3 (for now):

12/19/06 Marketplace Morning Report 2 [publicradio.org]

The segment is at 5:40 if you want to skip directly to it.

After all, it's produced using taxpayer money, it better be publicly accessible.

Re:Missed it. (5, Informative)

MysticOne (142751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308480)

Well, for one, this isn't NPR content. It's American Public Media, which is part of Minnesota Public Radio. While their public radio stations usually play NPR content, and these shows are usually syndicated, they aren't NPR programs. On top of that, public radio only gets a small portion of its funding from tax payer money. The majority of funding comes through donations during the pledge drives.

MOD PARENT UP. (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309026)

THANK YOU for pointing out these errors. Big difference between APM, MPR, NPR. I listen to Wisconsin Public Radio and they get as much as 30% of their funding directly from pledge drives.

Re:Missed it. (4, Insightful)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308532)

It is not the death of the analog media that represents the end of part of our culture--and the risk of lost rights--as the commentary claims. It is the lack...

Everything after that was wrong...

The threat to your "rights" and the rights of copyright holders is low cost digital duplication and distribution. Guess what, 100 years ago copying a book required that you buy the physical materials to print the book on and an expensive printer to print the book. It wasn't cheap. Enter VHS and VCRs... all of sudden where copyright holders had been protected by the high cost of copying their products they're now exposed to easy ultra-low cost duplication means. Enter p2p and you're totally fucked if you create ideas and content and hope to sell it.

The model has been that you create content that people are willing to pay for, and you limit the distribution of that content, and people buy it. If you kill off the ability to limit the distribution of that content then you've killed off the incentive to invest resources into commercial media.

Sure, you'll have all types of mix-ins and exciting mashups and derivative works for the first few years, but who is going to invest in the next Star Wars? The only people with money to invest in expensive media projects that will not return direct profits will be corporations and the rich. Star Wars... in a Ford Focus far far away...

Copyright is good. Protecting it is good. DRM is not inherently evil. Yeah, the media giants are a pain in the ass and generally despicable, but that doesn't make copyright bad and it doesn't mean that they aren't going to be forced to change over time.

Re:Missed it. (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308664)

The threat to your "rights" and the rights of copyright holders is low cost digital duplication and distribution. Guess what, 100 years ago copying a book required that you buy the physical materials to print the book on and an expensive printer to print the book.
So our rights were safe as long as we didn't have the means to effectively exercise them. As soon as we could exercise them, they were taken away. Thank you, Joseph Heller. Of course the fact that you put our rights in scare quotes and left their rights unadorned pretty much gave away what you think is important.
Copyright is good. Protecting it is good. DRM is not inherently evil.
The DMCA is inherently evil. The DMCA (or something like it) is the only way to protect the integrity of DRM, so DRM must also be evil. If DRM is the only way to protect copyright, then copyright must be evil.

Re:Missed it. (3, Interesting)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308850)

So our rights were safe as long as we didn't have the means to effectively exercise them.

What are you talking about? Since the inception of copyright you did not have the right to copy a copyrighted work and distribute it without permission. But, the costs made doing this in any large scale impractical and therefore made copyright infringement more uncommon and easier to identify and prosecute... and thereby protect the copyright holder. Low cost and readily available means of duplication and distribution completely blew that inherent protection out of the water. So now copyright is being infringed upon left-and-right.

The DMCA is inherently evil. The DMCA (or something like it) is the only way to protect the integrity of DRM, so DRM must also be evil. If DRM is the only way to protect copyright, then copyright must be evil.

Why is the DMCA inherently evil? The DMCA is NOT the only way to protect the integrity of DRM... and what kind of logical transference principles did you just manufacture here. DRM is not the only way to protect copyright (they've been doing that for years without it). Your logic is laughable and indicative of a anti-DRM fanboi.

Look... I understand that DRM can be used by copyright holders to limit the use of a piece of media and create all types of other fees and crap. I understand that and it's an issue that needs to be considered and looked into. That said... they still have a right to protect the content they've created or invested in. The law says they do... tossing out DRM and copyright all together isn't realistic.

Re:Missed it. (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308862)

Where, exactly, did the right to distribute other people's work originate? I think you've confused your desire for free entertainment with the fair use rights that exist.

Re:Missed it. (5, Insightful)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308974)

Where, exactly, did the right to distribute other people's work originate?

God, apparently. That right is part of the right of free speech and press, which is inherent in humanity. Copyright is an infringement on this right, as it is a right by an author, not to create works (which he already had) but to deny other people their equally inherent right to copy them. It is an acceptable infringement under the right circumstances, but its true nature should not be forgotten. And under the wrong circumstances (i.e. bad, overexpansive copyright law) the artificial right of copyright is not an acceptable infringement on our natural rights.

Re:Missed it. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308724)

"Sure, you'll have all types of mix-ins and exciting mashups and derivative works for the first few years, but who is going to invest in the next Star Wars?"

If the death of copyright means that the like of Episodes 1 & 2 will never occur again, I'm probably okay with that.

playable dvds (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308984)

I would also like to point out the self-destructive nature of the analog media they are pining over. About one third of the VHS tapes that remain in my collection are playable. The first DVD I ever bought does not skip once.

Unlike you I've had a number of dvds go bad on me whereas none of my tapes aren't playable. Currently my oldest tape is more than 15 years old and it still plays however I've bought brand new dvds I had to return because they wouldn't play. Now I'll admit my first dvd plays fine but others don't.

