Linux.com

You know, I have never purchased a movie that didn't contain a statement prohibiting the copying and distributing of it. Movies and Music are not released under the GPL or any other such license; so you have no "right" to copy this content and give it to all of your budies, regardless of what Richard Stallman thinks.

I also read in the article where P2P should be supported because "that's what consumers want". Hmmm, too bad that most (maybe not all, but most) of what users of P2P "share" with each other is commercial music, movies and software. I guess people feel better about breaking the law when they call it sharing instead of what it really is: stealing.

Yes it is unfortunate that these big companies are stonewalling their own customers about these issues. I am confident that it will come back to bite them in the ass in the end though. Please remember that these companies have no obligation at all to their customers other than what the terms of the purchase were. Free markets are great; if a company treats enough customers like crap for long enough, they will quickly find themselves out of business when the customers leave. This is one of the reasons why more and more people are walking away from Microsoft towards Open Source Software.

This is how things are supposed to work, stop complaining about how your rights are somehow being violated and start taking your money elsewhere. They will eventually get the message. If not, let them rot in bankruptcy.

Could somebody please post a link to where it is written that Linux has been singled out as being unable to have a legal DVD player developed for it? Not a smartass question, I would seriously like to know.

#

Its much worse than what you make it out to be. The content companies want to restrict your use of music to a device. So for example I can buy music electronicly to play on the portable drm capable music device, but I have to buy it again for my home drm capable system. They also want to limit your ability to make copies for your own use. For example, I like to make copies of my CDs for my car since I don't like my purchased copies melting in the heat or being stolen. Part of the proposed DRM solution would not allow you to play that copy on any other device. So if I copy on my computer, I can't play it in my car.

While I agree that people are breaking the law giving away the music they have purchased and copying it thousands of people over the internet there are already laws againest that. Thats one of the key things I think people keep forgeting so I want to say it one more time.


  There are already copyright laws which are not being enforced

We do not need more laws and a "new solution" which are just thinly veiled attempts by the media companies to get more money. They already receive money for each blank dvd, cd, blank cassette, blank vcr tape sold the united states at least (I don't know about other counties).

#

> We do not need more laws and a "new solution" which are just thinly veiled attempts by the media companies to get more money. They already receive money for each blank dvd, cd, blank cassette, blank vcr tape sold the united states at least (I don't know about other counties).

Well, in Germany it's just the same. I believe we also have to pay to a number of industries when buying printers, photocopiers and related equipment. It's not like anybody cares whether you do copy stuff that is illegal to copy. It's just assumed you do.

So you better do, you've already paid for it.

#

  Wrong logic. Music, and Movies are an industry. And they have the right to sell anything they want , as long as it does not interfere with the well-being of the society. Right to make money is not a right , but a privilege granted to the corporations etc... as long as it is for the public good. However, they have no right to restrict the the usage of any other equipment , whose primary purpose is NOT to pirate what they are selling. If they want to , they can either come up with equipment whose only purpose is to plat what they sell, or kepp their products off the market ( which I hope they will do. I'd be happier not buying another of their products anyway.)


  As a consumer and general-public, my rights to use what I bought ( as a computer with Linux) are above and beyond their rights to sell. So when the push comes to shove, it is they who must stop selling, before they can restrict my rights.


  This is a society for the people and by the people. Not and never will be for corporations.


  This will become a non-issue when Microsoft goes bankrupt soon anyways....

#

"This is a society for the people and by the people. Not and never will be for corporations."



Oh really? Then I think something must have gone horribly wrong while you weren't looking.

#

must have...

#

People needs somewhere to work and thats why corporations are _also_ important, that doesn't mean people are unimportant but business is important to.

#

Correct me if I'm wrong on this one but when did companies start spawning on their own? I was always under the impression that they were created and ran by people.

And now for the rest of your irrational babbling...

Right to make money is not a right , but a privilege granted to the corporations etc... as long as it is for the public good

Could you please explain this one to me? Are you saying that I have no right to demand payment from somebody who uses my product? Or as only being a privilege granted to me (by whom?), do I just have to accept it when it is deemed better for society if everyone gets to use it for free?

However, they have no right to restrict the usage of any other equipment

The issue is not whether they can restrict the usage of equipment, the issues is whether they can restrict onto which equipment you are allowed to listen or view their content after the purchase.

When you buy a CD, you are purchasing the right for your usage only; not the usage of all your friends too. The problem with DRM is that in trying to combat illegal usage of content by those who haven't paid for it, they are severely restricting the usage of those who have.

This will become a non-issue when Microsoft goes bankrupt soon anyways

Everything revolves around Microsoft doesn't it?

#

Could you please explain this one to me? Are you saying that I have no right to demand payment from somebody who uses my product? Or as only being a privilege granted to me (by whom?), do I just have to accept it when it is deemed better for society if everyone gets to use it for free?

I believe the original poster was saying that corporations making a profit isn't a "right" guaranteed to them - in otherwords if they lose money it is up to them to do something to start making a profit or close the doors - the public has no intrinsic obligation to make them profitable.

In otherwords - if they aren't meeting a need of their customers at a price they are willing to pay that's their problem - not the customers.

#

And nobody has claimed otherwise.

The public, however, does have an obligation to pay for the products that they use. That is the only obligation though.

#

And nobody has claimed otherwise.

Actually, the corporations have...

The public, however, does have an obligation to pay for the products that they use. That is the only obligation though.

That's not entirely legally true.

Legally, the public has the obligation to abide by any contract that is made with them as long as it doesn't violate federal/state/local law.

If I want to release any copyrighted material for free, the public has no obligation to pay me a dime. They do have an obligation to obey the copyright license, which is how Free Software works.

Anyway, Federal law also dictates fair use rights. If I let me friend borrow a tape/CD, and my friend listens to said tape/CD - we aren't violating copyright and breaking the law... we're exercising fair use rights as they are dictated by federal law.

It's a LOT more complex than just minimizing the situation to a "pay-per-play" type of relationship. That is not a valid representation of copyright law and is a very dangerous perversion of it's intent.

#

You have individual rights, but exchange of money is not an idividual right because it can be used to subjugate and control others. Corporations are nothing but mechanisms of subjugation but we grant them these rights to control our lives only so far as they are improving life for everyone.

If it is better for society for the music and movie industry to become obsolete then they should. There is no appeal to rights here. The only valid argument for DRM is whether it will hurt the quality of music and movies available if we allow free distribution. I think the answer is obvious: Free exchange of data (movies, music, and software) do more to improve society than a corprate system can on its own. Its time that we stop running to defend corprate rights and demand they find a new source of revenue that doesn't hurt the consumer. A business founded on denying a service to the public cannot be considered valid. Imagine a world where everyone, regardless of income level (granted they can get to a computer) has access to all the liturature ever written and all music ever composed. Where all people have access to the tools needed to improve their lives. This is not far away, the only thing in the way is corprate greed and an uncaring public.

