backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by juggalo0707.. on Mar 10 at 11:15 PM

Excessive restrictions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act may be a thing of the past if U.S. Representative Rick Boucher has his way

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is making its stance very clear on digital copying: Allowing users to make copies would "legalize hacking," it says. However, a new bill in the U.S. Congress aims to allow consumers to copy and safely play digital material that they legally own, and to protect user rights for consumers of copyright material. The bill also aims to protect fair use in hardware devices, which The RIAA is strongly against as of this moment.

Under the Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship (FAIR USE) Act, users will be allowed to copy material they own, but will also be granted exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. According to the FAIR USE Act, consumers will be allowed to make limited copies of copyrighted material for personal purposes as well as for reviews, news reporting and education. Additionally, manufacturers and service providers will not be held accountable for what customers do with their devices and services.

"The fair use doctrine is threatened today as never before," said U.S. Representative Rick Boucher. "Historically, the nation's copyright laws have reflected a carefully calibrated balanced between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of the users of copyrighted material. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public's right to fair use," Boucher added.

A snippet from the FAIR USE doctrine reads (PDF):
The court shall remit statutory damages for secondary infringement, except in a case in which the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that the act or acts constituting such secondary infringement were done under circumstances in which no reasonable person could have believed such conduct to be lawful.
The RIAA has already shown its disdain for the proposed bill.  "The difference between hacking done for non-infringing purposes and hacking done to steal is impossible to determine and enforce," said the RIAA in a statement.

Late last year, Congress previously ruled that users are no longer allowed to rip DVD movies to their iPods, even if they own the movies legally. What the RIAA emphasizes is that some manufacturers may be creating devices that are intentionally easy to hack, circumventing the onboard protection measures, so that the "feature" may be attractive to end users.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which has stood against the RIAA in many cases, the FAIR USE Act would help consumers who are being sued for wrong doing when they have not committed any crime. "The bill would loosen the grip of the DMCA, which restricts circumvention of digital rights management (DRM) restrictions even for lawful uses," said the EFF in a statement.

Since its implementation several years ago, the DMCA has been viewed by many as being too restrictive, both on consumers and on manufacturers. Many compare their current collection of DVD movies and music CDs to their old video and audio cassettes. Copying and making backups were normal everyday practices that millions did. The RIAA's stance is that digital copying has significantly impacted music sales in a negative way. Research proved that the RIAA was making unfounded claims -- while sales of actual physical CDs dropped, overall sales of music has risen tremendously.

Boucher is also an advocate of Net Neutrality and U.S. patent reform.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Where are they?
By r8devil on 3/8/2007 12:17:26 AM , Rating: 1
"No one FORCE you to buy DRM content, It is their rights to protect their stuff/property, so if you don't like their product or how they control u to use their product, don't buy it etc etc"

I do not agree with that argument for DRM. If I pay for it, doesn't it belong to me? I shouldn't be sharing it thru P2P but I should have the right to make copies as backup or to use in multiple devices that I own. Also if the RIAA could DRM everything, they would and what other avenues would I have to get music that wasn't DRMed. I know there are bands out there that distribute their music thru other channels and are not DRMed but that would account for a small % as compared to music that goes thru RIAA.


RE: Where are they?
By Chillin1248 on 3/8/2007 8:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
And I agree 100% with both of their reasoning.

Put aside the fact that it is the RIAA and the MPAA and look at it as a third company. Let's use "Tune" for the music company:

"Tune" starts up and starts signing up artists and and recording studios. Tune becomes highly succesful beyond belief and becomes one of the top music companies. Tune then goes ahead and charges for each of their songs $5 and imposes a crazy DRM scheme that monitors each time the music is listened and charges for that.

Now Tune (putting aside the US copyright laws for a second and looking at it as a Capatilistic view) should be able to do that without any question as long as they followed all their commitements to inform/agree with their artists and studios, etc. Now here is where capitalism kicks in; if people agree with the price change and think it is fair to pay that to listen to the bands who wish to be part of "Tune" then Tune will continue to be highly succesful.

However if the market rejects the idea of paying $5 for music and instead turns to other studios and artists then "Tune" will soon find itself in a very big ditch.

The fact that you want to listen to the music means you have to pay what the owner of the music wishes. But you must really want to listen to that music for the high price and restrictions place on it because that is what it is worth to you.

However if the artist/song in question is not worth $5 then you will have to choose another artists music which is satisfactory.

Look at the Bigfoot NIC "Killer" card or Phsyx "AGEIA" card for good examples. They were not worth their high price to many people or people had alternatives they would rather choose and so far (please someone put up a statistic if I am wrong) have not suceeded in the market. But I didn't hear anyone say that because they were the biggest "Physics card" or "Network gaming card" producers that they thought the prices were unfair and would go ahead and steal the products; so why is the logic here any different?

If you hate DRM/RIAA that much or think they are very unfair then here is the easy solution:

DON'T BUY FROM THEM

They are not the only Music studio around and you have plenty of artists who give away their music even for free. But if you think the RIAA has good music that you like then you have to be willing to pay the price to listen to their music which they bought, marketed, produced, etc.

-------
Chillin


RE: Where are they?
By Spivonious on 3/8/2007 10:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
I already posted so I can't rate your post, so I'll just say that this post is excellent.


RE: Where are they?
By iNGEN on 3/8/2007 12:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
I think the heart of this problem is the concept of intellectual property has become common, yet its trappings and confinements have not kept pace with the evolution of the property itself. The American music purchasing market now requires a more standardized and concise definition of what exactly they purchase when they purchase music and video.