Falcon

We lost our fair use rights years ago... (5, Informative)

MinutiaeMan (681498) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308070)

Most people don't realize that even certain VHS tapes had DRM -- or at least a basic form thereof. Many years ago, for a high school video project, I wanted to splice a little scene from "Return of the Jedi" into our project. (The scene with the Ewoks bowing and scraping to Threepio, as a metaphor for the Aztecs greeting Cortez.) But when I tried to record it onto the family VHS video camera for splicing and transfer (we were using our VCR and the camera to create a very basic editing system; this was 1996!), the camera would quit recording after a few seconds, saying something about a "protected" video or something.

I forget how I got around it, but it was a pain in the ass. All for less than thirty seconds of fair-use footage for a damn high school project!

Re:We lost our fair use rights years ago... (2, Informative)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308142)

Google "Macrovision", before creating various forms of digital rights management, as well as acquiring InstallShield for some strange reason, they were the leading name in "analog rights management", i.e., screwing up VHS tapes to prevent dubbing.

Re:We lost our fair use rights years ago... (1)

porl (932021) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308932)

and in the same way that drm can screw over legitimate customers, i cant watch macrovision tainted dvds on my old tv because i have to run it through a video player to convert the composite signal to the old tv-aerial type, which of course has the same effect as if i was copying it (changing brightness etc).

Re:We lost our fair use rights years ago... (5, Informative)

StinkiePhish (891084) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308164)

Yep. It started in 1983 with the establishment of Macrovision Corporation.

From Wikipedia...
"The 1984 film "The Cotton Club" was the first videocassette to be encoded with the Macrovision technology when it was released in 1985"

"A VHS videotape or DVD (no laserdisc or video CD players implement it) or digital cable/satellite boxes receiving a data stream encoded with Macrovision will cause a VCR set to record it to fail (excluding very old models, modified VCRs, or those approved for "professional usage"). This is usually visible as a scrambled picture as if the tracking were incorrect, or the picture will fade between overly light and dark. A 6-head or 8-head VCR (most are 4-head) can minimize this fluctuation, so it is not as noticeable. A DVD recorder will simply display a message saying the source is copy-protected, and will pause the recording."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrovision [wikipedia.org]

Re:We lost our fair use rights years ago... (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308168)

Analog, especially VHS, is the ultimate form of DRM. With normal DRM, there is a possibility that you will be able to crack the product due to the power of DVD Jon et al. With VHS, it will always look like grainy shit with horrible sound. (Vinyl is a bit better in this respect but playing it on any but the most expensive laser record players will decrease the amount of useful information and make it that more likely to skip. (CDs skip too, but something that you scratch to play by definition will lose more information upon playing.)

Incorrect (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308228)

We did not loose fair rights.
Companies have been preventing us from exercising them.
I know the difference is very subtle.

You must know this and get used to saying it bacause from a legal, and political view point, you still ahve those rights. SO when you say we 'lost our rights' it makes you look ignorant, and can be rubutted with "No we didn't you still ahve the right to do that."

Also, you can make the corporations l;ook bad and not the politicians, which is a better way of communicating with your elected officials. You have been writing to your elected officials..right?

Re:Incorrect (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308320)

You must know this and get used to saying it bacause from a legal, and political view point, you still ahve those rights.

No, we lost them -- go read the DMCA. All the copyright holder has to do is say "this was ROT13 encrypted twice" and you have no Fair Use rights anymore.

Re:Incorrect (2, Interesting)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308652)

Not really. First off, double-ROT13 doesn't "effectively control access to a work", and it'd be trivial to prove that in court - but you were joking about that, right?

Seriously, though, you still have fair use rights. The DMCA blocks one possible avenue of exercising those rights, but there are others. You can't crack the encryption on a DVD to extract a clip for your review, but you can still connect the DVD player's analog output to a capture card, or point a camcorder at the screen.

Re:Incorrect (0)

Babbster (107076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308920)

You can't crack the encryption on a DVD to extract a clip for your review, but you can still connect the DVD player's analog output to a capture card, or point a camcorder at the screen.

Yeah, but then it's analog, and I bought digital content, and I should be able to copy that digital content as much as I want, and I should be able to pass copies around to my friends, and they should be able to pass them around to their friends, and copyright laws are fundamentally wrong, and art should be created for its own sake, and artists should be supported by voluntary contributions, and why isn't everything free like Linux?

Re:Incorrect (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308816)

And then you take them to court for improper use of security measures. If you can find a lawyer to sue you for breaking copyright, you can find a lawyer who will sue on your behalf for improper and illegal use of legal protections for the express purpose of restricting your legal rights. The media doesn't cover these kinds of suits, because they're boring non-stories, but I assure you they happen.

Re:Incorrect (5, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308372)

You must know this and get used to saying it bacause from a legal, and political view point, you still ahve those rights. SO when you say we 'lost our rights' it makes you look ignorant, and can be rubutted with "No we didn't you still ahve the right to do that."
I agree, in general, with the rest of your post, but disagree with this point.

If you have a right, but are prevented from using it, you really *don't* have that right anymore. Just being written down somewhere doesn't make a right a right. The written form is just the description of the right. A right is only a right when it can actually be exercised. Regarding the topic at hand, the corporations have actually taken away (violated) our right to fair use.

The flaw in your argument, as I see it, is the implicit assumption that only the government can take away or grant rights. In reality, it's those with power that grant or take away rights. It just so happens that usually it's the state that has ultimate power, but if the state leaves things to their own devices (ie: free market fundamentalism), all they have done is given the crown of ultimate power over to the next in line, which in the case of America, is the corporations (in other countries, the next in line might be corporations, organized crime organizations, warlords, etc).

Your argument, while it does make the corporations look bad, also absolves them of any legal (which for some, equates to moral) wrong-doing, and undermines efforts to have the government step in to protect our rights.

Re:Incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308498)

Just being written down somewhere doesn't make a right a right.

Yes it fucking does, you idiot. Just as having a writen law saying, e.g. you can't cross the street between intersections says you do not have a right to jaywalk.

