Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

CD Copying Kiosks Endorsed in Australia 245

Posted by timothy from the very-polite-pirates-these-days dept.
Iron Sun writes: "While the story is somewhat misleading in stating that the plan legalises piracy, CD copying kiosks have been given the go ahead here in Australia. It will be interesting to see what the Australian Recording Industry Association says about this. Supposedly the plan involves royalty payments to ARIA, but where artists stand is not discussed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CD Copying Kiosks Endorsed in Australia More

CD Copying Kiosks Endorsed in Australia

Comments Filter:

  • Great (Score:4, Funny)

    by Theo DeRaadt ( 322600 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:20AM (#3755369) Homepage Journal
    As if I needed more people ripping off my OpenBSD ISO images and giving them to their friends.

    • MOD PARENT AS TROLL (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is not the man of OpenBSD fame. He spells his name as "Theo de Raadt " [http://www.theos.com/deraadt/]

    • Geeze, and I bet the ARIA wouldn't even give you royalties.
      Props on the first post, Theo.

    • But won't you rest easier at night knowing a portion from the sale of each OpenBSD CD will go to financing Britney Spears video clips? In fact, she may end up making more money out of OpenBSD than you do...

      Xix.
      --
      "Thous shalt not Brintney Spear" -- TISM
      • But won't you rest easier at night knowing a portion from the sale of each OpenBSD CD will go to financing Britney Spears video clips?

        Why should it? I'd have thought it would be a relatively trivial matter to look for CD audio tracks and cross check with a CDDB type thing to ID the track(s). Save the results in a database and you can divide up the royalties proportionately between the artists whose works were copied. Or at least divide up the remaining scraps after the industry has taken its "administration fee". Once that's working it wouldn't be too hard to scan MP3, OGG and other media files either.

        Of course, you can then link music tastes to a given credit card number and that leads to other YRO [slashdot.org] type issues, but hey, like what you buy on plastic isn't analysed to death already.

    • There have been two such machines at Murdoch University here in Perth for at least two years.

  • Better Quality? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Random Data ( 538955 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:22AM (#3755376)
    with superior sound quality to home burners and able to outwit anti-copying devices

    OK, Apart from $5/burn (or a whole 30CDs before you've paid for that burner), HTF am I going to get better than 44KHz out of a CD? The only interesting thing is that someone decided the copiers weren't illegal in and of themselves.

    • Assuming they're telling the truth,

      Well quality is a measured like anything else. Quality is initial quality and duration of the media. There are good quality CDR disks and bad, and after a while you can tell the difference because they won't skip so easily with scratches. I have read that consumer CD writers don't burn as deep as commercial printers, which I assume is a quality issue. So 6 months later the sound quality might be better with one of these.

      You can't get high-res sound from low-res whether it be sound or image or whatever. But there are algorithms to clean up low-res sound - perhaps they apply these. It wouldn't be a lie, but it would be a strange opinion, to say that this was a superior sound.

      ps. New Zealand has kiosks like this.

      • "Well quality is a measured like anything else. Quality is initial quality and duration of the media. There are good quality CDR disks and bad, and after a while you can tell the difference because they won't skip so easily with scratches. I have read that consumer CD writers don't burn as deep as commercial printers, which I assume is a quality issue. So 6 months later the sound quality might be better with one of these."

        You can control the power used by the laser to burn Audio Discs by using a drive that supports VariRec. My Plextor 40x12x40 IDE supports this but honestly I have not tinkered with it (yet).

  • I have seen these around for a while in Australia. The first one I saw in Melbourne in January, the second in Perth at my university.

    In the article it mentions they are superior quality to home burners - I wouldn't have thought there was a difference..?

  • Great! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Joe Tie. ( 567096 )
    Time to grab some Moby CDs and book a flight!

  • Cornered, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hkhanna ( 559514 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:23AM (#3755383) Journal
    ...the industry has been cornered into a compromise with the unstoppable pirating of music

    When will this industry wake up and realize you're not being cornered into anything! Accept the digital future and capitalize on it! I bet the RIAA/MPAA was "cornered" into accepting VHS only to find out now that it's one of it's biggest cash cows. They never seem to learn from their history. I bet once the conglomerates see how well this works in Australia, we'll see some relaxation on the lobbying from RIAA/MPAA.

    Hargun

    • Re:Cornered, eh? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by PerryMason ( 535019 )
      Unfortunately they aren't likely to wake up anytime soon. These days its a lot easier to litigate than to actually come up with a new business plan.

      The way I see it, the music industry et al are likely to expend millions trying to block the increasing piracy, which in turn will be passed onto the consumer as increased CD prices, which of course will lead to more piracy. The musicians themselves won't see any of the price increase, it will simply go to further line the pockets of record company lawyers.

      Just another sign of the decline of the human species. Money always wins out over common sense.
  • Wow. So now, Australians get to watch some Winamp plugins while listening to their freshly copied CDs. When will the plugins be able to output to Ogg Theora?
  • Experts told the Herald Sun the CD-pirating kiosks -- with superior sound quality to home burners and able to outwit anti-copying devices -- will be a winner with older users.

    Can someone explain to me how one digital-to-digital bitwise copy mechanism can result in 'superior sound quality' when compared to another mechanism, using the same data?
    • Can someone explain to me how one digital-to-digital bitwise copy mechanism can result in 'superior sound quality'

      They're probably thinking of the download and burn process using MP3s. A high bitrate MP3 is, to me anyway, indistinguishable from a CD, but there if you're downloading from P2P or Usenet there is a hell of a lot of crap out there.

      Not a good argument, but the only one I can think off. A copy of your own CD on a consumer CDR will not be inferior to a kiosk.
    • Maybe the "clean" the bits as the copy them. You know, if the one's and zero's are getting a bit furry around the edges the knock them back into shape and presto, crystal clear music.

