From http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/archives/000113.html

The people who tried to take away your VCR are at it again. Hollywood has always dreamed of a "well-mannered marketplace" where the only technologies that you can buy are those that do not disrupt its business. Acting through legislators who dance to Hollywood's tune, the movie studios are racing to lock away the flexible, general-purpose technology that has given us a century of unparalelled prosperity and innovation.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) filed the "Content Protection Status Report" with the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, laying out its plan to remake the technology world to suit its own ends. The report calls for regulation of analog-to-digital converters (ADCs), generic computing components found in scientific, medical and entertainment devices. Under its proposal, every ADC will be controlled by a "cop-chip" that will shut it down if it is asked to assist in converting copyrighted material -- your cellphone would refuse to transmit your voice if you wandered too close to the copyrighted music coming from your stereo.

The report shows that this ADC regulation is part of a larger agenda. The first piece of that agenda, a mandate that would give Hollywood a veto over digital television technology, is weeks away from coming to fruition. Hollywood also proposes a radical redesign of the Internet to assist in controlling the distribution of copyrighted works.

This three-part agenda -- controlling digital media devices, controlling analog converters, controlling the Internet -- is a frightening peek at Hollywood's vision of the future.

Hollywood Tips its Hand

The "Content Protection Status Report" points to future where innovation and fair use rights are sacrificed on copyright's altar, where entertainment companies become de facto regulators of new technologies, deciding which mathematical instructions are mandatory and which are forbidden.

The first part of the document details the efforts of the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG), which will release its final standard for the regulation of digital media technology at the end of May. The BPDG's standard would ban the production of digital television devices that had not been approved by three Hollywood studios. Approved devices will only interoperate with other approved devices. The combination of legal restrictions on digital television devices and licensing restrictions on the computer technologies they can interface with gives Hollywood an absolute veto over all new digital media technology without the need for unpopular, sweeping legislation like Senator Hollings's Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA).

Plugging the Analog Hole

But the most disturbing pieces of the Status Report comes later in the document. The second section, "Plugging the Analog Hole," reveals Hollywood's plan to turn a generic technology component, the humble analog-to-digital convertor, into a device that is subject to the kind of regulation heretofore reserved for Schedule A narcotics.

Analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) are the building blocks of modern digital technology. An ADC's job is to take samples of the strength (amplitude) of some analog signal (light, sound, motion, temperature) at some interval (frequency) and convert the results to a numerical value. ADCs are embedded in digital scanners, samplers, thermometers, seismographs, mice and other pointer devices, camcorders, cameras, microscopes, telescopes, modems, radios, televisions, cellular phones, walkie-talkies, light-meters and a multitude of other devices. In general, ADCs are generic and interchangeable -- that is, a high-frequency ADC from a sound-card is potentially the same ADC that you'll find in a sensitive graphics tablet.

Hollywood perceives ADCs as the lynchpin of unauthorized duplication. No matter how much copy-control technology is integrated into DVDs and satellite broadcasts, there is always the possibility that some Internet user will aim a camcorder at the screen, always the shadowy fan at the concert wielding a smuggled digital recorder, always the audiophile jacking a low-impedance cable into a high-end stereo. These bogeymen plague Hollywood, and each one uses an ADC to produce unauthorized copies.

Accordingly, the report calls for a regimen where "watermark detectors would be required in all devices that perform analog to digital conversions." The plan is to embed a "watermark" (a theoretical, invisible mark that can only be detected by special equipment and that can't be removed without damaging the media in which it was embedded) in all copyrighted works. Thereafter, every ADC would be accompanied by a "cop chip" that would sense this watermark's presence and disable certain features depending on the conditions.

This is meant to work like so: You point your camcorder at a movie screen. The magical, theoretical watermark embedded in the film is picked up by the cop-chip, which disables the camcorder's ADC. Your camcorder records nothing but dead air. The mic, sensing a watermark in the film's soundtrack, also shuts itself down.

The objective of a law like this is to make "unauthorized" synonymous with "illegal." In the world of copyright, there are many uses that are legal, even -- especially -- if they are unauthorized, for example, the fair-use right to quote a work for critical purposes. Any critic -- a professor, a reporter, even an individual with a personal website -- may lawfully copy parts of copyrighted works in a critical discussion. Such a person may scan in part of a magazine article, record a snatch of music from a CD or a piece of a film or television show in the lawful course of making a critical work.

And you don't need to be a critic to make a lawful, unauthorized copy! You might be someone who wants to "format-shift" some personal property -- say, by scanning in a book or transferring an old LP to MP3 so that you might take it with you while travelling with your computer. This is absolutely lawful, but under the "analog hole" proposal, providing the tools to make such unauthorized uses would be illegal.

Unintended Consequences

It's outrageous that Hollywood would demand a law that intentionally breaks technology so that it can't be used in lawful ways, but the unintended consequences of this regime are even more bizarre.

Virtually everything in our world is copyrighted or trademarked by someone, from the facades of famous sky-scrapers to the background music at your local mall. If ADCs are constrained from performing analog-to-digital conversion of all watermarked copyrighted works, you might end up with a cellphone that switches itself off when you get within range of the copyrighted music on your stereo; a camcorder that refuses to store your child's first steps because he is taking them within eyeshot of a television playing a copyrighted cartoon; a camera that won't snap your holiday moments if they take place against the copyrighted backdrop of a chain store such as Starbucks, which forbids on-premises photography because its fixtures are proprietary works.

As was mentioned, ADCs are fundamental, generic computing components, found in medical and scientific equipment, computers, and a variety of consumer electronics. Surely Hollywood doesn't mean to suggest that geologists will have to equip their seismographs with cop-chips (lest they should accidentally record a copyrighted earthquake)?

It seems likely that they do. The primary difference between most ADCs is the frequency at which they run. Two ADCs of like frequency and bitrate can be interchanged. If any "free" ADCs are allowed into the marketplace, they will surely find themselves repurposed in camcorders, samplers, and scanners (oh my!).

The Scourge of P2P

Hollywood's report to Congress includes its third legislative goal: "Putting an end to the avalanche of movie theft on so-called 'file-sharing' services, such as Morpheus, Gnutella, and other peer-to-peer (p2p) networks."