I retain all my rights, even when kidnapped.

Fair use is a defence, not a right (1)

driptray (187357) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308792)

You are under the mistaken assumption that the doctrine of Fair Use is a right. It is not, and never has been, a right. It is a defence to the charge of copyright infringement.

This legal distinction appears to be lost on most who contribute to the neverending copyright debate on slashdot.

Re:Fair use is a defence, not a right (3, Informative)

node 3 (115640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308902)

You are under the mistaken assumption that the doctrine of Fair Use is a right. It is not, and never has been, a right. It is a defence to the charge of copyright infringement.
You are wrong on two counts.

First, that I am unaware of the actual legal standing of fair use.

Second, that it does not grant rights. It, in fact, does. I am allowed the *right* to copy copyrighted works, if my copying falls under fair use.

This *right* has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts.

This legal distinction appears to be lost on most who contribute to the neverending copyright debate on slashdot.
Not in any generally meaningful way. While people do tend to misunderstand the details of fair use, the fact that it exists and allows for some rights for the consumer is both fact and law.

Re:Fair use is a defence, not a right (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308990)

No, technically fair use isn't a right.

Free speech is a right. Copyright is a restriction on that right. Fair use is a limitation to the scope of the restriction. It's not a right in itself, it's just that when fair use (or other limits to copyright, inclusive of even the furthest limits of its extent having to stop somewhere) applies, nothing restricts the underlying right of free speech anymore, and you can exercise your free speech by, say, copying works.

DRM is the least of your worries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308848)

Losing copyright "fair-use" rights, as a practical matter, is happening, and everyone here is up-in-arms...

Meanwhile, you can't literally be "up in arms" anymore, in many places, due to the erosion of the amendment rights.

Next, you have many restrictions on "free speech", in the form of election laws. Heaven forbid you have money to spout your viewpoint and spend some money the wrong way to do it.

Then there are property rights... Kelo [wikipedia.org] anyone?

The parent is correct, To summarize; Idiot voters are giving away our rights.

First they came for the guns
and I did not speak out
because I do not like guns.
Then they came for the cigarettes
and I did not speak out
because I do not like smoke.
Then they came for fatty foods
and I did not speak out
because, um, fatty foods arent good for you.
Then they slapped DRM on all my music
and I spoke out, but no one cared.
because if I didn't care about
tangible stuff, they knew I wouldn't
do anything about about just bits

appolgies to Martin Niemöller

Re:Incorrect (1)

Jesselnz (866138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308876)

If you have a right, but are prevented from using it, you really *don't* have that right anymore. Just being written down somewhere doesn't make a right a right. The written form is just the description of the right. A right is only a right when it can actually be exercised.

No, everyone has rights. If your government doesn't protect your rights, it doesn't mean you don't still have them.

Re:Incorrect (3, Interesting)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308988)

Yes. Yes, it does. And before this degenerates into a 'yes it does, no it doesn't' slapfest, it might be best to analyze the underpinnings of the two sides.

The 'no' side is predicated upon the basic (and I believe ultimately erroneous) assumption that some rights are 'inherent'; that is, they literally inhere to (i.e. dwell within) certain classes of beings by virtue of those beings merely existing. This is the only way that one could argue that an unexerciseable right is still a right; it ontologically exists but is 'suppressed' in a manner of speaking by prevailing local conditions. It is certainly *possible* that this view is correct, but I think it problematic because it requires a large degree of epistemic faith, that is, that certain things exist of which we have absolutely no detectable evidence and yet are firmly believed must still exist. Such claims are always rooted in metaphysical arrogance and basically cash out as follows: "the world *must* work this way (despite lack of evidence that it does) because if it didn't, my word-view would collapse!" American society, and world-view, is predicated upon the inherency of certain rights, some of which are listed explicitly in black-and-white in the Declaration of Independence, and others are implied strongly in the Bill of Rights.

The 'yes' side posits the epistemologically more reasonable position that rights adhere to their subjects, and are created, maintained, divested, and destroyed by some agency independent of mere existence. That is, either the agent or some agency on behalf of the agent must use force (take action in any form) to guarantee that the 'right' adheres to the agent and has functional substance. Absent that force, the right dissipates. This seems much more in keeping with evidence observable through the course of human history.

Rights are only such if they can be cashed out into reality. Otherwise, they are just pretty words on paper. I agree with you on the very limited point that rights don't depend on just government, and so your statement "If your government doesn't protect your rights, it doesn't mean you don't still have them." is quite true. There are other means to project force to secure the practical adherence of a right beyond the reliance upon a government, and in fact it would be foolish in many cases to depend on the government to secure some of those rights. But, it does not then logically follow that, as you state, "everyone has rights". There are some people who do not use force and for whom no force is expended to adhere rights to them. Victims of genocide come to mind as the easiest example. They are deprived of rights; literally, they do not possess any.

Re:Incorrect (1)

toddhunter (659837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308506)

SO when you say we 'lost our rights' it makes you look ignorant,
And when you say 'We did not loose fair rights' it just makes you look stupid.

Re:Incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308604)

You do realize just how much your typing makes you look ignorant? Pot, meet kettle.

Re:We lost our fair use rights years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308742)

no no, that was just the gayness alert.

demise of vhs? wtf? (2, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308104)

I've still got a vhs recorder, tons of tapes, and a large library, recorded and bought. Plus I don't see any reduction in the places that I can buy tapes.

VHS isn't dead, nor will it be for a very long time. There's a big difference between DRM supporting companies wishing it would die, and it actually dying.

Incidentally, we have a record shop in town that does a brisk trade in the vinyl media that *ahem* 'died' a few years back....

Re:demise of vhs? wtf? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308138)

The sale of VHS is down to nearly nothing now. It's a complete niche market. Analog is worse than DRM because DRM can be cracked but Analog always looks and sounds crappy.

