Digital-Copyright Bill Inspires Flurry of Criticism

[Jason Dunn]

<a href="http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=793164">http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=793164</a><br /><br />I doubt many people knew who Senator Holdings was before last month, but he's quickly becoming famous for being the author of a very controversial bill that would radically alter the digital landscape for today's consumer. Wow. I almost sounded like a real reporter there - I'll try to avoid that from now on.<br /><br />"Well-connected lobbyists and everyday users alike have flooded Congress with faxes and e-mails over the last several weeks to lodge complaints against a bill that would prevent new computers, CD players and other consumer-electronics devices from playing unauthorized movies, music and other digital media files. <br /><br />Sen. Ernest Hollings' bill is backed by media firms such as The Walt Disney Co. DIS.N , who fear fast Internet connections and an array of digital devices such as MP3 players and CD burners will encourage consumers to seek free copies of hit singles and new movies. The South Carolina Democrat has said he introduced the bill to encourage media and technology firms to work together to stop digital piracy. <br /><br />Instead, it has inspired a flurry of criticism."

[Ed Hansberry]

I'll need to read a bit more about the site, but I think I'll be joining www.digitalconsumer.org soon. Fascist media companies. :evil:

[bjornkeizers]

Fascist media companies. :evil:


Indeed. I think I speak for many a consumer when I say: **** Them!

The simple fact is: it's a consumer's market. We decide what we do and don't want, we make or break the companys.

If they do something like with new PC's that you can't play MP3.. then most people just won't buy that PC. What will happen is people will start building their own PC's without the protection.

The truth is: where there's a will, there's a way. They will never be able to stop us now mwhahahahahhahahahahha :twisted:

[Take1]

I've been building my own PCs for some time now (started with 375 MHz AMD K-62!) and this will simply mean I'll be looking for overseas components rather than buying in the U.S.

Hollings is on a power trip and he's pretty much trying to restrict the freedoms of U.S. citizens under the guise of protecting the 'consumers'. Why do they always claim they are 'protecting' those they are trying to screw over? The only one being protected is the RIAA and the movie companies -- everyone will have to jump through hoops just to do stuff they do legally right now if this bill passes (i.e. can't record your fav T.V. show on the VCR -- that's stealing!!!).

[Kre]

I can understand artists not wanting their material to be downloaded for free. If I were a professional musician, I wouldnt want hundreds of thousands or more people acquiring most or all of my material for free. I dont agree with one person buying a CD and allowing a hundred thousand others to have the whole album for free if they want. If that continues, then soon itll become nearly impossible for some artists to even make a living. After all, no one works for free. So I can respect that. But this is about finding a balance between a lot of things, and its about a shift in power. However, I do agree that some of these bills have to be stopped. You give these companies a foot, and theyll take a mile. Its as simple as that. And what does some senator from the South know about all of this? Honestly, how much can this techno illiterate truly understand about all of this? Please.

Much of this doesnt just have to do with what we can download, but much of it also has to do with the artists and how they can present their music online. If they want to make limited amounts of their music online for free in the effort to entice the masses to buy the whole album, then they should be able to do that.

Im interested in what protects the artist and the consumer, NOT what protects the machine, otherwise know as the RIAA or the big music companies, or corporate music, or whatever you want to call them.

Artists need more power and ownership with what it is they create. Simple as that. The internet will help with that. So Im against any bill that could even so much as serve as a stepping stone in a stride to prevent that. Im against any bill that prevents consumers from being able to use mp3 players, dvd recorders, etc.

I definitely dont want to have to pay anything to record a TV show onto DVD or DVR. God help us if that happens. That would just be plain stupid. Besides, TV is different than music in that respect. Low quality, over the air TV is free and should remain free. And recording shows in higher quality format should be free too, since they are in effect being paid for via our cable and satellite bills. Not to mention, TV is not on demand or commercial free, but rather, is completely controlled in this respect by the big companies as well. So paying to record high quality movies and TV? No way.

