debate: daily update is wrong - media tariffs are a horrible idea

[FredThompson]

doom9 must be smoking something exotic.

The idea of media tariffs to "compensate" "artists" is incredibly stupid.

First, it assumes the media is being used in an illegally infringing manner. Fair use doesn't necessitate extra "compensation."

Second, what storage mediums have such a tariff in a sane environment? Do "authors" get a tariff-based "compensation" when you buy paper? How about when you buy a pen? What about photographic film?

Thirdly, what defines an "artist"?

This would be a situation that aptly deserves the response, "nice gig, if you can get it."

[Selur]

hmm,.. i kind of like the idea,.. something like you pay your fee and 4LetterCompanies don't care if you leech movies, music,.... :D

The distribution for the artist, could be handles similiar like the money that goes to the german GEMA.

Cu Selur

Ps.: if doom9 is smoking something exotic, I hope it's good :D

[FredThompson]

You've entirely missed the point.

Do Tom Clancy or J. K. Rowling receive "compensation" when you buy a ream of paper? Of course not.

Why should some "artist", whatever that is, receive "compensation" for media which I use for my own use? Do I get a refund for media which goes bad?

[Doom9]

Do Tom Clancy or J. K. Rowling receive "compensation" when you buy a ream of paper?No, but they do if you buy a copy machine or printer. At least artists and collection agencies like levies. I know it's not an idea solution, but flat fees seems to be the most fair compromise to me between copyright owners being paid for private copying, and what the IP industry is trying to achieve: complete abolishment of any rights to make copies. Without flat fees, it's DRM all the way and I much rather pay extra for my data CDs and DVDs than not being allowed to many any copies at all for my own purposes.

[FredThompson]

Apples and oranges, my man. Photocopiers aren't media. Paper is media.

If they want to levy recorders, that's different than the media itself but they'd have to prove an overwhelming use for infringing duplication of copyrighted material. What's next? Do they expect to get a portion of the purchase price of non-volatile memory because it could be used to hold data which represents a copyrighted recording?

I don't agree with you that the only other option is crippled DRM. Analog recorders didn't stop people from buying original material. They'll have to develop a new business method. It's really no different than other reproductive technologies like printing.

So they have to make micro-payments feasible. Big deal. Everything has to start somewhere. It took a long time and a lot of effort to get credit cards going. This is no different, they'll have to adapt. Subsidy to keep an outdated methodology running always fails.

I do readily admit to chosing a somewhat inflammatory header...silly me. (now edited as the text-only has a tendency to be mis-interpreted.)

[Boulder]

We already got this method of compensation in Finland. The fee is quite large (I don't remember how it is calculated), I think it's somewhere around 1 euro per an empty DVDR disc. This is the main reason why most heavy-users in Finland buy their media from Germany or the UK.

The compensation is widely considered a very bad idea and it's going to be interesting to see what happens if/when Finland decides to declare all copying illegal. The point is that they say that the compensation is due to illegal copying so basically it gives the moral right to copy since you pay the fee whether you record your own wedding or doctoral thesis:D

At least one company has already begun shipping empty media from Estonia where no fees are applied and then selling it in Finland without the compensation fee.

[Wilbert]

Fred, you might want to change the title of the thread a bit. I know you didn't mean it that way, but it is a bit insulting. It surely isn't very respectful.

[mpucoder]

I also thing these tarrifs are a really bad idea. The fact that they exist elsewhere in the world only goes to set a bad precedence. I doubt very much that the tarrifs legalize copying, or reduce the penalties at all. And I also doubt that the artists receive a fair share of the money. It's just another form of tax, like our cigarette taxes that never pay for health care. Who collects and distibutes this money? I would hope surely NOT the RIAA.
I've seen a lot of confused press about the RIAA and the artists. The RIAA does NOT represent the artists, rather they represent the industry (ie record companies). The artists are represented by, in America, ASCAP and BMI. These are the organizations that collect from any public performance of recorded or published music.

[Doom9]

Who collects and distibutes this money?Collection agencies that have a mandate from the government. They don't give money to the record labels but the artist organizations (thus ASCAP and BMI in the US).
Say what you want, that system has worked in my country for as long as I can remember and our copyright law still says private copying is perfectly okay, even if it involves circumventing copy protection mechanisms.

So, I challenge you to present me with a better, and working idea.

[FredThompson]

So, I challenge you to present me with a better, and working idea.Copyright holders pursue legal action against infringers.

