What is Digg?27 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Dear DMCA,
I hate you. I do. I really hate you. - fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14From the slashdot discussion:
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227979&cid=18470607
-----------
What a load of crap.
The RIAA hasn't used, for the most part, the DMCA. The two central tools the DMCA gave groups like those the RIAA represents were a legal backing to DRM (the laws against circumventing Access Control Mechanisms), and a set, established, procedure for taking down content hosted by third parties.
Well, which have the RIAA used? In the former case, "DRM" used by RIAA members has tended to be of the kind of thing that isn't an Access Control Mechanism or a Copy Control Mechanism, instead a "Use bugs in certain popular CD driver implementations to make it easier to use the publisher's own special music software which causes all kinds of problems" variety. The RIAA and its members could, in the late nineties, have settled on an encrypted music format, just as the movie industry did with DVDs, and phased out CDs, but they didn't, and so their ability to use the DMCA to fight piracy was limited.
(I might add I'm glad they didn't, because DVD CSS has proven only to be a burden to non-pirates, not pirates who copy it anyway. But the point remains that the DMCA is utterly irrelevent to the RIAA actions. The RIAA has never seriously tried to make use of the DRM related parts of the DMCA.)
Then there's the take-down system the DMCA provides. Has the RIAA and its members made serious attempts to exploit this? Well, no, because they couldn't. The way the DMCA is worded means it doesn't really apply to distributed systems like the old Napster, and would, indeed, be toothless even if you could make it apply to Napster. So they've been unable to use it at all.
So my question is: why are the words "RIAA" and "DMCA" being used in the same article? One might "criticize" (because, like, we'd all have been better off if the music industry had forced us to buy our music again for the umpteenth time, this time on encrypted DVD-Audio or something. Yeah. Right.) them for not making use of the DMCA, and thus the DMCA not helping them, but the implication they tried to, but it wasn't enough because of their business model or something is complete crap.
The movie industry has made use of the DMCA, in both areas. DVDs were encrypted, much to the detriment of legitimate end users, and take down notices against groups like YouTube are frequent. If the DMCA is a failure, it should probably be measured on how much it has benefited the movie industry, without causing harm to the entire electronics industry, the customers of the movie industry, and other unrelated third parties. I think any reasonable person can call it a failure on the basis of all of these criterion.
---------
Although it was modded at +5 Insightful on slashdot I'm sure it's worth about -749 diggs here. - r2pro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Forwarded to my house representative.
- Phr00t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I work at UMass Amherst, where I personally have to hand out RIAA "pre-lawsuits" to students. RIAA hope these students "settle" for about $4,000. I hate the thought of having to support the RIAA by handing these out... I hate the RIAA. There are few in the help desk who argue that file sharing will lead to the destruction of music (e.g. no monetary incentive to create new music)... but whatever the RIAA is doing with their old business models and lawsuits is destroying music more than any P2P activity. RIAA is just not needed now when music distribution and advertising is so easy, so it should just go away... however, they have too much money, and they want to use it to create laws to enforce future profits. It makes me sick. I wish there was more I could do. There are people within my help desk who go around campus and "educate" students on copyright law... I have yet to see their "educational" material, I'm hoping it is not propaganda.
- dagamer34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The problem with the DMCA today is that it's old, archaic, and allows associations like the RIAA to rack up pathetic lawsuits all in the name of money. I mean, dear god, a lawsuit costs more that what you are even SUING FOR! For the most part, the RIAA is then just hoping to settle, which is extortion.
Do people pirate music? Of course they do. So how do you get them to stop? By showing them that they can get their music without shackles. I mean, it's pretty darn easy to go get a CD and rip the music un-DRMed (unless they are working on that too), so why not sell it that way online? Because it's too easy to copy?
Honestly, the only way to solve the piracy problem is to give value back to what you are selling. I'm not one of those "the music the RIAA sells is crap" people because that's idiotic. Instead, if you can get people to pay 99 cents for a song, there would be no reason NOT to buy it. 99 cents is easy to come by. 99 cents buys a hamburger. There isn't any fear of sharing the song if it's so cheap in the first place. Then go start suing people for file-sharing (because those people are just plain greedy at that point). I'd happily support the RIAA suing people if they were to sell unDRM-ed music to us online a-la carte style. - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yeah, somehow I doubt our representatives can make more copyright legislation without making things even worse... These guys are in the pockets of the content industry.
- suprememilo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7DMCA Architect Acknowledges Need For A New Approach
Friday March 23, 2007
McGill University hosted an interesting conference today on music and copyright reform. The conference consisted of two panels plus an afternoon of open dialogue and featured an interesting collection of speakers including Bruce Lehman, the architect of the WIPO Internet Treaties and the DMCA, Ann Chaitovitz of the USPTO, Terry Fisher of Harvard Law School, NDP Heritage critic Charlie Angus, famed music producer Sandy Pearlman, and myself. A video of the event has been posted in Windows format.
