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!

Google and Microsoft Help To Defend Fair Use

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the fighting-the-good-fight-via-proxy dept.

Google 122

An anonymous reader writes "The Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a complaint this month with the FTC 'alleging that professional sports leagues, Hollywood studios, and book publishers were all using copyright notices that misrepresented the law'. That is, they were aggressively pursuing 'right' that they were not entitled to. Now a group, backed by companies like Oracle, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Sun, and Red Hat, has launched a web site called Defend Fair Use that shows they are serious about making the complaint stick. From the article: 'In contrast to copyright notices that take no account of fair use and claim control over "all accounts and descriptions" of a game, the CCIA offers a different copyright notice of its own. "We recognize that copyright law guarantees that you, as a member of the public, have certain legal rights," it says, "You may copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, and transmit portions of this publication provided that such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise permitted by applicable law."'"

cancel ×

122 comments

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

About... (4, Insightful)

netscan (1028690) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414077)

God damned time

Re:About... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414501)

Hmm, looks like ProtectFairUse.org [archive.org] went away in the tail end of 2005. Last update appears to have been one month after its sponsor, 321 Studios [wikipedia.org] , maker of DVD X Copy [wikipedia.org] , closed its doors, then disappeared about year later.

Meanwhile, unsolicited commercial e-mails (spam) to unique addresses given only to 321 Studios have continued.

Re:About... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415113)

Incidentally, I've taken to putting their fair-use text as boilerplate footers on every page of my site in default font size.

Gee I... hope using that, and a copy of their site logo converted to GIF next to it linked back to their site, is considered by them to be fair use.

"You may copy...." (1)

MarkovianChained (1143957) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414089)

Is where most of the public will stop reading. Granted, I think this is a great idea, but I imagine that they won't get it passed off with the wording as such.

Re:"You may copy...." (2, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414751)

Well, you could say...

"Provided that such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise permitted by applicable law, you may copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, and transmit portions of this publication."

But I suspect any watered down language would take the negative approach to remain in good standing with the law...

"You may not copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, or transmit any portion of this publication unless such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise explicitly permitted by law."

And, for good measure, (and if there's time or screen space), they'll add "Any intent to apply or exercise of fair use rights shall be sumbitted in writing to the content license holder prior to such use, and approval or denial shall be determined at the sole discresion of the content holder except as determined in a court of law."

See, now wasn't that easy?

Of course.... (3, Informative)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414093)

Of course, at least one of those companies is selling/making money from systems that won't allow you to exercise your fair use rights...

Re:Of course.... (5, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414213)

I have the right to print a publicly distributed newspaper; however, I can't do that, because I don't own a printing press or the means to rent the use of one. Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean you have the resources or tools to make good on that right. There is no logical conflict between a company defending a legal right for a customer to do something, while also failing to provide the technical means to exercise that right, or even placing technical hurdles to exercise it.

Nobody said it would be easy.

Re:Of course.... (3, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414551)

There is no logical conflict between a company defending a legal right for a customer to do something, while also... placing technical hurdles to exercise it.

How is that not a conflict? They're countering their own defense of the right. I agree they have no obligation to provide the tools, but they intentionally (actively) cripple the tools they sell to prevent fair use. They spend money creating the hurdle. They also attempt to counter fair use rights in their own software licenses (i.e. legal hurdles on top of technical hurdles). Seems like a logical conflict to me.

Re:Of course.... (1, Interesting)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414739)

Not at all. Microsoft undoubtedly realizes that (as some other posters have noted) they themselves may only benefit from the fair use doctrine if it exists, perhaps to wiggle around the GPL for example, hence it must apply to everyone. Thus they would logically act to bring pressure so that the fair use doctrine remains intact.

However, it is not necessarily in their own best interest to make it easier for you to use their software to engage in activities that would traditionally fall under fair use, because such capacities may harm their business relationships with content production and distribution companies, and may laterally increase the chance of intrusive federal regulation re: media player technologies, since the content production industry has a decent amount of sway with legislators, at least here in the US. To avoid either damaged business relationships or governmental interference, Microsoft would do well to make sure the tools it publishes do not make it easier for others to realize their fair use rights.

Hence, Microsoft's actions here are, conceivably, entirely consistent with one another.

Re:Of course.... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20415485)

Hence, Microsoft's actions here are, conceivably, entirely consistent with one another.
Consistent, but hypocritical.

Consistent in that the actions both lead to more profit.

Hypocritical in the sense that the rhetoric they use to defend one set of actions contradicts the rhetoric they use to defend the other set of actions.

Microsoft's action are logically consistent, but their rhetoric is not. (Also known as being a liar.)

Re:Of course.... (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414779)

They spend money
Simply put, they don't want to have to spend the money anymore.

Re:Of course.... (4, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414617)

I'll believe it the day Microsoft includes the above language in Vista's EULA, not before.

Re:Of course.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20414843)

I have to wonder what use of software would fall under "fair use" guidelines. Then again, I have to wonder why we treat software as similar to music and literature by placing it under copyright scope in the first place. If software needs a form of IP protection, copyright is the wrong fit, and fair use just makes that all the more evident.

To the broader topic: That a company is not required to provide for your fair use is established law, true. Of course, that concept predates the DMCA. The DMCA takes us out of balance by introducing the infamous anti-circumvention clause. Under this clause, not only must I respect the rights of the copyright holder, so must any technology in which I traffic. Not so with fair use -- I can traffic in technology that tramples the consumer's fair use right (per prior law), but not in technology that might be used to trample the copyright (per the new law).

Most fair-use advocates assume that the best solution to restore balance is to elmiinate the anti-circumvention clause. This returns us to the world of yesterday, where the most technologically capable among us have exercisable fair use rights and the rest of the citizens don't; except that DRM schemes are ever more complex, resulting in an even higher technical barrier to entry into the world of the fair-use "haves".

But there's another way. Keep the anti-circumvention clause, but add a new clause. Make it illegal to traffic in technology that abridges fair use. If it's illegal to make tools that violate one right, make it illegal to create tools that violate either right. Restore balance. And at the same time, give everyone the ability to exercise their fair use rights, regardless of individual technical knowledge.

Re:Of course.... (4, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414963)

I have to wonder what use of software would fall under "fair use" guidelines.