Unlike software, which contains a EULA to be entered into voluntarily, music and videos contain no such consensual contract. In lieu of legislating a requirement that the distrobution medium provide for such a contract, which would be entirely possible for digital media. I think it better we as Americans, through the legislative process, create a clear definitition of what property is truly conveyed by the puchase of music and video. Such a solution would eliminate not all, but much of this dysfunction.

Until that occurs, the free market is, in my opinion, incapable of proclaiming, "If you don't like what's in Hustler Magazine, don't buy it!"

[with a tip 'o the hat to Chillin]


RE: Where are they?
By Chillin1248 on 3/8/2007 1:27:07 PM , Rating: 3
I understand what you are saying, and I agree to an extent.

However instead of EULA there are US laws, but granted there are broad definitions and loopholes.

And for the record I am very anti-DRM. As for the RIAA, well I live in another country where the native music is better than anything (in my opinion) coming out of the states recently; so the RIAA really don't disturb me much.

For more on the Copyright laws:

quote:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 11 > § 1101

§ 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

--(a) Unauthorized Acts.— Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved—

-(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,

-(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or

-(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States,
shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.

==(b) Definition.— As used in this section, the term “traffic in” means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.

==(c) Applicability.— This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

==(d) State Law Not Preempted.— Nothing in this section may be construed to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State.


================================================= ==================

quote:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201 Prev | Next

§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

How Current is This?

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—

(1)

(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).

(C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine—
(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works;
(ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
(iii) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;
(iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and
(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.

(D) The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.

(E) Neither the exception under subparagraph (B) from the applicability of the prohibition contained in subparagraph

(A), nor any determination made in a rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), may be used as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title other than this paragraph.

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

(3) As used in this subsection—

(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

(b) Additional Violations.—

(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

(2) As used in this subsection—

(A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.

(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.—(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.

(3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).

(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.

(d) Exemption for Nonprofit Libraries, Archives, and Educational Institutions.—

(1) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution which gains access to a commercially exploited copyrighted work solely in order to make a good faith determination of whether to acquire a copy of that work for the sole purpose of engaging in conduct permitted under this title shall not be in violation of subsection (a)(1)

(A). A copy of a work to which access has been gained under this paragraph—

(A) may not be retained longer than necessary to make such good faith determination; and

(B) may not be used for any other purpose.

(2) The exemption made available under paragraph (1) shall only apply with respect to a work when an identical copy of that work is not reasonably available in another form.

-(3) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution that willfully for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain violates paragraph (1)—

=(A) shall, for the first offense, be subject to the civil remedies under section 1203; and

==(B) shall, for repeated or subsequent offenses, in addition to the civil remedies under section 1203, forfeit the exemption provided under paragraph (1).

-(4) This subsection may not be used as a defense to a claim under subsection (a)(2) or (b), nor may this subsection permit a nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, component, or part thereof, which circumvents a technological measure.

-(5) In order for a library or archives to qualify for the exemption under this subsection, the collections of that library or archives shall be—

==(A) open to the public; or

==(B) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field.

================================================= ==================

quote:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 10 > SUBCHAPTER B > § 1002

§ 1002. Incorporation of copying controls

(a) Prohibition on Importation, Manufacture, and Distribution .— No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to—

(1) the Serial Copy Management System;

(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the system’s method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or

(3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.

( b) Development of Verification Procedure .— The Secretary of Commerce shall establish a procedure to verify, upon the petition of an interested party, that a system meets the standards set forth in subsection (a)(2).

(c) Prohibition on Circumvention of the System .— No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any device, or offer or perform any service, the primary purpose or effect of which is to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or otherwise circumvent any program or circuit which implements, in whole or in part, a system described in subsection (a).

(d) Encoding of Information on Digital Musical Recordings.—

(1) Prohibition on encoding inaccurate information.— No person shall encode a digital musical recording of a sound recording with inaccurate information relating to the category code, copyright status, or generation status of the source material for the recording.

(2) Encoding of copyright status not required.— Nothing in this chapter requires any person engaged in the importation or manufacture of digital musical recordings to encode any such digital musical recording with respect to its copyright status.

(e) Information Accompanying Transmissions in Digital Format.— Any person who transmits or otherwise communicates to the public any sound recording in digital format is not required under this chapter to transmit or otherwise communicate the information relating to the copyright status of the sound recording. Any such person who does transmit or otherwise communicate such copyright status information shall transmit or communicate such information accurately.


RE: Where are they?
By Chillin1248 on 3/8/2007 1:31:22 PM , Rating: 3
Well what do you know?

I just stumbled around the RIAA website and came upon this:

http://www.riaa.com/issues/copyright/laws.asp

Seems they have all the laws in their pockets.

-------
Chillin


RE: Where are they?
By r8devil on 3/8/2007 8:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
I understand where you are coming from chillin. I had thought of that analogy initially but the main difference here is that movies and music can be digitized easily and passed around. For you to make a copy of a graphics or or any physical product would cost too much. So to protect their investment this is the only way that the RIAA/MPAA have thought of.

I just feel that they need to come up with a better way and not screw their customers all the time.

I do agree with you guys that if you dont like the way they do business dont buy from them. But the problem here is with the whole system. And things need to change.

I am all for something like itunes without DRM and at low prices. I would happily get on there and buy stuff. Currently I feel its still too expensive cos if you were to divide the cost of purchasing a CD by the number of songs there and remove the cost of manufacturing the CD and packaging, its still cheaper than an itunes song. Given that itunes has connection costs and server hw costs.

Anyway just wanted to put my opinion in.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki