30 Days of DRM

sonofollson writes "Michael Geist, a Canadian law professor, in the middle of a 30 Days of DRM project, which is targeting the planned introduction of the DMCA in Canada. Each day, the project identifies an exception or limitation that is needed to address the danger of anti-circumvention legislation. Issues covered so far include interoperability, privacy, region coding, and reverse engineering. The project is also supporting a wiki version for broader participation."

Cool movie

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy tried to live one month on nothing but copy protection systems but choked on a dongle after 9 days.

Great idea

[magictiger]

This is a great idea. Unfortunately, the only people likely to find this are those that already know the need for exceptions to DRM laws. I hope the Canadians pass this along to their legislators and that someone actually bothers to read the blog.

Maybe if we'd had something like this before the DMCA, we could have made it a little less restrictive. (No way in hell the **AAs would have let it die)

Re:

[kimvette]

FWIW, I'm not Canadian, just pointing this out so Canadians here know to contact their reps:

OK, if DRM and the equivalent of the DMCA is introduced in Canada, effectively eliminating their equivalent of Fair Use, will the levies on blank media be repealed?

Re:Great idea

[Safiire Arrowny]

I would prefer to have the blank media tax, and to just be left alone in peace to do what I want with my media.

Wretched idea

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Uhm, you do realize that the blank media tax would eseentially fund organizations that spend every waking moment finding ways to keep you from being left alone to do what you want with your media, don't you?

Re:

[suv4x4]

I would prefer to have the blank media tax, and to just be left alone in peace to do what I want with my media.

Right now they get both of those. Why step down?

Re:

[Captain_Chaos]

I would prefer to have the blank media tax, and to just be left alone in peace to do what I want with my media.

And let me subsidize your music and movies? Tempting, but no thank you...

Re:

[CastrTroy]

As a Canadian, I can tell you that there are no such levies on CDs or DVDs, because they are argued as being used for computer data. This is why you can go to Walmart and get 100 DVD+/-Rs for $30. There was at one time, or maybe still is, some CD-Audio CDs, which are the same as regular CDRs except that they cost about $5 each an do contain the levy. I think they only cost so much because they are so wildly unpopular, due to the fact that they cost more than the regular CDRs, and do not offer any extra fe

Re:Great idea

[djmurdoch]

As a Canadian, I can tell you that there are no such levies on CDs or DVDs, because they are argued as being used for computer data.

This is wrong. There are levies on blank CDs, because they are commonly used to record music, whether they are "CD-audio" or not.

See the current rates here. [cpcc.ca]

Re:

[CastrTroy]

They can be used, does not they must be used. There are so many other uses of CDs that it's pretty much impossible to charge a levy. When you look at audio cassettes, there are very few uses apart from recording audio, so it's easy to argue that a levy should be charged. If there is a levy in Canada, how much is it? Because I can go to the local discount computer store and get 50 CDs for $12. That works out to $0.24 for each CD. The Canadian copyright board [cb-cda.gc.ca] states that they levy on CDRs is supposed to

Re:

[Jardine]

Because I can go to the local discount computer store and get 50 CDs for $12. That works out to $0.24 for each CD. The Canadian copyright board states that they levy on CDRs is supposed to be $0.21 per CD ($0.77 for CDR-Audio). I find it highly unlikely that the levy is being charged, and that I'm only paying $0.03 per CD including retail markup, transportation, manufacturing, and all the other costs of delivering CDRs to the end user.

That store is doing one of two things. They're not paying the levy or the

Re:

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, I can buy CD-Rs dirt cheap (i.e., at similar prices to those you mention), but I can only buy *CD-R Music* discs at a significantly higher price. Only the latter will work in my rack CD recorder (made by Yamaha). The difference in price goes mostly to the RIAA.

The only difference between the discs is a simple flag specifying the type. It is allegedly illegal to sell an audio CD recorder (non-computer peripheral) here that allows recording onto a non-taxed disc.

If it

Re:Great idea

[Paul Slocum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax#Canad a [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[CastrTroy]

Yet I still don't think that the levy is being charged. Almost every store sells CDRs for around $0.30 or less. This would mean that all these stores are losing money on CDRs. Also, the CDRs are the equivalent to what you would pay in the US for blank media, accounting for exchange rates. So, I guess i am wrong, and that there is a levy, yet i fail to see any instance of a consumer actually having to pay a levy. It's impossible for me to believe that they are charging a 21 cent levy on a product that on

Re:

[djmurdoch]

It is not always being charged, [cpcc.ca], but it is supposed to be. You can find more links about this case here [michaelgeist.ca].