Educational & backup copies, of course. And of course, derivative works, for stuff that is open source to begin with.

Then again, I have to wonder why we treat software as similar to music and literature by placing it under copyright scope in the first place. If software needs a form of IP protection, copyright is the wrong fit, and fair use just makes that all the more evident.

That's strange, I'd argue exactly the opposite- that patents are a wrong fit, as evidenced by the LACK of fair use since software patents have been applied.

To the broader topic: That a company is not required to provide for your fair use is established law, true. Of course, that concept predates the DMCA. The DMCA takes us out of balance by introducing the infamous anti-circumvention clause. Under this clause, not only must I respect the rights of the copyright holder, so must any technology in which I traffic. Not so with fair use -- I can traffic in technology that tramples the consumer's fair use right (per prior law), but not in technology that might be used to trample the copyright (per the new law).

Correct. But also, given fair use (as predated the DMCA, which completely trampled fair use) the consumer's right to fair use should give them the ability to say, make an ISO file of any CD they own.

Most fair-use advocates assume that the best solution to restore balance is to elmiinate the anti-circumvention clause. This returns us to the world of yesterday, where the most technologically capable among us have exercisable fair use rights and the rest of the citizens don't; except that DRM schemes are ever more complex, resulting in an even higher technical barrier to entry into the world of the fair-use "haves".

True enough, though I'd argue that for the widest form of fair use (multiple copies supplied to a classroom for educational purposes) any reasonably well-funded school should be able to circumvent easily (by using nearly identical hardware, thus defeating the "license keyed to specific hardware" algorithm), and have done so for non-circumvention reasons (for ease of maintenance- every computer in a classroom should have identical and interchangeable parts).

But there's another way. Keep the anti-circumvention clause, but add a new clause. Make it illegal to traffic in technology that abridges fair use. If it's illegal to make tools that violate one right, make it illegal to create tools that violate either right. Restore balance. And at the same time, give everyone the ability to exercise their fair use rights, regardless of individual technical knowledge.

Interesting idea that- which would make Windows Genuine Advantage illegal tech....

Logical, cynical. (2, Interesting)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#20417171)

There is no logical conflict between a company defending a legal right for a customer to do something, while also failing to provide the technical means to exercise that right, or even placing technical hurdles to exercise it.
Yes there is a GIGANTIC logical conflict between defending a right and going out of your way to make it as hard as possible for someone to excercise that right.

If someone says that they defend my right of way, but place their car in my path so that I cannot proceed, I will not believe their statement, because actions speak louder than words and their deed is incompatible with their words.

And when a company who has invested their precious money into assuring that only geeks can enact their rights by using their software, because only geeks can overcome the hurdles they have chosen to spend man hours on implementing, I will not believe them when they say they defend our rights. I will believe that their legal expenses related to those rights have now exceed the profits they intended to make by denying to their customers the means to excercise those rights.

There is a gigantic difference between "I defend your right on principle, but I will not intervene on your behalf" and "I defend your right, but I'll intervene so that you may not act on them if to the extent of my abilities". They took the initiative to place an obstacle, that is not compatible with a claim of intent to defend the right, not at all.

Re:Of course.... (1)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414595)

And taking all kinds of flak for the bugs those copy-control systems introduce.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft is well aware that simplifying their codebase will make it more stable. They just can't do it without stomping on the DMCA and pissing off several licensing authorities (MPEG-LA, AACS-LA, etc.). Thus they have a vested interest in relaxing the restrictions placed upon their system by the assholes in "big media".

1) Simplify Windows' codebase by removing copy-control shit
2) ???
3) Profit!!!

Even underpants gnomes could fill in the ??? there.

Re:Of course.... (5, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414609)

Of course, at least one of those companies is selling/making money from systems that won't allow you to exercise your fair use rights...
You think any of them want to do that? You think Microsoft is happy they had to pour a gazillion dollars into some cockeyed DRM scheme dreamed up by coke snorting clowns?

Microsoft would be pleased as punch if customers could buy hi-def capture cards from Fry's that can plug into any computer and work with MCE. They would be giggling like school girls if a beige-box PC could record hi-def HBO without a set top box like Tivo. Google would be pleased as punch if you downloaded the show from them instead of used the hi-def capture card. Apple wants you to buy the latest "New Kids on the Block" single from their online store. RedHat wants all of the above to work on Linux.

All these companies are pissed because they cannot get access to the media their customers desire. While it may seem like all these companies, especially Microsoft, "support" DRM schemes, trust me they don't. Would you want to piss away a bunch of your developers time writing in crazy DRM crap that only keeps your company from innovating?

That can't be true... (4, Funny)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415955)

That explanation is REDICULOUS(sic). I have a far more reasonable one, so allow me to elaborate.

Everyone *KNOWS* that Microsoft enjoys being evil precisely because they are evil! Or, at least, that is what people around here have told me. I have a feeling the people in Redmond drive into work like everyone else, but once they get into work, they start smiling. When they finally start working, they are chuckling to themselves: "Haha, its time to SCREW OVER THE WORLD! I can't wait to subtly break everything we've made, and inconvenience hundreds of thousands of users!" Because evil has this amazing ability to attract other forms of evil, thus allowing it to compound faster than one would expect, evil alliances are formed with alarming regularity: "Hmm, its Thursday, we should find a KKK club to sponsor since its been rather quiet this week." Naturally, everyone drives cool cars around the campus. Bill Gates is known to be able to fly, teleport, and destroy someone with a single thought of the mind. But few actually get close enough to him to observe these things, unfortunately.

I am sorry that this information is so long in coming. But I am glad I decided to post it on a site that is a beacon of truth, logic, and unbiased opinions.

Re:Of course.... (1)

dwandy (907337) | more than 6 years ago | (#20416473)

You think Microsoft is happy they had to pour a gazillion dollars into some cockeyed DRM scheme dreamed up by coke snorting clowns?
Then I guess they should have listened to Cory [dashes.com] .

Re:Of course.... (1)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 6 years ago | (#20417813)

"Would you want to piss away a bunch of your developers time writing in crazy DRM crap that only keeps your company from innovating?"

  Are you saying that all this DRM crap is stalling the development of Clippy 2? ;-|

SB

Re:Of course.... (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#20419141)

It is stalling Microsoft Bob SP1 too you know.

