1911Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
It's funny how these same people can trash Bush and Ashcroft for the patriot act, and then turn around and propose this bill. Example 2,346,941 of liberal hypocricy...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
Senator Fritz Hollings said he wanted to research a way to electrocute someones computer via the internet for breaking copyright law. The man is a fool and a stooge.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
490 Posts
Lookout

Next they will try to take typewriters, pens, pencils, and paper because someone could copy text that is copywrited. NO I am NOT making a joke! Look at all the possibilities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
I hate this proposed legislation, but I am surprised by it. The reason is that though this should result in more money for entertainers, it will definitely cut into their favorite special interest group, trial attorneys. Just think of all the law suits on which they will miss out.

Perhaps this hasn't occurred to the trial lawyers yet. Also there may be an angle for the trial lawyers suing the government for putting in the feature in the first place!:D :D :D

Don't worry, Congress failed to renew the legislation prohibiting taxing the internet (i.e., email, surfing, etc.) so by the time they get around to it next year, nobody will be able to afford using a computer anyway.:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
Although I do not agree with the Napster/Kazza/filesharing thing this law is nauseating. What's next, a policeware patch that tells the government how much time you spend on "unsavary" websites that include things like guns, porn, fast motorcycles and cars, or anything else that 's not PC?????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,320 Posts
YammyMonkey said:
Although I do not agree with the Napster/Kazza/filesharing thing this law is nauseating. What's next, a policeware patch that tells the government how much time you spend on "unsavary" websites that include things like guns, porn, fast motorcycles and cars, or anything else that 's not PC?????
Uh-oh, guns AND fast cars!? I'd be screwed! (I moderate a car website):p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
259 Posts
Orwellian fiction or prophecy

"Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen (PC connected to the internet) was still babbling away about pig iron and the overfulfillment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen recieved and transmittied simultaneously (read the privacy statement from your cable internet provider)...
...There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on on what system the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire (or cable modem) was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live... in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutized."
1984 by George Orwell

When I read that in school in 1983, it seemed far-fetched. Since then, it has been terrifying to watch it come to pass.
Garry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
The RIAA has been running a hardline campaign to catch and punish people who illegally distribute songs. There most recent attempt has been to file lawsuits against people who use napster, more power to the RIAA. Things that they do that are downright unconstitutional include passing legislation that makes it illegal to break the encryption on newer CD's. But that really is beside the point. The bigger point is that the American people have pretty much shown that they are willing to be the RIAA's Bitch. The easiest way to stop this is to stop buying music. The number of people that gripe about what the RIAA does and still buy music amazes me. Why let them bite the hand that feeds them? The RIAA has shown that they care about one thing and one thing only, money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
I have no issue with the likes of the RIAA to pursue people on their own using existing copyright laws and in CIVIL court. Much like DirecTV is doing right now with satellite violators. What I DO take issue with is the .gov feeling that it is now somehow responsible to track down these offenders and create additional laws where current ones will suffice. A waste of .govs time and a waste of my money.

GT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
tarpleyg said:
I have no issue with the likes of the RIAA to pursue people on their own using existing copyright laws and in CIVIL court. Much like DirecTV is doing right now with satellite violators. What I DO take issue with is the .gov feeling that it is now somehow responsible to track down these offenders and create additional laws where current ones will suffice. A waste of .govs time and a waste of my money.
The problem is the technology and legal structure is outdated compared to that of the lawbreakers. Their has to be a choice made between certain industries with susceptible products losing money and us slowly losing more privacy. I dont have to tell you which situation I favor continuing. Since people who value privacy donate less money to campaigns than billion dollar industrys you can guess which situation congress favors continuing. Particularly statist fools like Senator Hollings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
The intellectual property on the CDs is theirs to do with as they wish, and to sell on whatever terms they wish.

The copyrighting of the encryption used is a good idea - it pushes the MEANS of pirating the data out of the mainstream.