My participation focused on making the case against anti-circumvention legislation in Canada (it starts at about 54:30). I emphasized the dramatic difference between the Internet of 1997 and today, the harmful effects of the DMCA, the growing movement away from DRM, and the fact that the Canadian market has supported a range of online music services with faster digital music sales growth than either the U.S. or Europe but without anti-circumvention legislation.
The most interesting - and surprising - presentation came from Bruce Lehman, who now heads the International Intellectual Property Institute. Lehman explained the U.S. perspective in the early 1990s that led to the DMCA (ie. greater control though TPMs), yet when reflecting on the success of the DMCA acknowledged that "our Clinton administration policies didn't work out very well" and "our attempts at copyright control have not been successful" (presentation starts around 11:00). Moreover, Lehman says that we are entering the "post-copyright" era for music, suggesting that a new form of patronage will emerge with support coming from industries that require music (webcasters, satellite radio) and government funding. While he says that teens have lost respect for copyright, he lays much of the blame at the feet of the recording industry for their failure to adapt to the online marketplace in the mid-1990s.
In a later afternoon discussion, Lehman went further, urging Canada to think outside the box on future copyright reform. While emphasizing the need to adhere to international copyright law (ie. Berne), he suggested that Canada was well placed to experiment with new approaches. He was not impressed with Bill C-60, seemingly because he does not believe that it went far enough in reshaping digital copyright issues. Given ongoing pressure from the U.S., I'm skeptical about Canada's ability to chart a new course on copyright, yet if the architect of the DMCA is willing to admit that change is needed, then surely our elected officials should take notice. - streak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yeah, blame it on Clinton. Just consider the awful laws that will get enacted if Hillary should get elected! Only one hitch: When the DMCA was enacted, Congress -- the branch of federal government that writes the laws -- was dominated by Republicans.
- suprememilo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Lets start small and have that new approach be to get rid of DRM, then half of our DMCA problems will go away.
- orlandogeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's a great idea actually! Everyone who diggs this story should forward it to their state representative.
- fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=227979&cid=18470459 (different comment) is also very well written, logical and rational.
Does anyone else sometimes feel like even though digg is mostly better than slashdot, sometimes it's nowhere near the same level? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I hate the thought of having to support the RIAA by handing these out..."
Then don't. Follow the University of Nebraska's example:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/22/u_of_nebraska_to_ria.html
You're not the RIAA's bitch, nor are you their employee. And even though they don't seem to know it, the RIAA is neither a branch of law enforcement or of the government.
So tell them to go ***** themselves. - laserdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A valid point.
However, trying to wrestle over what party is at fault for the DMCA doesn't really help. In fact, bringing up either party just guarantees that less people will be willing/interested in discussing how to fix it.
The DMCA is a provably bad idea regardless of party affiliation, and is better treated as an example of how excessive lobbying relationships can result in non-sane laws getting passed, rather than trying to swing it as a partisan cudgel. - TheWriteGuy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Frankly it seems like this guy is trying to cover his own ass and pass the blame. It's like creating a law to give gun owners the indiscriminate right to shoot anything that moves without reprecussion, then blaming them when they actually do so.
- PhireN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That would be a nightmare to enforce.
I think this would be better:
>Throw out DRM
>Create huge on-line stores
>Make them so easy to use ie:
>automatic downloading to your player
>one click buying (maybe 2 click)
>bulk discounts
>choose from many different formats
>Free samples
>price everything so cheep, that no one will think twice before before buying (less than 50c)
The key to this plan is to make it so much easier than filesharing and cheap enough, that everyone would use it instinctively instead of opening their file-sharing client.
Of course this plan would have worked so much better before Napster came along, but it still might just work. - briguyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looks like none of the mirrors caught it...
- SlvrEagle23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4...even the ones who aren't American!
- generalloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If the DMCA is a failure, it should probably be measured on how much it has benefited the movie industry, without causing harm to the entire electronics industry, the customers of the movie industry, and other unrelated third parties. I think any reasonable person can call it a failure on the basis of all of these criterion."
Is he kidding? 'No harm'? How about how security researchers are scared from publishing their results, the whole Dmitri Sklyarov incident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov ) and how the copyright protection industry (like Macrovision and Intel's HDCP) can scam the MPAA into billion-dollar DRM 'solutions' that DON'T EVEN WORK? Somehow they've managed to convince the movie industry that we need these things everywhere, and integrated into computer operating systems.
There aren't even any big free and open source conferences held in the United States anymore after Sklyarov was arrested. - fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To be honest I was expecting the comment I quoted to be dugg down to around the negative two digits (or lower). I'm just as surprised as you.
- teaBagger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Finally an admission that the RIAA is living in the 90's
- clortho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My proposal for an alternate to DRM:
* Toss out DRM completely.
* Assign an appropriate free format for each type of medium:
> one for music, one for videos, etc.