#

Could you please explain this one to me? Are you saying that I have no right to demand payment from somebody who uses my product?

I think what the original AR is trying to say (and he's right) is that corporations shouldn't EXPECT that the populace has an OBLIGATION to give them profit.

Stating that profit is a right is giving corporations the inate ability to demand a profit.

Which, if you've read anything about "fair" capitalist systems - you have to realize that it is quite possible for corporations to not be profitable and that they can't - as a solution - take that out on their customers in the sense of violating their rights.

The issue is not whether they can restrict the usage of equipment, the issues is whether they can restrict onto which equipment you are allowed to listen or view their content after the purchase.

Hence, subsequently, restricting usage of the equipment.

#

According to the DMCA, circumventing encryption without the encryptor's approval is a crime. DeCSS does exactly that. By decrypting DVD's without using code that was approved by a member of the MPAA (whether you use DeCSS or some other "thing"), you are violating the DMCA.



As far as P2P, there are a lot of artists out there that want their music on Napster, Audio Galaxy, Gnutella, KaZaa, etc. (Tom Smith even wrote a tune about it, called "I Want My Music on Napster". Guess how I downloaded it?) P2P provides an alternative outlet, away from the RIAA's choke-hold, that gives easy exposure to lots of musicians. The same will soon happen for independent movie-makers as well. If the RIAA and the MPAA have their way, P2P would be destroyed, and then they will have the sole means of public exposure. Of course, that's what they want. But the truth of how they coerce their artists into oppressive long-term contracts is finally coming to the fore. They are becoming paranoid, and starting to exhibit the same fear Microsoft had towards Linux five years ago.

#

I have never ever seen anyone complaining about music and movies that isn't copyrighted (or the author accepts it) beeing spread around.

#

You haven't? The new laws used to 'protect' the RIAA from internet radio streaming make it very onerous and a high legal risk to transmit any recorded material, regardless of who made the recording or if they want you to stream it. If you think that's accidental, you're not thinking clearly. It is a blatant attempt (and a successful one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-( ) by the RIAA to get legislation put in place that keeps the RIAA in control of what music you hear.

And yet I hear some of the very people they're harming with this legislation defending them!

#

The new laws used to 'protect' the RIAA from internet radio streaming make it very onerous and a high legal risk to transmit any recorded material, regardless of who made the recording or if they want you to stream it.


    Yow, this could make for some interesting reading. Care to post a URL or two? (Genuine curiosity here from someone that believes in reading it first-hand, not a troll issuing a challenge.)

#

Yow, this could make for some interesting reading.

In the early days of popular-music radio programming, many radio stations licensed tunes from both ASCAP and BMI (the prominent musical work rights organizations in the United States), but some radio stations played only ASCAP's music or only BMI's music. Soon, one of the orgs (I forget which one, but call it ASCAP for discussion) went down the list of music radio stations that didn't license ASCAP music and sent them all nastygrams. and the stations faced costly copyright compliance audits, and they realized that licensing both catalogs was cheaper than audits.

In addition, if RIAA makes any progress in closing the analog hole, it'll be impossible for home users to record their bands' original works for free public distribution on the Internet. (I'm not claiming that garage band music is original.)

#

By decrypting DVD's without using code that was approved by a member of the MPAA (whether you use DeCSS or some other "thing"), you are violating the DMCA.

The DMCA is unpopular. <A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020428">It's almost as if the Village People were singing about breaking the DMCA</a userfriendly.org>. Unpopular laws violate the USA legal principle of popular sovereignty, that is, government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Once Americans learn the true import of the DMCA and S.2048, they will revolt.

Those in the know just need to get the word out.

#

Yes, and every CD or album is protected by the same copyright laws....but you have the legal right to copy the music for your own use, such as making a mix tape or CD. The agencies in question want to end that right, forcing form as well as content. Can they do it? Sure. Can we fight it? Sure. It ain't whining.

#

Every entirely open source operating system can't play DVD's legally, because the only way to play DVD's within the bounds of the DMCA is by buying a license from the DVD-CCA, and that dictates that i has to be impossible to make screenshots of a movie playing. You can imagine how easy it is to get around any limitations put into the system that block you from taking screenshots while playing a movie when you have the source. So having the source means not having DVD's, in the US at least.

This was by the way one of the reasons why it took so long for OS X to get DVD playing capability, because they had to find a way to get the closed source layers to sufficiently mask the DVD from the open source lower levels.

#

Can you play DVDs under VMware or VirtualPC? If so, you could take screenshots using the host OS, couldn't you?

Incidentally (slightly off topic), in principle you could use bochs (don't know about VMware or VirtualPC) to decode DRM-protected audio files, simply by installing your favourite DRM-friendly media player and redirecting audio output to a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wav file. Basically it'd be a digital version of the horrible, nasty, evil "analog hole". Actually, this probably makes bochs illegal under the DMCA... do'h.

#

(snip)
that dictates that i has to be impossible to make screenshots of a movie playing
(/snip)

I don't believe this is a true statement. Several legal commercial Win DVD players allow screen shots of the movies as they are playing. Having purchased one myself I know this. Intervideo's WinDVD for example.

Just my $.02 (US)

#

Wasn't InterVideo working on a Linux version of their DVD player? I see to recall though that it was only going to be sold to OEMs.

WinDVD is a superior product, I would love to see their Linux version at work.

#

They were. 2 years ago. It has yet to materialize. There was an IBM linux laptop that came with some sort of DVD playback software, but it was only one machine and cost around $3000, so that really didn't count

#

> you have no "right" to copy this content and
> give it to all of your budies

True, you don't have a right to distribute movies, songs, etc. but there is a US law (I'd imagine there's something similar in most developed countries) that protects you from prosecution if you make copies only for personal use (although the DMCA and equivalents will often prevent you from legally obtaining the tools you need to do this.) Content distributors would love to get rid of the fair-use provisions so they can sell you the same content multiple times.

> I guess people feel better about breaking the
> law when they call it sharing instead of what it
> really is: stealing.

It really isn't stealing, you know. To me, stealing intellectual property means plagarism, not unauthorised distribution. If person X gives a copy of movie Y to person Z, who had no intention of buying it anyway, then the makers and distributers of movie Y have lost nothing. I'm certainly not saying it's "right" to do such things, just that it isn't exactly a cardinal sin worthy of the sort of harsh rhetoric coming out of the RIAA and MPAA. Content distributors won't support this point of view, of course, because person Z helps to give their rantings and ravings about lost sales more weight.