There's nothing that stops people from checking out recordings from a library and making copies. That reality hasn't killed the recording industries over the past 35 years. There's no true evidence to indicate digital media is any different than analog. Copied recordings don't have liner notes, etc. The business of the distribution companies is creating demand through generating desire in the potential consumers.

RIAA is in the typical position of a sole-source business. They're a monopoly and pull all kinds of accounting shenanigans to avoid paying royalties. ASCAP and BMI apparently have no way to influence proper payment of royalties. This is a classic shell game to avoid a broken system but creating another tax. Movies really aren't any different.

All this tariff would do is hobble use of technology and create an even larger welfare class.

"I played an instrument and sang my own song once. I'm a musician. Gimme money."

[communist]

Well if they really want to charge some sort of tax they also should stop sueing people who copy & distribute and thereby declare all kind of copying and infringement legal - would be quite a ripoff if we had to pay to burn our own data on our discs.
And I'm not going to pay to exercise my right for fair use either. Thats a point where the RIAA / 'Artist' never ever made any money - so why should they now?
If I buy a CD I want to listen to it in a CD player, in my Computer and just about everywhere else I can think of - why should I be charged more if I wanted to use my CD somewhere other than intended?

[Neo Neko]

This is the system IIRC that we have had over here for over a decade. Only instead of a tarrif it is called a "tax". And we are assessed for it in relation to recorders and blank media. Personally I would not be "opposed" to the idea. But using us as an example it is clear to see that the 4 letter companies are not satisfied with that much money extorted. They want more. So if it is going to happen it needs to be one or the other. Either allow them to prosecute those they deem as infringers willy nilly or allow them to collect the "tax". But not both as they are trying to do now.

[Doom9]

Copyright holders pursue legal action against infringers.In other words back to 97 or pre-DMCA age. I very much doubt that's ever going to happen. Let's do a reality check, shall we: DMCA like laws are reality in the US, Europe (taking the German version as an example it's even more drastic as the original and the fair use exception only applies to photomechanical copying mechanisms), and coming to Australia via "free trade" agreements as well as every other country the US is in the process of drafting a free trade agreement.. so basically pretty much the rest of America (Canada so far is an exception). The EU has just gotten 10 new member states who will also have to introduce a DMCA. That leaves Asia, the Middle East and Africa untouched.

Law proposals are in the work that would make breaking copy protection a penal infraction, meaning the state will have to put you in prison if you make a backup copy of a DVD or copy protected music CD. In addition, via protecting DRM and studios shoving DRM down our throats, we'll soon have to pay for each act of consumption of a copyrighted work. So far the outlook for the future.

Australia does not know the concept of Fair Use.. over there making a copy for personal use has always been illegal and if the US - Australia free trade agreement passes, it becomes illegal square (copyright law and DMCA). That happening is a very real possibility and even though many would like to see the agreement not being signed because it's inheritently unfair and benefits one side more than the other (at least in the IP area), I'd assume it's going to pass. So, what do you prefer, an unfair tax that gives you fair rights to use copyrighted works, or no tax and no rights at all?

Nobody likes levies, but if there's a choice between them and no fair use, I'm all for levies. And as Boulder mentioned, even if they make copying illegal, you "bought" a moral right to copy with the purchase price of the blank media.. if they actually start sueing people for making private copies, all the levies you've paid without getting anything for it is going to make a good case for dismissal of any damages ;) And without damages you don't have a civil case.

The IP mob is obviously not happy with levies, but they are not against them in countries that have them as well as a DMCA.. obviously they want their cake and eat it. However, if we as consumers are equally unwilling to compromise, we do not stand a very good chance for the future.. we don't have the resources to bribe politicians to do our bidding, and I strongly believe we have to make some sacrifices in the future as well.. it's unreasonable to expect the IP industry to just lay down and give us what we ask for.. granted, that's how it should work since we are the customers and customers should be king, but unfortunately in this business that's an utopia. You'd have to literally overthrow governments to put the IP industry's ambitions for world domination into a thightly knit corset.

Oh, and by the way.. FredThomson, mpucoder: time to update your fact books: The US aleady has levies on recorders and digital media and has had it for 12 years now: http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm.

[Doobie]

In today's environment, if libraries didn't already exist they would be illegal to open. The dupes for the RIAA et al. would be whining about how libraries are theft and would destroy the book, movie, and music industries.