Here, rather than making "unauthorized" and "illegal" synonymous, Hollywood is seeking to overturn the Betamax doctrine -- the principle that a technology is legal, provided that it can be used to accomplish legal ends. VCRs are legal, even though they can be used to make illegal copies of copyrighted works, because they can also be used to make legal copies of personal works and copyrighted works (in the case of time- and format-shifting).

P2P networks -- such as the Internet -- are not infringing in and of themselves. "P2P" describes a technology where the system's control is largely or entirely decentralized. P2P application networks are turned to all manner of ends, from sharing classroom materials and independently produced media to distributing large scientific problems associated with the search for a cure for AIDS to providing a distributed proxy service that allows Chinese Internet users to circumvent China's national firewall and read uncensored news. True, they can also be used to make unauthorized -- and even illegal -- copies of copyrighted works, but the Betamax doctrine does not establish as its standard that no illegal uses be possible with a technology; only that a technology have some legal use.

What's more, thoroughly decentralized networks like Gnutella have no control-point. There is no central server, no standards-body, no exploitable point where leverage can be applied to control what is and is not available on the network. The Internet is fundamentally constructed to permit any two points to communicate, and as long as this is true, Gnutella and its brethren will thrive.

Which begs the question: How will Hollywood put "an end to ... movie theft on ... p2p networks?" Short of dramatically re-architecting the Internet it seems inconceivable that P2P will ever controlled or eliminated.

But dramatic redesigns of the Internet are well within Hollywood's stated desires. In 1995, Hollywood's representatives in government penned "The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights," calling for a neutered Internet whose functionality had been magically constrained to "permit [rights-holders] to enforce the terms and conditions under which their works are made public."

We can only guess at where these delusional technological speculations have wandered in the intervening years, and this "Content Protection Status Report" is a good and grim indicator.

Take a Stand

Hollywood's legislative agenda may be ridiculous, but it is hardly unlikely. The BPDG is bare weeks away from turning over a veto on new technologies to Hollywood. They are doing so with the cooperation of the technology companies that are willingly participating in the BPDG process. If just one major computer company would step forward in the press and in Congress and object to the BPDG's mandate, the entire rubric of a "consensus" upon which the BPDG depends would collapse.

The BPDG mandate is critical to Hollywood's legislative agenda. With the BPDG mandate in place, an ADC control law and a radical Internet redesign are attainable goals.

If you work for a technology company, please ask your favorite senior manager or corporate officer to contact the EFF. We'd be delighted to deliver a briefing on this and help make the decision to stand up.

As an individual, write to the companies you are a customer of. Take a look at your computer and your consumer electronics: they have been built by companies that are either willingly participating in the BPDG or have not come forward to oppose it. Only once these companies realize that their customers care about liberty will they find the courage to oppose Hollywood's powerful Congressional representatives, like Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-Disney).

Show this article to your friends and co-workers. Hollywood's perverse obsession with plugging the analog hole must be brought to light, as must the likely outcome of its agenda.

The future is getting pretty scary isn't it?

They want to tell you when and how you can watch TV, if you can timeshift a program. It is getting scarey...
No if I can just get the tape transport on my pre 86 VCR working again (No Macrovision)

they can't be serious?

are they? they don't honestly think they'll get away with this do they?

nope they won't get away with it.

Major changes like this would literally hurt just about everyone. I can't see things like this happen.

Legislation that applies in the US of A doesnt apply in the whole rest of the world. What is stopping people from putting their servers in places where RIAA cant touch them? I live in South Africa, so why dont y'all come over and worry less about copyright holders?

It's not just the US though. Once they have their grip around america they will pull in their international partners to take up the role in incorporating their anti-comnsumer shit in all countries. The next next step would be international treaties being signed to outlaw this type of activity on every country on the face of the planet.

But lets get one thing straight. It won't happen. Why? Because I for one will be right up there with the hundred of thousands of angry protesters ripping the fucking government buildings apart and rioting to help put an end to this madness.

This shit is book of revelation stuff.

Welcome to a brave new world of government-business partnership domination.

If you ask me, it's time for a revolution.

"How will Hollywood put an end to movie theft on p2p networks?"

Well, they *could* send fully-armed paramilitary swat teams to everyone's residences for weekly compliance checks.

...Maybe that's what they'll do after all else fails.

Even though this stuff sounds crazy you can be sure it will happen. Politicians and paid and things happen. Your freedom is slowly slipping away.

All this is even more proof that Hollywood obviously does not believe that the public can be trusted IN ANY WAY with ANY kind of consumer technology, and that as far as they're concerned, "fair use" is just a privilege, not a right. Actually, these latest shenanigans are more in line with the thinking that brought us the 18th Amendment in 1920 -- back then, "do-gooders" were convinced that by outlawing drinking altogether, you'll get rid of that particular "problem." All it did instead was lead to the rise of illegal speakeasies and the emergence of the Mafia as a major power in this country. I am afraid history will repeat itself in this arena unless someone -- ANYone -- stands up to these unduly paranoid "piracy conspiracy theorists."

But how on earth can a sound or light signal contain a DRM watermark that's undetectable to the human eye/ear?? Such a technology would be Uber-expensive and impractical. And why have the gov't spend TAX-PAYER'S MONEY just to help develop this sorcery?

To Zakk, re question about DRM watermarks: If you're a certified paranoiac who's constantly afraid that everyone is stealing from you -- er, pirating -- er, never mind (as the Hollywood Taliban are), then anything is possible in this regard.

I'll say this much though: If this proposed big-government Bolshevik intrusion into consumer technology goes through, we might all just as well be living in Germany under Hitler's Third Reich.

Watermarking sounds like a very reasonable solution for Hollywood, and honestly I don't have a problem with it. If all they are regulating is DACs and not entire systems/software then whats the big deal?

People need to get off the "free music" bandwagon and understand that Hollywood is mostly about business and economics. Everyone downloading files hurts the economic trends in Hollywood... Also remember that everyone except the RIAA generally doesn't care about the general consumer, they care about when you rip off their game/movie/etc and start selling it in the street at inflated prices. This should curb that pratice.