Re:

[CastrTroy]

That's one case. I can find multiple retailers with the same price, all over my city. So either every retailer in the city isn't paying the levy, (which I find hard to believe), or they are paying the levy for me, which I also find hard to believe. I was very much under the impression that becuase of the low cost of CDRs, that there was no levy. Apparently there is one, yet I can't see how it's being accounted for.

Re:Great idea

[RealGrouchy]

There is an exception to having to pay this levy.

In order to avoid paying this levy, you have to be an eligible organization (e.g. businesses who legitimately don't use it for ripping CDs, churches, NGOs, etc.). You then have to pay a $60/year ($15/year for non-commercial) registration fee with the CPCC, and you can only buy levy-free CDs from CPCC-certified manufacturers and distributors (NOT retailers).

So essentially, either you pay the levy to the CPCC, or you pay the CPCC other money so that you don't pay them the levy. Either way, you're paying more, and they're getting your money, all because they preemptively convict you of stealing music.

(Organizations for the perceptually disabled can get a rebate on their levy from the CPCC.)

Source: www.cpcc.ca [www.cpcc.ca]

- RG>

Re:

[djmurdoch]

"So essentially, either you pay the levy to the CPCC, or you pay the CPCC other money so that you don't pay them the levy."

No, you also have the option of using media with no levy, e.g. DVDs, or the disk in your MP3 player.

"they're getting your money, all because they preemptively convict you of stealing music"

No, that's not why you pay. You pay in order to have the right to make private copies. If you do that, you're not stealing, you're making legal copies. If you use the discs for something else, you'

Re:

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

"You pay in order to have the right"

That said it all right there. A Purchased Right is an oxymoron.

Re: Rights are goods

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Wow, that's a pretty fringe conception of "rights" there. But sure, I'll cop to being pretty naïve as you implied -- or at least, I'll admit that I share the naïveté of the school of thought that produced: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Re:

[djmurdoch]

certain unalienable Rights

There are some rights that shouldn't be bought and sold, and that's what those guys were talking about. But contracts specify rights all the time. If you buy a ticket, you have a right to go in and see a movie. If you rent out a room in your house, your tenant has a right to use it in certain ways.

Perhaps legal jargon has some adjective to distinguish between the two kinds of rights, but saying that rights obtained in exchange for payment aren't rights is just dumb.

Re:

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

I can see your point, but "just dumb" is a little harsh. The word "right" can work in the examples you bring up, but it lacks some precision compared to, say, "license" or "privilege." Of course, I was not speaking to those subclasses or special cases of a Right proper in my previous comment.

Re:

[djmurdoch]

I can see your point, but "just dumb" is a little harsh.

I can't think of a better adjective. A longer description would be "pedantic, but incorrect".

Re:Great idea

[nsayer]

In the U.S. the reason there are "music" CD-Rs that cost more than data CD-Rs is because of the American Home Recording Act. This was the grandfather of the DMCA. It requires a levy to be placed on all blank media for standalone digital audio recording devices. It was the AHRA that was used to attempt to bludgeon the Diamond RIO out of existence back in the day (it failed, because the Rio was judged to be a computer peripheral). The AHRA does not apply to computer peripherals, so that's why data CD-Rs are sold that are cheaper, even though you can record Red Book audio track disks with them. The AHRA was what killed the DAT as a consumer audio component back in the day and relegated them to studio audio and computer data applications.

Re:

[nsayer]

CDs predated DAT by many, many years.

Re:Great idea

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

I have a CD recorder / player (Yamaha) in my component stereo system, and it will only record on the "CDR Music" type discs that carry the extra fee. Of course, there is no way around this fee if I am recording, e.g., a session of my own band's rehearsal from an old cassette tape or whatnot. I've also not yet heard of any way to see the cashflow from the extra fee, in order to verify that it is indeed making it to the artists for which it was levied in the first place.

Lastly, if the manufacture of these discs ever ceases, I am stuck with a play-only unit in my stereo rack. Nice, eh?

Sure hope somebody reverse engineers these and starts manufacturing them independently one of these days. I'd actually pay *more* for a product if a portion of its cost supported anti-DRM organizations.

Re:

[djmurdoch]

That sucks, but CD recorders for a computer are so cheap now that it likely wouldn't kill you to trash the Yamaha and do all your recording with a sound card on a computer. This will save you the extra cost of the levy on the audio discs, and the cost of recording crap, because you can edit that out before committing to media.

