Some Fundamental Questions on Fair-Use-vs.-DRM Issues?

InspectorPraline asks: "I'm doing a paper on the 'cultural aspects' of both sides of the MP3/DMCA/CBDTPA/DeCSS/etc debate, and I'm trying to find out some of the possible reasoning behind why each side feels so strongly about the way it feels. (Yes, I do understand what I'm doing.) Specifically, since the Slashdot crowd is presumably on the opposing side to the RIAA/MPAA side, I have a few questions I'd like answered so that I can do a well-informed, balanced paper (note - this isn't an opinion paper, merely a statement-of-fact paper)."

"Feel free to answer (or not answer) any of the following questions:

1. What do you think the legal (or appropriate) uses of MP3 technology should be?
2. We all know the RIAA complains about the illegitimate uses of P2P technology. Since its most prevalent usage is (by the RIAA's definition) illegal use, what are some applications of the technology that the P2P crowd can use to swing the tide in its favor?
3. The DMCA is frequently seen as a flawed piece of legislation which is easily abused and so broadly worded that such abuse is unpreventable. Despite this, what positive or useful elements can be taken from the DMCA and used to formulate a new law that would do what the media companies want without infringing on consumers' rights?
4. An argument frequently levied at the RIAA and MPAA is that they are more than content to label the large majority of consumers as thieves and pirates. What can the RIAA and MPAA do to change this? How can these organizations polish this image up?
5. With laws such as the DMCA and possible future legislation such as the CBDTPA, many consumers feel that their freedoms to enjoy the entertainment they purchase are being slowly eroded away by content companies. What rights (other than the right to listen or view) do you feel that consumers should have with media they purchase?

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated."

Thoughts

[narrowhouse]

1) Appropriate uses of mp3 (or Ogg), Making compilations of your own CD's for your own use. The problem is that my use may include playing the songs in my friends car, at my girlfriends house or any other playback device that is handy. The copy-once formats mean I have to redo that compilation everytime I want to use a different format instead of copy it from a cd-r to a compact flash card.

3) This doesn't really answer your question, but maybe it is helpful. The DMCA doesn't help. Unauthorized copying of copyrighted material was already illegal. The DMCA is more damaging because it limits thought and discussion about these issues, you can't make a device that works around a copy protection mechanism. (In the physical world this would be a law the makes bending a paper to open your desk drawer illegal) you can't publically TALK about defeating a copy protection mechanism.
There is nothing about the DMCA that is redeemable that isn't already covered in some other law. The obsession with treating all things "digital" as if they are somehow not covered by the older copyright laws needs to end.

One Two Three...

[e8johan]

This is MHO:

1. Encode/decode sound, i.e. record and replay music.

2. FreeNet is a P2P network guaranteeing the freedom of speech.

3. Nothing.

4. Allow people to watch movies and listen to music without region restrictions and also allow copying for private use. The reason that I encode MP3s (Oggs nowerdays) is to free up the CD player of my computer.

5. Copy for private use, i.e. the right to change medium to a more suitable and the right to back-up. Also, the right to buy the media anywhere and play it anywhere (no regions).

Sneaky!

[DarkVein]

1. What do you think the legal (or appropriate) uses of MP3 technology should be?

I think they should be whatever Fraufenhofer wants them to be. :P Ogg Vorbis is much better in every way that counts, and most that don't.

I suppose you're asking more about the right to translate a work to another media.

2. We all know the RIAA complains about the illegitimate uses of P2P technology. Since its most prevalent usage is (by the RIAA's definition) illegal use, what are some applications of the technology that the P2P crowd can use to swing the tide in its favor?

The answer to this is rather painfully obvious, and one of the primary purposes of the technology: Distribution of bandwidth resources. P2P technology allows the [re]distribution of data to a large number of people at a minimal bandwidth cost to any single node. I wish to ignore the implimentation problems of metadata, focusing on the theoretical that the question pulls at.