"If all they are regulating is DACs and not entire systems/software then whats the big deal?"

Because they're violating people's *inalienable* individual rights to life, liberty, and physical property that pre-exist government.

"This should curb that practice."

No it won't. It will only create a black market for non-corrupt D/A converters. Has your beloved War on Drugs curbed the sale of narcotics, either?

"Everyone downloading files hurts the economic trends in Hollywood."

Hallelujah!!! It is breaking up their entertainment monopoly morally without the guns of government forcing them to do so. Yippeeeeeeeeee!!!

"your cellphone would refuse to transmit your voice if you wandered too close to the copyrighted music coming from your stereo."

This scares the pants off of me.

If this goes through, soon they'll probably be having eye and ear wetware implanted in children so that everyone will have to pay royalties just to listen with friends. I'm dead serious. I think it's that likely.

Hell, think of all the places that play music, especially in malls, stores, etc. You get a phone call, phone would pick up the copyrighted music, and then, the other party couldn't hear you. Hell, even think about all the digital cordless phones. They too will have to incorporate this technology. Business owners couldn't even conduct business in these sort of places. Or when someone puts you on hold with music.... The list is endless........

But then again, anything is possible in Corporate America

Oh my god!! They are getting more and more stupid every day. The next target for terrorist attacks.

What about the people who are blind in this socity we wouldn't be able to scan in copyrigted books anymore f*** holywood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, Hollywood and RIAA wonder why sales are dropping? Perhaps they need to open their eyes and see that not everyone is a theif, and that those who aren't are getting sick of their bullshit accusations. Treat the customer like a criminal, and you can bet they won't be back.

Here's a really scary scenario for you:

You're in a movie or a grocery store or the mall. You or your family member has a medical emergency. You dial 911 on your cell phone or the pay phone in the hall. Because there is copyrighted material playing in the background, your call gets cut off and you die.

Hey Rotten Idiotic Asshole Association, can you say "Wrongful death lawsuit"?

Let the RIAA eat shit and DIE!! Why do you think they got rid of vinyl...oh, could it be for better sound quality? NO...because analog cannot be governed as digital recordings can, that's why. I say FUCK 'EM, buy vinyl again and let them eat cake!

A) Watermarks in open halls arn't going to do much for you.. and making the DAC's detection that strong serves no purpose because the material is so degraded that it wouldn't work
B) The movie makers hold all rights to their works, and the transmission of their works.. it's their intelectual property.. NOT YOURS.. If your intention is to retransmit said material into another form without the prior concent of the owner of said IP, then you are breaking laws.. Don't give me this "I bought it I have the right to do with it as I wish" because that is NOT true.. You do NOT have the right to retransmit said medium... ESPECIALLY when trying to copy from a movie theatre where it is more than overtly implied that by purchase of a ticket the only right you have is to view said movie, nothing more...

All I am trying to say is that this makes legal sense.. I am not going to support it or anything (I like my free music and movies).. but seeing as IP is one of the biggest commodities in this nation I have no problem with restrictions on digital devices when that digital device is being used to destroy the rights of another person..

THE RIAA HAS THE SAME RIGHTS YOU DO DAMNIT!!!

nick4753,

Poor kid, you've been brainwashed. Its people like you who cause or just allow horrible things in goverment to happen. I don't mind loseing the right to trade MP3's online but when it comes to stopping me from creating my own compilations or copying CD's I own, then there is trouble. CD's were expensive before filesharing, maybe if there were not so expensive in the first place I wouldn't bother downloading anything.

That is What Makes the World Go around. If We Boycott and I mean Boycott the Movie and Music Industry just for Four weeks. They would have No choice but to stand up and take notice.
However it`s Brainwashed stooges that say it`s Their right to sue AG and Napster. don`t get Me wrong sure if a New release CD or Movie get`s out on the Web before the Guy`s who Made it even see one dime of Porfit from Ther work the I say OK. But if I download a Song from the 80`s and They say I am a Copyright Priate then I say to The Riaa go fuck yourself. Why Should they keep making Money on a Song that has not even been on the raido for more than fifteen years. Well as My mama always said it will all come clean in the Wash..

The RIAA will never get it passed, but I have no problem with them limits the retransmission of said works. Thats their right.

Why should the RIAA have to compete with piracy? Thats bullshit in the mind of a capitalist...

CDs are priced too high, thats true.. so don't buy the damn CD and they will lower the price.. jeeze...

Also, movies cost that much because it keeps getting more expensive to show them and most movies don't turn a profit.. The ones that do have to pay for the ones that fail miserably..

You would be suprised how much it costs, per screen, to display a movie. Movie companies are lucky to turn a profit.

Also, they arn't that worried about Priacy as the RIAA is, because pirates have a hard time reproducing movies (except DVDs, of course) but that really can't be delt with. People mostly rent their DVDs anyway, and the hastle to download DIVX movies and then convert them to DVD (barring the quality difference) isn't as easy as going to Blockbuster and paying $3 to rent a DVD (or even better, Hollywood Video).

I firmly believe that anyone who thinks that the RIAA is so bad for the simple reason that they will try to stop the retransmission of their legal property has no idea what they are talking about.

Hey Nick,

I'm a staunch capitalist myself. Here's an opinion column I wrote 6 weeks ago entitled, "Does Intellectual Property Really Exist?"

You can find it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oklpdiscuss/message/5890

Happy reading.

dee: as long as you are downloading and retransmitting works into another medium for your own personal pleasure.. there is no big deal.. when people start downloading songs and never buying the CDs, there are problems..

DiscoProJoe: In response to your column, Intelectual Property Rights is what fosters growth, not inhibits it! Without those rights any company could take any idea and profit on it. I could have a great idea tomorrow and some conglomerate could take it over. That isn't Capitalism, that is madness. Capitalism can only thrive if the protetion of intectual property is maintained.

I must say that you are a very mis-informed capitalist, if you wish to call yourself that.

Oh, also.. now that I read that for a second time.. Copyrights are basically like contractual agreements, only they are implied and do not HAVE to be stated (but most of the time they are). Intectual Property falls under your right to maintain property, because it is property.... Your property...

Basically you failed to look past the current issue with the RIAA, to see that copyright laws apply to more than music and movies...