  • targeted at technophobes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by call -151 ( 230520 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:27AM (#3755398) Homepage
    Apparently, this is targeted at people who can't figure out how to make their own copies. From the article
    Music industry consultant and former copyright lawyer Owen Trembath said: "The only ones whipping down to Woolies to make a burn will be parents. Mum has become the pirate."
    Since at $5/burn is steep enough that anyone who doesn't already have a burner would probably come out ahead buying their own (about 20-30 disks worth should pay for it) it seems like the people springing for this are ones who don't have a computer setup or the knowhow but don't want to miss out on all this CD duplication...
    • Since at $5/burn is steep enough that anyone who doesn't already have a burner would probably come out ahead buying their own (about 20-30 disks worth should pay for it)

      That's $5 Australian, between $3 and $2.50 US per burn. ($1 Aus this morning was 57c US, but it's been less than 55c US for most of last year [commerce.ubc.ca]). But since according to here [abcd.com.au] CD writers in Oz are only about $125 Aus, then you're right.

      • Bah this always happens...

        The currency conversion factor does not make as much a difference as you think...

        Yeah a 32x burner can be acquired for less than $100 AUD, which turns out to be $57 US - now compare that to the US price - anyone care to comment?
        • Oh, hell, I'll bite. How about a 32x12x40 burner [pricewatch.com] for $49 US with free shipping?

          I hope that comment sufficed.
        • "Yeah a 32x burner can be acquired for less than $100 AUD, which turns out to be $57 US - now compare that to the US price - anyone care to comment?"

          The USA has huge protections on its domestic market, adding insane tariffs to imports (like electronics from Japanese companies.) For example a Toyota that costs US$X in the USA will cost (approximately) CAD$X in Canada, even though US$1 == CAD$1.52 (woo, it's gone up!!)

    • I assume we are talking about the CopyCat CD burning kiosks [bbc.co.uk], made/sold by Multi-Tech Australia [multi-tech.com.au].

      These kiosks copy the bips 'n blips on the CD track directly through hardware, they have no software to read the track, or the formating information on the CD, for that matter.

      So any errors or copy protection gets copied too & it doesn't matter if its a non-ISO or part non-ISO formated CD being copied.

      They will copy HFS, BFS or packet formatted CDs, no problem.

      I remember reading a a blurb about these kiosks (some supermarkets in Adelaide have them) & the CD reader just records the bip 'n blips on the CD being copied & the burner just copies those blips 'n bips onto the new CD in realtime.

      Really they work more like punch-card copiers than tradition PC CD burning apps.

      Consequently there's no way for these copiers to tell if the CD is copyrighted or has copy protection, as such there's no 'by design' copy protection by-passing software/hardware built in. Plus as there's no way for the machine to tell if a CD is copyrighted there's no 'moral perogative' to reject such CDs.

      In a way the machines get arround the copyright laws the same way the Kazaa P2P network did in the Dutch courts. Like Kazaa it has legit functionality (backing up personal data or tranfering personal data, as is the case with Kazaa) & like Kazaa the design from the start has no ability to tell what's being copied & whether it copyrighted or has copy protection.

      Hence AMCOS only choice other than a 6% levy was a long court case that they'd most probably lose. Really multi-Tech (or who ever) just decided to agree to the 6% levy because it saves a long drawn out court case & its easily passed on.
    • "Since at $5/burn is steep enough that anyone who doesn't already have a burner would probably come out ahead buying their own (about 20-30 disks worth should pay for it) it seems like the people springing for this are ones who don't have a computer setup or the knowhow but don't want to miss out on all this CD duplication... "

      This is why printing services for digital cameras is a blossoming industry. People could just get a the right printer, paper and the software that came with their camera. But 'photography expert' does not always mean 'competent computer user' so these people will pay for simplicity and convenience of paying someone else to print up your digital pics.

      And I agree with them. I for one don't like the hassle of having to constantly get expensive ink (or inexpensive refills) for inkjet printers that always break down.

  • Choosing your truth (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jon_eaves ( 22962 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:29AM (#3755404) Homepage
    In the article, we have this comment,
    Michael Speck, of ARIA's anti-piracy investigations unit, said: "Any request or application that is made of the industry is not just point-blank rejected. This is very much a case of watch this space.

    "There are many legitimate uses for CD burners. However, experience has shown illegitimate uses as well."

    So, when music sales are down, it's because of those damn pirates, but when we can get somebody to pay us, regardless of our principles, then it's a legitimate use.

    Yeah, riiight...
    • So, when music sales are down, it's because of those damn pirates, but when we can get somebody to pay us, regardless of our principles, then it's a legitimate use.

      Which kindof tells you something doesn't it? To keep our computers DRM free (and to prevent atrocities like the CBDPTA) we just have to name the right price for the RIAA/MPAA. You think they would object if we gave them.. say.. .50 per month/internet connection or 2$/50 blank cd's (I realize there is already a price on the CD's but it must not be high enough to completely silence their claims).

      While I detest their methods of holding onto their monopoly I would be more than willing to pay them to shut em up - and make sure my computer is DRM free. Which, like it or not, is starting to gain steam and we will likely see it in the near future.

    • Re:Choosing your truth (Score:4, Funny)

      by Hektor_Troy ( 262592 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @03:29AM (#3755686)
      "There are many legitimate uses for CD burners. However, experience has shown illegitimate uses as well."

      Let's replace the piracy issue with something else:

      "There are many legitimate uses for cars. However, experience has shown illegitimate uses as well."

      "There are many legitimate uses for back packs. However, experience has shown illegitimate uses as well."

      "There are many legitimate uses for knives. However, experience has shown illegitimate uses as well."

      "There are many legitimate uses for money. However, experience has shown illegitimate uses as well."

      I'm rather impressed with their ability to find illegitimate uses for CD burners ... wow ... how much time did they spend comming up with that.

  • geez, bias enough??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:29AM (#3755406)
    anyone else notice the article says 'cd-pirating kiosks' (italics mine) all the way through?

    wtf ever happened to integrity, or better yet just proper use of the english language? it's called 'copying' because i get a COPY, i don't go into this thing and walk out holding a pirate...

  • definitions? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eythian ( 552130 ) <robin@kallisti.ne t . nz> on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:32AM (#3755416) Homepage

    If ``music piracy'' is defined as something similar to ``the illegal copying of music'', then how can the sentence ``plan that legalises music piracy'' be parsed? Once its legal, its no longer piracy.

