Categories:
Links:
Washington lawmakers have been crafting bills that would give the entertainment industry the go-ahead to identify individual users, disrupt file-trading services and prosecute anyone suspected of digital piracy. The fear and loathing focused at the file-trading community is reminiscent of 1990, just before the Secret Service and the FBI conducted raids in order to smash the loosely affiliated hacker organizations around the country, as chronicled by Bruce Sterling in The Hacker Crackdown. "They are going after the same set of folks they were going after back then," said John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation , a nonprofit legal fund formed to defend people caught in the hacker raids. "They are going after people who are young and want to share their ideas. They are criminalizing the curious."
Washington lawmakers have been crafting bills that would give the entertainment industry the go-ahead to identify individual users, disrupt file-trading services and prosecute anyone suspected of digital piracy.
The fear and loathing focused at the file-trading community is reminiscent of 1990, just before the Secret Service and the FBI conducted raids in order to smash the loosely affiliated hacker organizations around the country, as chronicled by Bruce Sterling in The Hacker Crackdown.
"They are going after the same set of folks they were going after back then," said John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation , a nonprofit legal fund formed to defend people caught in the hacker raids. "They are going after people who are young and want to share their ideas. They are criminalizing the curious."
This spiked-debate aims to untangle the legal, political, technical and creative problems surrounding copyright regulation in the digital age. Does regulation place too many restrictions upon new technology, or is it essential to prevent theft? Which authorities should apply copyright regulation to the internet, and how - if at all?
n a few years, Americans may not be able to copy a song off a CD, watch a recorded DVD at a friend's house, or store a copy of a television show for more than a day. Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission approved regulations that would require television manufacturers to include anticopying technology in the next generation of televisions. The technology would identify programs that broadcasters do not want consumers to copy without first paying a fee.
n a few years, Americans may not be able to copy a song off a CD, watch a recorded DVD at a friend's house, or store a copy of a television show for more than a day.
Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission approved regulations that would require television manufacturers to include anticopying technology in the next generation of televisions. The technology would identify programs that broadcasters do not want consumers to copy without first paying a fee.
[Some sources list the release date as Nov. 15.] George had been in legal struggles ever since the success of "My Sweet Lord." The publisher of the Chiffon's tune, "He's So Fine" had claimed that portions of the music to "My Sweet Lord" were taken directly from their song. Interestingly, George had had a different song in mind when he wrote MSL, namely, "O Happy Day"--a song that was in the public domain. The struggle persisted for several years, and finally Bright Tunes prevailed--George was found guilty of "unconscious plagiarism" and ordered to pay. "This Song" was George's answer to the whole ordeal. In it, he says, "This song...as far as I know, don't infringe on anyone's copyright..." and "This tune has nothing Bright about it." A top 40 hit for George (#25), even if not everyone knew the story. Radio station copies featured a different title sleeve, containing "the story behind 'This Song'," so that at least the deejays would be aware of what had happened.
"This Song" was George's answer to the whole ordeal. In it, he says, "This song...as far as I know, don't infringe on anyone's copyright..." and "This tune has nothing Bright about it." A top 40 hit for George (#25), even if not everyone knew the story. Radio station copies featured a different title sleeve, containing "the story behind 'This Song'," so that at least the deejays would be aware of what had happened.
A July 25 letter sent to Attorney General John Ashcroft by 19 American legislators asked him to devote more Justice Department resources in the fight against peer-to-peer networks and users swapping digital media without permission. ...No, it seems that one of the highest priorities for the Justice Department - behind that simple task of securing America's Homeland - should be copyright enforcement....at least in the eyes of the Recording Industry Association of America. Of course, this is made all the easier when "peer-to-peer" - a valuable technological architecture - is interpreted and subsequently marketed by the RIAA as synonymous with "pirating" and evil economic - potentially terrorist - activities aimed against the $40 billion entertainment industry. And, of course, Congress, mental wizards that they are, believe whatever they're asked to believe so long as the campaign contributions are of the right type and amount. ...Thanks to the Information Age, this is not the case anymore. This harsh reality terrifies the entertainment industry that will stop at nothing - no matter how ill-conceived - to keep its reign despite a failing business model and changing economic and customer environment. The copyright debate isn't only about profit, it's also about who controls information, and ultimately, people and society.
A July 25 letter sent to Attorney General John Ashcroft by 19 American legislators asked him to devote more Justice Department resources in the fight against peer-to-peer networks and users swapping digital media without permission.
...No, it seems that one of the highest priorities for the Justice Department - behind that simple task of securing America's Homeland - should be copyright enforcement....at least in the eyes of the Recording Industry Association of America. Of course, this is made all the easier when "peer-to-peer" - a valuable technological architecture - is interpreted and subsequently marketed by the RIAA as synonymous with "pirating" and evil economic - potentially terrorist - activities aimed against the $40 billion entertainment industry. And, of course, Congress, mental wizards that they are, believe whatever they're asked to believe so long as the campaign contributions are of the right type and amount.
