|
|
Post by Mentat_Tir on Apr 18, 2002 13:37:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't usually do this, but this is something I feel strongly about. A bill was introduced last month in the US Congress called the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act or CBDTPA. This bill is supposed to fight illegal music copying software like Napster. However, the CBDTPA does much more. It would enable copy-protected CDs, prohibit DVD backups and restrict taping of TV shows if you're using digital cable. It treats all consumers like potenital criminals. This is the same type of thing that Hollywood was upset about in the early 80's. They were afraid that if you had the right to tape movies off of HBO or TV that people would be selling tapes of those shows on every streetcorner. Obviously, that didn't happen. Joe Kraus, the co-founder of Excite.com, along with other technology experts, is leading a crusade against this bill. So far his site has collected 24,000 signatures and counting. If you're a US citizen, please take a moment and add you voice. Visit www.digitalconsumer.orgThanks all! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Christina on Apr 18, 2002 14:34:34 GMT -5
It does sound extreme, but when you consider the amount of copying of media that does go on, the number of prosecutions are very small. Mainly because most of it is 'allowed' under personal use get-outs. Like taping a tv programme to watch it at a more convenient time...
Yes I know that article says that's going to be a no-no under this legislation, but it would be near impossible to enforce, surely...
If they try to force the cable companies to scramble the signal so it can't be taped by their subscribers, they might find a big fight on their hands.
Pay-per-view films and events that can't be taped, I could live with.
Ordinary programmes, no way, I hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter_Pevensie on Apr 19, 2002 6:00:21 GMT -5
So...what's wrong with copy protecting CD's and DVD's?
|
|
|
|
Post by UltimateTrekker on Apr 19, 2002 7:56:10 GMT -5
I agree with Peter. I DO "steal" music with Kazaa. Much of the trek I watch, I get from there since it hardly aires (especially DS9)
I would be sad if I lost this ability, but I would not gripe. It's like the guy who gets angry when the cable company disconnects his free cable. I'm happy for what I get now.
As for taping shows... Christina's point was correct. They can't really enforce that, unless there is a large enough offender.
They could not prove that I stole anything by taping since I made no profit (which is how Napster stayed open... with no money made, it's not illeagal.. kinda...
So, I fully understand this legislation, and while I enjoy the freedom I have now in this area, would fully understand if Kazaa was shut down tomorrow.
90% of the traffic is trading of copyrighted material. I don't think that the music or TV industry feels the pain from this (The amount lost is also MADE by sharing of music, in my house at least) but, they OWN the product, it's their RIGHT to try to stop the distribution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mentat_Tir on Apr 19, 2002 8:53:15 GMT -5
*scratches head* The material in the "Consumer Technology Bill of Rights" and the other material already covers these issues more clearly than I can, but I'll give it a crack.
We're not talking about the right to download music. Downloading music and "warez" from KaZaA and with other p2p software is illegal. There's no doubt about it. We're not talking about taking away that right, because really no one has that right in the first place.
We're talking about the media industry determining what you can and can't tape and what you can and can't copy. No more CD backups, no more MP3 format and no more record button on your VCR.
As for Peter's argument, let me push it back and ask, "What wrong with not copy protecting CDs?" Not everyone who copies a CD is a criminal. For example, I made a copy of a CD for my little old mother last week. She wanted to be able to have one in the car and one at home. She bought the original, so we're just talking about the convenience factor of not having to transport the CD back and forth from car to house. There are a lot of people who are not abusing the current copyright laws. It's this mentality of "you're either with us or with the pirates." It's not as black and white as it seems.
What the media companies and the lawmakers have found is that they can't police behavior, so they will take to policing the technology once again. This presents a dangerous opportunity for media companies to control what people consume as well as how they consume it and when they consume it. With government sanctions, no less. I, for one, am not going to let that happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter_Pevensie on Apr 19, 2002 11:53:57 GMT -5
...As for Peter's argument, let me push it back and ask, "What wrong with not copy protecting CDs?" grins.[/i] Um...as far as I know, I haven't articulated a position with which to "agree" or an "argument" to rebut. Thanks, though, for stereotyping me. I always enjoy that.  A careful review of my above post (I know it's long and a bit complex, but bear with me) should show that I was trying to ask a simple question: "What's wrong with copy-protecting CD's and DVD's?" Could someone describe what it is that makes this practice on the part of manufacturers so nefarious? Mentat, I'm not disagreeing with you...I'm just trying to understand your position. On top of that, I'm bored today. ;D  Oh, and could you be a bit more specific than the quote below? Remember, I'm a blonde. Use small words. |
|
|
|
Post by Mentat_Tir on Apr 19, 2002 14:23:09 GMT -5
Sorry, Peter if I misinterpreted your question. As you pointed out before, it's easy to read into a question or misinterpret a facetious tone. I'm still not sure under what catagory I am "stereotyping" you, though. But I digress. I'm assuming you followed the link and read the material provided. Under the current fair-use rights, I have the right to copy a CD or make a backup of my favorite DVD in case my dog uses it as a chewtoy. Or I can convert my favorite music CD into MP3 files and listen them while I'm using my MS Office Clipart CD. Or, I can beebop down the sidewalk listening to my walkman MP3 player. Or I can tape "Dude, Where's My Car" off HBO through my digital cable box...you get the idea. Am I hurting anyone? Nope. Are the media companies losing money because I'm doing this? Nope. Am I profiting in any way? Nope. I am enjoying the music or the film in exactly the way the artists intended. So why should I have those rights taken away? |
|
|
|
Post by Christina on Apr 20, 2002 3:58:17 GMT -5
Is it a right, or is it a priviledge granted by the technology which has been developed to enable you to do this, and that you can afford to buy and use for that purpose?