> This is how things are supposed to work, stop
> complaining about how your rights are somehow
> being violated and start taking your money
> elsewhere. They will eventually get the message.
> If not, let them rot in bankruptcy.

This isn't going to work if an entire *industry* is ganging up on you. Also, some of the things being proposed by the movie and recording industries (eg. the CBDTPA) would have a profound impact beyond listening to music and watching movies, particularly in the development of open-source software.

#

I guess people feel better about breaking the law when they call it sharing instead of what it really is: stealing.

Would it still be "stealing" if copyright law didn't exist? Is anyone deprived of some physical object when another ethereal copy is made? If a poor man copies a music CD he could not afford, is anyone worse off than if he had simply gone without? Calling a copyright violation "stealing" is nothing but propaganda. Call it dishonesty if you like, but it's not stealing no matter which way you cut it. And does anyone REALLY believe that all P2P use is just because people are unethical cheapskates? Could it be, perhaps, that people are fed up with paying the "Record Company Tax" on the transfer of works from artist to consumer? A little 'Tea Party' against the wealthy, abusive tyrants perhaps? Now, granted, this is not an end-all solution. If people are going to boycott "Big Record Company," they'd better get used to producing their own Tea as well because you'd better believe the enemy is going to come back, guns blazing in protest. If you want change, you have to make it happen, even if it's not the easiest route.

#

Stealing implies theft.

Legally, theft implies not the taking of something that isn't yours - but rather depriving the use of something to it's rightful owner.

If I were to "steal" your TV - the crime would not be in my possessing the TV, but in my barring you from accessing the TV in the way meant when you purchased it.

Hence, copying media is not and never will be theft.

#

Could somebody please post a link to where it is written that Linux has been singled out as being unable to have a legal DVD player developed for it? Not a smartass question, I would seriously like to know.

It's technically forbidden by the DMCA - since no 'approved' vendor produced software to decode the contents of a DVD it's illegal for the software to exist. It's not Linux being targeted specifically - it's any OS not 'blessed' by the movie makers. Instead of responding to consumer requests to support a broader range of options, they simply outlaw the ones they didn't create.

OK, here comes the argument of 'they cannot support every nickel and dime platform that comes along!' to which my response is simple: then don't distribute encrypted content. If you're going to intentionally restrict what you peddle to consumers it should be clearly marked with details and full restrictions in plain language and readable before the purchase is made. (How many times have you seen a shrinkwrap agreement that breaking the seal on the outside of the box indicates your acceptance of the terms enclosed inside the box? Oops, you don't want to be bound by their terms, but you cannot return the software as the seal has been broken..)

#

The Constitution says that copyright only lasts a limited time. So creators only have a right to their product for a while. And society can use the product after that period so that society can benefit.

When copyright expires, how do we use a technically locked product? Doesn't the Constitution require that it be available to society?

#

That is a wonderful point. Yes, illegal use of content should be stopped while under copyright protection, but once that protection expires (as it rightly should at some point) the DRM schemes would legally become invalid.

This is another reason why DRM, as it is now, is a bad idea.

Michael

#

The DMCA provides a circumvention ban (<A HREF="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html">17 USC §1201</a cornell.edu>) that applies to "a work protected under this title." Works first published before <A HREF="http://everything2.com/?node=sonny+bono+copyright+extension+act">January 1, 1923</a everything2.com>, are no longer "protected under this title", and if even one DVD of a public-domain silent movie is released, then DeCSS has a substantial non-infringing use.

#

This question was good, about what happens after copyright expiration. Both the copyright and the expirations are explicitly accommodated in the US Constitution. I've been wondering about the 1930s movies and all.

#

Which article or ammendment to the constitution created the copyright? I can't find my copy of the constitution to verify this item, but I don't remember reading it at all. Further, until the late 1800's all written and artistic expression was classed as public domain since there was no copyright regulation. In fact marks of quotation were considered to be distracting artifacts, and giving credit to other authors bad manners and wasted space.

#

is Article I, Section 8. It allows Congress to grant "exclusive Rights" -- but only for "limited Times" and for a public purpose of ("promoting the progress of the Sciences and useful Arts"). Patents and copyrights are two different applications of this section.

#

if these music and film companies are really serious about not wanting you to copy their material, then why do they sell blank media and devices with which tocopy?
They sell Mp3 players, cassette decks into Hi-Fis, DVD recorders even video and dvd recorder/players in the same unit!
If they are saying " If you copy our Material then your going to jail" then they too should be sentenced accordingly for giving us the equipment in the first place. They are just as guilty.

#

It isn't the same companies that produces content that produces blank media.

#

What about Sony? They produce content (music, movies), media (audio cassettes, videotapes, blank CD's, etc.) and devices that allow copying of content (VCR's, CD-R/RW drives, etc.).

#

The simpel answer is: THEY DON'T!!!!!!

When was the last time that you saw a Disney DVD player or an SKG Dreamworks blank CD_R???

#

Erm Sony.
Sony are one of the big players inDRM and they do produce MP3 players, recordable Minidisc players (portable i may add so your friends can listen) CDR/DVDR ETC, ETC. Sony also has released linux for the playstation 2.
i know that not all film/media companies release these devices, but they also help the other hardware manufacturers in the development of these machines.

#

In these discussions no one seems to discuss copyright as such. What is it, what does it do and why.
You can profitably read two speeches Macaulay made in the house of commons 150 years ago. He covers all the bases and he did it 150 years before the Internet.
http://www.baen.com/library/
click on Prime Palaver

#

While I am at it. Has anyone ever proved that artists lose when they are illegally copied?
Somebody (an author) has actually done his homework. See:

http://www.baen.com/library/
Go to Prime Palaver
and click "Prime Palaver#6".

#

The differens between today and...say...500 years ago is that today there is an enourmous amount of content produced while back then there was perhaps a couple of individuals producing music and literature (for example) at one certain time.

People allways brings up mozart and platon as supposed reasons why copyright isn't needed. It would be as the last century we had elvis, this century we have britney spears, nothing else. One TV show a week.

There is a reason we have the enourmous emount of content on TV, radio, computers and so on, and thats because there is a legal framework that makes it possible to finance it.