...Thanks to the Information Age, this is not the case anymore. This harsh reality terrifies the entertainment industry that will stop at nothing - no matter how ill-conceived - to keep its reign despite a failing business model and changing economic and customer environment. The copyright debate isn't only about profit, it's also about who controls information, and ultimately, people and society.
As the entertainment and technology industries publicly are locking horns over electronic piracy, they privately are moving closer to a consensus that consumer advocates fear may limit how people watch or listen to movies and music. The fight focuses on how entertainment will be distributed in the future, particularly the digital transmission of movies and music to homes by broadcast and the Internet. Studios and record labels want their products protected from the widespread thievery popularized by services such as Napster. Spurred by the threat of federal legislation, technology companies such as Microsoft Corp. and RealNetworks Inc. are scrambling to prove that their systems do more than the other fellow's to keep content under lock and key.
As the entertainment and technology industries publicly are locking horns over electronic piracy, they privately are moving closer to a consensus that consumer advocates fear may limit how people watch or listen to movies and music.
The fight focuses on how entertainment will be distributed in the future, particularly the digital transmission of movies and music to homes by broadcast and the Internet.
Studios and record labels want their products protected from the widespread thievery popularized by services such as Napster. Spurred by the threat of federal legislation, technology companies such as Microsoft Corp. and RealNetworks Inc. are scrambling to prove that their systems do more than the other fellow's to keep content under lock and key.
A delicate detente is breaking down under pressure from peer-to-peer networks, placing two powerful industries on a collision course that could reshape the legal landscape for online file-swapping. ... But the last thing they want is to become an enforcement arm for copyright holders. While it's hard to say this is now the case, ISPs say they're increasingly worried that's the direction entertainment companies are headed. "We fully support the rights of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) or any other organization to protect copyright holders," said Dave Baker, an attorney for EarthLink. "But the thing is, if there is an infringer, they should be going against the infringer, not holding ISPs responsible or trying to get ISPs to enforce property rights."
A delicate detente is breaking down under pressure from peer-to-peer networks, placing two powerful industries on a collision course that could reshape the legal landscape for online file-swapping.
... But the last thing they want is to become an enforcement arm for copyright holders. While it's hard to say this is now the case, ISPs say they're increasingly worried that's the direction entertainment companies are headed.
"We fully support the rights of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) or any other organization to protect copyright holders," said Dave Baker, an attorney for EarthLink. "But the thing is, if there is an infringer, they should be going against the infringer, not holding ISPs responsible or trying to get ISPs to enforce property rights."
If you walk into Best Buy, Wherehouse or any of the other chain stores I've visited lately, the CD racks are deserted--the action is across the aisle in the DVD and video game departments. While the music business is in a tailspin, trying to battle Internet piracy and fan alienation, DVDs have become a giant cash machine for Hollywood. ... So why are movies and video games booming while the music business, pop culture's trend-setter of the past several decades, is in such a funk? The people who run record companies gloomily blame the Internet. But if you ask music and movie lovers, you get a very different answer. Consumers adore DVDs, which offer cool packaging and lots of interactive extras; they loathe CDs, which they say are grossly over-priced and padded with filler.
If you walk into Best Buy, Wherehouse or any of the other chain stores I've visited lately, the CD racks are deserted--the action is across the aisle in the DVD and video game departments. While the music business is in a tailspin, trying to battle Internet piracy and fan alienation, DVDs have become a giant cash machine for Hollywood.
... So why are movies and video games booming while the music business, pop culture's trend-setter of the past several decades, is in such a funk? The people who run record companies gloomily blame the Internet. But if you ask music and movie lovers, you get a very different answer. Consumers adore DVDs, which offer cool packaging and lots of interactive extras; they loathe CDs, which they say are grossly over-priced and padded with filler.
What is the argument used by those companies that say strong intellectual property rights are necessary on the Internet? The arguments I've heard are about the need to defend their significant investment for a long period of time before it gets taken by others. It's not an argument well-tuned in the context of the Internet. All of the creative work in the context of software and its implementation to the Internet is how the idea is implemented, not really the idea itself. However, given the way patents function now, they become the patents of ideas and that creates a huge ability to block subsequent deployment of competing systems. The standard response of any capitalist is to say, "Give me a monopoly or else I won't be able to compete." A standard response of wise government would be to say, "We don't give capitalists monopolies unless they're absolutely necessary, so we'd rather have you compete like hell than give you the power to use the government to stop people from competing against you."
What is the argument used by those companies that say strong intellectual property rights are necessary on the Internet?
The arguments I've heard are about the need to defend their significant investment for a long period of time before it gets taken by others. It's not an argument well-tuned in the context of the Internet. All of the creative work in the context of software and its implementation to the Internet is how the idea is implemented, not really the idea itself. However, given the way patents function now, they become the patents of ideas and that creates a huge ability to block subsequent deployment of competing systems.
The standard response of any capitalist is to say, "Give me a monopoly or else I won't be able to compete." A standard response of wise government would be to say, "We don't give capitalists monopolies unless they're absolutely necessary, so we'd rather have you compete like hell than give you the power to use the government to stop people from competing against you."