I'm against a fee on blank media for the RIAA. I don't download music, but I do use blank media. Such a fee would amount to theft, depriving me of my money. And, for those of you who do download music, the RIAA would still be free to sue you for a purely statutory crime, even though you are already paying them when you buy blank media.

PS: There already is a 2% fee on blank CDs.

PPS: Check out your local library. Many thousands of books. Most of them have a good selection of recent children's movies and software. Some of them even have extensive collections popular non-children's music and movies.

[Doom9]

I'm against a fee on blank media for the RIAA.That's a common misunderstanding.. levies don't go to the studios.. they never have. Same goes for levies/taxes when you broadcast music btw, or show a film in public.

[FredThompson]

Again, why should some "artist" receive "compensation" when I use digital media to store things which are entirely my own creation?

So there's a 2% (or whatever) levy, I don't mind that. However, the difference in price for blank media between the U.S. and Canada is enormous. Suppose the U.S. goes with that 1 Euro levy of Finland. That's about $1.20 now. The current cost of decent DVDR in bulk via mail order is about $0.50 each.

The more Draconian things become, the sooner it is political fodder. When it gets to the point the recording industry puts a choke hold on communication and business, they will fall. Remember that ridiculous attempt in the U.S. to create a legal requirement that DRM be applied to any copying process?

I have infinite confidence that the non-film/music/TV industries, which are easily a hundredfold or more larger, will not be held hostage to a handful of money grubbing lawyers.

It's a waste of time to claim the lobbying power of the film/music/TV groups comes close to that of manufacturing and all other businesses. If money talks, the entertainment industry loses when it goes up against the rest of the world.

Little dogs (music/tv/film) yip and yap. Big dogs stay on the porch quietly. When they get up, little dogs get destroyed.

[Doom9]

I have infinite confidence that the non-film/music/TV industries, which are easily a hundredfold or more larger, will not be held hostage to a handful of money grubbing lawyers.I'm glad for you but I'm all but that confident. The IP industry is one of the US' biggest exporters and its influence as a whole (that includes software and the patent lobby.. patents are actually a good example to see that self regulation doesn't work.. today you'll find respectable head of R&D departments of major companies that are actually against the patent madness in corporate America, yet nothing has been done so far.. rather the US has lobbied the EU to adapt their stupid patent legislation) is immense.

[FredThompson]

I wasn't talking about U.S. exports of movies, I was talking about world business.

DRM can't be so intrusive that it prevents people from using any form of transmittable and stored data. Neither, for that manner, will they ever economically extort the rest of the world based on pre-crime infringement.

Media companies are an incredibly small percent of business. You're not thinking about the amount of digital communication/storage/etc used in all other aspects of industrialized society. Pre-recorded entertainment recordings are a miniscule percentage of that.

Movie and music companies have more power than producers of food, electricity, drugs, telecom, automobiles, fuels, insurance and banking? Nope. Digital media and storage will be as cheap as paper and just as usable. Can't put a genie back in a bottle.

[Doom9]

You're not thinking about the amount of digital communication/storage/etc used in all other aspects of industrialized societyI was not only talking about recording companies and movie studios.. we have software makers (that includes many computing hardware bigshots that not only make hardware) that are pushing for the same thing. Plus, I see stuff like rights management in Microsoft Office products coming.. we're heading straight into a society where information is no longer free. The Internet has freed information, now they're trying to put a lock on it.. if concern about that was so widespread, why are lawmakers even considering proposals drafted by MPAA/RIAA/BSA/etc? Where are the heavyweights putting their foot down?

[FredThompson]

I've always thought the "information is free" idea isn't quite correct. It's similar to "knowledge is power." Those days are long gone, access to knowledge is power. Looking back on the thread, I've seen that what I was trying to explain but not doing a proper job.

Remember when the South Carolina politician tried to require DRM for any copying procedure? That's the kind of thing which I expect to happen. The studio/legal types will overplay their hand and interfere with the flow of information too much. Maybe it will be technological, maybe legal, but they'll do something which threatens the collapse of modern society by interfering with the free flow of information. That's when I think it will happen.

Or...they honk off the senior lobby in the U.S. and make it impossible for them to exchange recordings of the grandkids. Never underestimate the power of a scorned woman or a grannie who can't brag about her grandkids...