One final thing (because I this site has no EDIT button)

I am a Libertarian, and what you are proposing is closer to anarchy with a country of no economic structure (yes, without IP rights there would be no economical structure in this country) than a Libertairan Idea. Libertarians SUPPORT your right to property, including Intelectual Property.

Nick, get this through your thick stupid head: YOU ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you can support the government's forcing of all electronics manufacturers -- at gunpoint, if necessary -- to put "policeware" stuff of any kind into them, you couldn't even be considered a "libertarian" in Nazi Germany.

The whole problem with your conception of intellectual property, and how it should take precedence over a person's own physical property, is that you see people as a means to some social end -- instead of as free individuals with inalienable rights -- including *physical* property.

It's as if you are saying, "We must continue employing tyranny to keep from adopting tyranny, but it's not really tyranny as long as we call it 'freedom.'"

Before you settle down and start smelling the roses, Nick, it's best to first get a grip on reality and realize that a rose is still a rose by any other name. Please, let the truth set you free from your agonizing fear of change.

And I have one final thing to say: F*CK YOU, Nick, for wanting to see me forced to use my own computer and other electronics only in ways you want me to use it.

I live in a capitalist society...but I am a consumer. I do not care about coporations or their rights...I care about consumer rights. Profit for consumers are good. Free products and services for consumers are good. Anything else is bad, because if I can't get it for free or extremely low cost, then either I don't want it or I'll will try everthing to get it for free to the best of my ability if I want it bad. Nobody is going to tell me I can't do this or that or record or play that back regardless. I just don't care about anybody else accept my free and low cost products and services I get. PERIOD.

Capaltism is jewish kikism. A jew (capitalist corporate person) would take his or her law gestapo and crush consumers unless they have trillions of dollars to give them and all their meager possesions for all the media they saw for free.

Therefore I believe in communism (economics mehtods, NOT government methods) and don't be stupid to say I'm dumb because everybody that writes any responses from people against this is a NIGLET JEW KIKE ASSHOLE FUCKER WHO NEEDS A BLACK NIGLET COCK IN THE PERSONS EAR CONSTANTLY CUMMING JIZZ INSIDE!

Bah... just boycott the protected equipment. Boycott the corrupt CD's, boycott all DVD players with copy protection, boycott all equipment that violates your right to use what you buy in the way you want to use it.

That's how they'll get the message. If it's protected, don't touch it. Tell your friends the same, and get the news around, get people educated.

This shit won't go by unchallenged.

The vote with your wallet is one of the most powerful votes you can cast. Sure, I own protected/crippled equipment, but I've never paid full price for anything with SCMS. My DVD and CD players with digital outs, DAT deck, and MD recorders were purchased used, as open-box display models or gifts. SCMS may be annoying, but I add copy-permit flags on every CD I burn out of general principle.

I do, however, boycott CDs put out by major labels now. I don't have the budget to experiment with them unless I'm at a used CD store. Honestly, when an industry wants to boost sales of something already very profitable, most industries LOWER their prices. It's a shame the labels do the opposite, either to make legitimate consumers feel bad for supposedly ripping them off or to buy Hilary & Fiends more anti-consumer legislation... or both. sigh.

G'head, keep raising the prices. The higher they go, the more I say no.

In fact the 'doomsday scenario' of remodelling the Internet will not happen, for more or less that same 'vote with your wallet' reason; but in this instance it will be big business that says 'NO!' rather than Joe Public. And it will be an enormous, emphatic NO. Because they have *far* too much invested in existing Internet infrastructure, and they will have no intention of letting one industry screw up the budgets of all the other industries by obsoleting large chunks of infrastructure.

I am not voicing my support of this plan, rather I am voicing that it is one possible solution that doesn't severely infringe on the rights of the people and if it were to pass I would have no major problems.

Libertarians believe it is the government's formost job to protect property, and Intelectual Property is indeed property.

Right on, Dee! I believe we must be *almost* as weary of big businesses as we should be of big government. Big businesses have tremendous lobbying power to cripple our individual liberty of making our own choices in life. Copyright statutes (instead of private contractual user agreements) and business licensure laws (instead of restitution-based penalties for damages) are just two examples. Corporate welfare is another, such as the RIAA's lobbying for our tax dollars to replace their "lost revenue from piracy."

Just take a look at conditions in Third World countries -- with exclusive or excessive business licensure laws -- and you'll know exactly what I mean.

We should scrap the whole thing and go back to analogue, we would be much better off. I think the recording industry shot itself in the foot several times over, when it stopped making "singles", the CD equivalent of 45 RPM records. The problem, is that they are still promoting singles, but trying to sell albums. The singles are available online for free by downloading them. The albums are pretty shotty, and we are unlikely to see Pink Floyd, Elton John and Neil Diamond type of albums, where the whole album is worth the price. Our only remaining artist in this category is Celine Dion, and she only appeals to a certain market. Garth Brooks has died down. There are really no more Big Name artists left.

So, what you have is a pair of dying products that are directly related to each other, radio, which is having all sorts of financial issues, along with fierce competition against everything else that is not radio, and the soon to die recording industry.

The thing that people do not understand is that they are collapsing from within. The music and movie industries have thrived on hipe, by playing delay and release games to boost initial sales of CD's and Movies. That is why they made a big deal of the regions thing on DVDs, so they could hype movies more than once, in different contries.

The problem is like a drug addiction, hype just does not do it anymore. You can see this effect with radio stations making fake "million dollar giveaways" which are really pooled contests from several hundered stations. All they want is the hype. Their product sucks, they have to pay people to listen!

The action of the recording industry against Napster backfired - just look at the sales statistics. Their best bet right now is to stop this madness - if not, they may suffer the consequences - as I so often say "Remember BMI"

As they try to "protect their works" they are also protecting people from buying them - meaning, they won't.

As far as the intellectual property issue goes, the way I look at it, if you are not copying and RESELLING works, there should be no issue. People who copy or as they say, pirate intellectual property are usually people who do not value it or would not purchase it in the first place. One cannot assume that all of the thousands of files downloaded over sharing systems were going to ever be purchased in the first place - you cannot ASSUME there is a financial loss to the owner of the work. You need to prove that the people downloading files would have purchased them had they not been able to get them for free. Good luck on doing this!