The most obvious example would be extremely low cost distribution of exposure material. This can't be "free samples" and advertising material disgustingly disguised as a high quality representation of the work of an artist. You can't spoon dogshit (not even federally mandated dogshit) at people who've been doing much better without your interference.

The plus? P2P and its distance audio-centric cousin, webcasting, can provide wonderful exposure to EXACTLY the audience that desires it, without any marketing research and ad campaigns. The downside (for the RIAA)? A lot of new artists would be able to get enough exposure to make a living without the RIAA, changing the musician market into a seller's (artist's) market, instead of a buyer's (record company) market. For most of us on slashdot, I think we see this as an already inevitable shift, and the natural state that this market should be in.

3. The DMCA is frequently seen as a flawed piece of legislation which is easily abused and so broadly worded that such abuse is unpreventable. Despite this, what positive or useful elements can be taken from the DMCA and used to formulate a new law that would do what the media companies want without infringing on consumers' rights?

This and question #5 are flawed at the philosophical divide between art and publishers. See #5.

4. An argument frequently levied at the RIAA and MPAA is that they are more than content to label the large majority of consumers as thieves and pirates. What can the RIAA and MPAA do to change this? How can these organizations polish this image up?

Not to be entirely venomous, but the RIAA and MPAA can fuck over and die horrible deaths. The members of the RIAA have demonstrated via lobbying that they can not survive in a symbiotic relationship with their own customers. The legitimacy of their existance is nullified by this. They serve no beneficial purpose for customers or for enriching or promoting the useful Arts. Their organizations at their mutal genesis did, and their current structure precludes reversion. A complete rewrite is required.

5. With laws such as the DMCA and possible future legislation such as the CBDTPA, many consumers feel that their freedoms to enjoy the entertainment they purchase are being slowly eroded away by content companies. What rights (other than the right to listen or view) do you feel that consumers should have with media they purchase?

This question is unintentionally barbed. The natural presumption of the concept of copyright is that science and art belong, first, foremost, and forever, to civilization. To encourage this creation, modern copyright law grants temporary restrictions to benefit the authors and inventors. This is "duh" stuff to anyone reading this, of course. The trouble with these extensions to copyright power is that they attempt to further steal from the intellectual commons and grant established companies the power to sell those rights BACK. Media corporations wish to be in the business of selling the commons to the common.

Lines were drawn many times, and these corporations just kick sand over them and pretend they were a few inches back all along.

Constructive comments? That would entail outlining a bill of rights. I'm not unbiased in this, and my language would undoubtably be defensive. These issues deal with copyright, but I cover several consumer-specific issues below.

• Copyright should not outlive the natural life span of the author, but should allow heirs to benefit in the event of an untimely death, such as the case with General Lee Grant's memoires.
• Copyright should not ever be transferable, except in the case of dispute and decided by a court: Rights should be grantable by the author, as this is obviously agreeable, but the right of granting rights should remain with the creator until expiration.
• Consumers can do whatever the hell they want to do with a purchased work for private use. The only detrimental artifact possible is if Media Group Alpha wants to sell you several copies of the same fucking work. That's bullshit. If I buy a DVD of Lord of the Rings, I should (and do) have the right to translate it to any media I want for my own viewing purposes.
• Non-profit redistribution of a parody, or derivative remix, edit, etc, should be permitted.
• The larger intent of copyright is to prevent another from claiming your work as theirs. Unless non-profit redistribution of a substantially complete/unaltered version of a work is harmful to the creator's incentive to create more works, it should not be denied. This much requires that the proper credit be given to the content creator. This also requires the context of distribution to be considered. e.g., giving out Janis Ian's music pretty much anywhere can arrouse interest in her works, raising concert attendance and further record sales, providing financial incentive for Janis Ian to continue. Giving out hard copies Britney Spears' latest album in front of a store that's selling it clearly can harm sales of the album, and deter the artist from making future releases. (This is academic, however, since Britney Spears is endentured to make more albums whether she wants to or not, and doesn't have the rights to them anyway.) However, giving the same album out five years later could arouse interest in her new latest album. Context becomes important, again. So does reality, which never figures much into RIAA(/Enron) financial projections.
• Broadcast television is probably (hopefully) on the way out, so this is probably a moot point, as well as being a rant. Timeshifting programming. I do it. I love it. I can't stand the stupid time slots and slot shifting networks do. I want to appreciate witty dialog, special effects art, or clever plot, not some marketer's clever insight into the 14-25 year old $25,000->$35,000 income bracket and coorolation with some time on a certain day of the week. Timeshifting invalidates the house of cards of tv advertising timeslot brackets. I say good riddance. I'd much rather if advertisers support GOOD shows, instead of shows on Fridays at 9pm.