That's kind of a joke but it's the kind of thing I expect will happen. The four-letter groups who are our nemesi (?) now are trying to profit on the exchange of digital storage. Every day, non-infringing use of digital media grows. That's what I meant by the genie comment. There's no way they can create technological blocks which stop information flow. (Huge levy on media, a new form of media comes out...)

To illustrate, all that stuff about making digital broadcasts impossible to record is a waste of time. They're going to succeed in removing from the under-50 crowd VCR-type tech? Won't happen. They might be consumed with arrogance on how clever they think they are that analog stuff is disappearing and then they'll have total control. That's delusion.

Nothing they've tried has really worked, basically, because they're trying to do the impossible. They want to profit from exchange fo digital information and control everyone else's ability to use the same technology. If they make it annoying/difficult enough, competitors will replace them or the laws changed. They're obviously not realy meeting the consumers' wants since computer games and PCs are larger business than movies and TV. That demographic grows every day and the passive information receivers die off.

Although, it sure seems the four-letter groups never get credit for filtering out a lot of the junk.

[Doom9]

To illustrate, all that stuff about making digital broadcasts impossible to record is a waste of time. They're going to succeed in removing from the under-50 crowd VCR-type tech? Won't happen. They might be consumed with arrogance on how clever they think they are that analog stuff is disappearing and then they'll have total control. That's delusion.I sure hope you're right, though I'm not so convinced. Microsoft's Office activation scheme has never been broken, has it? And I'm sure there'll be more. Just look at this: http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/06/15.13.shtml

The better formats we get, the harder it gets to make copies... at some point when they realize that only using publicly known cryptography systems and implementations is the way to secure a system, we'll be screwed big time.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Doom9
I sure hope you're right, though I'm not so convinced. Microsoft's Office activation scheme has never been broken, has it? Please refresh my memory. Which version(s) was this?


Cheers

[FredThompson]

Sigh....

If "studios" won't release high definition media, people won't buy high definition hardware which means they won't watch high definition. It's a circular argument. If that's what they chose to do, other entities will emerge to meet the demand. They cannot stop the transition and optimization to digital media. It's that simple.

They can certainly shout into the wind all they want like Baghdad Bob but it won't get them what they want. At some point, they have to grow up or they disappear.

"Studios" or four-letter groups we don't like won't stop the advance of technology. What you're suggesting is akin to removing paper from society.

You seem to think we'll return to the 1930s market situation.

There isn't a version of consumer DRM which hasn't been cracked, usually quite quickly. Quite simply, there isn't a way to distribute information to a wide audience at low cost while simultaneously encrypting it perfectly.

The only feasible option is to limit access to a controlled environment like a movie theater. Are people ONLY going to listen to music or watch video inside a secure facility?

[Doom9]

There isn't a version of consumer DRM which hasn't been cracked, usually quite quickly. Quite simply, there isn't a way to distribute information to a wide audience at low cost while simultaneously encrypting it perfectly.Why not? It's being done regularly for data flows across the internet, be it encrypted emails or encrypted traffic (VPN). Every time I work at home I have a direct connection to work that requires an unimaginable amount of computing power to crack into.

And the audio watermarking the RIAA came up with.. but where is the "how to"? It was never published because the RIAA gagged the people who found a way to crack it using the DMCA. Look at what happened to that Russian programmer who cracked Adobe's PDF protection.. sure it was cracked.. but there was a high cost involved in publishing that crack.. if only people living in the bush using a bush telephone can inject the info required for cracking the next generation of DRM, that's not going to make it very easy.

60 years ago in Europe, and still today in some countries, some people are made to shut up via blunt force.. but the Western world has developed much more effective mechanisms to shut people up.. lawsuits and the laws to make those possible.

I guess would could go on and on argueing about this, but only time will really tell. I just hope for the best (thus you're right and I'm wrong) but I'm expecting the worst.

[FredThompson]

Originally posted by Doom9
Why not? It's being done regularly for data flows across the internet, be it encrypted emails or encrypted traffic (VPN). Every time I work at home I have a direct connection to work that requires an unimaginable amount of computing power to crack into.Apples and oranges, again. The topic is preventing duplication of mass distributed data not your use of unique keys which, by definition, require a private, secured aspect and limited distribution.