That franklpickle person is not that smart, I think people like this should not comment on topics that are well beyond the limits of their small minds.

Moby's 18 was well worth the whole CD, but thats Ambient music..

The new Eminem CD is mighty nice aswell.. Not that great.. but better than what other bands pull out..

Singles online (for like $2 a piece or something) would be the easiest way for the RIAA to make money using Mp3 technology. People will PAY for songs if they know they arn't breaking the law.

I might be a little behind or something but read what that poor brainwashed Nick kid wrote makes me want to go give copies of kazaa out to anyone i see. File sharing is not wrong, at all. The stupid ass RIAA is just pissed because they think they are missing out on a few poor souls they can con out of their hard earned money. If you believe they what they are doing is right, you must either not live in American or not know what America stands for; all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even if that happiness is downloaded music, movies, or software. If it wasn't so damn expensive/unaccessible we wouldn't download it. Also I'm going to be extremly pissed when thanks to there paranoia and people like nick I can't play the CD I very legally paid for in my computer or car stereo.

"Its ok for you to buy their products but god forbid you should enjoy it the way you want."

Exactly. That would be like Kicker (the car stereo company) suing me because I put my XPL 12" subwoofers into a box that is larger than the maximum recommended specifications -- to get deeper, more-realistic-sounding bass.

Can you imagine them saying, "DiscoProJoe, those subs *of ours* are meant for small boxes...by putting them in an oversized box, you are breaking the law and harming the sales of our 40Hz bass-boost equalizers. You must insert filler boards into your box immediately to match the *authorized* specs, or we will sue you for acoustical statutory infringement."

I agree, but instead of copyright laws, all we really need are private contractual user agreements, which are already included in most computer software programs (for example). If the agreement text prohibited personal-use copying, etc., they'd have a really hard time enforcing that part of the contract! But if it also included "no selling unauthorized copies," that section would be much easier to sue someone over -- since those contract-breaching people would be out in the open and easy to catch.

First I hope that US lex would not apply in the whole world.
Second, RIAA is payng the politician that you voted with the mony you (american people) have give to them for restrict your freedom. In't funny?
They have begun with freedom of speech (Look to 2600.com) , what's next?
So you are free to have a gun with you but you can't point to a url with decss source. Is pitty that decss can't be used for 'personal protection'.
Excuse me for mine poor englis, Im' wirting from Italy.

Let's recap, shall we? First, the MPAA and RIAA want to somehow prohibit their music and movies from being recorded by analog to digital devices (ADC's). They propse to do this by placing a "watermark" on their products and lobbying the govn't to force hardware manufacturers to place detection chips in the ADC's they make. Can they really place a watermark in their products? Yes. For video, all you need is a special place on the video itself that a recieving VCR will recognize and not allow to be recorded from. For music, it's even easier. Any music that is watermarked will simply have a high-frequency signal that we can't hear but that can be detected by the analog recievers. The 'chip' will simply compare this signal with a predetermined and prerecorded signal and decide if it is allowed to convert the analog to digital. Scary huh? The thing is, the majority of ADC's are mass manufactured and then placed inside different pieces of hardware. One thing I've learned while being an Electrical and Computer Engineer at NCSU is that many small hardware parts and chips are highly interchangable and that a lot of generic chips and devices are mass manufactured. Now, as to the opinions about the legality and morality of downloading mp3 and Divx files, well, there are only two real points. One, that Nick has made, is that it is stealing to take a copy of someone else's property and refuse to pay for it. As far the argument on what Intellectual Property (IP) really is, if you think that it would be great for the economy if there were no such thing goverened by laws, then you need an Econ course to understand that it's Communism where everyone can copy and have what all other's have. Capitalism is defined by the fact that when you have an idea, it is your right to turn that idea into reality and to turn a profit from that idea without having to share it with anyone. Of course, the other point was made by many of the posters by stating that if CD weren't so expensive, didn't suck to begin with, and if most of the people who download music would actually buy it if it weren't available online, are all valid too. First of all, the companies in the RIAA have all grown an average of 2% per year over the last few years, despite the "rampant piracy". And 2% is a hell of a lot for a billion dollar company. So DontGetPegged was right when he said that the RIAA and the MPAA are not really losing money for each file d/l'ed. I'm in college and I know that most of the people who download music are in college at a university where they have the bandwidth to d/l a lot of music. Well, that's the recap so far

for my opinion, let's see. Most bands don't really give a s**t about their fans anyway, we know the RIAA never has and never will. So therefore, why should I care if they lose money, which they are not. Let's be honest here. If the RIAA really wants to cut down on piracy, all they have to do is sale all their songs online individually so we can pick and choose. See, the majority of people who download music do so for one of a few reasons. One, they can't afford the CD. Two, they don't know if the rest of the songs are worth $20. Three, it's easier to do it from home. Four, you can hear the song without paying for it, so you aren't risking your own money. C'mon!! Why do you think everywhere that sell's CD's requires them to be un-opened if you want to bring them back??? It's not b/c they are afraid someone will copy it, then return it. If I was gonna do that, I would borrow it from a friend and not bother using money. The truth is, you can't return a CD out of it's shrink wrap b/c if you could, a lot of ppl would return them and their reason on the return slip would be "IT SUCKS"!!!!!!! Now, you might ask, why haven't the companies in the RIAA set up an online store for d/l'ing music?? Because they are all greedy bastards. You see, only the largest companies like Sony have even thought of starting an online store. The others won't do it because they fear that they'll lose money in the deal or that, if they do it as a group venture, then they'll have to split the profit with a company that doesn't do as well. Like I said, greedy. Of course, since they are afraid of losing money, then I don't know why they can't sympathize with us consumers, who have to deal with the same fear each and everytime we might think of buying a CD?? Did I mention they tend to be heartless. Guess not. If they would open and online store, they would be surprised at the number of people that would flock to it. Until those people realized they couldn't burn their songs onto a CD, or could only do it once, or had to pay and extra fee (did I mention the greed?). The irony is, and I'll close with this (waits for appluase to quit ), If the RIAA and the MPAA wasn't so greedy, then they would be making a lot more money than they are now. As it was said, pissing off your customers is not a good idea when you aren't the only shop in town.

oh, and what do ya'll think of online radio that doesn't have commercials Like acaza.com or short commercials like Spinner??

