More on DRM - The Wall Street Journal Debate
 

For those interested, this is a good read: 'DRM' Protects Downloads, But Does It Stifle Innovation?

I did read it, thanks for the link.

It was kind of lame though in that in one corner you had an MPAA spin-doctor spouting the same stuff about DRM being good for us vs. a well spoken rebuttal of his arguments. It's so obvious that the greatest impact of DRM/DMCA is to keep the current business models in place and stifle anything that attacks that monopoly.

It really frustrates me. I feel like I'm under attack from all sides what with the government/homeland security removing my personal freedoms and the DRM/DMCA removing other freedoms.

I feel that so strongly that I have not bought any new CDs or DVDs for several years now and I've never bought from ITMS. I have never abused a copyright, but refuse to have it dictated to me what exactly constitutes fair use or how many times I can use it as I see fit.

As a Canadian with two adult offspring and five grandchildren living in the USA, I'd better omit my views on Homeland Security. Ya never know with those guys.

EFFs John Perry Barlow and MPAA president Dan Glickman: online music
 

The BBC had the very british idea to get two vocal proponents of either side in the ring to duke it out:

"The biggest pirate movie site on the Internet was raided by police a few days ago [referring to the swedish bittorrent tracker http://thepiratebay.org]. Within 48 hours it was up and running in a different country. It's just another week on the barricades of the information revolution.
...
Newsnight decided to track down the two most powerful voices on either side of the divide and ask them about their own philosophies and what they thought of their opponent.

John Perry Barlow used to be the lyricist in the US supergroup 'The Grateful Dead.' He went on to co-found the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the pressure group that's placed itself front and centre in the fight to keep the tanks of government and corporation off the lawns of cyberspace.

Congressman Dan Glickman became US Secretary for Agriculture under Bill Clinton. Nowadays he's the President and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, the body that wields the collective political and legal muscle of the Hollywood studios."

Here's a teaser, the whole thing is quite an entertaining read:

"John Perry Barlow: I've got good news and bad news and good news. And the good news is that you guys have managed to buy every major legislative body on the planet, and the courts are even with you. So you've done a great job there and you should congratulate yourself.

But you know the problem is - the bad news is that you're up against a dedicated foe that is younger and smarter that you are and will be alive when you're dead. You're 55 years old and these kids are 17 and they're just smarter than you. So you're gonna lose that one.

But the good news is that you guys are mean sons of bitches and you've been figuring out ways of ripping off audiences and artists for centuries....."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/5064170.stm

And, NovaScotian, don't overestimate the dudes over at DHS:

"The Department of Homeland Security allowed a man to enter its headquarters last week using a fake Matricula Consular card as identification, despite federal rules that say the Mexican-issued card is not valid ID at government buildings."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...3713-4122r.htm

This is a fantastic article on the issues written by none other than Courtney Love. It's long but worth the read and well-written (yes, I thought she was a blithering idiot, but apparently only when she's on drugs). It covers the RIAA money/motivations, artist motivations, some technology, and her view of the future.

http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html

We're still trying to formulate a policy on "political discussions," but I'm sure this kind of broadside is pushing the envelope.

Please, guys. If DRM can't be discussed without getting into political sniping, then we'll have to close the thread.

I yield, Phil. No further comments from me in The Coat Room - I promise. It's getting too tricky to say something opinionated without crossing some border of political correctness. NS

Nova, I apologize if this seems too nit-picky on my part. Maybe it is. We've been discussing how we might articulate our policy on political discussions in our moderator forum, and it's been a very s - l - o - w process. Until we get that straight among ourselves and can publish some clear principles to the community, we're likely to be a rather un-united front in how we do this. In this case, itt seemed to me a "let's criticize U.S. Homeland Security" undercurrent was developing, so I called it.

I had just read the tidbit on DHS accepting mexican-issued fake IDs to get into +their+ building when I answered NovaScotians post and couldn't resist the temptation to mention it, but I agree that it was probably not a good idea to do so, sorry.

It's great to hear that there is an ongoing debate among the mods and I really appreciate that for quite some time now there has been no heavy-handed closing of threads been going on.

Intelligent discussions - with moderation
 

.
Although it could be taken as such, I must confess that I didn’t interpret NovaScotian’s post as political sniping. Rather it seemed a direct statement that he was going to abstain from commenting -- then giving that a cute, tongue-in-cheek twist. That said, I fully understand how Phil could interpret the "twist" itself as sniping. (But NovaScotian’s track record is about respectful as they come.)

I am sure that I have been guilty of carressing the border in similar ways, many a time.

It has been interesting to note how well Forum members have moderated themselves, i.e. posting with moderation. I really haven’t seen a single case of political overheating since that open discussion some time ago.