Re:Of course.... (1)

dannannan (470647) | more than 6 years ago | (#20418541)

Would you want to piss away a bunch of your developers time writing in crazy DRM crap that only keeps your company from innovating?

If I had a few billion $$$ in the bank but I was short on good ideas... maybe I'd rather keep the developers busy writing crazy DRM crap than innovating for a competitor.

Re:Of course.... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#20418561)

Then why do they do it? There player doesn't need DRM to play a movie or a CD. It just needs to read the stream.

Re:Of course.... (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#20419119)

The stream is encrypted and the media industry doesn't want anybody to decrypt it without their blessing. Now. How do you get the blessing of the media industry? You agree to take it in the ass, basically. Microsoft felt they could afford the ass pillage and jumped through the hoops to get MCE blessed. In fact, I'm not sure if a beige-box MCE can do hi-def, let alone blu-ray or hd-dvd. All I know is us Myth/SageTV people are screwed out of hi-def.

Lets not even start with Google. Google (and netflix, amazon, etc) all want you to be paying them to download your favorite Full House reruns from them. You think the cable company wants that? Shit, what if you could do that in a way that was integrated with MCE or Sage/MythTV? All the cable company would become is just an ISP in that scenario!

Hopefully you can see why these companies are pissed. They are getting cut out of a huge new market because the media industry doesn't us joe-pc-average users deserve digital hi-def. If the media industry had their way, there would be little chips on each pixel of your LCD decrypting their oh so important content. After all, why go through all the trouble of making Pimp my Ride if there are no commercials?

Re:Of course.... (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 6 years ago | (#20418693)

You think any of them want to do that? You think Microsoft is happy they had to pour a gazillion dollars into some cockeyed DRM scheme dreamed up by coke snorting clowns?
Yes, I think that they are.

1. as a monopoly OS supplier, they can tell the media companies where to go.

2. DRM == proprietary lock in. While MS controlls the DRM dominant schemes, they can force people to buy MS products in order to access the content that MS has locked in.

The problem with your example of buying a hi-def card at Fry's and having it just work without all the DRM is that the same then applies to a Linux user.

Apple has made great headway while using a lightweight and easily circumvented DRM scheme in iTunes. Why else does MS feel that it is necessary to include a heavyweight DRM scheme, including ensuring that hardware is not interfered with? The answer is obvious: MS feels it is in their interests to do this.

I may disagree with them, but I will defend their (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20414101)

right to shove it up their fucking asses sideways with a crowbar

do no evil, puh-lease

Evil bitches, the both of them. Data mining fools. I can't wait to see the uproar when people finally figure out how much stuff google has on them, and how they can't get google to delete the details of their surfing (care of doubleclick trails), their searches (care of google.com), their email (care of gmail), their phone calls (care of 700mhz), their purchasing habits (care of google checkout), with the latter tying all of the former info to a real (meat) person. Don't say we didn't tell you so.

Re:I may disagree with them, but I will defend the (1)

MindKata (957167) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415597)

While your words are aggressive, I agree about one point, the data mining.

I suspect data mining is the true ulterior motive for both Microsoft and Google. Its why they want to support fair use. Its in their interests, as they want to data mine everyone and any copyright rules can get in the way of exploiting other people's information (especially if any of that datamining was based in turn, on copyright information).

Both Microsoft and Google stand to gain from the public continuing to have access to fair use of media data, as then Microsoft and Google can mine and profile all our views etc.. and sell that information onto anyone they wish.

But I love the way their PR teams spin the news, as if its all done in our interest. Like all companies, they do not do anything unless there are good business reasons to justify doing something. They are doing it for themselves, not for us. Its just one more business "chess" move for them ... and as usual, ultimately, we are the pawns.

Google and Microsoft in it together? (5, Interesting)

garnetlion (786722) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414103)

Google and Microsoft? Going above and beyond the call of "Don't be evil"? Together?

Wonders never cease. Nice work.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? (3, Insightful)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414175)

It shouldn't really be surprising. Neither Google nor Microsoft have much of a stake in content creation. What they have in common is creating systems which aggregate and display content. If the NFL had it's way you wouldn't be able talk to your co-workers about the previous nights game. That would definitely get in the way of both companies' business model.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? (2, Funny)

oatworm (969674) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414529)

Dr. Peter Venkman: This thread is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, Google and Microsoft working together - mass hysteria.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? (3, Interesting)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414637)

If the NFL had it's way you wouldn't be able talk to your co-workers about the previous nights game.

It seems that major sports leagues are given special legal status in general. For one, they're exempt from antitrust laws. (Not that I like anti-trust laws, but selectively enforcing them can be worse.) For another, they seem to have additional rights to the content of their games beyond what IP law normally grants. Like, if I watch a game and stream my commentary about it so people can listen as they watch with the official broadcast's sounds muted, I'd be shut down in a heartbeat. But if I did the same thing to the e.g. Kasparov/Deep Blue chess match, IBM couldn't stop me if they wanted to.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414871)

IANAL, but I was under the impression only Baseball is exempted from Sherman Antitrust Act by an explicit act of the Congress. Other leagues don't have the official protection, but might enjoy de-facto protection which they are not really entitled to. But anyway all parts of this posting is for the exclusive benefit of Slash readership only. All other uses are prohibited by me.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? (1)

A_Non_Moose (413034) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415145)

If the NFL had it's way you wouldn't be able talk to your co-workers about the previous nights game.

True, and it does tend to Madden(c)(tm) one, doesn't it?

On a tangent type note, I think Mr. Vicks had the right idea, but instead of dogs he should
have used lawyers. Likely far more entertaining, just as bloody and who cares what the
result is...not like you'd get attached, eh?

I suppose they'll go after EA first...y'know to *coff*ahem*coff* "challenge everything".

Ok, I'm done with the digs/puns.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? (2, Interesting)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414711)

Well, it is a bit surprising.

Neither Google nor Microsoft have much of a stake in content creation.
Google's entire business is based upon fair use, so they have a stake in defending "reasonable" copying (fair use, indexing, etc.). Microsoft, however, have a business model that relies on people paying for copies of their copyrighted software. For instance, they make money when restrictions force a person to buy multiple copies of software. (E.g. lost your backup copy, it's illegal to download a copy off the net even if you already bought a real copy, so you have to buy another copy...)