And the audio watermarking the RIAA came up with.. but where is the "how to"? It was never published because the RIAA gagged the people who found a way to crack it using the DMCA.Great, so the RIAA makes it impossible for people to access music in the real world which means the RIAA will cease to exist. The only way they make money is through distribution of their IP. If it is impossible for people to access the content in the manner they want, they'll buy from another source. You don't seem to understand that. It's the foundation of all economies, even those which only barter.
Look at what happened to that Russian programmer who cracked Adobe's PDF protection.. sure it was cracked.. but there was a high cost involved in publishing that crack.. if only people living in the bush using a bush telephone can inject the info required for cracking the next generation of DRM, that's not going to make it very easy.That would be the Russia in which almost all media distributed is pirated, wouldn't it? Are you seriously proposing there will never be ludicrous legal actions and we should all live in total abject fear of the sky falling?

60 years ago in Europe, and still today in some countries, some people are made to shut up via blunt force.. but the Western world has developed much more effective mechanisms to shut people up.. lawsuits and the laws to make those possible.Laws are meaningless without the funds to pursue action. You've described the media companies as if they're omnipotent. They aren't. They're like the old man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, Baghdad Bob proclaiming the U.S.-led coalition wasn't in Baghdad, or Shirley McClaine screaming to the sky she is God. Let's build on your analogy. Half of Communist Germany spied on their own country. Did it ensure the survival of that system?

I guess would could go on and on argueing about this, but only time will really tell. I just hope for the best (thus you're right and I'm wrong) but I'm expecting the worst.

[Doom9]

Apples and oranges, again. The topic is preventing duplication of mass distributed data not your use of unique keys which, by definition, require a private, secured aspect and limited distribution.I don't like fruits but this is the same fruit. Take DIVX for instance.. it never was cracked.. required a phoneline and each movie watching activity was recorded and had to be authorized. With the proliferation of Internet access they're going to try again eventually.. all the DRM crap is not far from it.. you already have license updates and revocation via Internet. Imagine something like RSA SecurID tokens built-into iTunes.. each access would have to be authorized via iTunes master server.. transfering files to your portable device only works with autorized software and you can't take it from the device (we already have that.. ). Now all you need is plug the CD hole (no problem, just don't permit CD burning) and you're effectively locked out digitally, the only way to make a copy is using the analogue output (and MPAA is already working on plugging that.. they're lobbying hard to make everything digital and with content protection.. where's the crack for the DVI replacement (not that we need one since the only thing that really comes from it is copy protection)?
Today, we have the infrastructure required for widespread and secure dissemination of information. We could have every email sent secure with little initial effort.

Great, so the RIAA makes it impossible for people to access music in the real world which means the RIAA will cease to exist. The only way they make money is through distribution of their IP. If it is impossible for people to access the content in the manner they want, they'll buy from another source. You don't seem to understand that. It's the foundation of all economies, even those which only barter.Apples and oranges? Actually, you're not even reading what I said. It has nothing to do with restricting access to music, it's about restricting proliferation of information that could lead to unlocking of digital music. That's something else entirely.
And, this is not a free market but a monopoly. And in a monopoly the customer can't decide what he wants. Sure you can buy CD X in store A or store B, but it's still produced by studio E(vil;) Sure you can buy a song 1 from store 100 and 101 and perhaps you'll get one more CD burn in store 100, but you can put the license on one more computer with store 101 but in the end it's still very much limited.

Half of Communist Germany spied on their own country. Did it ensure the survival of that system? No, but it took too long to fall. As flawed as the system was, it lasted from 45 to 89 and it was apparent that it was flawed ages before it fell. I'd rather not live under Communism for 44 years.

Oh, and then we have Microsoft's "trusted computing".. the DRM endlösung. Fortunately they've had to scale it back but they're going to try again in due time.

I'm also still waiting for DVD-Audio copy protection to be cracked.. how long since DVD-A has been released? And most CD/DVD drives today can't handle every type of audio CD copy protection.. meaning you have to get a couple of drives just to rip your own CDs.. that's already a major prohibition. Sure it can be circumvented, but the cost is increasing. Those two are excellent examples that seem to support my way of thinking about it. getting around CD copy protection (not something you have to worry about right now since you live in the US where you hardly see a copy protected CD) depends on hardware.. all that is required is something like the HARA to force manufacturers to make drives that choke on such protections and you're done. And the HARA is actually a good thing imho.. it's the first DRM mechanism and it was even fair.. you could make an unlimited number of perfect digital copies from your original but can't make a 2nd generation copy.