Well, you're writing the thesis. I'll cut my rambling right about here.

By point

[Chilles]

What do you think the legal (or appropriate) uses of MP3 technology should be?
MP3 technology is technology to compress digital sound files to a size more easily manageable by current hardware (especially portable music players and) and current bandwith capacities (internet but also the USB bus often used for portable music players). As far as I know any use of MP3 technology is legal and appropriate. What can possibly be wrong with compressing a sound file? As far as I'm concerned MP3 technology (or any other technology solely used for audio or video compression has nothing to do with the other parts of the debate named (DMCA,CBDTPA,DeCSS,etc).

We all know the RIAA complains about the illegitimate uses of P2P technology. Since its most prevalent usage is (by the RIAA's definition) illegal use, what are some applications of the technology that the P2P crowd can use to swing the tide in its favor?
Well, I'm on slippery legal ground here, but one of the legal uses of the audio I buy (here in the Netherlands at least) is giving that audio (the original) to a friend either for a while (so he can listen to it for a few days) or forever (as a gift). In my Opinion it would (or maybe should) be perfectly legal to make MP3 versions of my audio, and share(through P2P) this mp3 version to the world. As long as I made sure only one person in the entire world was listening to that piece of music at any one time, including the original I bought then this would be a legal use. After all, having an MP3 file on your disc of material you don't own isn't illegal as long as you don't listen to it (again, under dutch law), so the P2P system would just be used to allow others to download music they might want to listen to in the future to their disc for storage (for example to make more efficient use of available bandwidth) until they have the opportunity to listen to that music (that is, it is their "turn" to listen to the song). Apart from that I think freenet [freenetproject.org] and locstworld [locustworld.co.uk] are good examples of legal use of P2P technology and these guys [mit.edu] are searching for more. Basically P2P is a way to make a network less dependent on specific nodes so there are tons of legal uses (darpa net is a good one too)

The DMCA ...
I'm not familiar enough with the exact contents of this law to react to this question.

An argument frequently levied at the RIAA and MPAA is that they are more than content to label the large majority of consumers as thieves and pirates. What can the RIAA and MPAA do to change this? How can these organizations polish this image up?
The main interest of these bodies at this time seems to be to limit the value of their products to close to nothing. DVD's I cannot watch on my linux box (without "illegal" DeCSS) CD's that will not play on my PC (my only CD player currently) etc. The image of these bodies is directly related to the precieved value of the products they sell. So currently it appears customers (or at least this customer) and RIAA/MPAA see each other as thieves and pirates and both act as thieves and pirates would act towards thieves and pirates (a lack of mutual trust comes to mind....)

With laws such as the DMCA and possible future legislation such as the CBDTPA, many consumers feel that their freedoms to enjoy the entertainment they purchase are being slowly eroded away by content companies. What rights (other than the right to listen or view) do you feel that consumers should have with media they purchase?
Right to change the format of said media to suit the users needs. (portable MP3 players, (future) portable video players, even place the media on a (non public) internet server to be able to enjoy the media all over the world without having to lug several suitcases of media carriers and equipment around.)
Right to enjoy the media in the company of family, friends, etc.
Right to sell the media to whoever you please once you don't need or want it anymore.