Moreover, with Microsoft in the video game market (both on PCs and via the XBox), they are very much implicated in the content-creation game. Microsoft also has a history of helping the media companies achieve their aims, such as agreeing to a per-unit fee on the Zune or implementing DRM in Vista. If Microsoft was actually serious about defending fair use, their operating system would make fair use easy instead of making it onerous.

The more I think about it, the more surprising this move on Microsoft's part becomes. I guess it just comes down to Microsoft being a company so large (and poorly guided?) that different divisions can have wildly different priorities. Some parts of Microsoft would also love for you to pay a fee everytime copyrighted content is transmitted, viewed or discussed. Other parts of Microsoft only have value so long as fair use is protected.

In any case, I expect their support of fair use to be one of convenience, and hence tenuous at best. Google, on the other hand, are a valuable example of fair use being innovative and driving the economy.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? (0, Redundant)

ChrisMP1 (1130781) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414269)

Oh, just watch. They'll stab in the back whomever they're trying to protect; it's what they do best.

When will people learn that a company is a company? They exist solely to collect dough; none of them give a damn about others' rights save for the money it gets them when people start to favor them.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? (1)

rdavidson3 (844790) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414431)

Google and Microsoft? Going above and beyond the call of "Don't be evil"? Together?

Wonders never cease. Nice work.
I guess hell just froze over.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414565)

It must be a cold winter in Stalingrad...

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415783)

Only if make money counts as not being evil.

Google and Microsoft both want to rule the internet search. If you can not store you can not search effectively. If you can not search you can not sell ads.
Google wants people to upload junk to YouTube and for you to download it along with the ads they put it in.

I doubt that Microsoft will push the record companies to drop DRM.

This is just enlightened self interest.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? (1)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 6 years ago | (#20416049)

Sounds like a Technology Company Superhero Group... Oracle + Microsoft + Red Hat + Google + Sun Microsystems = Fantastic Five [wikipedia.org] ?

Sounds good! (1)

Gman14msu (993012) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414125)

"We recognize that copyright law guarantees that you, as a member of the public, have certain legal rights," it says, "You may copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, and transmit portions of this publication provided that such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise permitted by applicable law."'"

IANAL but that sure sounds a lot like "tape recording/ripping movies and putting them on the internet" to me.

Re:Sounds good! (2, Insightful)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414165)

You might have one or two minor problems persuading a court that "tape recording/ripping movies and putting them on the internet" is fair use

Re:Sounds good! (1)

MrNiceguy_KS (800771) | more than 6 years ago | (#20416647)

Actually, it depends. "Ripping movies and putting them on the internet" is simply format-shifting, which reasonable people consider fair use. "Ripping movies and putting them on the internet... for everyone to access" is distribution, which is a copyright violation. If you were ripping movies and putting them in a secured server that only you had access to, that would be considered fair use.

Of course, this doesn't take into account that the act of ripping the movies, (at least, from DVD) is a DMCA violation, but we're discussing fair-use, which the DMCA ignores.

Re: ... "provided that ..." (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414195)

So far the RIAA would object that "... such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise permitted by applicable law."

So, no luck there.

Except Microsoft is the 21st Century Enigma. Nothing they do is without sneaky intent.

Re:Sounds good! (1)

BiloxiGeek (872377) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414205)

You probably should have used that bold tag for this phrase also, but then your post would contradict what you were trying to say.

provided that such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise permitted by applicable law."'"

Re:Sounds good! (2)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414217)

Fair use part...ie: It's ok for personal use.
It is not ok to distribute it via an electronic retrieval system however.

This actually gets right to the root of the real problem we've been having...RIAA et al have been arguing that ANY copying/storing/ripping etc is illegal, when the law gives us the provision to do whatever the hell we want with them...for our own personal use. Just not distributing them.

This could go a long ways towards clearing things up and giving us back our legal rights.

Re:Sounds good! (2)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414337)

Yep, it might bring DVD ripping and disc free media servers back into the spotlight. If I recall there was one company who was able to away with it through a loophole in their contract with the DVD consortium, which was promptly sealed. Though that may have changed, I haven't stayed on top of that area. Thanks to DVDDecrypter and AutoGK all my movies are sitting on a server and the DVDs are sitting in a box in the basement.

And once media servers become widely accepted, maybe we can stop worrying about crap like HDDVD and BluRay and just be able to watch the damn movie without having to pick sides in some ridiculous format battle.

Re:Sounds good! (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415683)

Thanks to DVDDecrypter and AutoGK all my movies are sitting on a server and the DVDs are sitting in a box in the basement.
I plan to eventually set up such a media server as well, but... I like seeing the DVDs in their packaging. Part of what you're paying for is the artwork on that packaging and the printed inserts (if any). I like having that on display. Having scans and photos on screen isn't the same as being able to pet the head of a Planet of the Apes ape-bust, stare down a Cylon head, or have a DVD box set in the shape of a Police Box.

So my DVD collection is along three walls of my basement in enough rack space to hold 3060 DVDs in standard keep cases (Atlantic Penguin and Elf racks), though in practice fewer due to my liking limited-edition case designs.

Meanwhile I'm using a 400-disc changer, 218 of its slots filled with Star Trek (except ST:TNG Season 2 Disk 7, which was missing).

Re:Sounds good! (1)

tc3driver (669596) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415339)

Don't forget about the DMCA(Digital Millennium Copy-right Act) [wikipedia.org] , the one that the RIAA and MPAA are all over like white on rice.
That same one that made it illegal to copy your own dvd's because of the decryption method that was used.
While ""Fair Use" has been clearly defined for years(well before the dvd was in the picture), the RIAA, MPAA, and the DMCA have all done their best to squash that movement, god forbid you ever think of copying something you purchased.
Just to make things worse, they introduce HDCP which is the worst form of DRM ever, and possibly the most evil and anti-consumer.

Is it? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414583)

Sounds like it could also be a TIVO, or a local fileserver with rips of DVD's (I know people that have Terabyte storage just for ripping+archiving movies in a convenient manner)

Re:Is it? (1)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 6 years ago | (#20419563)

/me waves.