The list of uncracked protection system is quite long actually: is there a solution for all stores using MS DRM for WMA? Where's the crack for the WMV9 HD DVDs? Where's the crack for Napster2? Where's the crack for Sony's music store? DVD is more an exeption than the rule and DVD-A shows that the industry has been quick to learn to come up with something better. Perhaps it can be beaten in 10 years, but I'd rather not wait that long. You seem to suggest we should endure 44 years of communism, I much rather stop it before those 44 years begin. And during those years, a lot of people had to sacrify a lot to get things changed. You seem to suggest we should just sit back and wait and everything is going to be okay.. that's the way you get 44 years of communism.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Doom9
...they're lobbying hard to make everything digital and with content protection.. where's the crack for the DVI replacement (not that we need one since the only thing that really comes from it is copy protection)? This is indeed worrying because there's nothing stopping digital video stream being encrypted right the way up to the pixels on an Plasma/LCD screen. And it would be quite easy for digital screen manufacturers to create a chip that can fully control the position of every pixel!

Imagine your screen performing the decryption... what a horrible thought!


Cheers

[FredThompson]

We're going to go around about this forever, aren't we?

DIVX proves my point. It was too unwieldy and thus, was eliminated by the market. Methods which impede upon the consumers too much will fail, regardless of the content or laws.

Don't permit CD burning? I'm truly at a loss of how to reply to such a comment. I can only assume you were trying to be ridiculous. (Hey, that's my tactic, exaggerating to the point of ridiculousness!)

DVD-Audio, WMA, WM high-res, etc. are all small fringe technologies. The only reason I can guess as to why there aren't a huge number of sources for cracking information on those is there's so little content nobody really cares. Darn it, you're getting better at poking holes in my comments.

I wasn't proposing communism, just the opposite. I'm saying overly restrictive control which makes a product too awkward to use will fail in the market and be overtaken by a competitor.

[Doom9]

DIVX proves my point. It was too unwieldy and thus, was eliminated by the market. Methods which impede upon the consumers too much will fail, regardless of the content or laws. Actually, its elimination was internal business tactics and had nothing to do with the marketplace.. DIVX was selling quite good, it were forces beyond consumer control that made it being pulled. I've been closely following this, not everything has been revealed to the public but here are a few main reasons why it failed:
studio support - studios like Sony and Warner hold stakes in the DVD format so for them DVD was the better deal as for each player and disc sold they were (and still are) getting a percentage.
blockbuster: blockbuster (viacom.. parent company of paramount) felt threatened by DIVX. First there were talks to buy the system but they failed. Upon that, Viacom had Paramount rescind the support for DIVX. That eventually lead to a cascading effect where more studios would reduce the amount of new releases on the format, which in turn lead to lower sales, which in turn lead to the format being pulled.

But DIVX had exclusive support from Fox, Disney's DVD commitment was very lackluster and releases would often be released on DIVX months before DVD (or not on DVD at all.. for instance their animated releases), Paramount initially was also more in favor of DIVX. The only two companies whose DVD commitment wasn't lacking in the beginning was Warner and Sony (Universal was lackluster in supporting both).

Unfortunately, most people are painfully oblivious as to how close DVD was to not making it in the beginning.
Don't permit CD burning?It's easy as long as the DRM is intact and you're limited to using only the official software from the shop you got your music from. There are many eshops where you can't burn the content you buy. CD burning is a loophole.. but a controllable one as it involves quality degradation if you want to get music back to your PC (most people would rip into a lossy format again).. that's why the music industry allows it on a limited scale. The only alternative is cracking the DRM, and iTunes is the only online music store where that is really possible (and the unlocked files are still watermarked).

I'm saying overly restrictive control which makes a product too awkward to use will fail in the market and be overtaken by a competitor.That's free market. Music and Film isn't a free market, it's a monopoly market where things work differently. They might lose sales if they introduce too draconian measures all at once, but doing so step by step gradually acustoms customers to their lesser rights until they're at the point where my brainchip comes into play (now that's overplaying but you know what I mean). You're attitude is "let them come, they'll kill themselves before they do any harm". But the DMCA is harmful and your attitude is what has allowed such a bad law to be passed in the first place. You'll let them come until where they're at the breaking point, but that breaking point is in an undefined future and we don't quite know how much we'll have to endure until we get to the point where we have more freedom again.