#

500 years ago artists were rewarded by noble or royal patrons or they passed the hat around. In the 18th century patrons became less necessary because a mass market for books and prints was created. Copyright was created as a means of ensuring that artists had an income and that that income did not come from patrons.
We now live in an age where everything can be copied and therefore is. How can artists get an income in this new brave world? Forget about cops and copy protection.
Macaulay spells out the case for and against copyright.
The science fiction publisher Baen Books is about the only place on the net where they do any thinking about ways and means. OK, you can also visit Janis Ian (www.janisian.com).

#

While I am at it. Has anyone ever proved that illegal copying cuts into the artists' income?
One artist (OK, he is an author) has actually done his homework and presents the results in tabular form at
www.baen.com/library
Click on Prime Palaver and then on Prime Palaver#6.

#

Here is a link to pictures from the event
<A HREF="http://www.politechbot.com/p-03770.html">http://www.politechbot.com/p-03770.html</a politechbot.com>

- Serge Wroclawski

#

Everyone knows that almost everything "shared" on P2P networks are copyrighted material, what the point in pretending it isn't so?

I'm sure MPAA and RIAA doesn't have a problem with people sending out movies and music they have done themselfs.

"Sharing" isn't fair use, copying for personal use is, but since almost all people today don't give a damn about the content-authors rights fair use simply doesn't works anymore.

#

Actually, fair use is an important principle. Without it, it might even be deemed illegal to mention the terms "Microsoft" or "AOL" on a public forum such as this becuase they are trademarks. Also, what about instructors who use screenshots of applications in order to create teaching material? This is also allowed because of the fair use part of the laws.

#

I agree that fair use is important, I just stated that fair use is not what P2P networks are used for today.

It would really be better to have the police simply arrest and then prosecute people who are _actually_ commiting crimes and let (the very few) who use P2P networks for non-criminal purposes to continue to do so.

However, we are talking lots of cops to enforce the law in this case so it will be quite expensive for the taxpayers. It's still the best solution.

#

Not exactly true. Some sharing is fair use. If I make a copy of a CD and give it to a friend, that's fair use. Even the record company reps at the workshop Wednesday didn't argue that point.

So what we're talking about here is a matter of degree. If I share that CD with three friends, that's probably fair use. If I share it with 30 friends through an online file-sharing services, apparently, that's not fair use.

Grant

#

Great, I'll never have to buy CDs aver again. I'll just get all my friends to burn me a copy, woohoo!

Give me a break.

#

That explaination of fair use actually came from one of the record company people, if I remember right. Even the record companies acknowledge that small-scale sharing isn't "stealing."

Grant

#

If this is all just a matter of scale. At what point then, does giving copies of music to those who haven't paid for them become stealing?

You cannot give a rational answer to that because no such point exists. When dealing with "right" and "wrong", there is no difference between giving to 1 person or a 1000.

#

You say:

"At what point then, does giving copies of music to those who haven't paid for them become stealing? You cannot give a rational answer to that because no such point exists."

I think you've come upon the heart of the problem. Big Hollywood can't figure out how to restrict the sharing of 1,000 copies without also restricting the sharing of one copy. So the result is Big Hollywood would rather take away your fair use rights to share one copy than to figure out a better way of doing business.

Grant

#

Everyone with a little bit of reasonable thinking regognise that if one person buys the newest eminem CD and then "shares" it with one million people isn't using their fair use.

#

It's never stealing because theft requires deprivation of the item being stolen.

Legally, you can only "steal" a copyrighted material by stealing the media it's held on from the original buyer, thus depriving them of use.

Copying will never be theft, legally speaking.

#

You think Enron and WorldCom were bad? They were innocents, like Boy Scouts getting their first merit badge in fraud, compared to Hollywood's accounting.

Now they are stealing fair use. Enough is enough.

See ya,
Joe Barr

#

I've read the post about the free market doing its magic to ban the offenders that offer nothing to you. But the case here is that they will ENFORCE you to do it. Why they need a legislation then? Do you really think it's a free market move?

Wake up you all! I really love when americans (in particular, but the big countries in general) talk about the virtues of free market, like we "in development" countries (Brazil, for example - I live here) have to lower all the market barriers to other countries and these other countries raise all the possible barriers to our products. If it's free market, what is protectionism then?

It was just an example of how free market only work if they cannot influentiate the government. If the free market can artificially put a barrier on innovation or force us to keep their status quo using the same laws that need to regulate the free market, than you have NO free market. If the stablished guys need to compete with new ones cause the new ones have a better technology, cheers to the new guys!

The big guys of today want to milk us our money but don't want to invest in getting better cause they have to reason to do it. The reason comes in the form of competition. But the same guys that say they are the free market wants the state to protect them from competition in the same way the communist countries tried to protect their internal market. Choose your model, work by it but then, suffer for it. You can't say "do what I say, not what I do".

Some words on this topic: good luck to us all! We will really need it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Flavio

 

#

I'm a USA citizen and I agree with you 100%. Fact is, most "free market" ppl are really just pretending to pro "free market". In reality it's "free market" when convenient and "GOVERNMENT, PLEASE MAKE MY BUSINESS A LEGAL MONOPOLY" at all other times. The best way to describe what happens in USA is a big free for all. People are free to buy politicians. The people with the most money and power are free to exert their influence in any way, including unfair ways or ways that are detrimental to public.

The subtle thing here is that "Free Market" doesn't exist without *some* regulations, because "Free Market" is not a free far all. So because of this gray area, obviously all parties try to push the line from their point of view. However, people with the most money end up being much better "pushers" because they have large amounts of power focused in one place where the public needs to act together to match such power. What are the chances of many ppl acting together? Only when things get *really bad* does that happen. That means that general public is destined to live a borderline miserable life. That's how it works. Some people are in dire straits, most people are doing so-so (being pushed around, their life sucks in material ways, but at least they have family, friends, food, roof over their head) while there are relatively few who have exceptionally good life, from a material point of view (but we all know they have problems with friends and can't get laid, right? *not*). What sucks is that someone with 40 billion $$$ does not make a thousand times more effort to achieve it than someone with 40 million. So, the rewards are not proportional with personal efforts. The extreme case is inheritance: no effort at all. People don't mind when someone works hard and gets rewards. But people DO MIND when the rewards are disproportionate. If you want an example, just login to any online game and see how much bitching goes on about rewards being out of proportion with effort (the very essence of game balance, together with equality at the start of the game: all level 1's are the same).

In an ideal society, the more power you have the more responsibility should fall on your shoulders. If this were true, it would offset some (or all) of the negative effects of the disproportionate rewards. Not so in any country that I know of. A person with 1 dollar to their name has the same social obligations as the person with 40 billion dollars. But that's not how it should be, imo. That is the root problem.