> It should be some low to medium quality in a freely usable format.
* The rules for file trading are:
> You can trade for free if you trade in the free format,
> Trading in any other format incurs a fee.
> The recording must include some basic data about the content that identifies the name of the recording, track titles, the artist's name, the copyright holder, etc.
> Any trading or copying of the recording must maintain the content data unaltered.
> It would be preferred that anything that plays a recording should be able to display the data.
> The file trading networks certify that they are accounting accurately for the trades.
> The trading networks may be inspected or monitored to assure the rules are being obeyed.
The lower quality trading becomes advertising that helps people find recordings they like. Having players display the name of the artist and the recording would also help people find what they want.
If you want want better recordings of the things you like, you have to pay for them.
With trading networks like bit torrent, youtube, etc, this means that record companies and artists incur less overhead in releasing material.
Everyone becomes a distributor so the distribution costs to the record companies is limited to inspecting the networks, enforcing the rules and releasing the initial data.
Producing media is optional; but, there could be an important collector's market for nicely done cd's, dvd's and artwork. The right to release hard media should be limited to the copyright holder.
It opens up a whole new market for out of print recordings. They can make money again if collectors sample records or rip out of print cds so long as proper credit is made by inclusion of the artist and copyright data. All at no cost the record company or artist.
This lets the flood gates open by simplifying everything and it allows both consumers to get what they want and artists and record companies to get paid.
It opens up a whole new market older out of print recordings. They can make money again if collectors sample records or rip out of print cds so long as proper credit is made by inclusion of the artist and copyright data. All at no cost the record company or artist.
This lets the flood gates open by simplifying everything and it allows both consumers, artists and record companies to get what they want. - sandydiggs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I strongly suggest we all come up with a hate-website soon!
- dhuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@fkr3
heh. i supply a link to some good commentary - get digged down. you copy/paste (and cite) from my source, get +8. i'm not bitching, digg has spoken - but seriously, slashdot's meta-moderation does has some things going for it. it "diggs" up more serious discussion, while digg is more for those witty one liners (most of the time, obviously.) - Chupatumama, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Cover his ass is right on the money.
They tried pushing the internet child safety laws a few times, then the DMCA and now its.."Oops, my bad."
Not that there is any difference between both parties allegiance to corporations as opposed to citizens but the dems get way too many 'oops.'
The war on Drugs (which is actually the war on marijuana) was kicked into overdrive when Clinton got a general to become drug czar. Dying people where rousted by cops and the marijuana arrests DOUBLED during those years to their current 700 to 800,000 marijuana arrests per year. As soon as the d-head was out of office, "oops, my bad,..." in Rolling Stone magazine. 735,000 people got arrested his last year in office for pot (88% for simple possession),
Im sure they were thrilled when they read that as they were being ass raped.
Ask the democrats how deregulating the radio business in favor of their media friends has totally devastated radio across the country.
Im sure you'll hear an Oops.
And since blowback is a bitch; we allowed Osama and his head choppers free reign in the Balkans because it served our needs, then we armed and ran bombing runs for months for a terrorist organization which our own CIA called the 'largest and best armed terrorist group in the world." (its not a coincidence taht we then built our largest military base there because its geographic importance). Did we hear an Oops when we found out that 911 planners used Bosnia as a base? Or that the only suspect in the Madrid bombing was a moroccan arrested travelling from and to Bosnia regularly? Or that 3-4 of the last Al Quaeda leaders in Saudi Arabia have all been Bosnian holy war veterans, many coming back with their Bosnian passports?
Of course not. Some oops are not good to know.
We have a world where a man who owes his career to big oil interests (the 3 billion dollar plan Columbia had more to do with protecting the pipelines of Gore's friend at Occidental Petroleum than guerilla warfare) is now a global warming champion?
The man is responsible for bombing more countries than Bush, dropped DU weapongs which are still causing serious harm to both civilians and US military personnel, not to mention the poisoninng of the Columbian fields and HE is our new environmental saint?
Really?
Passing the buck is not a new trick but we allow these a-holes to do these kind of things and just smile and hope people have forgotten about it. Considering the short attention span of most people: that aint hard. - dhuck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2some real good commentary @ slashdot about this: http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/07/03/24/0653218.shtml
- fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Intellectual property as a business model isn't going to die. I don't agree with the RIAA's approach at all but I think it's silly to want the concept of IP to just stop existing. Copyright and IP is not the problem, the DMCA / RIAA's approach to defending it is.
I don't know what industries Lehman suggests are going to support the cost of music marketing and production, but I can't see why radio stations would, where they'd get the funds or what their reasoning would be - without copyright the fiscal value of a song is very close to $0 so there's no incentive for the industries Lehman suggests might assume the cost. I certainly wouldn't want governments producing music ... that's just asking for propoganda.
People should be glad the DMCA is so lenient - it's allowed sites like YouTube to flourish.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is