Ireland has posted the complete article on the 3-2-1 Forums. I have cut and pasted a few statements from that article below: Tools under review by the major labels would limit the number of backups that could be made from ordinary compact discs and prevent copied, or "burned," versions from being used to create further copies, according to Macrovision and SunnComm International, rivals that are developing competing versions of the digital rights management (DRM) software. If this new technology does what the article states, it seems to me that it would provide an 'out' for the MPAA/RIAA to allow them to gently back away from all the lawsuits they are currently involved in. It would still technically violate the DMCA, but I think any reasonable person would agree that if the technology only allows one copy (a personal backup ... 'Fair Use') to be made, it would eliminate the casual bootleggers from infringing on Copyrights and make Hollywood's problem go away.
I guess I'm unreasonable then as I don't believe that's any type of solution at all. Limiting things to one copy sounds great on paper but what about people whose kids destroy copies of their Disney movies on a regular basis? What about the poor fellow who used Princos to begin with and six months later all his copies are unreadable? What about people who have two homes and want to protect their originals with a backup at each residence? It's a solution to a made up problem. I believe the impact of "casual" bootleggers is overblown and has been a fact of life as long as portable media has been around. The real problem is the huge amount of pirating operations around the world cranking out thousands of copies daily. They will get around any new protection anyway and our right to protect our investment in media will be further diminished by making it even more of a pain in the ass to backup.
If the issue of Fair Use that we are hearing so much about has to do with a person being able to make a single backup copy of a purchased DVD (which is reasonable), they why would technology that prevents making more than one backup be a problem? If the issue of Fair use that we are hearing so much about has to do with a person being able to make several backup copies of a purchased DVD, then I suggest that person may have some other use in mind for the extra copies (the bootlegger scenario). Why would you want more than one backup??? what about people whose kids destroy copies of their Disney movies on a regular basis? I believe better parenting would solve this. I don't think there is a technological solution to misbehaving kids ... What about the poor fellow who used Princos to begin with and six months later all his copies are unreadable? So now you want the right to make copies of your copies? Give me a break already!
You obviously have no experience with kids. You might want to try something called "reading comprehension". I'll explain it since you seem to need help. Low quality media such as Princo tend to lose data integrity quickly. Many, many people who are new to backing up DVDs buy them because they're very cheap. So if someone wastes their single "allowed" backup on a piss poor disc that doesn't last, then what genius? I'll give you one since you apparently have no concept of reality and the needs of people who live in it.
Do you want to argue just for the sake of arguing, or do you want to discuss this new technology and how it might end the MPAA/RIAA vs the world?
That's my point - it's not going to end it. Look at the track record of the entertainment industry. They have always, and very consistently, opposed consumer rights at every step and one new copy protection scheme isn't going to end that. You're deluding yourself to think otherwise.
Nothing wrong with hoping The reality is the entertainment industry will never be truly happy until consumers have no say in what they can do with their own media.
Buzzoon, just like to apologise for calling you a dcma wh*re on the other thread, i take it back. We used to be able by law to make one legal backup (i'm pretty sure) of any copy we owned, this was over 10 years ago now, and i don't know what happened to it, there's too many four letter words flying around these daze, riaa, mpaa, dmca. It's all crap. It still sickens me that our rights are being banished everyday, and george bush is an A-Grade Tool (just wanted to throw that in, i hate the man, yes, hate), but i've been copying s/ware etc for my own use for years, and never had any trouble. Why? Because i don't sell it and i live in australia, tho that won't mean much soon. And i had to laugh my arse off hardcore on that comment about "misbehaving children", lol, god so funny, it's like trying to scold a 3 yr old for peeing on the floor in a public place after he has been telling you for the last 2 minutes he needs to go wee wee. Kids will be bastards, oops i mean kids.