Re:

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Very true, and in fact I've set up a media PC with optical & S/PDIF audio IO for just those reasons. Given that, I don't find much use for the Yamaha's recording capability anymore, but that fact pisses me off more than it soothes me. I mean, I naïvely spent several hundred dollars on a piece of equipment on the basis that it was capable of digital recording. Unfortunately, I bought it quite a few years ago, before I had any real awareness of DRM issues, or the wherewithall to grill the salesperson

Re:

[djmurdoch]

Canada has no equivalent of Fair Use. Our Private Copying right is quite different.

I'd say there's a good chance that the Private Copying right will go, because the multinationals don't like it any more. I think the Private Copying levy will go at the same time, because it is specifically put in place to reimburse copyright holders for the Private Copying right.

Personally, I like Private Copying, and think the levy is a reasonable rate to pay for it. However, I don't think it's really sustainable in the

Re:

[Feyr]

that's wrong. canada does have a fair use. it's called "fair dealing"

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd _protect-e.html#6 [ic.gc.ca]

Re:Great idea

[djmurdoch]

Fair dealing is much more limited than fair use. For example, it wouldn't allow you to make a copy for time shifting, or media shifting. But you might be right that it's closer to being "Canada's equivalent of fair use" than private copying is. I just tend to think of "equivalent" as being a black and white relation.

Wikipedia has a nice discussion [wikipedia.org] of the differences between fair use and fair dealing.

I could have said "Canada has no equivalent of Fair Use. Our Fair Dealing is quite different.", but the private copying levy has nothing to do with fair dealing.

Re:

[KDR_11k]

In other words, abolish property?

Re:

[shutdown -p now]

Well, why stop at abolishing copyright only?

Re:

[crossmr]

I've written my MP 3 times.
Though I'm not sure how much of this is FUD. The Conservative government is in a very precarious position. The wrong move and the victory they let the Liberals screw up so badly for is gone.
Turning everyone into criminals isn't going to benefit them during the next election when they go for a majority government.

Which I've reminded my MP of in the last 2 letters.

Re:

[masterzora]

I've written my MP 3 times.

Ha ha ha "MP3" I get it!

Re:

[saskboy]

I've written my Conservative MP 3 times too, and have yet to get a reply.
I've posted it on Slashdot several times, so dig it up here or on my blog. Just search for "Garry B."

the most important

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM doesn't expire, so the media never makes it to the public domain
by design of course

Re:the most important

[aussie_a]

if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you, or a record company in the land that would sue you.

I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:

[jb.hl.com]

I'd really love to know how a record company would extract damages from you for cracking the DRM from something they no longer have copyright over. They'd be laughed out of court, DMCA or no DMCA. That and there'd be no point, what with the subject matter being public domain and all. Not much point having PD things DRMed.

Re:the most important

[Reziac]

I agree absolutely that DRM on public domain material is inherently an oxymoron, but that doesn't make the law see it that way. IANAL, but I think it would depend on whether there is a sunset provision in the DRM law itself. As it stands now in the US, something could be out of copyright, yet it is (AFAIK) still illegal to crack the DRM. The two facets are, unfortunately, separate legal issues.

Beyond that, one would have to trust to the fairness and common sense of the courts, not always the best bet. :(

Also, it would be best if such a case went to conclusion and set a precedent (hopefully of "Death to DRM"), rather than being dismissed to be tried another day, possibly with disastrous results.

Re:

[Amazing Quantum Man]

As it stands now in the US, something could be out of copyright, yet it is (AFAIK) still illegal to crack the DRM. The two facets are, unfortunately, separate legal issues.

I think the key point is cracking it without the copyright holder's permission. If it's in the public domain, then there is no copyright holder, and hence, no violation of the DMCA.

Disclaimer: IANAL, and I don't play one on TV.

Re:

[Pofy]

>As it stands now in the US, something could be out of copyright, yet it is (AFAIK)
>still illegal to crack the DRM.

Ehh, the circumvention applies to works that are protected under the copyright act. If it is out of copyright, the circumvention part doesn't apply either.

Re:

[megaditto]

Don't worry, in time, Darwin will sort it out.

DRMed societies will stagnate due to the luck of innovation, restrictions on the exchange and development of ideas, etc. In time, 'North America' will be 'liberated' by a more advanced nation, and while some of our children will lose their lives, we will all be arguably better for it under our technologically superior masters.

History is full of examples: 16th century Spain stagnating after expelling freethinkers and Jews, middle age Arabs imposing a religious DR

Re:

[Dachannien]

Also, it would be best if such a case went to conclusion and set a precedent (hopefully of "Death to DRM"), rather than being dismissed to be tried another day, possibly with disastrous results.