Every time the general public has improved its quality of life was through struggle. The powerful don't give up their positions willingly. Just look back at history and show me one example where the king stepped down volunterily (without there being a threat that if he does not, he might be killed or overthrown).

Hollywood is the king of media in USA. That doesn't mean they make the best media. It means they have the most money and influence. They're going to use their power. They're not going to stop just because a thousand people ask politely or try to debate it in a room. If the public is serious about getting itself heard, it needs to get ready to exert an equal amount of power to Hollywood.

I am a cynic, so I think eventually we will live in an Orwellian future.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( DRM is definitely a step forward toward that dark future. We already have happy pills, so we are already half way there. I'll do my best to avoid such a future, but in the back of my mind I can't help thinking that the cards are stacked against us (ppl below some $$$ a year mark). The only thing that can help is organization, but people only organize when the situation is desperate.

#

Just look back at history and show me one example where the king stepped down volunterily (without there being a threat that if he does not, he might be killed or overthrown).

After President George Washington of the United States of America finished his second four-year term in office, the people wanted to crown him King George I. Instead of accepting a monarchy, he stepped down, establishing a tradition of two terms per President.

#

Nice example, but looks like George Washington was opposed to kings vs. being one.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) If I am to believe some literature, then Buddha was going to be a king too, but he gave up on material pursuits. My point is, a typical king with normal, mortal values, usually remains one.

#

The roman general, Cincinatus (sp?), quit and retired back to his farm rather than accept the imperial sceptre after his successful military campaign.

This by the way, is how Cincinnati got it's name, in honor of George Washington after he won his campaign.

#

Washingtonpost.com live online with Valenti, 15 minutes.

Lets see if it's censored.

#

The only muscle the consumer has is to simply stop buying music and movies. Bankrupt the bastards!

#

Send 'em down the chutes? Titsup? That's plenty a' muscle pad're. All ya need. I have not bought a music CD in years: issues of expense and quality - issues of value. If current music purchasers would stop buying for 5 days, then the entire industry would come on bent knee BEGGING forgiveness.
Has that happened, or will it happen NO! So when the sheep come bleating, who's surprised if they are sheared.

#

If some sanity isn't achieved, within two years the people in mainland china will have more rights on-line than anyone else in the world.

what a juxtaposition. Could it be that communism is more free that facism. We all need to ask that in america considering the big business ties and protectionist practices of the Bush administration. GW has made it very clear that anyone in america who is not rich, is not inline with "right" thinking is worthless.

#

:)

1: In socialism freedom is defined as beeing free from the power owners have over you. Therefore products (including IP), services and resources should not have owners but should be shared freely.

2: In capitalism freedom is defined as freedom to trade your property (including IP) with others.

If you want to share other authors work without paying communism will always be freer, thats the goal with communism.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Who is forcing musicians to use record labels? If an artist chooses to sign a contract with a record label, they are puting their future in that company's hands.

However there are few outlets where a musician can truly make a decent living these days. Why? Because the music industry has a marketing monopoly and can get to the consumer first through TV, malls, billboards etc. So basically they pick who becomes a star, and who doesn't.

The music industry has a hidden agenda. They are not fighting the battle against copying because they are losing money. People have been burning CDs for years, and they still make billions of dollars. What the music industry doesn't want is for a new market to evolve where artists can sell direct to consumers, and get cut out of the loop.

High tech equipment used to create music, which used to costs tens of thousands of dollars, now costs only hundreds of dollars and can all be done on your PC. This is the start of the new evolution of music where artists can create music on their own without the need for thousands of dollars of start-up costs, and access to big producers etc. Good musicians will come out of the woodwork, not be molded. This is what is scaring the shit out of the music industry.

The open source movement is so huge, it has the potential to churn out a new technology that will blow people's minds, with almost no notice. Big business doesn't like surprises.

Once a new medium for being heard evolves, and artists realize they no longer must use the current system, they may slowly stop selling their soul to big business.

#

The only things that I see artists depending on studios for is exposure and capital. Studios have the means for get out lots of publicity for a new artist as well as the money to fund tours and such.

#

"The music industry has a hidden agenda. They are not fighting the battle against copying because they are losing money. People have been burning CDs for years, and they still make billions of dollars. "

I suggest you take a look at the reports they have filed the last couple of years then, most record labels are loosing money. Thats not the same thing as making billions.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Don't be naive. I'm sure if you took a gander at the executives of the record labels tax returns you will find they are making out fine.

#

Who is forcing musicians to use record labels?

<A HREF="http://www.clearchannel.com/">Clear Channel Communications, Inc., NYSE: CCU</a clearchannel.com>.

Since Clear Channel began to acquire hundreds of radio stations across the United States, the cost of getting a recording onto the airwaves has skyrocketed. Paying Clear Channel('s "independent" promoter) is the only way to get your recordings heard inside moving automobiles in the USA because most people still neither 1. own MP3 car stereos, nor 2. have the broadband to take a chance on an MP3.com band that they've never heard of.

This is the start of the new evolution of music where artists can create music on their own

Not with <A HREF="http://everything2.com/?node=sonny+bono+copyright+extension+act">nearly perpetual copyright</a everything2.com>. The available melodies in the Western musical scale are <A HREF="http://everything2.com/?node_id=1029506">limited in number</a everything2.com>. Eventually, songwriters <A HREF="http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm">will run out</a baen.com> of original melodies.

Once a new medium for being heard evolves

The CBDTPA isn't about stopping piracy. It's about preventing such a medium from evolving.

#

I don't get it. People are arguing that I can't share my CDs or DVD's or VHS tapes with a friead. They are saying... "you bought it... you paid for it, but you can't let other people see it." If that is the case, how are they going to regulate CD's in libraries? Is that not "sharing"?

Going beyond that, if I make a recording of a cd and share that instead (wouldn't want to damage the original). Why is that a problem?

Going beyond that, sharing the disk in a P2P network is only a matter of degree... but even sharing the original disk is against the law!

#

The government can't even enforce the speed limit (where people's lives are at stake). How are they going to enforce this?

#

Correction. They can't enforce it 100% and they wouldn't want to. But they enforce it 90% and very profitably so. If cars got a speed limiter built-in, then a very important revenue source would dry up. Think of it as a speed tax. Wanna go faster? Pay more. That's how they enforce it and it works: most people don't exceed the speed limit by over 10-15 mph. (but almost everyone exceeds it by at least 5 mph)

DRM is the speed limiter. Hopefully Hollywood won't get their wish with DRM. But if they can't get DRM, then the next step is P2P cops handing out tickets for music sharing "speeding violations." Since a music sharing violation is not life threatening, hopefully they won't have a "12 points and your computer license is suspended" program.