I do agree with you tho that something like this needs to happen, it's getting out of control at the moment. Do the movie houses think they can sue everyone on the planet? You betchya, they can't let those "lost profits" get away from them.
pbailey, I don't know exactly why you have such hatred for Bush. He did not take your guns away in Australia. Have not seen him even try here in the USA. Congress votes on legislation. The president can only say "yes or no" to what they present to him. The Judiciary does what they darn well please. Now, have a "Fosters" and chill out. Don't blow a gasket. TC
K, y'all everyone take a step back and chillax. This is very true. The flipside to the new technology is that the very technology is impeding our right to make backups of legitmately purchased software for legitimate reasons. Consider a not-so-tech-savvy household which wants to make a backup of their small movie collection because say, they are moving and are not sure if, during the transition, the originals will be damaged. They cant (because they dont have the know-how or what not). Are there bleeding hearts for them? No! This is a problem that has faced the software industry since its inception: programmers CAN make software that is virtually unpirateable however to use the software would require an extremely exacting hardware set (i.e., as a quick example, the installation program could detect the type of drives present in the computer if there was a 2sheep drive, installtion would not commence). They can do this (provided they list the requirements on the box) however (a) competiting hardware companies wouldnt be so happy and there would be an industry backlash for that and (b) nobody would buy it because the "avg jane and joe" have may not have the "fancy specific hardware". So does this mean that Jane/Joe can sue CompanyX if their original copy is wrecked (on the basis of say, poor workmanship?) -- sure the company will say "You were allowed to make a legitimate copy of the disc so why didnt you?" Sure this might hold up in the court system but it will create a serious backlash against that product in the consumer market if word ever gets out (personally I'm just waiting for a high profile case like this to happen to a big game company or something). Another good example had something to do with some new form of audio protection -- you couldnt play the CD in an Xbox (or something like that) however the Xbox does qualify as a CompactDiscAudio player so what then? (aside from the incompetence of the testing people who made the system). It goes back to the issue of the strength of the copy protection vs its compatibility. LOL not just that -- you should see some of the parents! LOL I know enough kids who are more mature/civilized than their parents are. Dont believe me? Watch some Jerry Springer. ;-)
I am moving tomorrow from North to South Carolina. I'll be away from such enlightened and fierce discussions. I am going to have a bad case of Delirium Tremens until I get back on line in a few days. Y'all behave...
The DRM software is set to be a great piece of copyright protection. If it does allow one back-up copy to be made, somehow through its coding, what is to prevent a back-up of a back-up. From what i read, it takes the media code and disc code into memory and knows when it has been copied once. However, the copy should not carry the same identity as the original, so the copying of a copy each time may be possible. Who knows....im clutching at straws, but generally, i only ever make one copy anyway...
In fact, I have a lot of experience with kids. I raised two boys who are now both responsible adults. I coached hockey for 15 years, soccer for 8, and baseball for 5. I have been involved in the Scouting movement for many years. Now, about that very expensive Tonka truck that my oldest son broke when he was 5 ... sure wish I had access to a Tonka Truck Cloner so I could have made a copy just in case he broke the first one. Where were my "Fair Use" rights back then I wonder ... But, I didn't ... I don't buy the argument that I need to back up my DVD's just in case my kid destroys one. But some people do. I also don't buy the argument that I should be able to make several backups just because my kid is really bad and keeps destroying them. But some people do. It's easier for me to ensure my kid doesn't destroy my DVD collection in the first place. As I stated above, if the hullabaloo abour Fair Use means a person should be able to make a backup copy of their DVD collection, and even though the DMCA prohibits us from using technology to allow it, I believe the MPAA/RIAA will back off if technology allows us to make one backup copy only. This would certainly stop the very widespread practice of people renting DVDs from Blockbuster and making their own copies of them (at least everyone who rented it after the first guy 'used up' the one freebie copy). We are not going to win this battle by being stubborn and emotional. It has to be a win-win situation for us and the Copyright Owners. I am simply suggesting that this type of new technology might just help us repair the bad feelings that exist with Hollywood.