Any proof of your claims, Bub? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308202)

The sale of VHS is down to nearly nothing now. It's a complete niche market.

Do you have anything to back that up, or are you just pulling those claims out of your ass?

I don't think what you're saying is necessarily the case. I have several relatives who run a small chain of dollar stores. One of the stores is in southern California, one is in Wisconsin, and another in Georgia.

The who runs the store in Wisconsin visited us this past Thanksgiving. The topic of VHS tapes came up during dinner. She was saying that they were selling more VHS tapes now than they were in the early and mid 1990s, even though the town they're in has suffered a fairly significant economic downturn over the past decade due to industrial concerns moving production to Asia.

I was sort of surprised by this, so I called up the other relatives in Georgia and Cali. Both of them reported the same thing. The one in Georgia knew that a lot of football and basketball fans bought them to tape games that they were too busy to watch live. That makes sense to me. In smaller, blue-collar towns, many people can't afford to dump several hundred dollars on a TiVo or some other device. So they use their 15-year-old VCR if it still works.

Re:Any proof of your claims, Bub? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308232)

Yes, dollar stores are exactly where to find stats on how well VHS is doing. It's doing better than every apparently. They have the illustrious dollar store market locked up.

Re:demise of vhs? wtf? (4, Funny)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308186)

I still have an 8-track player and a whole collection of tunes on 8-track tape. And silly people kept saying 8-track was dying...

Re:demise of 8-track? Yes. (1)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308234)

VHS is dead, as are cassettes, 8-track and records.

The real DRM of VHS and the others, was the degrading quality.

The quality degrades with watching it, degrades with copying it, degrades with time.

DVD's now have effectively no DRM.

CD's have no DRM.

MP3's have no DRM.

So the current effectively unencumbered base of digital media is DVD's ,CD's , and MP3's (and OGG ...).

For HD-Blue-DVD to really replace DVD, it has to be effectively unencumbered as well. Until then people will buy DVD's because they are less limited.

But no, there has been no reason to use tapes for a while.

Re:demise of 8-track? Yes. (1)

Tempest429 (1024249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308794)

Two things to note:
Records are not dead. Most DJ's [fotograferen.net] still use them for ease of beat-matching, scratching, etc. I realize there is also a large number of more modern technologies out there, but for now there is still a lot of people who love vinyl.

Secondly, People will continue to buy DVD's because they're cheaper. Nearly every computer you can buy has at least a DVD player most have writers as well. In order for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray to succeed they need two things:
1) Cheaper players. ~$1000 for a fancy new DVD player is outrageous.
2) Good movies.
On the whole though you do raise some good points about the current state of DRM.

Re:demise of vhs? wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308336)

we have a record shop in town that does a brisk trade in the vinyl media that *ahem* 'died' a few years back

Yeah brisk trade, Grandfather dies, kids sell vinyl.

Re:demise of vhs? wtf? (1)

Jesselnz (866138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308916)

Vinyl is far from dead, I actually prefer them over cds. Aside from the superior sound quality, most people enjoy the large cover art, posters, etc that come with vinyl versions of albums.

T.S. Eliot's J. Alfred Prufrock said it best. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308112)

The beloved J. Alfred Prufrock said it best: "And so your Constitution, your Laws. They are naught but derivatives of English Common Law."

It's an interesting point. Here in America we have laws forbidding the copying of literature and other media, to the point where innovation and creativity is stifled. Yet those laws preventing such copying and modification were, in their early forms, near duplicates of existing legislation in other nations. It's really food for thought.

Re:T.S. Eliot's J. Alfred Prufrock said it best. (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308378)

"The beloved J. Alfred Prufrock said it best: "And so your Constitution, your Laws. They are naught but derivatives of English Common Law.""

What the fuck?! [wikisource.org]

I mean, couldn't you pull some bullshit Oscar Wilde [uncyclopedia.org] quote out of your ass instead? Surely you could make something up and make it stick to him better than you can claim it came from a poem about a Slashdotter trying to meet women!

Good poets borrow, ..., fantastic /. editors... (0, Redundant)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308464)

dupe!

Re:Good poets borrow, ..., fantastic /. editors... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308760)

If you (the editors) would stop duping, we (the posters) wouldn't make comments that you (the moderators) mark as redundant.

Savvy?

The DMCA became law in 1998 (2, Funny)

troll -1 (956834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308124)

Thank you, Rip Van Winkle.

A thousand Slashdot readers curse T.S. Eliot.... (5, Funny)

ElBuf (887442) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308162)

Good poets borrow; great poets violate copyright, which is nothing like stealing!!!

Re:A thousand Slashdot readers curse T.S. Eliot... (2, Interesting)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308324)

People say "steal" because it is one syllable, as opposed to the six for "violate copyright". No, it's not synonymous with armed robbery, but it is stealing. Get a dictionary and look it up! If copyright is a property, then copyright violation can indeed be stealing. If copyright isn't a property, then stop according property rights to your creative works (such as using the GPL).

Last week I went to a wedding. While there I stole a kiss from the bride. So why can I steal a kiss but I can't steal a poem?

I for one, am praising T.S. Eliot!

Re:A thousand Slashdot readers curse T.S. Eliot... (1)

ygslash (893445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308386)

I'm sorry. Using the word steal in this context is polititically charged, and reinforces the FUD that the media cartel is spreading.

So I must agree with the grandparent poster.

As for t. s. elliot, of course, he had no idea that his words would be so misused in today's world. But yes, now that quotation has become unfortunate.