But music is different. I can understand paying for CD quality music. But power needs to be taken away from corporate music and transferred over to the artist. Then, not only will it become easier for the artist to make a living, but music would become less costly to acquire. Or should, anyway.

Besides, these big companies have WAY too much power and control. Ive heard before that there are only four major companies that own all of the radio stations in America. Thats ridiculous. And we see too much of this type of power within the entertainment industry. Corporate just sucks. It just does. But it doesnt have to.

I am all for advancing a landscape where a balanced exchange of material for dollar exists between artist and consumer, with corporate having very little involvement.

When I think about it, I wonder what corporate is so scared of. Are they scared that if this shift in power takes place, they may have trouble making a living? What, like ten million a year isnt enough? Each fat cat needs fifty or a hundred million a year to survive? If thats the case, then it makes me wonder just how much these guys are actually contributing to the whole creative process, besides just sitting back and collecting a paycheck. Truth be known, even with a shift in power, these corporate fat cats would still make a fortune.

But maybe theres some truth to this corporate fear. Because without artists, there would be no corporate, but without corporate, there would always be artists.

[jlc, just jlc]

I doubt many people knew who Senator Holdings was before last month, but he's quickly becoming famous for being the author of a very controversial bill that would radically alter the digital landscape for today's consumer. Wow. I almost sounded like a real reporter there - I'll try to avoid that from now on.

Actually, he's also famous for Graham-Rudmann-Hollings.

What's happening is technology is forcing a shift in the way digital media will be sold and delivered, and those with a vested interets in th eold way don't want to lose their mopney machine. As a result, they turn to regulation to help them stymie competitors - at leats until they can figure out how to continue to dominate the new distribution methods.

I can understand artists not wanting their material to be downloaded for free. If I were a professional musician, I wouldnt want hundreds of thousands or more people acquiring most or all of my material for free. I dont agree with one person buying a CD and allowing a hundred thousand others to have the whole album for free if they want. If that continues, then soon itll become nearly impossible for some artists to even make a living. After all, no one works for free. So I can respect that. But this is about finding a balance between a lot of things, and its about a shift in power.

One of the shifts that occur may be a move towards giving more music away to build a loyal fan base that will buy as well as swap and relying on other sources of income - such as touring and merchandise. The Dead did that for years - a whole culture has built up around the Dead and swapping concert tapes. They built up a loyal foan base - that didn't seek to rip them off, nor felt they were being ripped off by the Dead when a new CD/album was released that they were expected to buy, not copy. Is that a viable model (i.e. encourage swapping to build up a large following, make money off of T-shirts and tours, and release for-pay music on the web as well - relying on your fans to buy rather than steal, and not worry too much about those that do) for music today?

Downloadable music has the advantage of being able to be sold for a lot less than a CD and still put more money in the artists pocket.

That model cuts out much of today's distribution network - which labels will no doubt fight hard to prevent.

However, I do agree that some of these bills have to be stopped. You give these companies a foot, and theyll take a mile. Its as simple as that. And what does some senator from the South know about all of this? Honestly, how much can this techno illiterate truly understand about all of this? Please.

Don't underestimate Fritz Hollings. While I agree the bill is bad, he's neither a fool nor some techno illerate good ol' boy.

[TomB]

jlc, just jlc - you are right about technology forcing a shift in digital media. The other side of this is that nobody cares what you do in the privacy of your own home as long as it doesn't limit the copyright owners ability to make a living. If you own a copy of the Matrix, you could theoretically make ten thousand copies of that film so that you always have a copy handy for yourself. Even though that violates existing law - NOBODY CARES. In fact, if the originals are copy-protected, you can find dozens of ways to turn off copy protection to make those ten thousand copies and NOBODY CARES.