Yeah, terabyte media servers are cheaper and nicer every single day. And so easy to get, too. If you know where to look [chiefvalue.com] , a pair of 500GB IDE drives will run you about $200. Throw those in an older computer [dfsdirectsales.com] , make sure you've got plenty of cooling in the case, and top with a Linux distro [ubuntu.com] of some kind. For best results with a Windows client PC, get DVD43 [dvd43.com] and the latest Handbrake [m0k.org] to rip your collection. OSX just needs Handbrake, and Linux, I imagine, just needs dvd::rip [exit1.org] .

Of course! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20416181)

Of course you can, provided that it actually falls under fair use provisions in the law!

So for example, you can take a 10-second clip from a copyrighted nightly news show and post it to YouTube as long as it falls under fair use. ..The question of what exactly counts as fair use is a little harder to answer, however. The media companies would like you to believe that the answer is "nothing", and force you to go to court to prove them wrong.

It's a trick... (5, Insightful)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414135)

"Self-interest might well be among of their motives, too, as companies like Google and Microsoft are routinely sued over copyright-related issues. Defending fair use might be good for consumers, but it might turn out to be good for business as well." ....get an axe.

Re:It's a trick... (2)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414315)

It's not like they haven't violated copyrights... they just got better attorneys.

Re:It's a trick... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415363)

So wait, you think or expect that companies do things for reasons other than self interest? Beside the fact that their CEO is required to do things in the interests of the company for publicly traded companies, who cares why they're doing it? If their interests align with yours, be glad.

Re:It's a trick... (1)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415495)

Absolutely not, in fact one of the arguments I use against a Libertarian friend of mine in favor of public regulation is that corporations are generally required by the terms of their incorporation to act in the best interests of the shareholders, not of the consumers, employees, or society at large. It was actually an Army of Darkness reference that has apparently been lost on a lot of people... ...damn, and I thought it was pretty funny...

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. (4, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414141)

This Microsoft + Google alliance reminds me of that episode of He-man, where He-man and Skeletor have to join forces to save Eternia from this interdimensional monster - or when the guys from Dungeons n Dragons have to help Venger defeat Tiamat.

This is getting sooo interesting! *grabs some popcorn and enjoys the show*

Re:The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. (2, Funny)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414273)

You blew a geek fuse; I can smell the fried childhood from here.

Re: More Reminders.... (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414311)


I'm thinking Vince McMahon wants his hands on (Oracle, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Sun, and Red Hat) vs (Major League Baseball,RIAA,MPAA) wrestling match.

Celebrity Death Match!!! (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414919)

Can't you just smell the Claymation from wherever you're sitting?

History Repeats Itself (5, Interesting)

argmanah (616458) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414189)

It sounds like those entertainment lawyers DCMA'd one too many people. The lawyers start letting the fact that they were able to trample on the little people get to their head and eventually piss off someone big enough and with enough teeth to fight back. When SCO declared they were going to start charging $699 Linux licenses, it was the little guys who were concerned. Then they picked on Novell and IBM and look where they are now: Litigated into oblivion.

Re:History Repeats Itself ... In six hours? (2, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414225)


Didn't we decide this morning that Viacom has a shaky case for exactly this reason?

Re:History Repeats Itself (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414909)

When SCO declared they were going to start charging $699 Linux licenses, it was the little guys who were concerned. Then they picked on Novell and IBM and look where they are now: Litigated into oblivion.

Who? ::grinz::

more fair use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20414201)

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/08/29/1917221.shtml [slashdot.org]

That should be fair use as well. Don't bother replying with the legalese why it isn't. It should be.

damn hypocrites.

ZOMG THE IRONY! (3, Interesting)

kimvette (919543) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414207)

Am I the only one finding it ironic that Microsoft is demanding that Fair Use be recognized, while shutting down Autopackager [slashdot.org] and infringing on the right of first sale [blogspot.com] , even in cases where the software isn't even opened [applelinks.com] ?

Sorry, I'm just frustrated that I spent thousands on two MSDN subscriptions and have been trying to activate them for a week, and have spent over 115 minutes on the phone, with the last two calls assuring me with 100% certainty that the problem is now resolved, only to discover they are STILL not activated and I have to call them yet AGAIN. GRRRRRRRRR!!! This is why I run Linux for everything except for client projects. Ugh.

Re:ZOMG THE IRONY! (1)

Faldgan (13738) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414413)

They are a huge company. It's not a problem of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, it's hand #27FH53 not knowing what hand #9CJ46DH is doing.

For all of the organizing principles behind this cathedral, disagreements between what one sub-organization wants and what another sub-organization wants are bound to arise.

The people actually selling product, they want to retain ALL rights. This will allow them to generate more profit with 0 additional expense.

The people making the media player portion want their software to be more useful. This requires all sorts of media to be available. So they want as much content available as possible. Preferably for free.

It takes time for the diverse needs that are in conflict to get brought up to the level of management that can arbitrate between them. And it costs money to do so; the company as a whole is better off (i.e. more profitable) if they ignore these types of conflicts until it becomes a problem.

BTW: Hi.

Re:ZOMG THE IRONY! (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414461)

This is why I run Linux for everything except for client projects.

Hey! Why screw your clients over?

Re:ZOMG THE IRONY! (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414943)

Most of them insist on running Windows. Why? Because if it's free, it can't possibly be any good. After all, everyone else runs Windows, right?

However, I have been able to get a bunch of them to try and switch to OpenOffice from MS Office, and get clients who were previously "pirating" Acrobat Distiller to try a LEGAL free alternative -- PDF Creator.

Copyright EVERYTHING and destroy it all! (3, Funny)

ThanatosMinor (1046978) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414237)

If everything were copyrighted (most things sort of implicitly are), and we upheld MLB's version of Fair Use, then lawyers' motions would be copyrighted and as such could not be discussed by other lawyers or judges. Nobody would be able to talk about anything that had been written down or produced in any way. One could even claim that all speech is a derivative work and we could only use words and letters that hadn't been used in the same combinations anyone has used in the last half century!

Nobody would be allowed to do anything because they would be sued by people who wouldn't be allowed to sue!

Now that I think about it, such inability to enforce anything would be like having no copyrights at all. One end of the spectrum is exactly the same as the other. Too bad circles are copyrighted.

Maybe they can start with karaoke? (2, Interesting)

t0qer (230538) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414277)

Quick summary...

Karaoke is about 10 years behind the music industry, we *just* started getting PC based karaoke systems rolling.