"if you think that it would be great for the economy if there were no such thing goverened by laws, then you need an Econ course to understand that it's Communism"

Apparently you and Nick did not (or will not) see my point about contractual user agreements, and also employment contracts regarding company-classified information.

(I was referring to intellectual property laws.)

I'm sorry Disco. I shoudl have taken the time to read your article. For one thing, you are right that it would be easier for the RIAA to just label their stuff with a warning sticker about not copying. But the thing is, we need intellectual property laws. If we don't have them, then the person who writes a song, or a computer program, or a script for a movie, or a book would be risking losing sole possession of their idea by just taking it to someone to see if they want to buy it. All the publisher, programmer, etc. has to do is say that they don't want it and then go make their own version. That's why IP laws state that when someone copyrights and idea, it can't be reproduced for sale, profit, or mass distribution by anyone else without the original copyrighter's consent. But you are right about the fact that intellectual property rights aren't what drive the world and cultural and technological development. They just drive the capitalism and money. With no protection for intellectual property, we would have to live in a Communist society for any large amount of people to maintain a good level of living. This is because everyone who was able would be free to copy for their own profit anything they wished. And I hope you are right that P2P programs will convince artists and recorders that the internet is the way to go. And sorry for not reading your article first

"[they] would be risking losing sole possession of their idea by just taking it to someone to see if they want to buy it"

The person with the big ideas could make the second person(s) agree in oral or written form not to copy and sell his ideas *before* showing his stuff to them.

Another point: whether we believe intellectual property exists or not, we can all agree that sometimes intellectual property *can* conflict with physical property.

Therefore, I believe the best way to handle this "property-type" conflict is for government to protect physical property, while allowing private contracts and the free market to protect intellectual property.

you have the best ideal. Unfortunately, there are too many people with great ideas that are also naive about other people. That's why the govn't has to step in and help them, b/c they can't help themselves

Aren't politicians just as self-interested as anyone else? Since people *are* self-interested, and because people *can* be beasts, we simply cannot trust any large nor medium amounts of power to be put into their hands.

Private corruption can be dealt with. Government corruption can turn into a Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. So if we center our political system around the non-aggression principle (i.e., the outlawing of first-strike force or fraud), evil will have no power. Not that it isn't there, but we'll be able to step out of its way.

"nick4753" is so obviously an RIAA employee. Nobody goes to such lengths defending big corporations unless they work for them. So fuck him.

I agree with some of the things above, esp the comments that the record labels are making it worse for themselves with all these lawsuits. They're trying to sue everyone, and that's a temporary solution, but with every lawsuit and every threat to the general consumer, every time they throw innocent music lovers into the same category as murderers, rapists and crooks (ie criminals) simply for wanting to experience the joy that music brings; the public is growing angrier, more and more people are becoming aware at what is happening. Basically, it's like a nerd kicking a bully in the shin and running to the safety of the classroom. That bully is only going to come back later and give him the worst beating of his life.

And to all the people who say albums only contain 1 or 2 good songs, SHAME ON YOU. As internet users and MP3 downloaders, you should have realise that there's far better music than Eminem or NSync, the net makes it so easy to discover new bands on independant labels which previously wouldn't get much attention due to the fact that they can't compete financially with the big boys. I own over 300 albums, every single one I buy that ISN'T decent throughout I put in a little shoebox under my bed in case I ever want to give them a listen. There's 9 albums in there.



To summarise: MP3 is the best thing to happen to music for a long time, everyone who is anyone realises this and when the RIAA try to put an end to it they're only going to piss people off.

phenix: Here's a hypothetical situation for ya. The government steps in and says to you, an electrical and computer engineer (go NCSU!) that you would face criminal prosecution for designing and/or selling A/D or D/A convertors which did not incorporate some restriction scheme that some industry scum-sucker told Congress was a "great idea" that's "absolutely necessary". What would you think? Are they stepping in to tell you what not to design because you can make a circuit which could potentially be used to cut into the profits of the recording or motion picture industry? Would you succumb to their whims?

Or would you tell them "How 'bout I give you the finger, and you give me my phone call? You can't scare me with this gestapo crap."

I can't design electronics to save my life, but the government might as well tell me I can't record a song because I'm an indie musician and the labels wouldn't get any of the profit. Actually, they kind of already do... part of every blank DAT tape I buy goes right to the industry. I think the same is true of my MiniDisc media, decks, and CD burners.

Damn, and I thought I could just stop buying CDs.

More power to ya, dee! I support my local independent musicians partly because I am one, but mostly because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that my money isn't going toward, among other things, developing copy protection vulnerable to Sharpies. Oh, and the music's usually better, too.

In their perfect world, there would be no principle of first sale; that is, I bought this piece of media and all the bits/grooves/etc. on it. I didn't just purchase a right to listen to it, I purchased the right to do whatever I want with it so long as I don't profit from it.

Divx tried changing that with the DVD format and ended up costing Circuit City tens of millions of dollars. DataPlay is trying to do much the same thing, and I don't like that format one bit (see www.dataplay.com for more gory details). Seems to me like this format is the antithesis of everything us rational music lovers stand for. Should the format take off, and let's make sure that it doesn't, I can only hope another Scandinavian teenager will find a way to break it so the RIAA gets pissed and the format becomes useful to consumers.

Read their pages on "My Music...My Way" if you ever start feeling sympathetic toward the industry. This pretty much says it all: "With... DataPlay, the phrase 'My Music...My Way' no longer means digital music choices, such as free MP3 files for the fans." Further down is "Thanks Universal, BMG and EMI for caring about the music and the rights of the artists and song writers."

Oh, they care about their artists now? Bullshit. Don't back down on your boycott.

My CD collection is about 195 cd's. Sure I may get a few more but they will be ones who are already made or used and not copy protected, if they are I will send them back as faulty. I'm almost at the end of my collection and soon my CD buying days are over, I will not support the RIAA or sucky artists they ram down our mouths.