Heck, us little sheep will have to settle with whatever big Hollywood brother gives us, right?

#

Musicians should earn their money like everyone else in the world and work for it by going on tour. Not by selling CDs or MP3s through some record company which owns your intellectual property. Musicians need to learn that the music they create is their own, and they should not sell their rights to their music over to a record company to begin with.

Secondly, it is my opinion that there is nothing illegal about sharing music. The record companies tried the very same thing back when tapes were invented. It is just their selfish greed. The fact of the matter is that there is hardly any reason for a musician to sign up for a major record label these days. Thanks to computers, a musician can edit and record their own music for very little investment, and distribute that music world wide without any cost. And ofcourse you make your money by going on tour and working like the rest of us do.

So the record labels realize their usefullness in this world is no longer needed so they try to remove our freedoms to protect themselves by creating "Anti-mamal Dinosaur Protection Acts" to try and save their skins and keep the money rolling in. And BTW, have any of you actually checked to see how much money these companies are taking in? In today's economy their are doing better than most other companies have done in the past couple of years! Think about that....

#

Musicians need to learn that the music they create is their own

No, it belongs to the songwriter.

Thanks to computers, a musician can edit and record their own music for very little investment

So how will the vocalists and musicians pay the songwriters? And how will they pay for singing and instrument lessons?

and distribute that music world wide without any cost.

If you're not in the United States, bandwidth to the Internet costs quite a chunk of change, as many broadband ISPs charge by the bit. In particular, bandwidth to a moving automobile costs lots of money, on the order of six figures USD per song, because Clear Channel's "independent" promoters have the FM radio market locked up tight.

#

Musicians should earn their money like everyone else in the world and work for it by going on tour. Not by selling CDs or MP3s through some record company which owns your intellectual property.

That's how they already make their money. Almost every musician, whether they have multiple platinum albums or sold just 100 copies, make the majority of their money from sources other than CD sales. Artists only get about a dollar per CD sold, and if it's a band or group, that dollar gets divvied up between them. Their real money comes from live performances and endorsements.

If they don't find a way to embrace the Internet in a way that makes money for them, such as the movie studios did with the VCR, the Internet will become a threat to the record companies' existence but it won't hurt the artists.

#

The tech manufacturers realize that the public does not want to have equipement that restricts their use, e.g. copying cd's, dvd's, etc. They are fighting against proposed legislations that would force them to do so.

If the public makes its a certainty that they will not purchase equipment with these restrictions and begins to refuse to purchase media that is either copy protected or region protected, perhaps in the end it can be defeated.

There is a need for serious lobbying to also make it mandatory that notices be on the OUTSIDE of packages regarding copy protection and other restrictions. It is not going to happen on forums. All of these things will take lobbying - big money.

The coporations will spend whatever is necessary to erode copyright law and restrict the public's use of products. There are only two ways to combat it. Boycott and lobby.

I will not purchase any CD or DVD that has copy protection on it. I'd rather listen to radio or watch TV than to pay to have my rights restricted. I won't purchase a computer or other device that will restrict my use either.

If more of the public would take this position and make it widely known, the music and movie giants would really see revenue decline and defeat the very purpose for the restrictions.

Leah G.

#

Its funny how everyone treats the art-as-product model as if its the norm. Go back to the beginning of the media "industry" when artists developed media for patrons which was then freely re-distributable, Or when early books were printed and distributed fairly freely, also keep in mind that while forging a great work of art is fraud simply creating reproductions or distributing images of it is considered perfectly acceptable. this is something dreamt up by unadaptable media distributors who cant adapt to new technologies. the whole concept of intellectual property rights has severely weakened any form of modern American culture. on top of it all free distribution is in THEIR best interest, when napster was at its peak it revived interest in music again. before they were over-expanded by venture capitalists many free software projects were profitable with great prospects. its a knee-jerk reaction plain and simple.

#

You do of course understand that the RIAA got sued and held liable for illegal price fixing. The MPAA overcharges for everything and steps on all the little people. So I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SYMPATHY FOR THESE FILTHY RICH CARTELS.

#

Overcharge, rich?

What? Most recordlabels are loosing money now, they have no profit and hasn't had any for a while.

#

Really?

#

The real problem is the governments' insistence in improper representation in these issues. Look at the above situation, and note that the government it attempting to legislate our lives without our representation. And this is because the media industries are buying these career politicians for their own ends.

The really sad part of this is, the people are the ones who get screwed, and forced to consume media that they reall do'nt want to, forced to do so becuase the choice has been removed.

Media content creators (not just musicians, but movie makers and other content creators) are on the verge of seizing control of their intellectual property, and the corporations are scared s**tless, because they see their revenues dropping. So they will do anything they have to to protect themselves.

I agree that the media content creators should
get paid for their work; but I do'nt agree that an iron-fisted control over the content serves anyone. If the RIAA/MPAA hegemony are given the chance, they will control everything they can, to the point of controlling what we *HUM* to ourselves (hey, they've already screwed up the singing of "Happy Birthday", to a point where we're not allowed to sing it anymore without royalties being paid!).

And, dammit, that's just oo far.

If we are diligent, we can protect our rights.

imho

#

New Yorkers for Fair use/NYLXS Washington Report
US Department of Commerce DRM Workshop Political Action
July 17th, 2002

On July 17th, 2002, New Yorkers for Fair Use and NYLXS, with help from the Free Software Foundation, held a political action at the Department of Commerce where they were holding their second Digital Rights Management (DRM) Workshop. New Yorkers for Fair Use spearheaded the efforts to bring public opinion to the meeting in a reasonable and effective manner. New Yorkers for Fair Use is happy to announce that all of our goals were met in this action, and even exceeded, without disrupting the normal activities of the meeting. It was our goal to have a voice and participate in the Democratic process, and not to disrupt entirely the process.

Prior to the meeting in Washington DC, the President of NYLXS and co-founder of NY Fair Use, Ruben Safir, was attending at the request of the French Free Software movement, the Libre Software Meeting in Bordeuax France. Upon arriving to France, Ruben checked his email and received from the NY Fair Use Secretary, Seth Johnson, a message outlining the Commerce Departments announcement with a list of participants, and asking if NY Fair Use wanted to attend the meeting, scheduled to happen the day after Ruben's arrival back in New York the next week. Ruben was reluctant to schedule a trip to Washington DC so soon after arriving home, but the meeting appeared to be too good of a target for the NY Fair use agenda to pass up. It would give us an oppurtunity to speak face to face with most of our chief opponents including the likeable and articulate Jack Valenti of the MPAA, the RIAA, and several industrial leaders including Microsoft, and Intel. So Ruben sent a reply back to Seth to prepare for the trip and assigned him the duty of preparing everyone for the trip.