HOWEVER, take one of your ten thousand personal copies and give it to a friend OR place it online through P2P and those potential sales are out the window for the copyright owner. In other words when "Fair Use" becomes an "Unfair Use" PEOPLE START CARING and start to rewrite the law. Holdings' proposed law is probably going to go forward in some way unless someone comes up with a viable counter-measure. And since 40 million users ran "Fair Use" into the ground through documented Napster trades in March 2001, testimony is not going to do much for us.

We have to come up with some mechanism that allows personal use but prohibits abuse. Maybe the answer is not copy protection at all but some embedded flag that prevents electronic transfers of COPYRIGHTED material. I have no idea what the solution is, but I do know that Napster not only instigated Holdings but killed any shot we had at rhetoric. If consumer advocacy is going to work for us we need a technical counter-proposal that works for the producers AND the consumers - not well-meaning testimony or petitions.

[Steven Cedrone]

This is such a "touchy" subject...

1) Artists should get paid for their work.
2) I should be able to copy the music I have legally purchased.

How do we get 1 and 2 to coexist without undo burden to either the Musician or the Consumer????

Add to this:

3) the RIAA.
4) Lawyers. (No offense, Marlof)
5) Senators (Owned by the RIAA, no doubt).

What a mess, and all I want to do is burn a "greatest hits" CD......

mwhahahahahhahahahahha

Great evil laugh :lol:

[TomB]

One of the shifts that occur may be a move towards giving more music away to build a loyal fan base that will buy as well as swap and relying on other sources of income - such as touring and merchandise.

No problem as long as this is the artist's decision through unlocked media and NOT the traders' through a rip...

[Steven Cedrone]

BTW, not to shift the focas of this debate but:

But power needs to be taken away from corporate music and transferred over to the artist.

[Devils advocate]

Does anyone remember when Stephen King tried to do an E-book on a pay-per-download basis......

Didn't he pull the project?????

A change in paradigm might be harder then we think.....

[/devils advocate]

[dma1965]

I was beginning to like him!!!! :cry: :!:

[Jason Dunn]

OH NO, MARLOF IS A LAWYER!!!! I was beginning to like him!


He's an exception to the rule - he's one of the GOOD lawyers. :-)

[Jeff Kirvin]

Does anyone remember when Stephen King tried to do an E-book on a pay-per-download basis......

Didn't he pull the project?????

A change in paradigm might be harder then we think.....

He pulled the project because his math was flawed. He wanted 75% "pay-through" on downloads. Sounds reasonable, until you realize that publishing ebooks on the net is not like a physical print run. You can't possibly know how many copies are actually in circulation. You can know how many people downloaded from your site, but not how many copies they emailed to friends, or how many copies were downloaded from Usenet. You can know how many copies have been paid for, but using that number in any kind of percentage calculation is meaningless. I know his numbers were off because I paid for every installment, but I only downloaded one of them from his website. The rest I acquired "elsewhere."

What King should have done is set a dollar threshold for each installment. "Send me $50,000 or you won't see the next chapter. Mwahahahahahaha." At least that's a concrete number that you either meet or you don't. Percentages don't mean anything in digital.

He also was under a lot of pressure from his publisher to finish "Dreamcatcher" as I recall, and said that he might come back and finish "The Plant" when he gets time.

[Jason Dunn]

Does anyone remember when Stephen King tried to do an E-book on a pay-per-download basis......Didn't he pull the project?????
A change in paradigm might be harder then we think.....


Indeed, he did. No one but he knows why he didn't do it, but there is some speculation. The first is that he wasn't making enougn money off of it - only something like 10,000 people paid for the first issue ($1 each), and the numbers went down with each issue. For someone like King, who's used to making millions per book, this is chump change. If you could spend a week making $10,000 or making $1 million, what would you do?

There's not a big enough eBook market out there yet, but the market won't grow unless there is quality, top-tier brands out there for people to buy. Classic chicken and the egg - and the publishers are laughing right now.

Eventually, it will actually work. :-)