Re:A thousand Slashdot readers curse T.S. Eliot... (1)

ElBuf (887442) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308472)

At the risk of getting into an argument (which I'm not going to do), and in an effort to be clear (which, apparently, I wasn't): you do not agree with me. I was joking, poking fun at what I regard as a distinction without an ethically substantive difference.

regards, Grandpa.

Re:A thousand Slashdot readers curse T.S. Eliot... (1)

ygslash (893445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308766)

Understood. No argument, my posts here are also with a smile.

Too bad that it's black humor, though.

Re:A thousand Slashdot readers curse T.S. Eliot... (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308552)

Hear hear... a voice of reason amidst a sea of peasant tyrannts.

Re:A thousand Slashdot readers curse T.S. Eliot... (1)

ygslash (893445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308342)

Wow, you are really angry at t. s. elliot - you spelled his name with Capital Letters.

Hmm, I guess the author of TFA doesn't like him very much, either.

Re:A thousand Slashdot readers curse T.S. Eliot... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308392)

Only T.S. Eliot was really allowed to spell his name using lowercase for the T, S, and E. Anyone with an English poetry and literature background knows that the proper way to refer to him is as "T.S. Eliot", unless you're reproducing a work of his where he wrote his name as such. It's considered disrespectful for others to use his lowercase name when referring to him.

Re:A thousand Slashdot readers curse T.S. Eliot... (1)

ygslash (893445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308784)

OK, good, thanks. It's about time us geeks improve our English poetry and literature backgrounds.

Mainstream Media? (3, Insightful)

rossz (67331) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308170)

When did NPR become part of the mainstream media?

Re:Mainstream Media? (2, Insightful)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308404)

Hello, National. Public. Radio??? Home of "All Things Considered" and "Wait, Wait... Don't Tell Me!" What alternate reality have YOU been hiding in?

Re:Mainstream Media? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 7 years ago | (#17309008)

I would describe NPR as being alternative media the same way that I would describe those "non-conformists" that dress and act exactly like all the other "non-conformists".

Re:Mainstream Media? (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308422)

Yeah... I always thought is was part of the Liberal Media. When did it change affiliations?

Re:Mainstream Media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308508)

Since NPR started growing at ~10% a year(2001) in audience

VHS has little to do with it. (4, Insightful)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308174)

The 'demise of VHS' is about as relevant to the erosion of "fair use" as the price of canvas was to the demise of sailing ships.

People are willing to sell away anything to get a lower initial price--they're willing to accept more restrictive use if it means saving a buck. It's not just media entertainment, but food, furniture, and almost anything that involves the exchange of money. They'll reserve the right to complain later, but the remedy of that complaint can NEVER be raising the prices to fix what consumers voluntarily sold off.

Yeah, we can sue McDonald's for making us fat, or we could stop thinking that paying $15 for a restaurant meal that won't kill you is some great injustice. We can complain all we want about outsourcing support jobs to wherever, but good god, don't charge us $20 more for our computers. We can balk at the several hundred dollar price of hardwood furniture and complain about deforestation, but IKEA still gets frowned upon for its "cheap" quality in comparison (when in fact, many of their products are surprisingly durable for being made of sawdust and paper).

Price is all-important, and anything that gets us a lower price is a good idea...until we realize that what we threw out the window to get there might actually have been important. Then we want it back, but we want someone else to eat the costs involved with bringing it back.

Re:VHS has little to do with it. (1)

laughingcoyote (762272) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308322)

Of course, the difference being, it really is more expensive to purchase better ingredients for better food, it really is more expensive to purchase hardwood than sawdust, and it really is more expensive to build a computer in the US than in China.

DRM actually would raise production costs-it would be more expensive to develop, program, test, and refine DRM systems, and then make deals to have them implemented in hardware, than to simply produce unencumbered media. The same would apply to leasing someone else's systems. The other circumstances you are describing are companies spending less money to produce a product of less value. The scenario here is spending more money to make a product of less value.

Re:VHS has little to do with it. (3, Interesting)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308702)

Not quite. The cost of DRM itself is minimal and a predictable consequence of digital media--not a necessary restriction on fair use rights. People are willing to do anything to drive down the cost of purchasing music, including accepting narrower usage.

The fewer rights you transfer from the owner, the lower the sale price of the artwork. Media price isn't tied to production costs (if it were, small indie artists would be much more expensive, because their relative costs per unit would be way higher than the "big" pop artists). Instead, it's tied to the level of the licensing. Copies for renting out or public performance are substantially more expensive than the "home use" versions (even dating back to VHS and vinyl), even though they contain the exact same product. Likewise, digital files contain the same content (ignoring the low quality currently offered) for a lower price because they are transfers of fewer rights. This isn't to say that the labels' pricing for mp3s isn't greedy; that's a separate issue, but the point is that the price is lower, and by enough that it's starting to make a difference.

It's not solely about materials cost, and it isn't in other markets, either. The ingredients McDonald's purchases aren't the big reason why the food's bad for you--it's the method. Same reason why good furniture is expensive: the wood is expensive, but so is the craftsmanship and the process.

Re:VHS has little to do with it. (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308668)

Yeah, we can sue McDonald's for making us fat, or we could stop thinking that paying $15 for a restaurant meal that won't kill you is some great injustice.

Most restaurant food out there is in the same range of unhealthiness as McDonalds food. And I'm not just talking about Denny's here. Practices such as glazing vegetables with fat are very common.

Re:VHS has little to do with it. (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308748)

Well, that's a bit of an overstatement. Granted, if you go to Applebee's and order a burger and fries, you aren't making tremendous improvements...but what I meant (but left out for concision) was that much of the public balks at paying $15 for salads or healthy portions of sensibly prepared chicken and meat when they go out to eat. That in itself would be fine many years ago when people ate at home most of the time, but now that eating out is habitual in many families, it's become a value-per-dollar-per-minute venture, Walmart style. I eat at what I consider midrange restaurants (~$25 per person including tip), but what I notice is that for most families, that's a "treat" and lower end restaurants which are best for convenience and what I call "road food" have become standard fare.