Hey captain,
Yeah, I would be pissed if the govn't made it a standard concerning the ADC's. I'm not supporting what they are trying to do. I just wanted to explain how it's possible, b/c I know some people look at these articles and comments and think that we are over-reacting.

Dee, you're right about the fact that movies aren't as bad as the MPAA wants everyone to think. BUt the MPAA is paranoid b/c the public can now get mediocre films for free instead of paying for them and now the public will only pay to see the good stuff. And it's been many, many long years since Hollywood survived by making good movies. Used to, they could just put crap out and at least get some money back b/c people would be the first to go see it out of curiosity. Now people can d/l the movie, find out it sucks, and not go. So the MPAA is being paranoid b/c suddenly they are going to have to make quality products to stay in business (GASP!!).

Oh, and here's another thought....how many people in here had heard of Napster and MP3's before the RIAA started making all that noise? I think that niel is right. The RIAA and MPAA may be losing business to P2P programs, but it's mainly b/c they are being childish and greedy and would rather put out crap than make quality that someone would be willing to pay for.

I buy CD's from artists I like and respect. When the artist begins to suck or does something stupid or just shows that he/she/they is a jackass to the fans, then I don't care about if the artist(s) gets my money or not, and usuallly, I quit listening to that artist anyway.

And captain, if you ever find actual proof that the CEO's of the RIAA actually care aobut the artists, let me know so I can break out the winter clothes, cause Hell just froze over.

And one more thing.....
Anybody realized (and I'm sure you have) how much an artists music changes when they sign with a major label?? Ever notice that they go from their individual sound to some rock/rap/pop rip-off? If the RIAA cares about artists, then why don't they let artists play what made them popular and what makes them different??

Even before Napster, I discovered artists I wouldn't have cared about otherwise through FTP sites. (The RIAA doesn't put out 100% crap, but they come close.) Napster largely eliminated things like user limits, UL/DL quotas, and clicking on ad banners to get a password.

Maybe control takes precedence over profit in the industry. Sales went up with Napster added to the equation and declined when they shut it down. There was a distribution channel out of their control but they made more money. Had everything remained untouched, maybe their sales wouldn't have gone right back down the shitter. With all the new legislation being introduced, this might make more sense.

They should know "plugging the analog hole" would cause a number of clueful consumers to forgo new technology in favor of uncrippled, older devices. Restricting ADCs will not fix their problems but might gain them more control over Mr. and Mrs. Frontporch's listening and viewing habits. With fundamentally flawed ideas appearing so often, it almost seems designed to fail by hurting profits. But they gain control, something they just can't get enough of to be satisfied. Bet they still kick themselves for making the CD format so open.


"If the RIAA cares about artists, then why don't they let artists play what made them popular and what makes them different??"
Well, even assuming that the RIAA cares about their artists, what's unique is not profitable to them. Corporate rock isn't about talent or having a new sound. Take any four semi-decent musicians, give them fancy PRS guitars and the most expensive producers and studio time, and they'll sound like the flavor of the month. Run anyone's voice through vocal processors and they can sound like anything from Linkin Park to Britney.

The problem lies in an industry that doesn't want to take chances. Nirvana and Pearl Jam released their first really big albums just under a month apart in '91, and pretty soon everyone tried to sound like Vedder or Cobain. The formula went from '80s cock rock to "can you sound like Eddie Vedder or be pissed off while playing lots of angst-ridden powerchords?" Makes me wonder if Bush and Creed would exist as they do if there hadn't been a Pearl Jam to copy.

Record companies don't necessarily want new sound. They want a naive group or person they can mold and change to fit a formula. That's not respecting the artists or the fans, that's respecting the shareholders. And that practice doesn't deserve my respect or my dollars.

can't someone pay-off 0sama to kill these jackasses...

This whole thing disgusts me! We've got a bunch of assholes in suits who don't know the first thing about music running the music industry, those same assholes trying anything within their power to circumvent laws and court decisions favorable to consumers, and dick...errr...I mean nick...running around telling people it's no big deal if we get crippled hardware. Before I discuss my thoughts on nick's support of "Big Brother", let me remind everybody of one thing: When this whole Napster ordeal started, who was at the forefront, loud and proud? Methinks it was Metalligreed, you know, the guys who made it big BY HAVING THEIR MUSIC TRADED BY FANS WHEN COMMERCIAL RADIO REFUSED TO PLAY THEM! Seems to me that around the time Load (of Shit) was released that was about all they were capable of doing anymore, so to protect their interests they became HYPOCRITES and tried to prevent other bands from doing the very thing they done, and that is gain exposure through the trading of music. Were they afraid of getting knocked off their thrones by some undiscovered band that hadn't yet been corrupted by the influences of the almighty dollar like they had. My guess is DAMN STRAIGHT THEY WERE! So let's all remember where this started and give Metalligreed the big "FUCK YOU" each and every time the RIAA unveils another new tactic. My personal way of doing that has been to immediately switch the radio station each and every time they come on the air ever since they started crying about Napster. Now, on to nick...He thinks it's no big deal if we live with crippled hardware? Here's just two legally permitted acts (upheld either by laws that are on the books or by court orders) that will be circumvented with crippled hardware: 1) Recording your favorite television show for later viewing and/or personal archiving. I worked 2nd and 3rd shift for quite some time, if I wanted to watch WWF Raw I had to tape it because I was at work when it was on. If crippled hardware was the standard then I wouldn't have been able to watch Raw for about 4 years. I'm sure the WWF doesn't care if I tape Raw and watch it later, hell, they should be happy that I do! If I'm not seeing the show at all then I lose interest in their merchandise, live event tickets, etc etc etc. I think you all get the picture. 2) Making back up copies for my own personal use (space shifting). This is something I do quite a bit. I have a DVD player with mp3 decoding, I rip some of my favorite tracks from my collection of 200+ CDs and burn them to a disc in mp3 format, pop it in my DVD player, hit the 'random' button and have a 10 hour mix of uninterrupted music without having to switch discs every 45-60 minutes. I also copy my discs to CD-R to play in my car. If I forget a CD-R in my car and the sun toasts it I'm out about 50 cents and I go burn another one. If I forget a CD in my car and the sun toasts it I'm out about $20 (and with some older albums pray to God I can find it for sale again). Space shifting is also convienient because with some older albums I can put TWO full albums on one CD-R. For instance, Kiss "Alive" is a two disc set which fits onto one CD-R. When I want to listen to it I pop in the CD-R recording of it and hear the full album without having to switch discs in the middle of the album. I went to the store and bought the album, the law and the courts say I have the right to do this with it. If the RIAA doesn't like that than TOUGH SHIT! The fact of the matter is, anybody who takes a closer look at this can see the RIAA's hypocrisy. They cry about the law and protecting their legal interests, yet they are taking every step they can to violate the legal rights and interests of the consumers and circumvent the laws that protect said consumers. If you deliberately and continually attempt to circumvent the legal rights of others then you have lost any and all right you ever had to complain about your own legal rights being circumvented, end of story. I know a lot of people who may not see these things as "major deals" but have you ever heard the expression "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"? 'Nuff said.