    • Re:definitions? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by intermodal ( 534361 )
      Answer: it was never piracy. Nothing is actually taken. it's copyright violation. The idea of "theft" or "stealing" is incorrectly labelling the act. Anything other than:

      1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
      2 : robbery on the high seas

      is a blatant misnomer which has become popularized to demonize fair use by labelling all copying of content including that protected/allowed by law. What actual "piracy" that goes on is simple copyright infringement, not piracy. People need to get their terminology straight. This is how the term "hacker" became demonized by the media, too.
      • > This is how the term "hacker" became demonized by the media, too.

        The difference is, there's a thriving hacker culture trying to get the media to use the word properly. (Although I think we've given up now)

        I don't see many actual pirates objecting to the term being used for mere copyright infringers.

        Besides... "pirate" is a cool term... peg legs, hooks, eye patches, talking parrots... what's not to love about the imagery?
      • I always assumed that 'piracy' in this sense came from the old pirate radio stations (which usually ran from ships in international waters, hence 'piracy'): these stations basically 'stole' a radio frequency (i.e. they didn't pay for a licence) and didn't pay royalties for the music they played.

        I agree that if you download a copyrighted MP3 or copy a copyrighted CD, you aren't *actually* stealing anything (it's copyright infringement, which is kind of different). But I presume the term piracy has stuck because of the etymology:

        "Pirate" == "Doing something illegal on the High Seas" == "Transmitting unlicenced music on the high seas" == "Doing something illegal involving music".
    • Oh, please. This has never been about fair and accurate terminology. The term "piracy" has become popular with content providers -- rather than the vastly more accurate "copyright infringement" -- because the unsavory connotations give them a default advantage in discussions. Call it what it is, and the issue sounds dry and arcane. Call it "piracy" and the issue sounds nefarious and vicious. So despite the fact that very few boats are pillaged and very few CD copiers sport peglegs, we call it piracy.


      Why in the world do you imagine they'd want to give that advantage up, even if it makes their position intrinsically inconsistent?

    • If Australia's laws are anything like Canada's, it may not have been illegal anyways. See:
      http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/36498.html#rid-3 6621 [justice.gc.ca]
      and tell me if a CD copying kiosk would be illegal in Canada. I'm sure the record companies don't want the Canadian public to know about this law.

  • Royalties (Score:5, Interesting)

    by serps ( 517783 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:40AM (#3755441) Homepage
    "...AMCOS said it would endorse the CD-pirating kiosks for a standard royalty of about 6 per cent."

    Yet another case of taxing everyone for the deeds of the few. Unfortunately, Australia has no laws about fair use (ok, they do have exemptions in their version of the DMCA, but only if the material wasn't copy-protected in the first place) so I guess it's better than expected.

    Since we're paying royalties, does this mean we're entitled to copy and give these copied CDs away? After all, the artist is being compensated so it's not stealing, is it?

    • From the Australian Copyright Council Fact Sheet [copyright.org.au]: (PDF)

      Can I make backup copies of my music CDs?
      Making a backup copy of a CD will involve making a reproduction of the music, lyrics and sound recordings on that CD. The right to reproduce the work is one of the exclusive rights of the owners of copyright in those items. You may not legally make a back up copy of a CD when the CD contains material that is protected by copyright unless you have permission from the owner of copyright or a special exception applies to your use.

  • More public domain (Score:3, Insightful)

    by martyn s ( 444964 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:44AM (#3755453)
    Now that the first step is being implemented, we only need to take care of a few more steps.

    1) lower copyright restrictions to 12 years.
    2) require that if any work wants to have copyright protection, that it must submit it to a database for safekeeping
    3) Open up all the works in that database that is older than 12 years old.
    4) Network these kiosks to allow anyone to download and burn anything they want from the database
    5) Now you have a library system that the founding fathers would be proud of.
    • That sounds a bit more like freeloading then allowing creative content to be heard/watched/read. Library systems only lend out art for limited times, why should their be a change to giving out things permanently?

      Information wants to be free blah blah blah, but seriously, why should a person have to give up everything hes worked for after 12 years? Lending = ok, giving for free = not ok.

      This will more than likely be modded down (due to dissent), but i would like a response on your thoughts.
      • Blockquoth the poster:

        Information wants to be free blah blah blah, but seriously, why should a person have to give up everything hes worked for after 12 years? Lending = ok, giving for free = not ok.

        Logically, then, you oppose any term limitations on copyright? I mean, why should a person have to give up everything after 70 years? Or 95? or death+75?


        Actually, there is a reason: Copyright is not a natural monopoly; it's an artificial one, granted by and maintained by the state, not by the natural characteristics of the information. The public must expend resources to provide for you the market you believe you "deserve". In return, the public legitimately demands compensation. That compensation is called "the public domain" -- the vast (but not, IMHO, vast enough) collection of works "owned" by everyone.


        Like many on the RIAA side of this, you misconstrue the dictum. The slogan doesn't say "Information providers want information to be free." It says "Information wants to be free". That is, information by itself resists ownership, since ideas replicate freely and, now, digital information can be replicated for a cost that is essentially zero. (NB: It can be replicated for zero cost. I am not arguing that there are no costs of production.)


        Information wants to be free in the sense that water wants to reach lower ground. Sure, you can dam up a stream and you can even pump water to a higher level. But both take an input of energy -- the latter takes a continual input, in fact -- and eventually, the water works it way out anyway.

        • Im not advocating long term copyright, but just so theres more of a balance. Books, especially, might not become popular until about 20 years after they're written, and unless for completely altruistic reasons on the authors part, he is going to lose some money.

          Though, 12 years does probably seem a long time in todays digital age, it just seemed short in the scheme of things. Maybe im wrong.
          • Books, especially, might not become popular until about 20 years after they're written, and unless for completely altruistic reasons on the authors part, he is going to lose some money.

