"Kristin A. Ruhle" wrote:
> Just came across a consumer electronics trade pub noting that Macrovision
> (they copy protect videotapes) had finished beta testing their encryption
> scheme that would prevent you from copying an audio CD.
Boo!!! Hiss!!!
> next step is
> selling it to record labels.
Hillary Rosen will love it.
> If this happens on a large scale I'm going to
> stop buying CDs.
The only reason to stop is as a protest against their reprehensible
policies and financial structure....(see below)
> I've copied things for personal use but never sold them
> or given them awawy!
Probably legal, in my opinion completely legal.
> (I'm not even a Napster user.)
<chuckle> So? You have access to powerful digital equipment - that
makes you a potential criminal in the eyes of the RIAA and MPAA, a
criminal which their poor helpless profits must be protected against.
('their profits', not 'the artist's profits')
> I'd like for things
> like home CD burners to not be useless and for songs to be digitizable
> into portable MP3 players
<gasp> Clearly the thoughts of a vicious copyright pirate.
(Home CD burners will remain useful and songs will remain
digitizable with this encryption scheme. All you have to do is take
the audio-output from the CD player and run it into the audio-input
of the CD burner or MP3 player. There are significant legal problems
with attempting to use technological means to prevent this. Those
legal barriers are not yet under assault....)
> (digitized from one's own discs not somebody elses.)
<Market Opportunity!!!!> So you would be willing to buy a CD Burner
or MP3 player that would copy those songs for which you could produce
a digital receipt and not otherwise be able to make a copy?
> thing is - THERE USED TO BE SUCH A THING AS FAIR USE. Making
> personal copies wasn't illegal, only trying to sell them.
There still is such a thing as 'Fair Use', although it is a bit more
complicated than simply making copies for personal use.
"(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."
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap1.html#107
The determination is based on how the use is seen in each of these
factors - a commercial use can - in theory - be a 'Fair Use' if it
had a positive effect on the market for the copyrighted work and if
the portion used was not substantial. Similarly a nonprofit
educational use can be disallowed if it is a matter of copying the
whole work and if it has a negative effect on the market for the
copyrighted work. *All decisions about whether any particular copying
is/is not 'Fair Use' are made by a judge, there is no way to be
_sure_ without taking a case to court.*
> Now with digital
> tehcnology they problem they have is the copies are too good. If you run
> off pirate tapes from your VCR or tape deck the quality degrades so
> anybody would know a bootleg. Digital copies are perfect and easily
> replicated over and over with no way to show whether it's the original.
> So: has technology truly killed the fair use doctrine?
Nope. And if it does die it will have been a political decision, not
a technological one. (The 'Public Domain' is in danger too -
currently if an 18 year-old performer were to write a song and then
live to be 90 years old that song would not enter the public domain
until 2159. So, if some truly talented songwriter creates a wonderful
song that is judged to be 'derivative' of "Oops, I did it again" in
the year 2100 Ms. Spears, or her estate, can demand compensation for
the 'infringement' of a song that has probably not been played
publicly for 50 years or more.)
> Well, I blame drops in CD sales on shitty music and overpriced discs (some
> up to $18.99!)
Indeed. and with CD burners people Know what the production costs
are.
> and if you can't copy somethaing at all, that reduces its
> value to you so it is even more of a rip off.
Well..... that is sort of a 'right' that you never had, or is - sort
of - a 'right' that you still retain...but which might be taken away
by the terms of license (You thought you bought that copy of the song
didn't you? Nope - you only bought the CD. You acquired a license to
play the song - from that CD - for personal purposes, but not for any
other purposes. Software is already sold with licenses which restrict
your rights beyond what copyright prohibits.... At this time you can,
under most circumstances, legally make a copy of a CD for personal
uses - but I wouldn't be surprised to see 'affordable' CD's marketed
with a license that prohibits that 'right' and with 'copyprotection'
that will keep those awful copyright pirates from making a copy for a
friend.)
> I'd like to start a boycott
> of encrypted discs once they hit the stores.
Go right ahead. I will certainly support such a boycott - but as I
mentioned above: all you have to do is take the audio-output from the
CD player and run it into the audio-input of the CD burner or MP3
player.
> Well that might be practically everything.
Nope. There is no way that the technology can be introduced
everywhere at the same time. It will be possible to buy only songs
sold in 'consumer friendly' media.
> As I said I never HAVE used Napster.
<chuckle> But you have access to a computer, which makes you almost
as bad as a copyright pirate. (After all, if everyone has access to a
printing press - what use are publishing cartels?)
> But i truly
> hate the RIAA, they are nothing but a power elite.
A very foolish power elite. Their best move would have been to be
very very friendly to MP3.com and Napster. They could have
incorporated incrementally increasing individual infringement into a
marvellous marketing miracle. (Download a song, a few days later you
get an email from Record Company offering you a _quality copy_ of the
song for free, or reduced price, and an opportunity to buy directly
from them a number of songs likely to be of interest to you. When a
new album comes out you get an opportunity to buy it before it is in
the stores, etc. If someone downloads a song that you placed on
Napster and then subsequently buys something from the Record Company
you get a percentage, or 'Referral Dollars' that can be used for the
purchase of something else, etc. As they build up larger and larger
databases of their customers' interests they start offering albums
tailored to individual tastes, etc.) But no, they had to try to keep
a deathgrip on the status quo. Fools.
cheers,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
