how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
66 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| What rights are we talking about? Many people in the technology community are concerned that the Hollings bill would take away some of their rights. What is your response to their criticism?
"What rights are we talking about?"
Exactly.
Mr valenti seems to have forgotten all about the "Audio Home Recording Act of 1992" (AHRA). From which we get the "Fair Use" provision. Basically it states that you can make copies of legally obtained material as long as you do not profit from it. This is a key portion of the ammendment that jack spent a lot of time and money fighting. He even submitted testimony to congress on the issue of fair use. Not exactly something that just slips your mind. One thing I'm sure he'll remember clearly though is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The DMCA has greatly diminished the power of the "fair use" clause by outlawing encryption circumvention. The next step is to legally mandate encryption, therefore eliminating the right to fair use. This is on the way as you may well know in the form of the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA) and now the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA). The SSSCA has been dropped but the CBDTPA is almost the exact same piece of legislation. Both are Hollings sponsored pieces of poo.
"Content" as some like to call it will soon be dictated to the consumers in what ever way the media companies see fit. What that means is that you will only be able to rent titles. You will have absolutely no legal right to copy these rented titles or use them in any manner other than that specifically dictated by the copyright owner. This is crap and we can't let this happen. Bitching on a web site is not enough. Next time you get a chance, go make an informed decision and vote. Until then you can write to your local lawmakers. Most have e-mail addresses so use them. Keep it short and to the point. Unlike this post.
Sorry for the speech. | |
 Polaris5All Hail, The Vulture From Van Nuys
join:2002-03-26
old RIA of A | said by koveman:
Mr valenti seems to have forgotten all about the "Audio Home Recording Act of 1992" (AHRA). From which we get the "Fair Use" provision. Basically it states that you can make copies of legally obtained material as long as you do not profit from it.
I like your style, but some of your facts are off. Fair use is much older than the AHRA. FU first popped up in 1841. The AHRA actually continued the drumbeat towards unbalancing the balance between the rights of copyright holders and consumers.
Remember DAT? It exists, but was never widely supported by the recording industry. You'll notice that you don't see Britney Spears DAT's when you enter a record store, visit Amazon.com (even though, like Betamax, it was arguably better technology than CD). If the non-support from suppliers wasn't enough, the AHRA helped kill the technology as a meaningful retail organism.
With regard to 'fair use' itself as a concept, it's simply a misconception to say that fair use grants you an absolute right to "make copies of legally obtained material as long as you do not profit from it." Instead, 'fair use' preserves the use of copyrighted materials "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research...."
Your position better dovetails with the 'first sale' doctrine, which limits the power of copyright holders to control your use of a copyrighted product after you buy it. Under that doctrine, you can make copies, resell the 'entire work,' and shift the method in which you use the product.
The great debate is the extent to which you can transform said product. Under the DMCA, you are limited to transfers that do not create additional copies (keeping one, creating a 2nd copy by giving one away, aka file-sharing). The question is whether the DMCA's various provisions are Constitutional (it encompasses more than just your right to make copies).
The rest of what you said was dead on! | |
 GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | Good call there Polaris.
There is a distinct difference (albeit somewhat vague) between the doctrines of "Fair Use" and "First Sale".
The trouble is that the RIAA and the MPAA are effectively ignoring BOTH of these doctrines.
Unfortunately, most of our legislators do not or cannot understand the statutory history of these doctrines and are inextricably linked with industry insiders like Valenti.
I certainly support artists being compensated for their work, but to be clear -- that never has been the issue here. Whether we are talking music or movies, it is the distributors who actually own the copyrights who are raising hell over P2P.
The article does indicate right off that Valenti is not what you would call tech-savvy. However, the article is also extremely soft on the issues at hand, offering Valenti a perfect opportunity to air HIS views -- but share few others.
If talks are to happen "in good faith" as Valenti proposes, than the industry should have to be faced with their distractors for once in a public forum. Of course the RIAA and MPAA don't want the world to know just how many legislators they do have in their back pockets.
I really wish a news organization would actually take a harder line with Valenti et al and push the real truths of the issues. If they say they have lost income DIRECTLY because of piracy, then prove it. Submit to an independent 3rd party review of the economic landscape instead of just spouting off "facts" which have little backing or with surveys that were conducted under the umbrella of the industry groups.
I have read many articles where the authors mention the VCR "scare" that went on years ago, however I have yet to see the question asked in an interview! If anyone has, I would love to see the response -- but I believe even then it would be incomplete or the answer simply redirected to another issue.
I say kudos to the hardware vendors who are standing up against these mechanisms. Copy protection or not, a CD that is protected should not crash the PC it is trying to be run on. It should simply not be accessible. The articles I have see on this topic tend to have a condescending air of "Too bad, so sad" from Sony et al. The impression from them is that if you are trying it on a PC then you must be a pirate, and shame on you -- tough luck if your PC crashes.
I also have a great deal of distaste for all of the references to dead US Presidents in these debates. First off, Lincoln -- although coined as "Honest Abe" was a lawyer by profession. I believe also that he would have loved the internet -- and yes, I doubt he would have been thrilled about piracy. HOWEVER, he was also a man that was greatly concerned over civil & human rights. I believe he would have greatly questioned the RIAA/MPAA's motives with the legislation they support. He would have been embarrassed by many of our legislators actions.
And, oh yea...Abe Lincoln wouldn't have been wrapped around the little finger of the entertainment industry.
Remember "...a government of the People, by the People and for the People."
K.
--
"i want everything to work. i choose iSeries." | |
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| reply to koveman
Fair-use is not protected under DMCA Copyright law makes certain provisions for fair-use.
What is generally unknown is that under the provisions of the infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that your Congress enacted to make the world save for copyright owners, the technical means used to protect the work does not have to allow you to exercise those rights. If you can’t exercise them they hardly count as rights.
So the bottom line MPAA and RIAA want to exert perfect control over copyrighted content. Want to read that e-book again send more money, want to let your sister listen to music you just purchased get another license. | | |
|
|