I guess we'll never find out [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[tepples]

I'd really love to know how a record company would extract damages from you for cracking the DRM from something they no longer have copyright over.

Two methods:

1. Sue you for making the circumvention device that you used to crack the uncopyrighted work but which could in theory also be used to crack copyrighted works.
2. Prevent works from falling out of copyright by repeatedly extending the copyright term. See also Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, the first U.S. copyright statute that reextended copy

Re:

[penix1]

You wouldn't be prosecuted for copyright violation but for DMCA violation (copy protection circumvention). It has already happened with a professor and a programmer ans a slew of others.
(see: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20020503_dmca_conseque n ces.html [eff.org] for more info).

The DMCA was and is a bad law. It is vaguely worded and exceptions in it are few. A violation of the DMCA is a felony in its own and shouldn't be taken lightly.

B.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

The record company doesn't have to extract damages if the laws make it a criminal offense to break copyright protections. At that point, the record company doesn't even have to make a complaint. You local police could come and arrest you if they had significant evidence that you had broken the protections. I am unaware of the circumstances, but I think that copyright is a civil issue, whereas the DMCA makes it a criminal issue.

Re:

[wall0159]

"if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you"

Uh huh - and what happens when your media player *only* accepts DRMd media? where will you be then?

The way things are going, this will happen - especially as more companies become both vendors of hardware *and* media...

If I am the copyright owner

[tepples]

Uh huh - and what happens when your media player *only* accepts DRMd media? where will you be then?

If I am the owner of copyright in a work, why don't I have the authority to apply true and correct copyright management information to the work? Or are you basing this on yerricde's hypothesis that it is impossible to create an original musical work [slashdot.org]?

Re:If I am the copyright owner

[wall0159]

I think you misundersand me.

Imagine an ipod in the future. The ipod doesn't play mp3s anymore - it *only* plays Apple's DRMd music. I'm a musician, and record my band playing music, but I can't put it on my ipod directly - I have to implement DRM on the music for the ipod to play it.

This could happen.

"If I am the owner of copyright in a work, why don't I have the authority to apply true and correct copyright management information to the work?"

I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way around. If I pay you to experience your creation, by what right to you seek to regulate the way I experience it? Will you try and tell me what colour shoes I may wear, for example?

Note that there are two issues here. The first is artist renumeration. This is important, because without it people will be less inclined to produce art. The second is control, and it has nothing to do with renumeration for the artist. Instead it's about power for the distributers of the art - power over both the artist and those who wish to experience their art.

Remember that copyright is not a 'right' per se - it's a TEMPORARY incentive given by the government to help people to profit from their creations, thereby encouraging creation for the benefit of humanity.

Re:If I am the copyright owner

[penix1]

" This is important, because without it people will be less inclined to produce art..."

I challenge this concept. Nowhere has it been proved. In fact, there are several studies that show that those things that are pirated also enjoy a higher profit margin. To say that all media content will dry up if copyright didn't exist flies in the face of logic as well as human nature. The only one that benefits from copyright is the distributors.

I'll go one step further....

I say to fix the copyright problem, disallow the transfer of copyright except to the public domain. All rights to a work belong to the originator of that work. Then what the **AA is touting (namely that artists suffer when copyright is violated) would be true. Make it so that the only place an artist can relinquish copyright to is the public domain which is the purpose of copyright to begin with.

This is just my take on it. Reality differs dramatically.

B.

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

I say to fix the copyright problem, disallow the transfer of copyright except to the public domain.

Honestly I fail to see how that would help. Transfers would just be replaced with exclusive licenses, and nothing would really change. In fact, I think it'd make things more annoying in that transactions would be somewhat more complicated for no good reason.

Frankly, there's no single magic answer. Good copyright reform is going to require us to make sweeping changes throughout copyright. And because it accompl

Re:

[shark72]

"In fact, there are several studies that show that those things that are pirated also enjoy a higher profit margin."

I have never seen studies linking profit margins to piracy rates. Can you post a cite to one of them? Profit margins on a product-by-product basis are often closely guarded secrets (ie. Adobe will tell you their end of year profit margin, as they are a publicly traded company, but good luck learning the profit margin on PhotoShop) so I would love to see the methodology of said studies.

Re:

[qwijibo]

Those things may sound good on the surface, but they can't be realistically implemented in laws. Any definition of "reasonable" in a law will most certainly be one sided. Do you want the same legislative forces that passed the DMCA to determine what is reasonable? Maybe I'm a cynic, but I think the chances of a law doing more harm than good are usually around 98%.