What can I say? The recording industry is greedy beyond belief, for they are only interested in ripping off everybody they can. Do you know how much artists really get for each CD that is sold in stores? Out of the avarage $15.00, they are lucky to get $2.00, if that. Then again, the RIAA's bankrollers are as other posters have said are ignoring many talented artists to promote crap that I would not tolerate in my home. I am an adult man who is appalled by what Hollywood and the recording industry has the gall to call "Intellectual Property." There is nothing intellectual at all about what they seek to protect, except they are legends in their own minds. So, they are ripping off artists already, andsuppressing many others as it is now. Why should we be surprised they want to rip off consumers after they rob overworked and underpaid people blind by overpricing their wares?
One way to send a message to these greedsters is to buy music at shops that sell maninly pre-owned CD's, that way they don't get the outrageous profits. Then go out and encourage your peers to do the same. I refuse to pay $15.00 for am audio CD when most only have a couple songs I care to listen to. Another is to start lobbying your elected officilas via telephone, e-mail and faxes. Raise hell, even start a bloodless rebellion because there is a lot more at stake here than your ability to copy CD's to your hard disk for your own use. Yes I do that, but only within the spirit of the "fair use" doctrine in force now. What is at stake here is your freedom and safety from an increasing overbearing government that has already shown how willing it is to shoot and kill it's own citizens? If the RIAA can get the government to force manufacturers of electronic equipement to put "spiked" analog to digital converters in their products, what else is being put in them? It's bad enough how the government can see through the walls of your home, intercept all of your communications without a court order, and follow you everywhere like the KGB agents that followed my parents in Russia long ago. It's going to be a lot worse than the old Soviet Union when Big Bully Business gets into the act. This legislation the RIAA wants is just like so called anti-terrorism legislation, punishing everyone for the misdeeds of a few. If the RIAA gets their wish, your computer, TV and other electronic gear will also have spyware chips so Big and Little Brother can spy on your every move. The government already is going after people that write or have programs they don't like us to write or have. Now the recording industry is doing the same thing, does what happened to the author of DECSS ring a bell? Big business and big government are the same people who want the same thing, total power over you. Remember that whenever the RIAA tries something new to take away your freedom of choice. I don't see how people will want to live in the kind of totally controlled society these people want to shove down our throats.

The ADC regulation should fail. Too dangerous. A false positive could bring a plane down or shut off a life support machine. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to sneak it in the CDTBPA tech list somewhere, but it will only hold if the studios are VERY lucky. Even then its not going to hold for long. Easy enough to get round, hold the camcorder sideways.

Same for the internet rebuilding. It would be possible to modify it to prevent connections to any machine not registered as a server, but incredibly expensive and difficult. Not to mention the angry mob problem. No way thats getting done. It was suggested seven years ago, I think they have given up on it.

They already have plans for the spyware. All SDMI content is traceable. SDMI players will insist on SDMI content. SDMI content cannot be converted to anything else. That means if you decide to do a parody of some music and release it in SDMI format so it will play on portables, you will be found. You will possibly be attacked by lawyers. Parody is protected by fair use, but you cant afford a defence. Anyway you will have violated the DMCA and probably CDTBPA when you rerecorded the karioke version with your new words.

People dont want it, but the vast majority of people wont know until its too late.

Keep in mind that this is a slippery slope; once big brother has effectively seized reins of all digital content distribution, the price of creative content will gradually shoot up in price. The day this type of control will be implemented on what I want to watch or listen will be the day I unplug my electronic gadgets and toss them in the garbage bins. I suspect I will not be the only one and no slickly spun ad or message will bring me back. THEN lets see them rationalize their sagging quarterly profit increases.

Scary times.......
Watermarks will be coming soon and there is no way we can stop it unless politicians aren't bought. (Do you have all eternity to wait for that?) We have to get out our mission of boycott fast. The thing is, the RIAA and the MPAA can do what they want, and they will. We talk about how they are really going to be sorry when they realize their sales are going to drop off when people get sued, but lets get real. People who already don't buy RIAA are not going to stop boycotting, its the shitty 14-15 year old watching RIAA propaganda MTV who needs to be reached and told to boycott. They are not going to experience hurt, unless their mass market approach stops buying from them. The market that the RIAA goes after (I am a marketing major) is the 14-15 year old male. We need to get the word out to them that what the RIAA is doing is fachist and illegal (at this moment at least) We need to have something like a "Buy nothing day" campain (for details go to www.adbusters.org) where people advocate to buy nothing for a day. Why not, don't buy cd for a year?

nick4753 is an RIAA stooge.

A tad off subject.. but umm guys.. I hope you realize the Riaa dosen't spend millions of dollars literaly buying out senators and let a sight like this slip under it's radar.. meaning the RIAA campaing is mis-information and RE-programming people..

In case you guys haven't noticed re-look and read throug nick4753 .. and nick.. guy it's obvious as hell you were sent here in affiliation with the RIAA to spread your propaganda here.. No im not a conspiracy theory I just happen to know this is done in the RIAA association on free lanced paid progandist to visit sites like this and post.. they even have a buzzword for it called "cold calling".. and Nick is an obvious freelancer.. how much they pay ya guy? Nice try..