            Hypothetically speaking, that would kinda suck. I would be interested in seeing exactly how often this happens. Though another question would be -- in the intervening years between writting the book and that book becoming popular, what exactly has the author been doing? I guess that's just my engineering side talking, but if I have a kick-ass idea at work, that idea doesn't pay me for the next 20 years. Ah, whatever. :)

            If the above situation did happen often, that would have to be taken into account. If it doesn't happen very often, then I would say that it doesn't need to be taken into account, as it is just part of the risk of authorship. After all, it is quite possible for a book to -never- become popular at all, and no duration of copyright will make the author money.
          • Books, especially, might not become popular until about 20 years after they're written,

            What publisher is going to publish an unpopular book for 20 years against the possibility it might suddenly become popular. Indeed how many books originally published in 1982 have suddenly become popular after 20 years of obscurity?

      • Re:More public domain (Score:5, Insightful)

        by martyn s ( 444964 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @02:51AM (#3755623)
        Ok, first of all, let's lay down some of the theory and history behind copyright. According to the constitution, copyright is supposed to be for limited times, and only as long as it is furthering progress in the arts (and sciences).

        Now, the consitution didn't actually have any copyright law in it; it was just an enumerated power of Congress, since congress, at least in theory, can only use the powers given to them in the Constitution.

        So the first copyright act basically made copyright 14 years. Not 70. Not 30. Just 14. This was because, people at the time understood that copyright was designed to enrich the public domain. You use the word "freeloading" and I will not contest that accusation. This is the purpose of copyright. To eventually enrich the public domain so there is free art available for everyone.

        Until now, however, if you went into any bookstore, there was hardly any difference between a copyrighted and a public domain book. Maybe a copyrighted book costed a little more, but for the most part, no one was hurt by having copyright extended. There was no such thing as getting a book "for free" or a movie "for free". There were printing costs.

        But, now we have this extraordinary ability: we have the ability to copy and distribute any form of art for virtually no cost. The reason why libraries have traditionally only "lent" stuff was because it costed money, a significant amount of money, to make a copy of anything, so since there were a limited number of copies, they had to be shared among the community, and therefore people could only "borrow" it.

        So here's the meat of the question: how much will artists lose if copyright is reduced to 12 years?

        Well what if I told you that any given piece of art only makes 10% of it's revenue after 12 years. That means if some book was going to bring in 500,000 dollars revenue in 150 years, on average, it would bring in 450,000 in 12 years. So basically we are locking up all forms of art for 138 more years, just to squeeze out an extra 10% revenue. That doesn't really make any sense, and it goes against the spirit of the first copyright act, and against the spirit of a truly open society.

        In the year 1930 over 10,000 books were published. Of those 10,000+ books, only 175 are still in print. Don't you find that tragic? 9,825 books are locked up forever to protect those 175 books, books that probably don't sell that well anyway, and books that would've been written even if copyright were only 12 years.

        Copyright is not a natural right. It's something that we, as a society, offer to maximize the art produced.

        I don't care what you hear, but copyright is not intended as "incentive". People's passion for their art is the incentive, copyright is just designed to let people devote their life to their art and still have money to live. The money itself is not the incentive.

        But that is really inconsequential. Even if people are just making art just to get rich, they'd still get nearly as rich with just a 12 year copyright.

        In 1790 copyright lasted 14 years. Since 1790 the following things have happened

        1) The cost of printing has decreased
        2) The time to market, time for people to learn/hear about your product has decreased
        3) The available audience has increased, therefore a greater potential sales.

        All these things indicate a need for *less* copyright. Yet all this things have increased since then. Why?

        Just like shakespeare is free, I believe art of our own time should be free, at least while it's still relevant. It's not about being too "cheap". It's just incredibly wasteful to lock up art that no one is buying anymore, but that many many people will watch/read/listen to if it were available for free.

        If you read the dialogue between the founding fathers about copyright, they were suprisingly prescient about where things were going, and the discussion is very relevant today. They were very clear about it, and at the time they decided on 14 years. The fact that it became longer was because it didn't really affect anyone negatively before it was too late.

        This I can assure you: If this technology was around before copyright was extended, it would never have been extended. And the world would be a richer place for it.

        • Well what if I told you that any given piece of art only makes 10% of it's revenue after 12 years.

          I think there's much more money than that at stake.

          Consider who is pushing for these copyright extensions: large corporations with a lot to lose if their intellectual property enters the public domain. Check out this interesting article [findlaw.com].

          • There's a lot of money at stake, yes. But that doesn't make the figure I gave less accurate. The absolute, final value which is at stake might be high. But as a percentage of all revenue for all copyrighted works, it is not very high, and it does not justify locking up all cultural works for a century just to protect the revenues that a select few copyrighted works bring in.

          • I didn't even take into account all the cannibalization that goes on in the entertainment industry. Actors, being so valuable, manage to suck up all the extra revenues that the movie studios manage to bring in with extensive copyright. Music and movie studios cannibalize each other with advertising.

            I can't really back this up entirely, but this is my position: If there were less money at stake, there'd be less money to pay actors, less money to waste on advertising, but the output, would remain the same, because the public demand would remain the same.

            Think about advertising. If I spend 100 million dollars on advertising, and you spend 100 million dollars on equally effective advertising for a competing product, we end up where we started. Advertising is a necessary evil, but I believe that will be the first thing to go, along with exorbitant actor's salaries if reduced copyright led to reduced revenue for the entertainment industry.

            Plus, read this:
            creative motivation [gnu.org]

            Of course, it's always important to consider the source; I don't think Richard Stallman would post any studies which didn't support his theory. But still, this cannot be ignored, and adds a whole new dimension to this question.
        • Your comment is very insightful, and it has given me more of an insight into the views of short-term copyrights, of which I must come to an agreement with.

          A few things -

          So the first copyright act basically made copyright 14 years. Not 70. Not 30. Just 14. This was because, people at the time understood that copyright was designed to enrich the public domain.

          Agreement with you notwithstanding, 14 years would be a completely different ball game back in those days. I think you would find that an individual was probably the main holder of copyright back in those days, and due to life expectancy and the communication forms back in those days, 14 years was probably both an appopriate time for an individual, and for society.

          But 12 years, as stated earlier, seems a little quick towards public domain.I can think of numerous examples of books, music and poetry which do not gain acclaim and popularity until long after they are written. While these are extreme cases, I personally don't think its fair to deprive an artist of income, just because they happened to have ideas and/or music which became popular and mainstream after 13 years, or whatever.