Responsibility cannot be legislated. Laws can only be used to harm, never to help. Laws can't give you a big hug if you're nice. However, th

Disclaiming digital restrictions

[tepples]

The ipod doesn't play mp3s anymore - it *only* plays Apple's DRMd music.

Such a situation is unlikely to come about unless and until Apple has a complete monopoly on pocket digital audio players. The current lockout situation in video game consoles is due to Nintendo having the monopoly in North America from 1985 to 1989.

I'm a musician, and record my band playing music, but I can't put it on my ipod directly - I have to implement DRM on the music for the ipod to play it.

And what would prevent you from

Re:

[ultranova]

And what would prevent you from applying DRM to the music on behalf of your band?

The price, of course. You can't allow people to just record sound to the DRM'd format on their own, since that allows for the analog hole; no, you're going to need to have Apple sign it. And both Apple and the RIAA will benefit from making the signing price high: Apple in the form of increased profits, the RIAA from locking out competition.

Re:

[saskboy]

I expect your prediction to come true too. Vista will have PVP, to make sure unDRM'ed video doesn't play. YouTube will be killed by that if it isn't dead already by then.

And Apple will make a Happy Fun conversion utility to turn those nasty MP3 files into ACC for use on any iPod player. Suckers will eat it up like candy.

Re:

[jb.hl.com]

Two things:

1) Vista's PVP only applies to already DRMed videos.
2) Apple already has that happy fun conversion utility. It converts MP3s and CDs into un-DRMed AAC, which can be played on many players, many devices and many operating systems. "Suckers" already do eat it up like candy, because AAC offers better sound quality than MP3 (at least when ripping from CD).

Re:

[jZnat]

Just to be pedantic, I'd like to mention that the "--alt-preset" option in lame has been deprecated and superceded by the "--preset" option.

Re:

[dryeo]

Because in Canada the people have the right to copy your copyrighted work (just not to distribute it).

Re:

[John Miles]

If I am the owner of copyright in a work, why don't I have the authority to apply true and correct copyright management information to the work?

In the US, copyright terms are limited to a specific duration. DRM that does not include a sunset provision is, therefore, incompatible with US copyright law. It effectively grants a perpetual copyright... something that is wrong on so many levels that even the Supreme Court would agree.

In Canada, your mileage may vary.

Re:

[Pofy]

>In the US, copyright terms are limited to a specific duration. DRM that does not
>include a sunset provision is, therefore, incompatible with US copyright law.

What makes you think that? Circumvention for example applies to a work protected under the copyright act. It doesn't apply to something not under copyright. Hence, when the copyright runs out, that no longer applies.

Circumvention device

[tepples]

Circumvention for example applies to a work protected under the copyright act. It doesn't apply to something not under copyright.

But a circumvention device suitable for a DRM copy of a work whose copyright has expired is also useful for a DRM copy of a work whose copyright has not expired. If you make a circumvention device and use it to crack a DRM copy of a PD work, then the work's publisher will likely sue you for manufacturing a circumvention device capable of cracking a DRM copy of a different work,

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you

Doesn't matter. The law is very clear. In the United States, it is a violation of the DMCA to circumvent DRM of any kind. Cracking DRM is a criminal act by the clear letter of the law. U.S. websites have had injunctions upheld against them simply for telling others where to go to find information about circumventing DRM. So, your guesses as to what would happen if someone w

Re:

[Pofy]

>The law is very clear. In the United States, it is a violation of the DMCA to
>circumvent DRM of any kind. Cracking DRM is a criminal act by the clear letter of the
>law.

No, it is not, the law is quite clear that it has to protect a "work protected under this title". If there is no longer any copyright to the work, the DMCA doesn't apply any longer.

Re:the most important

[EsonLinji]

But that's the problem. When you make the act of circumventing DRM a crime, it doesn't matter what content it was protecting. You still break the law by circumventing it. Which is exactly why such laws are bad. You should be able to make a copy of something in the public domain, but you can't. And don't rely on the record companies to let you off easy. It took mass negative media coverage for them to let a dead guy off the hook.

Re:

[Pofy]

>When you make the act of circumventing DRM a crime, it doesn't matter what content it
>was protecting.

Yes it matters, it must be a "work protected under this title".

Re:

[MP3Chuck]

Unfortunately, by the time anything DRM'd becomes public domain, most will likely have forgotten what public domain is!

Seriously, what's copyright up to now ... 100 years past the author's death?

Re:

[Kaenneth]

The problem is, that corporations keep lobbying to extend the duration of copyrights retroactivly, and for longer and longer terms; when with the increased pace of creation and distribution I think the terms should be getting shorter (at least for Software, and such).