And that’s good news! :) Especially considering the fact that many recent threads have had a social/political dimension, in addition to the technological. Wonderful and intelligent discussions, in my opinion, and each and every one of them characterised by mutual respect.

We really do need to be more clear about what we mean by "political discussions," and I'm sure we'll have some general guidelines soon. Sorry if I seem such a "horse's butt" about this sometimes. I saw three consecutive posts with critical remarks about D.H.S and decided to say something.

You're all good forum members. Carry on.

Virgin pirates Madonna song and gets spanked...
 

To complete this rather impressive list of interesting links on DRM-related subjects, here's another one:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pag...ss/5124720.stm

where the pirates are not who you'd think they'd be and a big, "legal" online music store cracked a competitors DRM, then rewrapped with his own DRM, "in the interest of consumers"...

This starts to get so surreal, nobody could have invented it ;) .

Surreal is a good word for it.

It certainly also does no good for the stereotype of the French acting as if they are superior to others and the law (not making a political judgement on that, just noting that the stereotype is there).

I'll definitely spare you some french stereotypes about "the American", even if I can assure you that they're likewise "there"...

And just as inappropriate as any stereotype about a whole nation, discounting the wild variety of individuals composing it.

To keep it at least partly on-topic, a collection of links about DRM-crazyness would definitely be incomplete without the detailed, brilliantly written argument made by Cory Doctorow in 2004 while he was European Affairs Coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation here:
http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt
Executive summary:
"
1. That DRM systems don't work

2. That DRM systems are bad for society

3. That DRM systems are bad for business

4. That DRM systems are bad for artists ... "

I know what they are, and I personally strive to meet most of them. I was just commenting that I found it interesting that their attitude matched that stereotype so well, that's all.

I think the only thing left to argue is #3. And I personally don't know anyone who argues that one, just the RIAA and some governments.

And what's interesting about that is that they have never tested it in any way and don't seem to get that iTMS is telling them something. They actually don't have a clue whether it is bad for business or not - it's just a deep "cultural" belief, nigh-on religious conviction that their business model, so successful since 78 RPM records were popular, is the only way to go. They're sticking to the tried and true: Teletype.

The EFF has come up with quite a list of questions you might want to ask whenever you meet with people who still buy the propaganda that all the digital restriction efforts are nothing but a generous effort to protect poor artists.

To give you an idea, here's one of the 19 questions:

"The RIAA has sued over 20,000 music fans for file sharing. Recently, an RIAA representative reportedly suggested that "students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford [P2P lawsuit] settlements." Do you stand by this advice? Is this really good advice for our children's futures?"
Complete list here:
http://www.eff.org/IP/faq/

Newsgroups and music file sharing
 

.
Question: Has the recording industry ever sued any of the paid Newsgroup services for file sharing? If they haven’t, why not? I have never heard of any such instances.

Just curious.

Not so far. I'm pretty close to one of the largest, Easynews, hosted here in Phoenix. They walk a careful legal line, and there's little doubt that they are immune from this because of their position as a provider. Also they are deeply involved in the geek/hacker community so the RIAA would really be screwed if they tried to mess with them.

... because so far the RIAA has done nothing to upset the average geek and hacker :D ?
You must be living in a very nice parallel universe, does Apple have a bigger marketshare there as well ?

But seriously, who would the RIAA sue ?
The poster eventually, but you'd have to identify him first.
Service providers are off the hook if they just transport stuff without editing it. That took legislators some time to understand, in France, many years ago, there was an attempt to go after an ISP for carrying newsgroups, but it died once everybody involved understood how things really worked.

The RIAA just got spanked in court in one of those trials where they try to intimidate people into paying a settlement:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp...ster_dismissal

Let me se if I understand this correctly: If someone wants to build a huge music library for their own listening pleasure, pay as little as possible and minimise the risk of being prosecuted by the RIAA, then the "best" way to do so is to pay a modest membership fee to a commercial Newsgroup provider – such as Easynews.

Is that a correct summary? Or am I missing something?

(Mind you, I’m not asking for a formula! Rather I am trying desperately to see some pattern of fairness in who gets sued. Haven’t discovered that yet...)

How the RIAA Litigation Process Works
 

I checked out that first link, and am absolutely astounded by the extent the RIAA is knowingly violating due process. I strongly suggest that anyone interested in RIAA’s tactics check it out.

Perhaps the most comprehensive and interesting article is "How the RIAA Litigation Process Works", which is a third of the way down. I had no idea!

Nor did I. These ex parte subpoenas have not succeeded in Canada, fortunately, and there's a strong movement (further down the same article) among artists in Canada against suing their fans. I am as astonished as ArcticStones is that they succeed in the USA in a venue far from the accused's home. One begins to think that the US government is anti-internet on all fronts.