Oops, premature posting. (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308768)

The point I was making there is that the "liberal" use we on Slashdot expect as standard fare in software/music/video purchases has fallen into that same "too expensive and irrelevant for the mass market" niche as the cheapest restaurants I eat at.

We have been supplanted by the "fast food" and "Denny's/Applebee's/Friday's" consumers, who prefer the more convenient, cheaper alternatives even if it's actually worse in the long run. We stare in amazement at the mass market, but we're now the odd ones out, not everyone else.

A small nitpick... (5, Informative)

alerante (781942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308246)

Marketplace isn't an NPR program; the show is produced and distributed by American Public Media [publicradio.org] . Though many public radio stations air programs from both NPR and APM (as well as other orgnizations like Public Radio International), the two are distinct entities.

Marketplace isn't NPR (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308262)

Marketplace (and its Morning Report) is produced by American Public Media (APM), not NPR.

Great poets steal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308276)

This isn't at all surprising, and this trend has been in the process many years. The view of 'ownership' has changed dramatically in the past two centuries or so. The most obvious example of this is plagiarism. In nearly all schools, honor codes, punishments, and many other items exist to discourage 'plagiarism'. When we look at history, many of the great works in history are based in this plagiarism, just look at Shakespeare. This trend has just continued to grow. Ownership should be disregarded, and things should be placed into the public sphere for the enjoyment of all the public. Of course, this will never occur, as capitalism destroys this. Ahh the wonders of idealism...

Re:Great poets steal (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308428)

Ownership should be disregarded, and things should be placed into the public sphere for the enjoyment of all the public.

Why?

Re:Great poets steal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308546)

because the greedy fucks shouldn't prevail, that's why.

Re:Great poets steal (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308624)

So all people who invest time and money into a non-physical project such as a book, a recorded song, a piece of software are "greedy fucks"?

Yet another thing... (4, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308300)

Yet another thing that Congress made illegal and which law enforcement makes no meaningful attempt to enforce. Which means it will go the same way as most of the rest of the US legal code: Never actually enforced until the cops (or the ones holding their leash) really, REALLY want to get someone (for reasons good or for bad); Then a careful search of the legal code is all but gauranteed to reveal something that makes you a criminal.

After all, it's impossible to control people who aren't criminals. You see it on Law & Order all the time: If someone isn't cooperating, they threaten to enforce some other law unless the guy does cooperate. As shit laws like these pile up, the state becomes fascist through no particular malice or evil intent. You being a thorn in their side? Well, I'd sure hate to take your entire DVD collection to make sure they weren't pirated. And you better have receipts, too.

Dead serious: Before any new law may be passed, the legal code shall be reviewed in it's entirety and thoroughly checked for existing laws serving the same purpose. If any such law shall exist, the proposed law may not be passed. If multiple laws serving the same purpose are found, they shall be reconciled into one non-self-contradictory law with the eldest law taking precedence. Not only will Congress be too preoccupied by this to do any more damage, but eventually the legal code will become understandable again. Imagine... justice returns as rich/well-funded criminals can no longer appeal their sentences for 25 years before they go to jail. To help initial implementation, I suggest forming a "council" of 1000 lawyers covering every legal field, and directing them to find contradictory and/or redundant laws.

The problem is that as the legal code grows, the most general search becomes O(N^2) because you need to compare every law with every other law. This needs to happen before N becomes so large that the only way to finish before the End of Time is to completely reboot. Queue arguments that we're already there...

Re:Yet another thing... (2, Insightful)

bhmit1 (2270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308462)

I'll second that. My philosophy was similar:

Before any additional law (or tax, regulation, etc) two other laws must be canceled, until such a time as the general public has a firm understanding of all of the laws they are required to obey. At that point, every new law must cancel a previous law in order to be entered into the books. The end result should be a 200 page paper back book that is required reading for a high school student. Enforcement of the law should be done by the letter of the law and not by looking over past cases. If a law is ambiguous, it should be clarified and replaced with a new law.

Consider what would happen to the bureaucracy if the most complex tax return was 5 pages long, how much better the legal system would be if anyone could defend themselves without knowledge of years of case law, and what would happen to the special interest if you had to fight against every other special interest for the little space left in the law books left for exemptions.

Of course, that is about as likely to happen as congress voting for a pay cut or the two party system implementing a ranking voting method that doesn't have a built in bias for the two party system.

Re:Yet another thing... (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308566)

Wow... the concept of having a 200 page manual on the law... even if that was just the primary law and duty for each citizen, and there were seperate manuals for more complex issues (business for example). That would be outstanding!

Re:Yet another thing... (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308602)

Although your meaning in mentioning a congressional pay cut is clear, haven't the Democrats planned to tie Congress's pay raises to the minimum wage? I'm not entirely certain about the whole thing, but figured it's worth mentioning.

Re:Yet another thing... (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308712)

How about this: Every time Congress wants to pass a new law, they should extract 1 pound of flesh from Ted Kennedy, that way by 2011, we'll have a lot fewer laws being passed and America's Favorite Swimming Coach won't have to buy his pants at that special store that also sells muu-muus.

Seriously, though, the law we need is that all members of Congress must do their own taxes, handle their own insurance claims and every other piece of bureaucratic hoop-jumping they thoughtlessly pile on us at a whim.

Oh, and John McCain must spend 4 hours a day browsing YouTube for inappropriate material.

Re:Yet another thing... (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308878)

Unfortunately, this is impractical and impossible. You cannot govern a country in 200 pages, period. The constitutions alone of most countries approach 100 pages. A five page tax code sounds like a good idea, but the fact of the matter is that our current legal system, Byzantine though it may be, is inadequate to account for all the infinite permutations of events in our country.