Re:

[lucas teh geek]

think of a piece of software that's even just 10 years old that you still use today, and i mean something released in 1996 or earlier, not something first released then, and then updated in 97, 98, 99, etc. having trouble? if the copyright on a piece of software has expired it is 99% likely useless, GPL'd or not

Re:

[Kaenneth]

I think there is an expression, that begins "Wish in one hand..."

Copyright is not just for the authors, Copyright was at one point designed partly for the public benifit, to encourage authors to release their works instead of keeping them secret, locked away in coded books or vaults.

If something is registered and properly Copyrighted, it does not need any protection mechanisms to allow the author to file suit against infringers. Making software that bypasses DRM illegal is an unneeded burden on public resou

Re:

[mrchaotica]

I would be incredibly surprised if analog/not inherently electrical (e.g. tape, paper, film) copies of music, books and films are not kept by studios, publishers etc.

Do some research about all the irreplacable old movies, etc. that are deteriorating into nothingness while sitting in un-climate-controlled warehouses becasue they're "too expensive" to save, and prepare to be surprised!

if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convi

Re:

[ConceptJunkie]

What difference does it make? Anything produced today won't be in the public domain until well into the 22nd century. In fact, anything produced in our lifetimes will be covered by copyright until probably long after any of us are dead.

This will only increase when Disney sees fit to buy another Congress. Orrin Hatch call your office.

At the rate this is going, I can see Senators having to use scientific notation for something other than how much money they are squandering.

Re:

[AJWM]

Then be incredibly surprised.

More stuff these days is being shot direct to digital, as it's far easier to get it into editing suites and post production that way. Also, film and paper decay, media goes obsolete, etc.

Just because a studio or publisher retains a copy, do you really think that they're planning on hanging on to it for ninety years and then digging out that copy and saying "here, this is in the public domain now, it's all yours". I doubt it. Ninety years is a long time, and storage space cos

Re:

[penix1]

"Are you referring to the USA or Canada? Because if it's USA, you know better than to think something will become public domain here. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic)"

Although you are being sarcastic you are also telling the truth. Jack Valenti the head of the MPAA, has stated, "The constitutional definition of "limited time" to me means the end of the universe minus 30 seconds". He has also stated that if people want to back up their copies, they can damned well buy the backup. Another gem from him is his belief

Re:

[jb.hl.com]

Precisely my point. Record companies or the government would have no reason and would most likely not bother suing you over something they have no jurisdiction over anyway.

Region coding? About reducing sales

[krell]

From the article: "Region coding is not about copyright, it is about market controls and a loss of consumer property rights. It should not benefit from additional copyright legal protections that would come from anti-circumention legislation."

How about the idea that region coding is all about reducing sales and increasing unauthorized duplication of DVDs? I run into so many DVDs that are not sold in any form for my region, and will never be sold for my region. That leaves me the options (a) not buying it at all, or (b) buying it and cracking it or perhaps getting a more usable pre-cracked version (barring the ability to get a DVD player that does all regions).

DVD players: collect all 6

[tepples]

That leaves me the options (a) not buying it at all, or (b) buying it and cracking it or perhaps getting a more usable pre-cracked version (barring the ability to get a DVD player that does all regions).

(c) DVD players: collect all 6 while supplies last!

De-regionalize your DVD player

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Many/most DVD players can be made to play any region by accessing a hidden menu. 5 minutes with Google should find you the magic keystrokes.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

But under the DMCA, isn't that illegal? Isn't this what were arguing against here? Not the fact that it can be done, but rather something as honest as playing a DVD you own, in a player you own should actually be illegal.

Re:

[Eivind]

It's not only DVDs. Same for games.

My wife loved Shadow-Hearts. (the PS2-game). The day after renting the first one to try it out, she was in the shop, and happily paid top-dollar (well, euro, but you get the point) for the game. We had v2 -- covenant -- on release-day and again paid full retail, happily.

Now there's v3 -- "from the new world". Not sold in europe. Guess what motivated us to get a chipped PS2 ? (that in itself legal in our jurisdiction) Guess how motivated she was this time of paying full

This is great, but....

[Valacosa]

I think this is great and all, but I've only heard about Michael Geist here and on BoingBoing. The real trick is getting Joe Sixpack to care.

How does one get the general public to care? From what I've seen, most computer users are short-sighted, datawise. "This DVD/Song/Program works right now, so it'll work forever, right?" How do we get everyone else to read this?