Look what happened last time they pissed off that community. And that was just a light warning.

You've got it exactly right. And that includes obtaining any software, images, movies, media, whatever. In fact movies are often posted before they are in the theatres. I don't understand the use of P2P at all. Are people just ignorant of the fact that there are much better systems, existing since the 70s, for doing this? I don't get it.

It has lots of good uses also, for discussion, information, and legitimate piracy. Yeah, you heard that right. Like yesterday I really needed to bring up a new VMWare server at a remote site but the official download system was broken. Go to Easynews, grab a pirate copy, solved. I have a legitimate right to have it, but couldn't get it from the official channel. I also often use it to demo commercial software either for my own use or for clients. If we want it, we buy it. Everybody profits from this "piracy."

As far as the RIAA's actions, I think much of it depends on ignorance and a lack of will to fight. Anything can succeed if there is no effective fight back.

My impression is that the RIAA uses methods that make it a pretty lopsided battle. I mean, you’ve just gotten a letter from your ISP (to quote the article, my emphasis), along with copies of an ex parte discovery order and a subpoena. And you have, say, ten days to respond. But you’re in the same boat as everyone else:

"They are not given copies of (i) the summons and complaint, (ii) the papers upon which the Court granted the ex parte discovery order, or (iii) the court rules needed to defend themselves. Most recipients of this "notice" do not even realize that it means that there is a lawsuit against them. None of the recipients of the "notice" have any idea what they are being sued for, or what basis the Court had for granting the ex parte discovery order and for allowing the RIAA to obtain a subpoena.

They are told they have a few days, or maybe a week or two, to make a motion to quash the subpoena.

...if they were to talk to a lawyer they could not give the lawyer an iota of information as to what the case is about, what the basis for the subpoena is, or any other details that would permit a lawyer to make an informed decision as to whether a motion to quash the subpoena could, or could not, be made.

What is more, the lawyer would have to be admitted to practice in the jurisdiction in which the ex parte case is pending, in order to do anything at all."

In that situation I must confess that I would have been one of the ignorant, Carlos. What really disappoints me is that the US courts, by and large, are letting the RIAA get away with this grotesque abuse of the American judicial system.

Yes, that really pleases me. I read that some time ago when Vol de Nuit posted a link. It definitely makes the record companies’ claims that they are suing "to protect the interests of artists" sound very hollow.

In fact, I wish a high-profile journalist would ask the following question:

"The RIAA has sued over 20,000 music fans for file sharing, who have on average paid a $3,750 settlement. That's over $75,000,000. Has any money collected from your lawsuits gone to pay actual artists? Where's all that money going?"

Where else, Stones -- to the lawyers, of course.

A certain spot in Cuba?
Sanctioned TCP/IP and POTS taps without judicial review?
Deportation of foreigners to Syria who are transients on their way home to Canada?

The situation is a bit exagerated in that article. I have not been party to an RIAA suit, but I was the target of a domain name dispute brought by a very large company (in court it was me against three $250/hour attorneys), and have a little bit of experience with similar proceedings.

First off, your lawyer does NOT have to be admitted in the originating jurisdiction. He can advise you on how to proceed based on his knowledge of civil law in general. In all US cities there are legal referral services that will supply a half hour consultation for a nominal fee (typically $35 or so). At least that gets you started. In my case I paid that plus $50 to have him file a motion for time, and got 45 days added for a reply. From there I handled it on my own.

If you get one of these and don't even know to look in the phone book or research a lawyer for help...well, that does suck, but the info is out there. Go look.

As far as the information needed for the lawyer, all that has to be responded to is the documents delivered. That is quite simple; you do not respond to the other non-delivered documents yet. So the response is, "got it, I need time to review." And the granting of that extension is essentially automatic.

Actually fighting it may be more difficult. But several people have done it and won, so it's not impossible.

Cory Doctorow just wrote a -brilliant as always- Op-Ed for Informations Week on DRM, how it plays out in the DMCA-skewed market and in particular how Apple has managed to screw the music industry and keep the competition out of their dominant marketshare with the iTMS/iPod combo:

http://informationweek.com/shared/pr...leID=191000408

Microsoft sees the light
 

.
"DRM is not where it should be.
We don't have the right thing here
in terms of simplicity or interoperability."

– Bill Gates
.

Oh, you are way too trusting.

Interpretation:

Microsoft will solve this problem with a new "standard" for DRM. Since everything available now sucks, MS will come to save the world.

Well, I tell ya – I had the hardest time deciding whether to post here.
Or in the Jokes thread. ;)