My 2c

[Twylite]

1. Using MP3 as an alternative media for the purposes of using content which you have licensed is acceptable. So if you buy a CD (and thereby license the content) you should be able to back it up, copy it to your HDD / portable player / car MP3 player, etc. MP3 trading is, on the whole, NOT acceptable use: a CD (or any licensed content) should be treated like a book - it can only be used in one place at one time.
2. P2P is a massively effective advertising/marketing mechanism. There are numerous studies showing that music trading increases music purchases. This is especially true for non-headline groups that don't make the Top 40 lists and whose record companies won't pay to have them on regular playlists. Wider exposure means more sales, and this benefits the artists and the record label. Of course, this doesn't make it legal. The question is: how do you draw the line? Perhaps we should have a DRM system that permits shareware-style evaluation?
3. IANAL, and since the DMCA doesn't directly effect me, I am not overly familiar with it. On the whole, however, I have not seen many negative comments about the DMCA beyond the non-circumvention aspects (and I'm probably forgetting some other critical bits ;) ). The DMCA is a good example of modern day legislation: it is redundant, and attempts to legislate a new solution to insufficient policing of existing laws. Consumers and record companies are best protected by concentrating the force of the law on commercial (i.e. mass) piracy, which is where most losses accumulate.
4. The RIAA and MPAA are by their very nature opposed to consumers. They exist to protect the interests of the middle man, not the consumer nor the artist. They do not stand to gain anything from a better consumer image.
5. As for (1). You should be able to transfer the content into any media you choose. Providing you do not distribute/publish content, you can also alter it (for private use) any way you see fit. You can also broadcast privately (e.g. play a DVD for a group of friends) and lend the content on a private, non-commercial basis (e.g. to a friend, but you cannot trade as a video store) providing that you don't use another copy of the content while a copy is on loan. Remember that Copyright law (as originally contemplated) is concerned with publishing and distribution rights, and cannot be used to control how you use the content once you have licensed it.

A clarification: yes, I do refer to licensing content rather than purchasing it. There is a distinction, and that is becoming more clear. When you purchase a CD you receive, in that purchase, the physical media containing the content, plus a license to use the content. Copyright law does not allow you to own the content unless you are the copyright holder - you can only use it according to a license granted to you by the copyright holder. With physical media we seldom distinguish between the purchase of the media and the purchase of the license, because the license is implicit.

Re:In a nutshell:

[yandros]

> In my mind, making copy protected CDs is akin to
> a pub/bar/club having a sign saying "No drugs on
> the premesis" - They are helping us stay on the
> right side of the law.

The problem with your analogy is this: while it's always illegal to use `drugs' (as you're implying) *anywhere*, copying CDs is NOT illegal.

This is tricky, because most people have an instinctive, off-the-cuff belief that sellers can sell what they want, and people can go somewhere else if they don't like the wares. This is by and large correct (and important to our society), but there *are* a few regulations. Copy-protected CDs come very close to crossing that line (I and many others would say that they cross it).

Another thing that many people either don't know or tend to forget is the ``piracy surcharge''. Basically, the companies now in the RIAA got together a while ago and complained to Congress that copying CDs would *sometimes* be used for piracy. Somehow (you'll be hard pressed to convince me that campaign contributions weren't influential), these companies convinced the US government to pre-apportion a fine for this piracy, spread out over *all* consumers (law-abiding or not), applied to blank audio CDs.

This means that completely law-abiding artists who want to distribute CDs of their work (which they can do completely legally), are fined for the piracy ``in general''. This money is collected *by the government*, *for those companies*. This also means that if you want to make a `backup' copy of an audio CD (which you are explicitly allowed to do), you're paying that fine, collected by the government, and given to the media companies.

This is just one of the many (IMHO silly/stupid) things the industry has been able to `convince' the government to do ``to create a marketplace where content companies are willing to put forth their wares'' -- i.e. market protectionism, but not against competing sellers, but against the citizen-consumers.