          In the current society, we are faced with two opposing ideals. One is, due to the information age, and society speeding along, anything written over 10 years ago will be horrifically outdated, and should be released to the public domain as quickly as possible. The other seems to view that due to the corporatization of ideas and art, copyrights should be held for a substantial time to allow proper rewards for the development and foster of art.

          In the year 1930 over 10,000 books were published. Of those 10,000+ books, only 175 are still in print. Don't you find that tragic? 9,825 books are locked up forever to protect those 175 books, books that probably don't sell that well anyway, and books that would've been written even if copyright were only 12 years.

          I find that reprimandable, and diverging a little, it seems to me that probably the best authors to support are the ones that are slightly more altruistic with their stories/ideas. Is there anyway you can release your works to public domain, without still holding to the fact you can turnaround and sue/prosecute later?

          But the replies both by you and as of current 2 other posters have given me food for thought. Thanks.

          • The point is copyright is really about funding art, not about incentive.

            If a piece of art became famous 12 years or later after it was released, then clearly this artist found other ways of supporting himself. If he developed a reputation, then copyright will help him fund any subsequent art.

            That's another thing I left out: short copyrights motivate truly creative people to create more art and not get fat off of one piece of art. It will motivate people to continually make new things.

            But then again, any true artist creates art because he has ideas, and would be creating new art anyway.

            12 years is really just a random number. Maybe 7 years is more ideal. Maybe the original 14 years is more ideal. Maybe 25 is the most ideal. I really don't know. It's kind of just a random number that I threw out because I like the way it sounds.

        • Re:More public domain (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Tryfen ( 216209 )
          Although I agree with you, the artiste in me quarrels with this part...

          Just like shakespeare is free, I believe art of our own time should be free, at least while it's still relevant

          Every time your local theatre puts on Romeo and Juliet, it's not putting on the work (and paying) of your local playwrite. Although it's fairly likely that a recording artist with an equitable contract could make a living of the first 14 years of their hit album, I think that most other artists wouldn't.

          I know many actors who live on they royalty/residual payments from work that they did years ago - it's a lifeline for them. The same goes for authors.

          Yes, I'd like free books/plays/music and I believe that the incentive for the artist is the creation of art - but it's hard to be motivated when you also have to hold down a 9-5.

          Personally, I think that (unless the artist choses otherwise) copyright should last until the death of the artist. Don't forget, in 1790 the average life expectancy was a lot lower than today.

          If every work of art was a best seller and netted the creator millions of Euros, then I would agree with reducing the copyright time as far as possible. As it stands, for every Beatle there are a thousand worthy but unheard of bands who are still working hard but need a return on their investment that will last longer than 14 years.
          • You're missing the key point in my post. If revenues after 12 years are only 10% then your hypothetical scenarios aren't happening. In other words after 12 years, it's just not that important to the artist.

            I don't see what the average life span in 1790 has anything to do with the intention of the law. Copyright law is not in any way in consideration for the artist. It's a way of funding his work. Are you saying that now that people live longer the prospect of not controlling their art for the rest of their life is going to discourage them? That doesn't really make any sense.
            • I don't see what the average life span in 1790 has anything to do with the intention of the law. Copyright law is not in any way in consideration for the artist. It's a way of funding his work. Are you saying that now that people live longer the prospect of not controlling their art for the rest of their life is going to discourage them? That doesn't really make any sense.

              You can just as easily say that people living longer means that copyrights should be shorter, because there are more potential customers...

          • Re:More public domain (Score:3, Insightful)

            by thales ( 32660 )
            "Personally, I think that (unless the artist choses otherwise) copyright should last until the death of the artist. Don't forget, in 1790 the average life expectancy was a lot lower than today"

            Why limit the gravy train to artists? I would like to continue recieving payments from my employer of 14 years ago for the rest of my life. Why shouldn't I be able to avoid the 9 to 5 grind. 14 years ago I was maintaing Radar systems at a base where the US Navy trains pilots, and some of these pilots are still flying Naval aircraft so the Navy should be paying me "royalities" for the rest of my life.

            Sorry "Artist" is just another job field. It's special nature of payment IS deserving of a limited copyright protection, but NOT a lifelong mealticket. 14 years of automatic copyright protection covers this for most works, perhaps with an aditional ONE TIME 14 year extension upon payment of regestration fees but that's as far as it should go. Certainly not life plus 70 years so that the grandchildren of the "artist" can continue to collect long after they bury Gramps.

          • Copyright (the right to keep others from copying your creations) is NOT a natural right. It's an artificial right created in the 18th century to encourage authors to keep on writing. In the US, the Constitutional clause authorizing the creation of copyright laws is quite specific about this purpose. And long copyright periods do NOT meet that criteria. People just don't think that far ahead. If 14 years of royalties from your work don't encourage you sufficiently to keep doing it, a longer period isn't going to do any better. 28 years is dubious. Life is ridiculous. Life + 75 is outrageous.

            If you want to provide for your retirement, or your grandchildrens' retirements, you need to put money into stocks and bonds, not hope that people will still pay to read, hear, or view your work 25 or 100 years from now. Most creative work does not have a long life-time; true, we still perform Shakespeare, and read Marlowe if only to compare it to Shakespeare's version, but some dozens or hundreds of other playwrights in that era were forgotten within a decade of their last production. I rather doubt that anyone retired off the royalties from rag-time recordings - or that more than a half-dozen of the jazz greats enjoyed a comfortable retirement. And I certainly hope that the creators of "Dumb and Dumber" won't receive fat checks from that work in their old age.

            Yes, I hate to hear about starving artists. But they are hardly ever starving because they aren't receiving royalties from duplication of their long-ago works. They are starving because the market is tilted too far in favor of the publishers, so writers and musicians get about 10% of the store price of a book or CD. They are starving because they signed lousy contracts - and in the past that may have been the only way to get their work out to the public. Stretching the length of copyright just means that the publishers get to rip them off for much, much longer.
          • Personally, I think that (unless the artist choses otherwise) copyright should last until the death of the artist.