Once the decision was made within the NY Fair Use management to go ahead with the plan, several goals were agreed upon by the management including Ruben, Seth, Co-founder of NY Fair Use Brett Wynkoop, and Jay Sulzberger our general public relations manager. NYLXS also geared into action providing network services and funding for the trip. NYLXS members, as usually, sprang into action in support of the NY Fair Use activity. In particular, Micheal Richardson, the NYLXS Membership Chairman and Journal Editor designed buttons and helped drive everyone down to Washington, Kevin Mark contributed to the PR material, Vinnie alerted as much of the press as possible and Joe Maffia offered technical support. Even with large parts of NYLXS on vacation, the organization worked admirably according to it's charter, to support and educate the public about issues which affect Free Software in business, education, and in the home.

The first agenda item by NY Fair Use was to get us representation on the panel, specifically by including Ruben Safir as a panel representative. Although Ruben was in France and cut off from many of the Washington connections which have been nutured over the last few years, NY Fair Use was petitioning for a place on the panel from the start. We had Sarah Brown of the EFF in Washington who put Seth Johnson in contact with Chris Israel inside the Commerce Department. Seth Johnson also tried to contact Congressman Weiners Office in an effort to bring some Congressional pressure on the matter. But with the limited time frame and our chief advocate in Europe, we were not able to get representation on the board. Ultimately, NY Fairuse had to fall back to our secondary plan, to participate as members of the audience.

Limited to audience participation, we now opened the discussion on a new mailing list created by Seth for the purposes of organizing this action in Washington. The first order of business was to produce proper slogans for our goals. One goal of NYLXS is to change the whole lexicon of the DRM and Copyright discussion. We felt that certain messages needed to be brought to the public and the press to assure our future success, not just in this battle over DRM, but also in a wide variety of copyright and fair use issues as they have trickled into the public eye over the last few years. We decided, after much discussion and after considering many opinions on the mailing lists, to attempt to drive into the public lexicon the phases, “DRM is Theft” and “We are the Stakeholders”. We chose these expressions very carefully to counter the rhetoric coming out of the copyright monopoly content industry, especially the claims by Senator Hollings that he had assembled all the “Stakeholders” to write his CBDTPA bill, and Jack Valenti's rhetoric that the simple act of listening to a DVD on a GNU/Linux operating system is stealing property from the motion picture industry.

The next stage of planning fell into the lap of Seth Johnson, who mobilized NYLXS and NY Fair Use for the practical matters of making the trip. Fortunately, NYLXS is today a well oiled machine. We are very proud of the volunteer spirit of the organization and it's ability to deliver when called upon. Joe Maffia researched our previous work in find a minibus for the trip down. Seth Johnson offered use of his credit cards to get the truck. Michael Richardson volunteered to drive everyone to DC. Brett Wynkoop oversaw all the system adminitrations and co-ordination duties needed to keep everyone in touch. Jay Sulzberger wrote up a terrific position paper for the trip and a media guid. Vinnie contacted nearly every press contact he could find with information about the trip. Members with almost every political background came from every part of the city to volunteer to make the trip. NYLXS has become very effective at organizing events. They are motivated, proactive, and competitant.

Meanwhile in France, Ruben Safir and Richard Stallman, over much wine, reviewed the political strategy for the action. The principals agreed to a joint effort of the FSF and NY, and even planned on backup contingencies including how to hold a protest outside of the building if we were eventually not allowed into the conference room. Some of the ideas we knocked around was shhowing up with steaks, as in meat, to drive home the message that the public is the stakeholders on copyright monopoly matters, or dessing in costumes. However time would not allow us to co-ordinate these efforts. They are still on the table for future political action.

On Richard and Ruben's arrival home to the States, all the pieces were in place for a successful run at changing the direction of the DRM discussion.

The afternoon Ruben came home to New York, Seth and Ruben touched base and made certain that the arrangements for the van was in place, and that everyone was clear about the time and place we were to meet. We argeed to meet early in the afternoon the day Ruben arrived home, and the day before going to Washington, to pick up the truck from another neighborhood in Brooklyn across town. Seth, Micheal and Ruben went out to rent the van, and drove it home. We decided to meet at Ruben's house the night before for a final planning session Since we were leaving at 4AM in the morning to get to DC on time for a meeting with the media at 10AM, everyone assembled very early in Flatbush. Brett left with his own care from Park Slope in Brooklyn and we stayed in touch on the road. In the minibus we had Michael Richardson, Jay Sulzberger, Seth Johnson, Vinnie, Forrest Mars, Murray, Kevin Marks, and Ruben. Nearly everyone was dressed in a suit and tie.

The drive down to Washington went smoothly and we met with media guru Eric Hensal at the Corner Bakery in the Press Club building a few blocks from the Commerce Department Building. Eric gave NY Fair Use great media tips on how to get seen by the press, in addition to a packet with vital press contacts both in the building and across town. Forrest Mars ran our Media Alert through the building, while Richard Stallman met with us at the bakery with copies of the flyers. Richard and Ruben had spent most of the night on the phone and through mail dotting the i's and crossing the t's on the press release. Vinnie ran off more copies. Brett and Kevin ran down to the Commerce Department Building to scout out the conditions. As it turned out, this was critical because the Department of Commerce was convinced that they could close the meeting to the public. Brett's charm and force of rhetoric convinced the panel that they couldn't close the workshop, and by the time that we were ready to actually go to the meeting, the Panel had rolled out the red carpet for NY Fair Use, giving us an escort to upstairs to the 4th Floor.

Finally, at about 12:30, Ruben, Richard, Seth and Kevin marched to the Commerce Department building, with the rest following later. Ruben handed out our flyers, and met with several friends in the press and with other organizations who are aligned with us. We met with Declan McCullagh from CNN Net, and Robin Gross of the EFF. We also met with American Library Association Representative, Miriam Nisbet and told them of our efforts to protect Libraries last year with our save the Libraries Campaign. People lined up to meet Richard Stallman before the meeting, and eventually the rest of our group arrived at the meeting, filling up the room.

We also had the pleasure of seeing many old friends from the Press including Seattle reporter Sarah Strickland and Bloomberg reporter Katherine Reynolds Lewis. As the meeting started, everyone in our group was wearing the “DRM is Theft” Buttons, and the “We are the Stakeholders” Buttons. In fact, we almost ran out of buttons.