2 karaoke companies have decided that copying a karaoke disc to your PC isn't covered under fair use laws. Below are their press statements.

ANTI-PIRACY CAMPAIGN STATEMENT 12/28/06

Stellar Records in a collaborative effort with some of its clients,
customers, law enforcement agencies, and in some cases even its competitors has
stepped up its campaign against piracy. As part of this campaign, Stellar will be
directing much of its attention at the venue level and soon will be taking
steps to notify suspected venues as to the potential risks and hazards
involved when using unauthorized copies of Stellar Records products.

Stellar Records, its customers, clients as well as several of its legitimate
competitors have been damaged considerably through the illegal copying and
distribution of their products, as well as other acts of piracy, some of which
pertain to the violation of trademarks that are also the property of
Stellar Records.

Prior to pursuing any further action, we do recognize the possibility that
at least some venues may not be aware of these violations and may be engaging
in these activities unknowingly. Hopefully this communication will provide
the information necessary in helping to determine if the use of a Stellar
Records product is authorized, or in any way infringes on its copyrights and/or
trademarks. At the very least, we hope this will provide the impetus to seek
legal advice on these matters before continuing to engage in these practices.

To be more specific, it has been brought to our attention that there are
several venues in the Phoenix and Scottsdale area that have been promoting
karaoke shows which are using unauthorized copies of karaoke products either
directly through the use of in-house systems or vicariously through the
contracting or employment of KJ/DJ hosts and/or hosting companies. Some of these
products have been identified as karaoke products containing the copyrights and/or
trademarks of Stellar Records including products bearing the trademarks "
Pop Hits Monthly", "Top Hits Monthly", or "Stellar Records". In addition it
has been suggested that there could be other products containing Stellar
Records' copyrights and/or trademarks being illegally distributed, and an
investigation is currently under way in an effort to identify those products as well.

In order to assist those in determining what constitutes an unauthorized use
of Stellar Records' products, please be advised that Stellar does not
support nor does it have the authority to support (due to contractual limitations
in its licensing agreements with various publishers) any device which stores,
and/or plays karaoke products from a hard drive or any device other than a
device that plays directly from a CD+G disc. For example products include but
are not limited to the CAVS JB199 as well as the RSQ-500 when play back is
not directly from a CD+G disc. There are a number of software based products as
well like MTU's Hoster, PCDJ, CompuHost, TriceraSoft, Sax N Dotty Show
Hoster, and Dart just to mention a few, when play back is not directly from a
CD+G disc.

Stellar Records does empathize with the concerns of some of its customers
who may want to make copies of their legally purchased products for the
purposes of making back-ups or to rip them onto a hard drive in a more convenient
format. However we do not have the authority to grant anyone the right to do
so. Most if not all of our karaoke products contain the copyrights owned by
parties other than Stellar, namely the writers, authors and/or publishers of
the work (song) itself to which we must seek prior approval for use in
producing our final karaoke products. The licenses and/or approvals that we secure
from these publishers do not include the right to distribute their works
(songs) on a hard drive. As a result we can not and/or do not encourage or
otherwise promote either the copying or format conversion of these products for any
purpose whatsoever.

There are some who would contend that making back-up copies of these works
or converting these works to a format which can then be used by some of the
above mentioned products could be considered a "fair use". However, legal
counsel for Stellar Records believes this to be in error, and does not agree. As
such Stellar can not give permission to any user of its products to make
copies for any purpose including for the purpose of making back-up copies, or to
convert to another format. Granting such permission could potentially expose
Stellar to a risk of "contributory" infringement.

While Stellar recognizes it has no standing with regard to its competitor's
products, it is worth noting that through conversations with some of our
competitors, it has been learned that many of these products are being
distributed against the behest of these companies as well. Notice should also be taken
of the fact that it is not likely that the distribution of products offered
in these formats is authorized, and that at the very least a cursory inquiry
as to the legality of these products should be conducted by anyone using them.

On a final note, illegal copying, distribution as well as other forms of
piracy puts us all at a disadvantage. There are many hard working DJ's/KJ's who
have legally purchased their libraries and have a considerable investment
in karaoke products. It is grossly unfair for these KJ's to have to compete
with those who have obtained their products illegally or in other "questionable"
ways. It is also unfair to force the many venues that refuse to allow these
illegal products in their facilities either directly or indirectly and
likewise have to compete with venues that are not willing to play by the rules.
Last but not least are the legitimate manufacturers or producers of karaoke
products. It takes a huge amount of effort and resources to create these
products (not to mention risk and investment), only to have their products pirated,
and in many cases even bootlegged by a number of unscrupulous thieves who
will stop at nothing to profit from the hard work of others.

Stellar Records, Inc. ..

December 2006
Sound Choice has fought piracy for many years. All of you are aware of the
piracy of product, copyright infringement and trademark infringement. Everyone
suffers when this type of activity takes place with lost revenue. Not just
Sound Choice, but DJ's, KJ's and retailers alike suffer trying to operate
legal businesses with lost revenue.

Sound Choice is taking a proactive stand stronger than in the past to
prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Trademark infringement suits will be
filed in Phoenix, Scottsdale, and outlying areas. Letters to cease and desist
have already been, and will continue to be, sent to any restaurants and clubs
that offer Karaoke entertainment that have allowed the DJ's and KJ's to
commercially perform in their establishment with any of the following: CD+Gs
illegally copied (burns), CD+Gs illegally copied on to hard drives, karaoke music
downloaded from the internet. As the owner or manager of an establishment
that uses Karaoke entertainment, they may not understand how serious this
offense may be and how it can affect them. Karaoke hosts who use illegal copies of
music also put the bar and/or restaurant business at risk. One of the
possible consequences that not only the KJ, but also the bar/restaurant are facing
includes fines that have now been increased to $250,000.00 and six (6) months
possible jail time per occurrence. Per occurrence is per each time each
copied song is played. You do the math. Sound Choice will also be working in
cooperation with several manufacturers to be sure these violators are prosecuted.

In addition, trademark infringement and dilution under the federal Lanham
Act provides remedies including, but not limited to, injunctive relief,
monetary damages, confiscation and destruction of infringing articles and
promotional materials and, in cases of intentional infringement, attorney's fees and
treble damages. Sound Choice has never given anyone the permission or licenses
to download or copy any Sound Choice music to any type of hard-drives for
commercial use or any other type use because there is no licensing available for
hard-drives. The publishers will not extend licensing for hard-drive
products. It is illegal to copy music to a hard-drive for commercial use. The Fair
Use Act of 1992 provides for personal use only not commercial.