The law can't ever be made black and white, and even if there were just 200 pages of statutory law, case law would remain the governing body of legal discourse. This planet is quite diverse in terms of cultures and histories and even dispositions--the reason you know that such a simplistic legal system wouldn't work is that it doesn't exist in practice. Libertarianism is an unattainable ideal, just like communism. It doesn't make people any more free than any other system--it just changes which small subset is on top.

Re:Yet another thing... (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308542)

I'll gladly vote for you if that's your platform, but good luck getting any professional politicians to allow us to make that into law.

Re:Yet another thing... (2, Interesting)

slamb (119285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308704)

Dead serious: Before any new law may be passed, the legal code shall be reviewed in it's entirety and thoroughly checked for existing laws serving the same purpose. If any such law shall exist, the proposed law may not be passed. If multiple laws serving the same purpose are found, they shall be reconciled into one non-self-contradictory law with the eldest law taking precedence. Not only will Congress be too preoccupied by this to do any more damage, but eventually the legal code will become understandable again.

Have you heard of a lawspeaker [wikipedia.org] ? Here's a good article [utoronto.ca] :

Rationalizing regulation: In ancient Iceland, the people would gather together in an assembly, the Althing, once each year to hear their corpus of law recited from memory by a professional lawspeaker. If a law was forgotten during the hours-long proclamation and no Icelander objected then it lost its force, limiting the number of rules that could be pronounced before the speaker dropped from exhaustion. Thus, only rules that concerned the people and advanced the public good could remain "on the books".

I'm inclined to agree with you; our laws are the legal equivalent of spaghetti code. They're poorly crafted - too permissive in places, too restrictive in others, too complicated altogether. When most citizens break laws during the course of a normal day, something's wrong with the laws.

Great Bootlegs... (3, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308334)

Good poets borrow; great poets steal.

Maybe that's why the underground economy in China is so great.

Still not yelling loud enough. (2, Informative)

Chuqmystr (126045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308374)

Call me wrong if I am but it seems to me that most folks who listen to NPR are at least somewhat familiar with what DRM is and all that accompanies it. At least for myself and the other NPR listeners I talk to that's he way it is. Still, good to see the word is getting out beyond just the Internet. Forgive me for stating the obious but what really should be done concerning rights management as far as media is concerned would be campaigns on the order of the bullshit the which the RIAA and MPAA have been spewing, sans the bullshit of course. Perhaps this is a step in that direction. Keep it up NPR.

As for the Real Media encoding from what I remember it was the only useable and widely accepted option around when NPR first started offing audio content online. Still, much better options abound these days. They should at least transition to them over a few weeks or months time if they're woried about pissing off listeners who are unaware and set in their ways. -C

Re:Still not yelling loud enough. (1)

ygslash (893445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308710)

As for the Real Media encoding... much better options abound these days. They should at least transition to them over a few weeks or months time [for] listeners who are... set in their ways.

Or offer a choice. Like WCLV [wclv.com] , a mainstream classical music radio station that offers a choice [wclv.com] of a Windows Media stream and an Ogg stream on their site. The Windows Media stream has two links, one convenient for IE/Windows users and another for other browsers.

I think they used to offer also Real Media, but they discontinued that long ago.

Re:Still not yelling loud enough. (1)

amper (33785) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308882)

As for the Real Media encoding from what I remember it was the only useable and widely accepted option around when NPR first started offing audio content online.


Bullshit.

QuickTime has *always* been better than anything Real has come up with, not to mention the fact that it's vastly cheaper, even if you use the Apple-branded version. To top it off, you can even use the open source Darwin Streaming Server if you are so inclined.

NPR used to offer all their content in QuickTime format, up until a couple of/few years ago.

The choice is simple... (2, Insightful)

Lodragandraoidh (639696) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308416)

The choice is simple - either continue to accept the old business model, or don't. It is up to all of us to make that choice for ourselves.

Re:The choice is simple... (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308548)

You know what else? They need to take commericals out of the previews for movies. I don't go to a movie theater to watch commericals. Three billion previews is bad enough. Now I have to watch ads for pepsi and apple? BHAUIBGHZZARGH!!L!AH!!!

If we all just stop going to movie theaters until they get rid of the commericals before the movie maybe we can get them gone for good.

Personally, I find it's much easier to get movies from... ahem... well anyway, to watch them in the comfort of my home on my 60" HDTV, with no commercials or previews, and the option to pause the movie to go to the bathroom. Not to mention no more loud, annoying fat women behind me who talk during the whole movie and laugh like hyenas at everything even if it's not funny. (ok that was harsh, but I'm telling you, it has happened)

I'm all for it. There needs to be a website to schedule this.. Boycott movies due to commericals. Boycott DVD etc due to the horrible DRM. In fact, I think I'll make one. I'll come up with a good name, something memorable, and let's see if this 'simple' idea works ;)

TLF

See, This is What Happens... (5, Funny)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308446)

Now do you see? Now do you understand why we have to get rid of this particular evil? This simply cannot be allowed to survive, because it is standing in the way of progress.

As long as we continue to have media outlets that are not owned by corporations, we will continue to have reports like this that fail to toe the corporatist line. Were it not for NPR, reports like this, critical of DRM, would be relegated to the backwater of Internet blogs and college-town weeklies. We have failed to completely destroy NPRs credibility as a media outlet despite our constant efforts. We must stamp it out altogether, or face continued non-corporate-approved reporting.

Good poets borrow... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17308502)

As I always say. Good poets borrow; great poets steal.