            This is effectivly the scheme we have at present, except that it's X years after the death of the artist. Which not only makes it very complicated to work out when a work will enter the public domain, especially where there is more than one artist involved. But also raises the possibility of artists being killed off for their copyrights. More fundermentally why should these people be entitled to special treatment in the first place?
        • You use the word "freeloading" and I will not contest that accusation. This is the purpose of copyright. To eventually enrich the public domain so there is free art available for everyone.

          There are very few completly new works. A great many works are derived from something pre-existing. e.g. movies based on stories in the public domain, "cover versions" of popular music.

          Until now, however, if you went into any bookstore, there was hardly any difference between a copyrighted and a public domain book. Maybe a copyrighted book costed a little more, but for the most part, no one was hurt by having copyright extended. There was no such thing as getting a book "for free" or a movie "for free". There were printing costs.

          Also costs of distributing books and costs of operating the shop.

          But, now we have this extraordinary ability: we have the ability to copy and distribute any form of art for virtually no cost.

          Also with this small cost often being paid by the user, rather than the publisher/distributer having to spend money up front then attempt to recoup it.

          The reason why libraries have traditionally only "lent" stuff was because it costed money, a significant amount of money, to make a copy of anything, so since there were a limited number of copies, they had to be shared among the community, and therefore people could only "borrow" it.

          Which is in itself a compromise, since recording the borrowing and ensuring that the books wind up back where they should be is itself a costly activity.

          Well what if I told you that any given piece of art only makes 10% of it's revenue after 12 years. That means if some book was going to bring in 500,000 dollars revenue in 150 years, on average, it would bring in 450,000 in 12 years. So basically we are locking up all forms of art for 138 more years, just to squeeze out an extra 10% revenue. That doesn't really make any sense, and it goes against the spirit of the first copyright act, and against the spirit of a truly open society.

          These figures may be generous. Especially for creative works other than books. (There are books which were never even in print for 12 years though.) With the likes of music and movies if they don't make money, within a very short time which can be measured in weeks or months, they will be considered a "failure".
        • Until now, however, if you went into any bookstore, there was hardly any difference between a copyrighted and a public domain book. Maybe a copyrighted book costed a little more, but for the most part, no one was hurt by having copyright extended. There was no such thing as getting a book "for free" or a movie "for free". There were printing costs.
          However, whether it was copyrighted or not could make a big difference in whether it was printed in the first place. Public domain, the only issue is whether the likely sales would be enough to pay for a printing run. Copyrighted, you have to buy permission from whoever holds the copyright - if you can find them. Finding the author wasn't a big problem when copyright ran 14 years, it got harder at 26 years, but at 75 years after the author dies, merely locating the heirs is going to be a big, big problem.

          Although from some accounts it sounds like if it looks profitable, RIAA member companies will go ahead and remaster those old recordings onto new CD's with or without the artist's consent... Who is the pirate?
      • The concept of copyright was meant to be permanently attached to the concept of the public domain. Since allowing authors, musicians, etc. to claim their work as "intellectual property" undermines the free flow of information within a society, copyrights in the United States were originally attached to the idea of the public domain. After about 14 years (I believe it was fourteen), anything that was copyrighted would enter the public domain and thus could freely be used, copied, and reworked by anyone.

        Because the public domain has been unintentionally halted by Congress (as well as legislative bodies all around the world) through copyright extensions throughout the last century, the value of the public domain has become unknown to the average person. For instance, most Disney movies could not have been made without the public domain, because Disney would not have been allowed to rework and rewrite previous literary works like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Sleeping Beauty, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, etc. into new movie classics.

        Also, libraries only let you borrow books because books are physical objects, and thus are in a limited supply. Librarians across the country are now in favor of distributing e-books and giving them out permanently, because that was always the idea behind libraries --- the most free flow of information possible. Lending books was not a purposeful idea, but instead a necessity of the past.
      • If you go to a library and check out a book that's out of copyright, you can _definately_ copy it.

        Hell, where do you think all these different editions of Shakespeare come from?

        Indeed, copying is highly desirable; it is copyrights that prevent it that are not, unless they somehow promote copying in the long run. (which is the point)

        Just read Martyn's post -- he's hitting all the right marks, and I don't have time for anything longer.

  • These things are pretty awesome (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:45AM (#3755460) Homepage Journal
    Over in Japan, I've seen the same thing they're basing these kiosks on. Essentially, they'll copy a disc from memory while you stand there, and finish the average CD in about 30 seconds (match that with a CD burner!) I don't have a golden ear, so I can't say whether the quality is better than home burning, but I don't think they're burning from MP3 but from the real disc which is probably where this claim is based. A laser printer spits out the cover art and a robotic assembly actually composes a replica of the real CD, such that after this thing gets done it gives you a shrinkwrapped CD similar to what you'd buy off of the rack. Then, it plays what is preset as the best track from the CD as it dances around the floor for a couple of minutes as an advertisement to other people in the store.

    I thought it was indescribably cool. The floorspace taken up by the dancing routine is a bit wasteful, but if you figure that you can replace several racks of CDs with one of these units I think it is well worth it.

    • The ones in Aus aren't nearly as wizz bang, at least not the one I saw a number of months ago. It twas purely a boring old box that you put your spiffy original disc in one tray, a blank disc in the other, and hey presto... wait... wait... wait a few minutes and you have your copy.

      Unfortunately slower, and lacking both the cover creater and dancing robot thingy... how dull for us.

      Having my own burner, and before that having many friends who have them, I've never had a need for such a gizmo, as the cost was prohibative ($5 a copy I think, blank disc not included)...

  • undocumented features include... (Score:4, Funny)

    by GoatPigSheep ( 525460 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:47AM (#3755463) Homepage Journal
    -a spring loaded fist that punches you if you try and copy any eminem cds

    -a spring loaded built in lawyer that will automatically sue you if you try and copy any microsoft OS installation cds

    -a beer holder (this is australia)

    -australian friendly instructions such as "insert the bloody cd here!"

    -anti-croc certification of all machines from the crocodile hunter

  • Who's the Author? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by KnightNavro ( 585943 )
    This article stinks of an uninformed writer. First off, "piracy."

    world- first plan that legalises [sic] music piracy.

