Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (9672)	1/24/2006 4:44:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541515

I understand not approving of steeling. However all the DRM crap, the broadcast flag and so forth doesn't really keep people from stealing, esp music. It primarily makes things more difficult for users who want to stick to music that they have a legal right to. It also prevents a broad open market in music and other content, and makes computers and consumer devices to use the content slower, less interoperable, and less convenient and less in control of the owners of the machine. I'd buy music files if I didn't have to have the DRM in order to play them, but the DRM comes with the programs so I don't buy the files. Now they are putting DRM in to CDs (including a root kit that hides itself and makes your PC less secure). If I can't get the CDs without DRM than I won't buy the CDs either. If your CD's have DRM than you might not be able to re-rip them. And if you bypass the DRM (even by some methods so trivial that you might not realize that you bypassed it) the record companies would claim that you have acted illegally, just as a TV or movie exec tried to argue the idea that people who fast forwarded through commercials on their Tivo where stealing. These are the type of attitudes held by people who want to control how songs, movies, TV, ect. are distributed and used, and more importantly want the government to help them achieve this control. And they don't just want to pass laws pushing their control, but also they want to pass laws that basically give them approval on new devices or programs that play media content, new operating systems and hardware for computers and so forth. Some of the schemes would allow them to make changes to your devices (including PCs) without your consent or knowledge. A separate issue from the copyrights and DRM and such is the pricing. I think music on CDs or on legal downloads is strongly overpriced. I do think record companies have the right to charge what they want, but in the long run I would like to see the market be more open to competition. I'm not suggesting the government go in and break up the record companies or otherwise use heavy-handed tactics against them, but I'd like to see the way the market operates change. I think in the long run it will. I don't think the government should give them extra protections to try and prevent this from happening. I've read reasonable arguments that the DRM for music is less to stop illegal copying (people can get unprotected copies two easily, even if not legally, for DRM to be effective) but rather to try and reduce competition. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (9672)	2/16/2006 12:14:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541515

Here is an example of what the RIAA thinks of fair use - RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use February 15, 2006 It is no secret that the entertainment oligopolists are not happy about space-shifting and format-shifting. But surely ripping your own CDs to your own iPod passes muster, right? In fact, didn't they admit as much in front of the Supreme Court during the MGM v. Grokster argument last year? Apparently not. As part of the on-going DMCA rule-making proceedings, the RIAA and other copyright industry associations submitted a filing that included this gem as part of their argument that space-shifting and format-shifting do not count as noninfringing uses, even when you are talking about making copies of your own CDs: "Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright owners in the MGM v. Grokster case is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use." For those who may not remember, here's what Don Verrilli said to the Supreme Court last year: "The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod." If I understand what the RIAA is saying, "perfectly lawful" means "lawful until we change our mind." So your ability to continue to make copies of your own CDs on your own iPod is entirely a matter of their sufferance. What about all the indie label CDs? Do you have to ask each of them for permission before ripping your CDs? And what about all the major label artists who control their own copyrights? Do we all need to ask them, as well? P.S.: The same filing also had this to say: "Similarly, creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use...." eff.org arstechnica.com theinquirer.net