In other words, if a DJ or KJ has five rigs operating commercially, they
should have five original sets of discs in use, not stored or on file, to
operate legally. We are hopeful that the restaurant and bar owners and managers
will voluntarily take a stand to keep their establishments legal instead of
facing the possible risk and costs incurred of legal consequences.

Shelby Wood Business Affairs Director Sound Choice

That will last right up until somebody offers (2, Interesting)

crovira (10242) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415037)

them some money for their content (nobody EVER turns down money.)

If I was asking them for a PRICE for their Karaoke CDs/DVDs to play in a PC based player, I bet that I'd be able to license it.

It's Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20414297)

I'd applaud but I can almost hear "fair use allows us to distribute GPL software in violation of the license" machinations cranking away over in Redmond.

Let's wait and see where they're going with it before we give any kudos.

Re:It's Microsoft (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414767)

if it gets this into the Windows and Office EULAs:

"We recognize that copyright law guarantees that you, as a member of the public, have certain legal rights," it says, "You may copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, and transmit portions of this publication provided that such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise permitted by applicable law."'"

and thus it means that schools can, for educational purposes, run unlicensed copies of said software, it might just be worth it.

Companies fighting companies (2, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414301)

It's great, but a long way from anyone defending personal fair use. This is just corporations fighting over who gets to disseminate sports scores. In short, companies fighting over money. Just using fair use as the angle of attack.

Wake me when the megacorporations start fighting for my right to rip my CDs and play them on my MP3 player.

Re:Companies fighting companies (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414325)

Fair use for people is in Googles and MS best interest.
Of course, I still can't figure out why MS cares about the entertainment industry. They would save a lot of money if they just said "Screw DRM it's not worth it." Let the entertainment industry deal with it.

Re:Companies fighting companies (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414513)

Fair use for people is in Googles and MS best interest.

How so? I could maybe see Google but have a hard time thinking of why MS would care about fair use rights. If anything, I would guess they would be doing their best to work against fair use, seeing as how they are currently partnered with the entertainment industry. The entertainment folks see fair use as a lost sale. If they can forbid you from ripping your CD to MP3, that means they can sell you the CD and then turn around and sell you the MP3 file for your portable.

Of course, I still can't figure out why MS cares about the entertainment industry.

Money.

Anyone with pockets the size of the entertainment industry automatically looks like a good customer. MS didn't put all that fancy DRM in there on a whim.

Plus, they're both in a similar racket anyways. Selling you and reselling you the exact same thing over and over again.

Re:Companies fighting companies (2, Insightful)

eison (56778) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414721)

They are trying to make a bazillion dollars on a search engine. Search engines live or die on fair use, because they need to cache and quote other people's copyrighted work in order to get their job done and make $$$.

Re:Companies fighting companies (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414691)

Let the entertainment industry deal with it.
1) Windows Media Center Edition
2) XBOX
3) Zune
4) Windows Media Player
5) Hi-def hardware (capture cards, TV's, etc)

Re:Companies fighting companies (1)

ChatHuant (801522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415815)

Of course, I still can't figure out why MS cares about the entertainment industry. They would save a lot of money if they just said "Screw DRM it's not worth it." Let the entertainment industry deal with it.

Well, how do you think the entertainment industry will deal with it? Very probably they'll start with a big lawsuit, accusing MS of aiding and abetting the pirates, followed by a set of licences and/or technological attempts to disallow or make difficult the playback of DVDs and other media items on PCs. It wouldn't work in the long term - you can't stop progress - but in the short term it would still be a serious annoyance. The average users want their DVD playback. They don't much care about DRM, because it's a minor issue in most cases, and they're not interested in the related politics, as long as they get their circus. Since MS wants to make things easiest for the not very sophisticated home user, they need to take the requirements of the entertainment industry into account.

Of course, the entertainment industry is overreaching so far it's not even funny, and there hasn't been any serious force opposing it yet (shrieking slashdotters really don't matter as much as they like to believe). I hope MS, Google and the others can do something about Holywood's encroachment on fair use.

Re:Companies fighting companies (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#20418535)

"...accusing MS of aiding and abetting the pirates,..."
which would fail.

"...followed by a set of licences and/or technological attempts to disallow or make difficult the playback of DVDs and other media items on PCs..."

which isn't possible.
But if they use a completely different technologyu, say cartiges, then fine. They can do that, bfd. Of course we both know it could still be put in a computer.

"Since MS wants to make things easiest for the not very sophisticated home user, they need to take the requirements of the entertainment industry into account."

That makes no sense. Not having DRM is even easier. It is the entertainment industries responsibility to find a way to reach their client base.

What does MS loose if they don't have DRM? nothing. The market will force the entertainment industry to release stuff for their computers.

DRM doesn't even fit into MS's millennium plan. It's just wierd.

microsoft v dreamworks... (1)

mlheur (212082) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414367)

I found it interesting to note that MS was backing a complaint against Dreamworks, you think they could sort that one out in-house.

Thats the gig !! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414405)

thats what it should have been all along from the start !! great job you internet giants - now we can join in on this as the public and get things in their right places.

Amen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20414471)

The other publishing industries have been lagging behind the music recording industries. I have LPs from the lat 60s that claim rights that they STILL don't have. They threatened you with the FBI for taping them!

Those notices aren't nearly as funny as some of the other utter bullshit you see on CD cases of works that were originally in analog format, talking about CDs' "superior resolution" and how it wouldn't sound as good as the record company would like because they were analog. I actually believed this when I first started buying CDs, before I researched them. I had a few that made me wonder, and finally discovered that the remastering of some of these CDs is so bad that if you sample the vinyl and burn it to a blank, your home-sampled CD can actually sound better than the store bought version!

Also, the fact is that anything mastered in analog medium and reproduced digitally, or mastered digitally and reproduced in analog media will be the worst of both worlds and will sound like shit, or at least the digital analog of shit.

-mcgrew [kuro5hin.org]

PS- at 44,000 samples per second, a 15kHz wave will have only three samples per crest. Is that a sine wave, a square wave, or a sawtooth wave?