CAPTCHA: signify. How appropriate.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

Joe Sixpack does care, to the extent that it starts to bother him. My GF recently got an iPod, and despite me telling her not to, still bought a couple tracks off iTunes. She quickly learned that she was unable to burn an "MP3" CD, to listen to them on her stereo. She also got quite a big scare when she deleted all her music and thought she had lost the music (she had just deleted them from the library, and they were still on the computer). She also gets quite annoyed when she plugs her iPod into anothe

Re:This is great, but....

[Jack Action]

Michael Geist writes a weekly column [thestar.com] on law and technology for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest newspaper. The Star is a significant venue because its middle brow (not tabloid, but not the New York Times), and always has a populist favour.

He is also frequently called on as a commentor on CBC radio (the public broadcaster, which by law can be heard by Canadians anywhere in the country). CBC radio recieves no ads and no coporate sponsorship (unlike PBS), so is generaly balanced on controversial issues.

In Canada at least, someone like Geist has a greater chance of reaching Jaques Six-Pack than he might have elsewhere.

Reverse Engineering ...

[Gopal.V]

Different standards exist for reverse engineering. For example, reverse engineering a binary is illegal, while reverse engineering a protocol (for compatibility purposes) isn't.

But the real question to ask is, a .doc a binary file or a protocol ?

(and then there are EULAs ... which have started saying "You shall be responsible for anything any user does... to cover shared envs")

Great, more angrying up of my blood.

[w33t]

I am glad that Michael Geist is forcing a very close examanation of the limitations a DCMA - but why is a DCMA even needed in the first place?

In a way it feels like he's discussing ways to make a noose more comfortable and less abrasive to the victims throat.

The thing is, whenever DRM is discussed I cannot help by attempt to prognosticate into the deep mysterious future. Imagine a future (not too distant perhaps) in which we have direct brain interfaces of some sort. How would it be to have certain thoughts blocked? How would it be to not be able to think something?

Thoughtcrime - in other words. Oh, it's disgusting to me.

After all, DRM is basically a way of locking-down information. But information is so close to just thought. It's one step away from a pure idea.

When I hear DRM I think "Idea Stopping" - and being an idealist as I am, this is deeply disturbing to me.

DMCAs are so prehistoric to me - they seem to hail from the time in the past when the distribution of information required printing presses and tape-duplication facilities. When information distribution liked physical mediums for distribution.

In those ancient times of the 20th century only the wealthy could afford these behemoth machines. There was no way a consumer could copy a novel and send it to 20 or 100 of their closest friends.

Of course nowadays I can find the entire works and easily distribute them without all that mucking about with the physical constraints that plagued the old.

DRM and DMCAs seem analogous to a cart and buggy and wagon industry forcing automobile owners to not drive faster than the horse-drawn carriages because of their "right" to the road.

It is old-world philosophy being artificially forced into the modern mindset.

Re:

[Zarxrax]

Well, it's true that the best solution would be to simply not have a DMCA at all, but often, this simply isn't possible. The people who don't want it are not as powerful or persuasive as the people who DO want it. Completely stopping something like this can be difficult--but lessening the impact that it has can often be more easily obtainable. Compromise sucks. The side that compromises is the side that loses something. But when it comes down to it, its a lot better to lose something than to lose everythin

Re:

[AeroIllini]

DRM and DMCAs seem analogous to a cart and buggy and wagon industry forcing automobile owners to not drive faster than the horse-drawn carriages because of their "right" to the road.

It is old-world philosophy being artificially forced into the modern mindset.

This is more true than you realize. Let's think back to the last time there was such a major shift in our society...

To the 1860s. In addition to disputes over the morality of slavery, there was a tremendous economical divide between the northern US and

Cold Mexico just doesn't get it

[ColdWarrior]

From the eschewing of media at soldier repatration ceremonies to the introduction of a Canadian DMCA, I have started to surmise that Harper is one of those fallocrats who is totally out of touch with his citizenry. Now, before you Harper-loving people start saying "But... but... but... the Bern convention requires this sort of thing". I ask you, when was the Bern convention signed. In my mind there is no coincidence that all these "harmonizations" are going on under Mr. Creepy-eyes reign. This is just one

This DRM experiment is useless

[Khyber]

There will always be a way to circumvent the DMCA.