(Says the woman who is currently trying to resist the urge to throw the PC out of the window because a certain piece of software for creating compilation CDs from existing ones is refusing to do its alledged job properly! - But if this software didn't exist, I'd never have dreamt of doing this on CD. Tape yes, CD no.)
|
|
|
|
Post by UltimateTrekker on Apr 22, 2002 8:33:00 GMT -5
Question... is it illeagal to photocopy an entire book, even if you are only goint to keep that copy in the car?
Yes. Most decent copy places WON'T copy that for you (if you do it on your own on their little pay machines however)
AND, yes, someone else is profitting. The companies that produce those MP3 players, the companies that produce CD burners, VCRs, blank tapes, blank CD's (part of the payment you're making on the purchase is covering the cost of production, NOT just the artistry.)
I AM playing Devil's Advocate here, going to extremes, but my main point is that if I were Virgin Records, and I had a way to STOP people ripping CD's into MP3s and burning them, I'd be doing it.
If I were the artist, I may try to find a company that did the same to protect my music (maybe)
And, even if I wouldn't, it IS the right of others to fight for that. Sony DVD players won't play burnt DVDs or CDs (they check the color). WHY? The get divedends from ALL DVD sales (they hold the patent on the technology)
Do they lose some money? Yes, I didn't buy a Sony for that reason, but do they have the right to do that? Yes, of course they have the right to protect their media.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. Legistlation like this will do 1 of 2 things. It will either STOP the pirating and the studios will make more money or at least, stop people from using their media for free, OR it will backlash and they'll rethink their posistion.
But, anyway you look at it, THEY produce it, they can do whatever the like. They don't HAVE to add a commentary to your favorite movie, you may spend more for it, or be more likely to buy it. They don't have to color correct the film. They can do WHAT they please.
OK, rant over. Obviously I'm exagerating a bit here to make my point (which is) it's not OUR right to do these things. THEY pay to create the media and can sell it to us in anyway they see fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qab on Apr 22, 2002 12:16:32 GMT -5
Question... is it illegal to photocopy an entire book, even if you are only going to keep that copy in the car? Yes. Most decent copy places WON'T copy that for you (if you do it on your own on their little pay machines however) AND, yes, someone else is profiting.... Interesting debate, considering I worked for 5 years in one of those "decent copy places"  The reason we couldn't and wouldn't copy copyrighted material is because we would be profiting from it. I make you a copy, I charge you for the service, therefore I profit from that illegal action. Another twist to the arguement: "Profit" does not have to involve the exchange of money. If I gain in any way by using an illegally made copy of copyrighted material, it can be argued that I am "profiting". This is as difficult an arguement as the pro- / anti-abortion debate. There are too many gray areas. All I can say is: Don't pi$$ and moan when someone refuses to make a copy of something that's copyrighted. It's MY dang decision. If you don't like it, too bad so sad. |
|
|
|
Post by Dohlman on Apr 22, 2002 13:30:52 GMT -5
I see the rise of Web sites like KaZaA and Napster also as protest vehicles. I, for one, tire of paying for an entire album when I only like 3-4 songs. The distribution of music is changing, and the record companies are behind the times. If they're not flexible enough to adapt technology to address people's wants, people will adapt the technology for themselves.
If this legislation goes through, why even put a 'record' button on a DVD or CD player?
|
|
|
|
Post by Christina on Apr 26, 2002 13:05:24 GMT -5
^^ it's been like that since the birth of the '78rpm long player.
Except for a few rare and special exceptions.
At least with a CD you just push a button to move on a track, not carefully lift and lower a stylus.........
skeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaccchhhh[i/]
|
|
Oh, and could you be a bit more specific than the quote below? Remember, I'm a blonde. Use small words. 