Re:Amen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20414575)

> PS- at 44,000 samples per second, a 15kHz wave will have only three samples per crest. Is that a sine wave, a square wave, or a sawtooth wave?

If a tree falls in the forest, but very few of us can hear it, does it really make a sound?

(If there's a "beat" effect from a 15kHz wave and a 14kHz wave being played simultaneously, isn't part the point of psychoacoustic modeling to be able to reproduce the net effect without having to reproduce both original waveforms?)

Re:Amen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20415211)

Compact discs don't do psychoacoustic modelling.

Re:Amen (1)

Damarkus13 (1000963) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415715)

Since 15khz is ear-piercing, I really hope most artists avoid using sounds in the 15khz-20khz range.

In fact, here http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/samplesViewSingle.php ?id=18266 [upf.edu] is a sample of a 14-15khz wave. Do you really care what wave form that kind of sound is?

Re: the value of 15 khz sounds (1)

adminstring (608310) | more than 6 years ago | (#20418557)

The sample you linked to is unpleasant, but most of us don't spend much time listening to pure sine waves at any frequency.

A better example of what sound in the 14-15khz frequency range has to offer would be to take a recording of an orchestra and do an A/B comparison of the original recording, and a version of the recording where an equalizer has been used to minimize those frequencies. The orchestra would sound "duller." Even though the fundamental notes the individual instruments were playing were of a much lower frequency, the overtones [wikipedia.org] produced by acoustic instruments make up a lot of the tonal color people tend to like about them.

That being said, a version of a recording of an orchestra with the 14-15khz band boosted would tend to sound "harsher" than the original recording. Ideally, a recording should have the same amount of each audible frequency range of sound as you might experience in the room with the original instrument. And although a 15khz sine wave is not pleasant, there are pleasant things to be found in that range... you can play with a graphic or parametric EQ, either in software or in hardware, while listening to a CD to hear what I mean.

Enough with the website launches... (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414527)

I'm tired of companies and organizations launching websites and being completely ineffective thereafter, as if the launch of the website itself was the brunt of their effort. I seriously hope they do something about this, but in my mind, just launching a website proclaiming your objective doesn't cut it. Let's see some results.

We can only hope (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414555)

Could this be a reversal of Microsoft's prior stance on DRM, wherein they fellated the movie and music industries despite the consumer electronics industry being far larger and far more consumer-friendly?

Nah.

Re:We can only hope (2, Informative)

digitalaudiorock (1130835) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414887)

Could this be a reversal of Microsoft's prior stance on DRM, wherein they fellated the movie and music industries despite the consumer electronics industry being far larger and far more consumer-friendly?

Nah.
Speaking of DRM and the like...I'd be interested in hearing the official CCIA position on the consumers right to backup CDs and DVDs, especially given that the DMCA frequently seems void fair use in that case. It'd be really disappointing if their position was in support of fair use only when it doesn't violate the letter of the DCMA. That would be pretty hollow at best.

Re:We can only hope (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#20416377)

Your rights to fair use aren't legally revoked by the DMCA. If you can obtain the content in an unencumbered format without violating the DMCA, you can make fair use of that content without problems. The DMCA only provides the practical hurdle of obtaining the unencumbered content in the first place, wrapped up in a legal package.

This is interesting... (1)

ttapper04 (955370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414677)

"You may copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, and transmit portions of this publication provided that such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise permitted by applicable law."

They appear to be taking a step in the right direction, until you take in to account that legislators go to the highest bidder... There is no question that M$ and Google have deep pockets and both company's lobby congress, its certainly no secret.

Is it just me... (1)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415289)

... or did MS and Google just say that I have the right to do what the law says I have the right to do?

Um... thanks, guys, and it's nice of you to say so publicly and all that, but I already had those rights, because the law said I had them. I don't need your say-so, or any corporation's. Just the law. Hard as it is to believe, the law is actually what gives us the right to do stuff, not your permission.

Great! What's next? (1)

HtR (240250) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414765)

After they clean up the over-reaching copyright notices, maybe they could go after the EULAs next?

It is time... (1)

cpotoso (606303) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414775)

Finally some corporations recognize that the madness of the current abuse of IP rights has to stop. Perhaps their deep pockets will "convince" politicians to fix this (since they really don't give a rat ass notice of what people want).

If this stands up in court... (1)

Enlarged to Show Tex (911413) | more than 6 years ago | (#20414885)

People can go back to blogging sports events without getting thrown out of them. IIRC, the blogger from the paper in Louisville managed to get tossed out of the College World Series this year for blogging...

What about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20415473)

In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include--
                (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
        use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
        purposes;
                (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
                (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
        relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
                (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
        of the copyrighted work.

If the purpose of copyright is to allow authors some time to make money, but the author has given up trying to make money off the work, shouldn't copyright expire? I'm thinking of abandonware here . . .

The actual site (1)

fullphaser (939696) | more than 6 years ago | (#20415695)

A site sponsored by MS, Google, and others and it looks like that? Must not be high on their priority list.

Take a look before you get too impressed (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20416281)

Has anyone actually looked at the website [defendfairuse.org] ?

There's a link labelled "Tell us what you think" about fair use, overreaching copyright notices - but when you click it, the only option is to sign their pre-drafted petition. There's no way to actually convey your views. Much what you'd expect from these companies, really.

Then try reading the petition itself. Some idiot has failed to specify a proper charset for the web page, so it's peppered with weird characters.

Freakin' amateurs.

Not Protecting Fair Use For Everyone (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 6 years ago | (#20418263)

Keep in mind that Microsoft is a huge violator of your privacy with the 47 spyware programs they put into Vista. Also the major WGN/WGA crap they put into Vista and XP. Bottom line is that they are not here to defend the rights of the people. Microsoft is doing this to defend their position alone so they don't get sued right and left. In fact, Microsoft years ago started buying up the rights to all sorts of digital works. They didn't do this to have them they did this to defend their rights. Nothing wrong with that except if you were to use those I'm sure they would be more than happy to bust your chops. For instance, the autopackager site they just shut down is a fair use site yet they have shit on everyone by closing it down. They did so because they know that such a site has little resources to defend themselves.

Never ever trust Microsoft.

pl0s 1, mTroll) (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20419449)

OUTER SPACE THE base for FreeBSD It's best to try
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>