You cannot close the "analog hole" because we are purely analog-sensory beings. We cannot reliably have digital information put into our brain and decoded into a usable form without reliable biological-neurological wiring. With that simple logic, until neural wetware becomes commonplace (scary world that'll be,) the DMCA is absolute bullshit. I can simply circumvent your protection by going to a friend's house to watch a movie they bought but I never paid for. I can store that entire movie in "memory" (if I'm capable of that type of photo-auralgenic storage like other 'geniuses.') and tell others what the whole movie is about, which may/may not discourage them to see the movie, thus resulting in a loss of profit for the movie, or even after-movie DVD/VCR sales. Kiss your "unauthorized" use clause good-bye. We can hurt the **AA cause thru that means alone, and I'll bet with the current shit crop of movies coming out (Like Talladega Nights, compared to The Descent,) the sales are going to drop even further. I can simply watch a movie, tell everyone what it's all about, and they'll decide for themselves whether or not the movie is worth watching, in their opinion. And speaking technically, I didn't pay for it, so by going to a friend's house to watch a movie they paid for, I'm getting a public performance (because they explicitly state with a sign on their property "This is not private property, whatever happens here is public and sent to the police,") without paying for the rights to view the money. Now what are you going to do, RI/MPAA? Sue me for visiting a friend who happens to be showing a movie they paid for? You've tried twice already, let's go for a third strike so we can wipe you out legally.

I apologize in advance for potential double-ranting (restating the same rant twice in the same post,) but I felt the need to drive this into people's heads. Even if the general Slashdot crowd knows about this stuff, there are many others that join every day, and are rather ignorant, as I once was before I got some extra education from more knowledgable people on Slashdot. We need to keep this type of information flow happening, in my opinion. Let's keep it up so less knowledgable people have more plain-english definitions for the layman to understand, guys.

Re:

[StikyPad]

Technically, we're digital as well, as "digital" seems to mean storing or sampling information in discrete units rather than in a continously variable manner. This is most evident by the fact that a light flashing fast enough appears to be steady once it exceeds our internal "sample rate", and by the fact that there exists a threshold above which a "digital" audio signal is also indistinguishable from its analog counterpart. (Arguably it may not be 44.1Khz, but CDs do exceed that threshold for most people

Re:

[Khyber]

Well, digital in our current sense isn't so "discrete" because nothign but ones and zeros is hardly anything discrete. We have a known translation system for that binary stream, and go further than that. Our brain doesn't work in ones and zeros, it works in highly differing chemical reactions. We can't call biochemical reactions binary because binary implies digital which implies silicon. Until we get true, flawless neural wetware, we cannot even dare call ourselves "digital"

Re:

[RPoet]

We cannot reliably have digital information put into our brain and decoded into a usable form without reliable biological-neurological wiring.

For christ's sake, don't give them any ideas!

Talking about DRM... FairUse4WM strips WMA/WMV

[dark-br]

How about being free from WMV/WMA 10 & 11 then?

Well just go for it -> [url]http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/25/fairuse4wm -strips-windows-media-drm/[/url]

Dodge this Microsoft! ;)

Re:

[assassinator42]

Working link. [engadget.com]
They had a few download links for a day or so as well. I do know the program works. I wonder how long it will be until Microsoft fixes it? More importantly, can they make it stop working without making people install an update?

Last election

[saskboy]

In the last federal Canadian election, Dr. Geist can take at least partial credit in helping to defeat the Liberal's MP that was pushing a Canadian DMCA through the House. It would be wise of geeks and nerds from around the world to support his effort on educating politicians on the implications of DRM protection in laws.

This reminds me of hydroponics dealers...

[shark72]

...who will discuss just about everything about their equipment except its suitability for growing pot.

I dislike intrusive and prohibitive DRM as much as everybody else, but it's clear to me that if the magic wand were waved tomorrow and DRM disappeared, the immediate effect is that people would be pirating a lot more.

Alternatives to DMCA

[lucychili]

This is one of those issues which pokes pretty close to home. Its also an issue which is best understood by people with some technical background who can unpack the difference between content and the DRM or TPM around it. This means its not easy for non tech consumer groups to defend people's rights on these issues without support and explanations from their local geeky community.

There are plenty of different things we can do - from an email only approach to face to face talking to people.
Tell people and po

it's over

[McGiraf]

I guest I just have 30 days left to laught at you DMCAed Americans, soon the joke's on me to.

Easy, but flawed

[jdbartlett]

This is very easy (for someone with only a few DRMed songs) to do, but is a flawed technique. Not only is it a breach of T&C (and possibly of some laws; a "fair use" argument may depend on what is done with the resulting MP3), you will experience a loss of audio quality. With a handful of exceptions, music sold online is already heavily compressed. However done, recording audio output and saving to a lossy format will result in further loss of audio quality.

OP, if you only purchased one DRMed song, you'