[FredThompson]

Originally posted by Doom9 That's free market. Music and Film isn't a free market, it's a monopoly market where things work differently.I didn't mean the exact same content would be available from other sources. Pre-recorded entertainment is an elective choice, not a life necessity. You don't have to buy them. You can read a book, go for a walk, etc. They aren't like food which you must buy no matter what. (Well, you could commit crimes so society incarcerates you but that's another issue...)You're attitude is "let them come, they'll kill themselves before they do any harm". But the DMCA is harmful and your attitude is what has allowed such a bad law to be passed in the first place. You'll let them come until where they're at the breaking point, but that breaking point is in an undefined future and we don't quite know how much we'll have to endure until we get to the point where we have more freedom again.I've never thought DMCA was necessary, appropriate, or beneficial. What I've been trying to explain are basically 2 points; the "studios/etc" will not be able to prohibit the rest of the world from using digital reproduction and producers of any product who try to be too domineering create their own worst competition. Henry Ford is a perfect example. He saw a need and filled it then tried to be too controlling (you can have any color you want as long as it's black) which gave rise to competitors who took the majority of the market.

To take this back to the beginning, your premise was a tax to subsidize "studios/media/etc" is an acceptable arrangement. However, that doesn't give people free reign to duplicate copyrighted material, it's simply an expanded revenue stream for them based on presumptive infringement. Forget the computer aspect and apply your premise to paper and you should see why it's not only a bad idea, it's not workable.

[Doom9]

I didn't mean the exact same content would be available from other sources. Pre-recorded entertainment is an elective choice, not a life necessity. You don't have to buy them.True, but if you take music, movies and software away.. that's quite a sizeable chunk out of the voluntary activities.. at least for me.

Henry Ford is a perfect example. He saw a need and filled it then tried to be too controlling (you can have any color you want as long as it's black) which gave rise to competitors who took the majority of the market.[/uqote]But he did not have exclusive patents that would prohibit anyone else making automobiles, would it? You can buy a car from dozens of manufacturers today.. but you'll only get Britney Spears from Jive Records (well, that's probably a bad example because I could live just fine without her ;)

[quote]To take this back to the beginning, your premise was a tax to subsidize "studios/media/etc" is an acceptable arrangement. However, that doesn't give people free reign to duplicate copyrighted material, it's simply an expanded revenue stream for them based on presumptive infringement.Ahh, I think we've finally located the root of our misunderstanding. I meant to say "levies are okay if they give you the right to copy whatever you like". For me that's an arrangement I see as mutually beneficial.. nobody walks away emptyhanded.

Forget the computer aspect and apply your premise to paper and you should see why it's not only a bad idea, it's not workable.When it comes to paper it'll never be done.. but take digital paper and you're right back there with DRM in ebooks. And as we've come to realize, the US knows levies that give you the right to copy as well, so you can't claim it doesn't work because it has worked right up until the point where the DMCA was passed (which conflicts with the rights established in the HARA). And it continues to be working in certain countries.

[FredThompson]

Originally posted by Doom9
True, but if you take music, movies and software away.. that's quite a sizeable chunk out of the voluntary activities.. at least for me.Oh, I agree. That's most certainly the secondmost non-chemical addiction I have ;) Ahh, I think we've finally located the root of our misunderstanding. I meant to say "levies are okay if they give you the right to copy whatever you like". For me that's an arrangement I see as mutually beneficial.. nobody walks away emptyhanded.That would be a fundamental shift. Personally, I like the idea of some kind of unlimited use based on a licensing fee which is usable. A levy on media certainly has the benefit of scaling cost relative to use. If DRM could be applied such that use of the media for other storage isn't subject to the levy, that would be acceptable to me. Some of the ideas that were floated in the past couple of years were horrible (hacker vigilantes which would mean the #1 activity would be espionage, every copy process must have DRM, etc.) Maybe some kind of access card or something like that would be an acceptable compromise between securing access and unrestricted use of media itself. Yeah, I like that idea. There are still problems with it. IIRC, Dvorak mentioned a laptop with XP which decided to stop working while he was flying overseas. That kind of thing isn't acceptable so there would need to be some form of balance.When it comes to paper it'll never be done.. but take digital paper and you're right back there with DRM in ebooks. And as we've come to realize, the US knows levies that give you the right to copy as well, so you can't claim it doesn't work because it has worked right up until the point where the DMCA was passed (which conflicts with the rights established in the HARA). And it continues to be working in certain countries. [/B]That's my largest gripe about the DMCA. The conflicting parts about the right to make a backup (and let's be serious, 1 copy is not sufficient for critical backups) and prohibiting removal of copy protection are horrible. IOW, "You can make a copy but, gee, it's copy protected. Would you like to buy another? There's no more source for the software so you can't access your stored data? Gee, that's too bad." That's the kind of scenario which scares me the most. Perhaps an improved statement of what I was trying to communicate is, "DRM is acceptable until it impedes the flow of information and record keeping on which societies depend."