The creator of the intellectual property has the right to dictate the terms by which a user uses it - it is part of their price. Why they would want to control this more and more in an era where pirating a movie is easier than going to the store is obvious.

Any new laws in this respect is the government respecting and enforcing these new pricing types.

We may not like their price; but should respect their right to sell it, as being as paramount as our right to not buy it.

Having the judge force ISPs to reveal the names of downloaders (really, this is currently UPloaders) is not significantly different an assault on privacy as a cop searching your home upon testimony that you were seen filling it up with stolen goods.


As with any price, we are free to not pay it. We should, as with other police powers, strive to ensure that they are not used to "search" someone for whom there is not clear evidence of theft.

As for the propertatry encryption protection laws. . . . good. If you do not care for the CD company's price, do not pay it. If you want the product enough that it is worth it to you, pay it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
pcf said:
Things that they do that are downright unconstitutional include passing legislation that makes it illegal to break the encryption on newer CD's.
Why is it unconstitutional to pass legislation making it illegal to break encryption? Thats similar to saying I have a constitutional right to reverse engineer my rental car and then manufacture them. There is no such right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
956 Posts
Mus said:
Why is it unconstitutional to pass legislation making it illegal to break encryption? Thats similar to saying I have a constitutional right to reverse engineer my rental car and then manufacture them. There is no such right.
Reverse Engineering has always been acceptable practice. That is how people figure out how things work and make them better or build competing products.

For instance, Compaq hired a bunch of guys to sit in a basement for several months and figure out how IBM's Basic Input Output System (BIOS) worked and write new code to duplicate it's function. (Without ever seeing or copying IBM's original code). Hence the personal computer industry was born, Hence the Telecom Boom of the 90's. At that time you had a choice of the IBM Personal Computer or an Apple. A desktop computer cost anywhere from 2,500 to 4,000; now you can get one for $300. Had the IBM Bios never been reversed engineered we wouldn't be talking to each other right now.

As for the price of Music CD's, the recording industry has been price fixing for so long. There is absolutly no competition, they were even convicted in a court of law for price fixing. The Recording Industry Association of America is not just a "professional association". The Motion Picture Association of America is doing the same thing, price fixing. It is actually cheaper to produce DVD than a VHS cassette, yet the VHS Cassette of the same title always sells for less than DVD Format. In the European Union and Canada there is an added tax (fee) to all blank media; Blank CDs, Audio Cassettes, VHS Cassettes, Blank DVDs. This money is collected and check cut to the MPAA, RIAA, to defer any costs of possible pirating. Canada is getting ready to add the tax (fee) to Hard Disks, MP3 Players, memory sticks, etc.

Much of the DMCA and other similar laws stands in direct conflict with the Fair Use Act. Which does allow for copying of media you have legally purchased for backup/archival and private use. The fair use act also allows for time shifting (recording favorite TV show) and media shifting (audio cassette to compact disc). Fair Use also allows use for Educational purposes as well, but when MIT professors are being sued their research work it is getting quite ridiculous.

Copyright law was designed to protect the original artist to profit from their work for their lifetime, not the lifetime of whatever corporation owns the right. Yet just before Mickey Mouse was to pass into public domain, Disney lobbies the hell out Congress and gets them to extend the duration of copyright another some 60 years.

Smaller and smaller amounts of knowledge is passing into the public domain. Imagine everytime the someone singing the Star Spangled banner at a sporting event had to pay royalty to Francis Scott Key's heirs or the corporation that purchased the rights to that song? It wasn't adopted as the National Anthem until after it had passed into the public domain. What about the music of Mozart? That music has great cultural significance, but imagine a Symphony having to pay a royalty everytime they performed it publicly?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
I engaged in price fixing when I applied for my job, trying to get as much money for my efforts as possible. I was the only "me" available.

I am price colluding with others. Rather than try and compete and sell our product separately (and compete on price), we are working together and selling our product at a common price.

Apples and oranges? People who make and sell CDs are people, too.