Can you tell that I don't like this law? :]

Answers

[haplo21112]

1.What do you think the legal (or appropriate) uses of MP3 technology should be? 2. We all know the RIAA complains about the illegitimate uses of P2P technology. Since its most prevalent usage is (by the RIAA's definition) illegal use, what are some applications of the technology that the P2P crowd can use to swing the tide in its favor?

P2P has legitamate purposes in transfering ideas and information in a distrubuted fashion. Just becuase someone uses it for illegal purposes doesn't mean the whole thing is bad. I use these concepting in my companies information sharing systems through the web site I develop. If they truely believe that if something can be used for illegal purposes it should be taken away, then lets round up all the guns, cars, saws, hammers, screw drivers, knives, PDAs, locksmith tools, and many many other everydays tools, because they too, cna be used for illegal purposes...

3. The DMCA is frequently seen as a flawed piece of legislation which is easily abused and so broadly worded that such abuse is unpreventable. Despite this, what positive or useful elements can be taken from the DMCA and used to formulate a new law that would do what the media companies want without infringing on consumers' rights?

Short answer none, the tenents of the DMCA toward what media companies want and what consumers have rights too, under the Constitution of the United States are mutually incompatiable. The only way to provide for fair use by consumers so they can takes samples of media for fair use in research and comentary, to time shift programs for personal use, to copy media for personal use, is acceptance that this might lead to illegal activities. It has always been this way, users have always been able to make fair use of media through analouge means, the media companies have just decieded since there will soon be a complete shift over to digital that they should make an a ttept to stop it. However it is now an expected right that things should stay the way they have always been...the media companies are not going to loose anything they have no lost in the past in digital is these rights and freedoms continue. They have jut gotten greedy, this is no reason to begin imposing what they wish to impose.

4. An argument frequently levied at the RIAA and MPAA is that they are more than content to label the large majority of consumers as thieves and pirates. What can the RIAA and MPAA do to change this? How can these organizations polish this image up?

Accept that their community of users do not want things to change, will not accept the change, and
that they cannot do anything about it. Copy protection can and always will be over ridden, its immpossible to stop. Thats why they needed a law like the DMCA to make it illegal as a stop gap measure. What can they do to clean up thier image, stop thier shit come out on the side of the consumer(who pays their way through life), and discredit the framers of the DMCA and all similar laws...aka stop what they are doing shut up and go away and go back to what they used to do a decade ago before they got all mixed up in this. Alterantely they could just cease to exist, let the artists, and performers figure things out for themseleves, which would pretty much end up leaving the consumer incharge to dictate they way we want things to work. You make the content tkae you pay check, and then we do what we want with it. Which frankly would take they down a deserved notch or two...(1.3 million an episode to make "Friends" give me a break)...then wow what a thought maybe we would have TV, and movies and music worth purchasing, because they would cost less, and only the truly deserving stuff would make it through the survial of the fittest test, and not the studio's flavor of the week. Why are there 3 versions of "law and Order" becuase its a good show people like...
Why did that crappy "American Idol"(that was the title right, it sucked so much i can't remeber) show last as long as it did, Marketing Dollars!

5. With laws such as the DMCA and possible future legislation such as the CBDTPA, many consumers feel that their freedoms to enjoy the entertainment they purchase are being slowly eroded away by content companies. What rights (other than the right to listen or view) do you feel that consumers should have with media they purchase.

See above answers for full discourse. However in summation. It IS(not should BE...IS) my right as a consumer to purchase CD's, Movies, DVD's and by being forced to watch commercals; Televison, and then do whatever I want with that content if I want to turn that information into an MP3 so I can load it on my PC with out carrying the CD around I can(not should be able too, CAN!)...if I want to turn my new copy of "Spiderman" in to a divix stream on my server harddrive, so I can stream it to, 3 PCs connected to TV's in my house and allow all of them to show the movie during a party and my guests can roam from room to room watching the movie I can! If I want to capture the lastest episode of "Buffy" so i can watch it later 100 times and skip all the commercials I can! If I missed that episoide and I want to download it from a Usenet News group so I can see it I can!