Who are the real thieves? They are! (5, Insightful)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308530)

With all the talk about 'theft' and 'piracy' it's easy to lose track of who the real thieves are here. It's the global media corporations who stole the public domain by bribing the politicians to implement a permanent extension of copyright.

    Suppose that you buy a car on 'time' and agree to make five years worth of monthly payments. After five years (if you don't miss payments) then the car is yours. Suppose that after four years and six months, the finance company bribes the local legislature to extend the amount of time that you have to make payments for another five years. Emmimently fair for them; a rip-off for you. If you refuse to make another payment after the initial five years of payments have come to completion, they call you a thief and get the local law to take your car at gunpoint and put you in jail.

    Copyright works the same way. Agreement is made to make payments for an agreed time period for the use of the films, books, or recordings. After that period is up, the films, books, and recordings are paid for and can be used by the public freely. The material enters the public domain.

  Paying off politicians to extend this period is theft: it is theft of the public domain. The global media companies have relentlessly and successfully lobbied and bribed for 'extensions' of the copyright period in individual countries throughout the world. They keep extending the time period that the public must pay them in total violation of the spirit of the balance between copyright and public domain. They are the real thieves here, not someone burning a CD or downloading a movie. Never forget this.

    Criminals don't get to chose which laws are enforced for all the rest of us. Nor do we have to pay serious attention to the justifications that they use to legitimize their criminal behavior.

Re:Who are the real thieves? They are! (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308594)

So your point is good, that copyright holders have used the political process to extend their benefits to what seems to be the deterement of everyone else.

That doesn't mean that you have a legal right to copy copyrighted material. So you can feel free to ignore the law of "criminals" but the reality is that you could still be held accountable, regardless of your own justification.

Re:Who are the real thieves? They are! (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308730)

That doesn't mean that you have a legal right to copy copyrighted material.

But it does make a pretty good argument for a moral right to copy copyrighted material.

Re:Who are the real thieves? They are! (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308732)

So your point is good, that copyright holders have used the political process to extend their benefits to what seems to be the deterement of everyone else.
That doesn't mean that you have a legal right to copy copyrighted material. So you can feel free to ignore the law of "criminals" but the reality is that you could still be held accountable, regardless of your own justification.
Ahh, the "they bought the law fair and square" argument. The point isn't that people violating the (bought and paid-for) law can't be held accountable. In fact, not only can they, but the people who bought the law get to set the value of the accounting. The point is that due to their activities there is no longer any moral or ethical backing to the law. It's pure might-makes-right and violating it is at worst a morally neutral act.

Re:Who are the real thieves? They are! (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308942)

I made no moral statements. I simply said if you voilate the law, whether your agree with it or not, you still could suffer the consequences. If I don't think it's morally wrong to burn down churches that doesn't mean that I will not be put into prison for my actions.

I support strong DRM and short copyrights, and a requirement to clearly and accurately communicate what rights are transferred to the purchaser at the point of purchase. In the short term, the big media morons will do all sorts of idiotic things to make a few extra bucks... but the end result is likely to be the ability to download massive amounts of content and new and high quality content that didn't exist before, but can exist now because an investment in creating the content could result in a return with strong DRM. Then again... maybe they'd just lease everything to you and you'd have to pay monthly for that Paris Hilton song you love so much :)

Gee, no hypocrisy here. (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308556)

If you live in a large city, chances are your local "public radio" station(s) offer HD broadcasts. But try using them at home with your own sound system. They've chosen the Ibiquity [rhymes with iniquity] proprietary format to prevent anything beyond "listen once" use.

DRM is completely unconstitutional (2, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308568)

The Constitution says "for limited time." That means that some sort of copyright expiration means is necessary in DRM, so that after the copyright expiration the medium becomes free and unencumbered - public domain. AFAIK there is NO expiration mechanism whatsoever in current DRM, therefore it violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

This is most likely moot, because in order to properly test this in court, we'd need DRM-protected media of material with an expired copyright. That hasn't happened, and probably never will happen. Congress has asserted their right to extend copyright as much as they wish, and the Supreme Court has agreed - 1 day less than eternity is "limited."

As long as the ??AA funnels money to Congress, and as long as Congress accepts it, copyrights will never expire, and the Public Domain is effectively DEAD.

Re:DRM is completely unconstitutional (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308662)

"This is most likely moot, because in order to properly test this in court, we'd need DRM-protected media of material with an expired copyright."

Any Mozart CD's with DRM?

Re:DRM is completely unconstitutional (2, Informative)

man_ls (248470) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308912)

That doesn't count. The representation of Mozart contained on that CD has a unique, modern copyright.

His quote bears true... (5, Insightful)

ItMustBeEsoteric (732632) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308574)

Being that Eliot *actually* said, "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different."

Weve been here before DRM == marijuana tax act. (1)

eadint (156250) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308758)

In the 60's timothy leary chalenged a law called the marihuana tax act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act [wikipedia.org] which basically stated that you had to break the law to exercise your rights. in a way DRM is like this you have to break the law in order to exercise your rights to copy. i am surprised that lwyers haven t used this case to set presedent and dismantle DRM. this is the real problem with drm and sonner or later someone will do what leary did and then it will be up to the government to change the law or eliminate it.

Big money will always win until... (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17308914)

Big money will always win until its obvious that the number of votes will not get the incumbent reelected. At that point the laws will be in our favor again, and only then the courts will recognize "our rights" again and pass judgment in our favor. As long as money influences the "law" that is being written we will continue to slide ever so closer to the edge of despair. Voice that opinion and we will all be better off sooner rather than later. You can complain here on slashdot until the cows come home, but until the politicians know about it your voice is still mute.


Sorry for poping the bubble, but thats the "LAW" we are talking about here. Who is right makes no difference until the law makers agree. Your voice counts, but not here in this forum. Go make a difference where it counts. Sad, but true.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?