By what arbitrary standard do we define who owns their own labors (and the products of their labors), and can exchange them for whatever price they choose - and those who do not?

Do I have a "right" to a continuous stream of new music CDs, that anyone who makes them does not fully own them; but works as indentured servants for me? From where does this right come? What comes of this right if those (who don't have rights) don't actually make any music CDs?

What of equal protection? Why does company X owe me music CDs for $Y? Why is my neighbor not also obligated to sell me music CDs for $Y? Does company X regain the rights to its members' labor if it ceases selling any CDs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Difranco said:
Reverse Engineering has always been acceptable practice. That is how people figure out how things work and make them better or build competing products.

For instance, Compaq hired a bunch of guys to sit in a basement for several months and figure out how IBM's Basic Input Output System (BIOS) worked and write new code to duplicate it's function. (Without ever seeing or copying IBM's original code). Hence the personal computer industry was born, Hence the Telecom Boom of the 90's. At that time you had a choice of the IBM Personal Computer or an Apple. A desktop computer cost anywhere from 2,500 to 4,000; now you can get one for $300. Had the IBM Bios never been reversed engineered we wouldn't be talking to each other right now.
IBM in the case of the original PC (ISA bus version) left the architecture open and therefore allowed others to copy it. Had they exercised their rights to close the architecture, Compaq wouldn't have invented the first PC clone because IBM would have sued them into oblivion. IBM tried to "close the barn door after the horse ran away" with the PS2 PC, but it was too late and no one cared especially because IBM did exercise their rights to close the architecture by patents. However, someone else would have made a "PC" that didn't copy the IBM design, but the PC revolution would have occurred anyway, but perhaps a little later. What we are talking about here are patent rights not copyrights. There is a big difference between the two. One is property the other is an idea.

If an idea has been patented, reverse engineering it will most definitely put you in the middle of major litigation. The federal government has an entire juducial system set up just for these cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
We benefit from companies being able to put (strict) restrictions on the use, reengineering, and interfaces on their products.

Take computer game consoles. They sure as **** will NOT let anyone imitate the APIs on those things, and tightly control who can program against them.

Part of this is to control the quality of all products associated with their platforms (yeah yeah - but it COULD be MUCH worse).

Primarily, having their rights protected allows them to choose more novel marketing/sales.

Take a look at the XBox and the PS2. The companies that make them eat hundreds on every box. We benefit from their "anti-competitive" price cutting (designed to bury their opposition) every time we buy a cheap console.

But also, selling them for <$200 makes them more accessible to users. They make a business bet that on average, they can make up the difference on the sales of the games (on which they take a piece based on the terms under which developers develop games for the boxes).

I've had someone say to me "I payed for this XBox, I should be able to turn it into something else physically". But it was sold under different terms than that - the XBox's price was more than just money; but a restriction on what it could be used for. The reengineering (that's easy to find "underground") that turns one into something else is illegal.

Restrictions on the reverse engineering and modification of their hardware are what makes a console cost $200 instead of $500. They would not have the option to subsidize this hardware in this way if the mainstream buyers could just buy stacks of them to use as subsidized linux web servers.

We (initially) buy cheap boxes, and they eat all the financial risk. That they can set restricted use as part of the exchange, is all that makes such a novel marketing method possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
Difranco said:
Reverse Engineering has always been acceptable practice. That is how people figure out how things work and make them better or build competing products.

For instance, Compaq hired a bunch of guys to sit in a basement for several months and figure out how IBM's Basic Input Output System (BIOS) worked and write new code to duplicate it's function. (Without ever seeing or copying IBM's original code).
Here we are just talking about breaking somone elses encryption and then copying the code line for line. Not the same thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
It's a litle more complicated than that. Reverse engineering has to be done in a "clean room" environment and you have to be able to prove that it was done without any knowledge of exiting code or systems. Even so there is a great risk of lawsuits that can bankrupt a business.

Difranco said:
Reverse Engineering has always been acceptable practice. That is how people figure out how things work and make them better or build competing products.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top