    If it's legal, it shouldn't be called "piracy." Copying a CD as a backup is not piracy. I've always accepted the definition of piracy to be "illegally copying a tape/CD/book/game so you don't have to buy it yourself." Perhaps my definition isn't in synch with the rest of the world's, but piracy is inherently illegal, and there are legal reasons to copy a disk.

    Of course, this guy may just be buying into the RIAA rhetoric that CD burners are only used to illegally burn CDs. I really hope nobody is that dumb.

    The second reason this article looks amateurish is the technical specs.

    with superior sound quality to home burners and able to outwit anti-copying devices

    The last time I checked, my CD burner could create perfect copies of a CD. The Australian dollar may be weaker than the US dollar, but I don't think the same thing applies to CD burners.

    Finally, there's this odd line:

    "It is yet another angle in a technological nightmare the music industry is finding unstoppable."

    At this point, I'm beginning to think the author is largely uninformed, but knows how to download music and burn it to a CD. His quote seems like wishful thinking, but the industry has had a number of successes stopping digital piracy (Napster, mp3.com, etc...).

    In all, a poorly written article, but an interesting issue. There are some major questions left unanswered. What do the artists get out of it? And the AIRA? Is the technology really any superior to home burning technology? What does this legalization to Australia's status in international copyright treaties?

    Finally, how are these copiers any legally different from a Xerox machine?

    Since this has turned out to be more of a review of the article than I expected, I feel obligated to give it two stars out of five.

    • Again, i state. The author is a Music journalist, and is largely clueless on technology, pointed out by this article and other articles written by the author in my city newspaper.

    • Re:Who's the Author? (Score:3, Informative)

      by DarkZero ( 516460 )
      world- first plan that legalises [sic] music piracy

      It's spelled "legalizes" in America, but it's spelled "legalises" in Britain, Australia, Canada, et al. There is no need for the "[sic]".

  • Location, location, location (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:53AM (#3755477)
    Hey, if I were flogging these kiosks I'd have one outside every music store in the country.

    Customer walks in to music store, looks for suitably copy-protected CD, pays his money, leaves the store, turns left at the doorway, pays his $5 walks back into the store with original CD in one hand, the dupicate in his left, steps up to the counter and says "I want my money back, it won't play in my CD player."

    Money changes hands, customer walks out with his new $5 CD.

    Six months later the RIAA can't understand why the guy who operates these kiosks now has a bigger house, faster car and larger boat than any of the recording company bosses :-)
    • Heh.

      I'm gonna open a record store!

      It will have a very liberal return policy ;)

      And I'm gonna buy a load of those machines for the back of my record store ($5/burn). Put them right next to the cafe, so you you can grab a latte and have a seat during the short wait for your CD to burn :)
      • Did I say cafe? Now that I think about it, I meant to say Internet Cafe. $10/hour. There will, of course, be a large share drive accessible from both the internet terminals and the CD burning kiosks. That will enable you to burn the, ahem, homework research papers (or whatnot ;) you downloaded onto a CD.

  • Ha ha ha, "better sound quality" ... :) (Score:4, Informative)

    by forged ( 206127 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @01:53AM (#3755478) Homepage Journal
    Listen to this truckload of shit:
    • "Experts told the Herald Sun the CD-pirating kiosks -- with superior sound quality to home burners and able to outwit anti-copying devices -- will be a winner with older users."
    1. I wonder who these so-called experts are
    2. I wonder how they can pretend that a digital copy can have a better sound than another digital copy, if both are identical bit-per-bit
    3. How about the "...able to outwit anti-copying devices" ? Heard of CDRwin/CloneCD/<insert CD-copying program name here>, anyone ?

    Please, can we have a break from sensasionalism.

    BTW I think this such is a cool idea. Way to go, Aussies !

  • Would this help independant artists? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by detect ( 227148 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @02:00AM (#3755501)
    As an independant artists I would like to know how/if we could contribute music to these kiosks.

    If so it would be a great distribution medium for us indy artists
  • If the RIAA doesn't like the idea of CD-burning kiosks then they should compete rather than litigate.

    If they had half a brain (which they must surely be able to put together by scraping the craniums of all their members) they'd place the following in every record store in the country:

    A kiosk that allows customers to "build their own" CD compilations by selecting from a huge list of individual tracks -- paying $0.50 per track or $5 per CD.

    I've heard that these kiosks have been trialed elsewhere -- but they were probably shot down by the RIAA who seem intent on forcing us to buy the additional 8-9 tracks of dross that accompany the 1-2 good tracks on most newly released CDs.

    But think about it...

    This method means that record stores wouldn't need to carry anywhere as much inventory -- they'd be able to store their top 500 albums on a single hard-drive (or two) in the kiosk itself.

    By cutting out the packaging, transport, interest on capital tied up in stock, etc, the profit margins could be higher for all concerned, while simultaneously offering a lower sticker-price to the consumer.

    It's a win/win situation for everyone - except the freight companies and those who press the CDs we currently buy.

    Of course it's such a simple, elegant and great idea that the RIAA are bound to think it must be a trick and therefore they'll never go for it.

    Look for a new bill to appear before congress that specifically outlaws such kiosks -- after all, the US government is just another arm of the RIAA isn't it?
    • Amen brother! Not to mention that it would capitalize on the seemingly endless teenage craze of creating "mixes" for your friends. I used to have stacks of tapes during high school and college, that were gifts from friends. These days, it's CDs. My brother has a whole case full of discs labeled "[insert girl's name here]'s Mix". In my time, mixes were dependent of what you owned or could borrow. Now, the kids just find it on the P2P de jour.


      I'm with you; the music industry missed out on an enormous cash cow by refusing to learn how its customers use the music they buy. However, I'm not as optimistic as you about the success of such kiosks now that the toothpaste is out of the tube.

    • Sounds similar to something I dreamt up a while back - linked [slashdot.org] here. Why do us slashdotters continually do all the business modelling for these companies for free? Arghgh!!!!
    • "This method means that record stores wouldn't need to carry anywhere as much inventory -- they'd be able to store their top 500 albums on a single hard-drive (or two) in the kiosk itself."

      And that's exactly why they should be against it. Why go to a music store for a networked kiosk when I can jaunt down to the corner conveinence store or the foodcourt of the local mall?