Companies doing genomic research, like Redwood City's Maxygen, have a problem. To make money, the companies feel they need to control the rights to the DNA sequences they uncover. But patenting these sequences is ethically and legally tricky. ... So, Maxygen's scientists and lawyers are proposing a downright odd solution to this pickle: Encode the DNA sequences as MP3s or other music files and then copyright these genetic "tunes." There's been software on the market for years that can make this switch. ... As the "authors" of these DNA-based songs, Maxygen could, in theory, control the rights to the compositions for 95 years or more -- as opposed to the 17 years given under current patent law.
Software publisher Adobe Systems announced late Tuesday that it was taking legal action against publishing and imaging conglomerate Agfa over Adobe's right to use certain Agfa-owned fonts in its Acrobat electronic-document software. Adobe filed suit in U.S District Court in San Jose, Calif., seeking a judicial ruling that would allow it to continue using typefaces developed by International Typeface, a design firm acquired by Belgium-based Agfa in 2000. Adobe said it also started an arbitration case in London over similar claims to fonts developed by Agfa's Monotype subsidiary.
Software publisher Adobe Systems announced late Tuesday that it was taking legal action against publishing and imaging conglomerate Agfa over Adobe's right to use certain Agfa-owned fonts in its Acrobat electronic-document software.
Adobe filed suit in U.S District Court in San Jose, Calif., seeking a judicial ruling that would allow it to continue using typefaces developed by International Typeface, a design firm acquired by Belgium-based Agfa in 2000. Adobe said it also started an arbitration case in London over similar claims to fonts developed by Agfa's Monotype subsidiary.
Mainland China is the piracy capital of the world. China's imitation industry feeds not just its own economy, but those of other nations as well; 46 percent of the pirated goods sold in America come from China, according to the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA). The Quality Brands Protection Committee (QBPC), an anti-piracy body under the auspices of the China Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment, claims that government statistics show that counterfeits outnumber genuine products in the Chinese market by 2 to 1. Pirated audiovisual materials occupy 95 percent of the market in large cities, and the proportion approaches 100 percent in the rural interior. Stricter laws have stemmed the tide only slightly, because anti-piracy law, like most of Chinese law, is enforced haphazardly at best, and everyone knows it. Enforcement efforts are made even more futile by popular acceptance of piracy. Rising incomes have created an enthusiasm for foreign goods and brands, but Chinese consumers have become so accustomed to cheap, pirated goods that they are unwilling to pay full prices for the real thing. Traditional Chinese moral relativism combines with a modern sense of short-term opportunity cost and self-interest to justify what everyone knows to be wrong and illegal.
Mainland China is the piracy capital of the world. China's imitation industry feeds not just its own economy, but those of other nations as well; 46 percent of the pirated goods sold in America come from China, according to the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA). The Quality Brands Protection Committee (QBPC), an anti-piracy body under the auspices of the China Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment, claims that government statistics show that counterfeits outnumber genuine products in the Chinese market by 2 to 1. Pirated audiovisual materials occupy 95 percent of the market in large cities, and the proportion approaches 100 percent in the rural interior. Stricter laws have stemmed the tide only slightly, because anti-piracy law, like most of Chinese law, is enforced haphazardly at best, and everyone knows it.
Enforcement efforts are made even more futile by popular acceptance of piracy. Rising incomes have created an enthusiasm for foreign goods and brands, but Chinese consumers have become so accustomed to cheap, pirated goods that they are unwilling to pay full prices for the real thing. Traditional Chinese moral relativism combines with a modern sense of short-term opportunity cost and self-interest to justify what everyone knows to be wrong and illegal.
Last night, I did a panel on copyright (and more specifically, on bad copyright laws like the DMCA) at BayCon. I didn't find out until I got there that they'd invited Harlan Ellison to the panel as well. As a result, the talk ended up consisting mostly of Harlan bellowing obscenities and threats of physical violence, which may have been vastly entertaining, but left me feeling like a lot of important information and useful debate got drowned out by the histrionics. Harlan loathes the Internet (though he says he doesn't, I have the message he had Joe Straczinsky send to my Clarion class through GEnie, in which he basically calls us idiots for engaging in something as foolish at networked communication) and is proudly ignorant of its workings, features and underpinnings.
Abstract: The electronic book should be a boon to people with disabilities. Unfortunately, the nascent eBook industry has often soundproofed its books, preventing access by people with visual and learning disabilities using adaptive technology. Persons using synthetic text-to-speech technology or electronic braille systems are not allowed access to the underlying text of the eBooks, and thus are cut off from the content. The leading eBook technology providers, Adobe and Microsoft, have provided the option to disable disability access in their publishing systems, at the request of publishers. This is not because of an explicit effort to deny access to the disabled community, but rather is due to concerns over audio book rights and enabling piracy of book content. We explore these conflicting visions of accessible eBooks and set forth the essential background for the search for a solution that meets the needs of both publishers and people with disabilities.
Digital IP Links Home | Search Links | New Links | Popular Links | Top Rated | Admin Login | Powered by ssLinks v1.22