Commendable and I wish the world had more people of that mindset. Too many stupid parents raising stupid kids today I appreaciate your idealism however it is unrealistic -- like I said before, just watch a bit of Jerry Springer or pay a visit to the regional pennitentary -- or goto a juvi-jail. Suppose you just bought some fancy (i.e., expensive) software for analyzing whatever and according to your logic, you're gonna fork out another couple thousand dollars for a new copy if an accident happens? (and note that not all accidents happen at home -- enough of them happen in the corporate office) Regardless of whether you buy the argument or not -- its actually quite irrelevent -- and like you said, there's no point getting personal and emotional about things -- that law, for one reason or another, does state that you are allowed to make a backup. What happens if, say, someone goes out and buys say, 50 movies and then makes their legitmate backups .... and because they are ripping 50 movies all at once, accidentally rerip the same movie twice? Oh no! Are we going to sue them for negligence and copyright infringement? You can promise a kid that (s)he will be grounded forever if they youch your DVD collection but you can't ground or spank a fire. In all fairness, you cannot deny the fact that "casual" piracy is NOT the leading cause for the demise of the game/movie/music industry but rather it is the organized piracy where they send out half a million CDs a week. As a small addendum to this: "what is piracy? who is stealing?" According to the government -- damn near everyone -- in fact (here in canada), they've added a TAX to the price of optical media because of it: so the government is claiming one way or another that everyone uses media for the purposes of piracy. Ok fine. What happens if I dont pirate with that media? Shouldn't I get my money back? No! They will argue that the money goes towards "all the other people who are piracting/have pirated" -- a classic case of "one bad apple ruins the bunch" -- fine. If I casually make a pirated copy of my friend's game or movie, is the government going to hunt me down? Not likely. So WTF is that money going to? It isnt a large leap of faith to say that it goes to fund, for the most part, advertsiement campaigns and to support the high-tech crime divisions of police departments. Now if you ask those high tech police departments (and I have), they will tell you the major piracy comes from the extremely organized groups rather than the individual, 'casual' pirate. If we take this a step further and apply the legal concept of mens reas, for any given piece of intellectual property there is only one or two (i.e., a few) actual pirated copies and the people who made those copies are pirates. Just because they distributed them to half the friggen planet is inconsequential. It's just like, say, the kid who publishes an article in the local newspaper but infringes on copyright by note stating where a quote comes from or soemthing .... does that make everyone in the town who has a copy of that paper a pirate? No! Like I said before, you are probably right in saying that multiple copies is a stretch of fair use and I am inclined to agree to that. Nephilim consider a book: you bought it and you dont want to get the pages torn, smudged etc, so you make a copy of it. Ok fine. Now if one applies the same "poor media quality" justification, you make another copy... and what happens if that batch of paper is low quality? Or there's a fire? Ok so you make another copy .... and another and another -- I'm not saying you specifically would do this or even that the avg Jane/Joe would do that however the temptation is there and there are a lot of people who wont be able to resist that temptation and make half a dozen copies for their friends. "Fair Use" applies to intellectual property -- not your generic everyday type of property. Furthermore, if you had the equipment to make a backup copy of the Tonka truck (i.e., a bigass toy factory) then you would not be in a situation to make a personal backup (ethical conflict of interest) and would be violating whatever patents protect the toy. I agree and I do think it provides a solid case for one to argue that those such organizations should back off. However I again suggest the point that, ok, so we are allowed to make one backup and the protection ensures that we do. Fine. What happens if say, I dont have the technical know-how to make a backup? You would argue (and I partially agree) -- too bad. The problem with that is there is now a new unofficial condition on the fair use policy: if you know how to use a photocopier then you can have a backup copy however if you dont have the tehnical knowhow to make a SecureRom 5.05 backup then too bad for you. It's a good idea they've proposed (at least good in concept) but as with everything major companies/govnerments have suggested with good concepts/intentions -- we will have to wait for their implementation to see whether or not it was actually a good idea or really stupid.
From personal experience, I know that it is near impossible to keep things out of the hands of children. For example I take precautions to ensure that my children do not handle the PS2 games I have. I keep my games up where they cannot reach them and I change the cds and dvds for them when they want to play something different. Then one day a friend comes over, gets a game down off the shelf to look at the cover art or instructions and lays it down on the coffee table while I was out of the room. In no time the toddler is attracted to the bright, shiny packaging and the even brighter, shinier dvd inside. A $50 game is unbootable in seconds, scratched badly. So in spite all of the precautions I had taken, I was out $50. If it had been my one allowed copy under the new proposal, then I would be back to square one, actually less, since I wouldn't be able to make another backup.
Hehe thats from the perspective of a parent... now from my perspective, when i was a kid, there wasnt anything i could get my hands on one way or another However Xian, it doesnt take a huge leap of faith to say "Allowing more than one backup copy is asking for trouble (with respect to piracy)". Ideally when you make a backup copy, you play with that backup copy and in the event of the destruction of the backup copy, you can make another one. That way, people still get to make a backup and such. Of course we can't ask/force people to play with their backups rather than the originals however I think it would just work out better that way