      The only advantage of the music store at that point is buying add ons like blank CDs, headphones and Vibe. *rolls eyes*
    • A kiosk that allows customers to "build their own" CD compilations by selecting from a huge list of individual tracks -- paying $0.50 per track or $5 per CD ...

      It's a win/win situation for everyone - except the freight companies and those who press the CDs we currently buy.

      It's not a win/win situation for the record companies. Go have a heart-to-heart with somebody who benefits from the current situation-- anywhere from an enthusiastic studio exec to a recording engineer or financially successful artist. Ask them how they feel about the "CD model", and what they think of your idea.

      That conversation will pretty much blow away your hopes for voluntary change. The problem is simple: CDs are too sweet a deal. By packaging 9-12 tracks of varying quality onto a single album, the labels can often pull in a reasonably high take even if the album only has one or two hit singles. This reduces promotional costs, and increases profit ratios. Even if CD prices dropped to the ultra-low $5 you suggest, the labels would still be far better off forcing you to buy packaged CDs vs. mixing and matching.

      This is not a fortuitous coincidence. This situation is responsible for an enormous share of the labels' revenue. They will fight like demons to keep it in place. They may lose that fight, but they won't do it quietly.

  • Copyright in Australia... (Score:3, Informative)

    by qbed ( 207243 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @02:16AM (#3755543) Homepage


    In australia the onus to avoid copyright infringement in on the user. So photocopying and CD burning in public and in private are treated the same. Oddly enough there is no need for some changeable, "fair use" docrine since you can copy whatever you like. If at a later date you are found to have breached copyright you can have the book thrown at you.


    This approach has the benefit of being enforceable at least.


    (one biased aussie's opinion)

    • In australia the onus to avoid copyright infringement in on the user.

      Barbarians!

      In any civilized society the hardware manufacturer, hardware owner, related advertizers, and neighboring stores are all held liable for contributory infringment.

      Just think of all the extra profits the neighboring stores make because of the increased traffic from people going there to commit PIRACY!

      -

  • Not Surprised (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
    ``Supposedly the plan involves royalty payments to ARIA, but where artists stand is not discussed.''
    ...which proves once more that those kinds of institutions care for themselves more than for artists. Seriously, though, I think that CD-copying kiosks are an excellent way to control copying of CDs, to make sure that everything happens in a legal way. Now of course CD-copying kiosks are not the same as CD-pirating kiosks...

  • Newsflash! Foobaria endorses photo-copying kiosks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jukal ( 523582 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @02:42AM (#3755604) Journal
    Rioters News: Foobaria supports piracy!
    After a hot debate, the Government of Foobaria decided to legalize self-serve photo-copying kiosks. Famous book authors are shocked.

    CD burner, photocopier, what's the difference? Why does a CD- burner automagically become a piracy tool and at the same time a photocopier is considered just a necessity ?? Is it because the journalists just know how to operate the other one? :))
    • Try using both a CD burner to pirate a music CD and a photocopier to pirate a book. If you have any moral qualms over doing this, you can immediately destroy the duplicate -- we're doing this just to understand a point.

      When you're done, you should notice some substantial differences in cost, effort required, and quality of the resulting copies between the CD burner and the photocopier. Those are more than enough to make the latter infeasible for most piracy uses.

  • Little Ripper (Score:3, Informative)

    by mmerlin ( 20312 ) on Monday June 24, 2002 @03:13AM (#3755666) Homepage
    There is a double meaning for the company name "Little Ripper".

    In Australia the word "ripper" is slang for excellent or great.

    You often hear someone exclaim "you little ripper!" when they hear good news.

    Guess it now also describes the 5-year old burning Wiggles CD's for his mates ;-)

  • Corporate Windfall (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AndyChrist ( 161262 )
    This isn't something that the artists really CAN get a piece of unless the kiosks track whose songs are getting copied how often. If they have arrangements for a cut of royalties, that's all well and good, but if there's no way to determine who gets how much, the record companies will just hold onto all of it.
  • In the Netherlands legal problems are often solved by legalizing the crime. This is of course an exaggeration, but think of the infamous drugs and abortion legislation. In that line it is not surprising that although you are not allowed to copy music to (analog) audiotapes for commercial purposes ("fair use") you pay a certain fee for each empty tape (typically $0.25-0.50) as well as any new CD/LP/tape? with contents. (The same fee probably goes for empty CDRs, though I'm not sure)

    The money collected does not go back directly into the record industry's pockets, but is distributed by an organisation called Buma/Stemra [bumastemra.nl]. (Link is in Dutch only, so use the fish.) Each (Dutch?) artist gets a share, which is statistically determined by Buma/stemra, based on record sales, radio broadcasts and festivals. This "intelectual tax" constitutes only a small amount of money for an individual artist (typically $10-$100 per year, for an amature band that sold 1000-5000 records), but it seems to be a fair start.

    Could a system like that work in Australia as well?

  • ... they can always add a Internet connection to the kiosk and check with the common cd databases (like cddb). If the CD is found it's probably a audio CD and they could ask more money to copy it or give a disclaimer about copying such cd's.

    I am not against copying audio CD's but am also not for it; it's the best of both worlds it should happen for private usage but it should not happen for piracy.

    my 2 eurocents.

  • Just an update on an old story (Score:4, Informative)

    by oliverthered ( 187439 ) <oliverthered@nOSPAm.hotmail.com> on Monday June 24, 2002 @07:13AM (#3756064) Journal
    There's not much new here, only the roylaty payments stuff.
    Here [slashdot.org] is the earlier story from april.

  • Why Pirate? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MindStalker ( 22827 )
    So this kiosk will be paying royaltist, and its being put up there legally. So why do they use the word pirate (or other variation of the same, pirating, etc) 10 times? This is not piracy. Its legal! HELLO! Get a clue people.
  • The Music Industry is only hanging on because they have legally enforceable contracts which musicians continue to sign. The Industry currently performs two functions: promotion, and making copies for people who can't do it themselves (or are afraid to). As more bands promote themselves on the Internet, and these kiosks take over the copy-making function, there will eventually be no reason for a musician to sign one of those contracts.

    Poof.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close