[Doom9]

Dvorak mentioned a laptop with XP which decided to stop working while he was flying overseas.How could this possibly work? Todays where regular travel is nothing special in the business world, I thought we're getting more and more devices designed to work everywhere.. I know I have at least a couple of PSUs that work both with 110V/60Hz and 220V/50H. Restricting computers to geographical locations is a horrible idea.. what if a person decides to move? Moving across country borders ia a normal thing especially in Europe.

Perhaps an improved statement of what I was trying to communicate is, "DRM is acceptable until it impedes the flow of information and record keeping on which societies depend."So we essentially agree.. it's just in the wording. I personally consider SCMS a working DRM system that is fair.. it's perhaps the only system I've come across so far.. it can also be circumvented but requires a certain amount of expertise in electronics, and it allows you to copy. Combined with a possibility to get a cheap replacement of the original media, I really am all for it. Unfortunately, today we've gone far from that path towards the side of the IP owners.

Getting back to the poor Australians, they don't enjoy fair use as we both know it.. and they don't stand a change of getting it for free. So, were I in Australia, I would deem levies an appropriate concession to get my right to fair use (and with that I'd include circumventing of any copy protection / DRM now and in the future and as often as I need to make a copy for my own personal use as covered by the fair use exception known in several countries). Just to get fair use that is impeded by DMCA like laws would of course be totally unacceptable.. and levies that exist in many European countries that go beyond the HARA also become unacceptable the day where DMCA like laws are enacted.

[FredThompson]

Originally posted by Doom9
How could this possibly work?IIRC, he plugged in a new peripheral or something like that. The authorization thing in XP or Office XP (whichever it was) decided it was one time too many and locked itself down. That's what I meant about intrusive DRM. You've probably seen those cartoons where Excel charges per operation or landing gear won't go down until the upgrade is applied, that type of thing.So we essentially agree.. it's just in the wording.For the most part, yes. I am, however, violently opposed to anything which would put a chokehold on communications. A lot of the proposals would have had horrible results if implemented. The "studios" don't care to address all the uses of media and communications which don't involve their products. There have been some really, really stupid things like prohibiting copying any video unless the studios authorized it, that type of thing. That's why I was using the example of paper. Without it, all modern societies would collapse. A blanket levy is similar. How many security cameras exist? Maybe 1 for each ATM and 3-4 for each gas station, and so on? All that would have to be controlled by the studios as well as personal video, photographs, etc.? It would actually be quite fun to see the studios push something through then the real extent of what they have created affect the rest of society.Getting back to the poor Australians, they don't enjoy fair use as we both know it.. and they don't stand a change of getting it for free. So, were I in Australia, I would deem levies an appropriate concession to get my right to fair use (and with that I'd include circumventing of any copy protection / DRM now and in the future and as often as I need to make a copy for my own personal use as covered by the fair use exception known in several countries). Just to get fair use that is impeded by DMCA like laws would of course be totally unacceptable.. and levies that exist in many European countries that go beyond the HARA also become unacceptable the day where DMCA like laws are enacted. That's where you and I differ. Why should some "artist" get "compensation" for video I've shot, edited and use for my business? Why should they get "compensation" when I make a DVD of a relative's baby? Why should they be "compensated" when I back up my business correspondence to CDR? How much would the cost of everything else in life increase due to pervasive DRM? Some form of levy for access to pre-recorded content is a good idea but a universal levy on digital media would put huge brakes on society. I can't imagine what 1 euro per disc would do to the world economy.

[shevegen]

"DRM is acceptable until it impedes the flow of information and record keeping on which societies depend."

I find myself agreeing. BUT i do strongly doubt that DRM will be a good thing for customers in the end, unless the customer would feel happy as paying-slave.

[FredThompson]

Yup, that's my other point. DRM works if DRM works. However, it can't work.

http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

FWIW, I've spent a few years working with truly secure communications back when I was in the military. The big reasons DRM can't work is it needs to be a combination of wide distribution, easy access, low cost and secure. There's no way to have easy access and security at the same time.