It was not the plan of NY Fair Use in any way to disrupt the Workshop Panel. Neither was it the goal of the organization to sit mute in the audience and not be felt. Our goal was to clearly participate as audience members of the panel. In this matter, and within the bounds of normal political discourse as is the rule with such contentious issues. For example, as the meeting started, the Chair began by saying that he'd like to announce that nobody on the panel is a villian. This brought audible laughter from the audience. We were then quiet for the next hour. At one point, Brett Wynkoop, who couldn't find a chair and finally sat near the panel's table, raised his hand when the Chair asked if anyone else had a comment. The Chair recognized Brett, who then proceeded to announce his name and position as co-founder of NY Fair Use. The Chair tried to un-recognize him, but Brett just plowed forward, within the bounds of Rogers Rules of Order, by asking the panel how they could consider regulations and laws which would turn every teenager in America with a Magic Marker or Wite-Out, into a felon. Brett was refering to the recent flap over the attempt by the music industry to produce DRM for audio CD's which was quickly defeated with a single line made by a marker. Several minutes of interesting debate followed which finally climaxed when one of the lawyers on the panel gave the legal opinion that the courts would never convict anyone for using a Magic Marker as a circumvention device because the courts had not considered that a sufficient circumvention method under the DMCA. This caused Ruben to ask if we can get that in writing for the next DMCA trial dealing with digital music. Everyone was jovial at this point, laughing and smiling and, enjoying the open participatory democratic process unfolding before their eyes. Only the most pretentious of individuals in the crowd refused to smile and participate.

Earlier, a schematic diagram was given of the current state of DRM development. This alphabet soup of circles and letters were discoursed upon for several minutes; the thing looked looked similar to a Network Map of the internet. Nobody could understand a word of what was being presented, but everyone sat quitely and listened anyway. At the end of this part of the representation, the image on the projector was flipped, to connect the dots in complete chaos. This fitting image of the state of current DRM schemes would come back to haunt the panel as the presentation went on.

NY Fair Use mostly sat quietly through the meeting, occasionally whispering to each other, until MPAA spokesman Jack Valenti took the floor. At this point, Jack elegantly said in a beautiful self-effacing fashion, that he hopes that everyone on the panel would give him the courtesy to be heard and then he would yield the floor to others. At this moment, Vinnie stood up and said, “How can you expect everyone to present their response to your comments when you've left off the panel the most important stakeholders, the public.”. Jack then graciously said that if we let him speak without interruption (not that we seriously interupted anyone), that he would be glad to listen to Vinnie's reply. Jay Sulzberger stood up and said we all agree, and the Chair was feeling a little uncomfortable at this point, feeling he was losing control. But everyone sat silently and heard Jack speak. He put on a classic Jack Valenti performance, and said that it was his position that Government intervention in this matter wasn't a bad thing. And that his experience in the Johnson Administration passing the 1965 Civil Rights Act showed him how important and good proper Government intervention can be. He then continued by saying in his charming Texas drawl, that it was his hope that the leaders in the IT industry and the computer field would come to a consensus in the next month on a DRM standard which would protect the property of the Movie Industry from theft. This caused Ruben to whisper to Vinnie that when the floor returned to him, he should defer comment to Richard Stallman, who was the most qualified and highest ranking IT professional in the building.

When Jack finished, the Chair reluctantly deferred to Jack's wishes and gave the floor to Vinnie. Vinnie then identified himself as a member of NY Fair Use and asked to defer the answer the Richard. Richard stood up, but the Chair didn't let him talk, in violation of the rules of order, and instead said, We've already accidently added one of your members to the panel, and he saw no reason why we should get another member to give their opinion. This caused the audience to get visibly upset. In response, NYLXS President Ruben Safir intervened and asked the Chair, “Pardon me, Mr Chair, however, Mr. Valenti nicely pleaded that the leaders of the IT industry to come to a consensus on DRM. However, one of the greatest figures in the Computing Field was standing right here to the left, as part of NY Fair Use. Richard Stallman has just been given an award in France by the United Nations for his contributions to World Heritage with the invention and development of the GNU/Linux system and it's variants. He's the most qualified person in the room to make a public comment in response to Mr Valenti's request.” Ruben's intervention at this point quieted the crowd as nobody wanted things to break down into a raucous confrontation. Though Richard was still denied a chance to speak, our discipline assured that the meeting could continue without derailing the workshop.

However, much of the conversation from that point forward was affected by the events. The Digital Recording Rights Coalition presented more forcefully their position that DRM eroded Fair Use. Jack, in order to convey just how serious the MPAA is about getting DRM enacted quickly, said that while the MPAA responded to a letter from Microsoft about progress toward DRM in 24 hours, that when the MPAA sent such a letter to Microsoft, Microsoft took a long time to return a response. Microsoft at this point all but threatened to buy all the Movie Producers if they continued to be such a pain in the neck. Although this was not their exact words, their threat was neither veiled or lost on Mr Valenti.

Meanwhile, Jack tried to persuade the panel that the Movie Industry had never really been against the VCR. This caused some agitation of panelists, and the crowd just laughed. The panel pointed out that despite the Movie Industry's professed love for the VCR, they brought an injunction against panel members whoose companies made VCR, which injunction was eventually defeated in the supreme court.

But Jack was not the only Panel member capable of bald faced lies. EMI tried to convince everyone that artists really don't hate their record labels, but only say so in public because it's good PR. And later they claimed that the record labels weren't responsible for preventing music from being available, but that it was the artist's fault. AOL Time Warner delightfully wants to close the analogue hole. And a bunch of other positions were espoused, many of which have been covered by Slashdot Ad Nauseum and need not be repeated here.

At the end of the session, everyone had a chance on the panel to express themselves exactly as they wished to. And when it finished, Jay announced that NY Fair Use was to have a press conference in front of the Commerce Department Building at 4:30. Ruben gave his press conference with the help of Richard and Jay. We talked extensively with Bloomberg and other reporters. We announced our position and we announced our sponsorship of the NY Fair Use “Fair Use Bill”.

NY Fair Use attained almost all of our goals for this action. The phrases, “We are the stakeholders” and “DRM is theft” have begun to make their way into the press. We are being invited to a new panel on DRM for consumers and we are debating the merits of this now. We are leery of the formation of another panel and question whether is is a stalling tactic. And we reiterated our position that NY Fair Use wants a seat with the original panel. Capital Hill was abuzz the next day with our activities. And Congressman Weiner's Office has promised to led it's efforts to bring us into the panel in the future.

NY for Fair Use has kicked down the door that everyone else will now run through,

You are welcome.....

Ruben Safir

Co-founder of NY Fair Use.

President NYLXS.

#