Great news it seems:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10776.asp
Great news it seems:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10776.asp
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Has it stopped people before? Has anyone actually been arrested for it?
Home cinema: Toshiba 42XV555DB Full HD LCD | Onkyo TX-SR705 | NAD C352 | Monitor Audio Bronze B2 | Monitor Audio Bronze C | Monitor Audio Bronze BFX | Yamaha NSC120 | BK Monolith sub | Toshiba HD-EP35 HD-DVD | Samsung BD-P1400 BluRay Player | Pioneer DV-575 | Squeezebox3 | Virgin Media V+ Box
PC: Asus P5B | Core2duo 2.13GHz | 2GB DDR2 PC6400 | Inno3d iChill 7900GS | Auzentech X-Plosion 7.1 | 250GB | 500GB | NEC DVDRW | Dual AG Neovo 19"
HTPC: | Core2Duo E6420 2.13GHz | 2GB DDR2 | 250GBx2 | Radeon X1300 | Terratec Aureon 7.1 | Windows MCE 2005
Laptop: 1.5GHz Centrino | 512MB | 60GB | 15" Wide TFT | Wifi | DVDRW
Where is there anything in the Gowers recommendations that would change the way music corporations currently take action?
The "shifting" proposal is in relation to legally-held material, so it would allow you (for instance) to put a copy of a CD you own onto your MP3 player (which, currently, is not technically legal in the UK, unless you have permission from whoever owns copyright to do it). When was the last time a music company took action over that?
But so far as things like downloading, uploading, P2P, piracy, counterfeiting, etc (which is where legal action gets taken) are concerned, where does Gowers suggest easing off on that? If anything, the opposite is true.
Gowers certainly does recommend addressing the balance between consumer and rights holder by introducing another very specific "fair use" exception (in line with the point I made above), but overall, it's largely about protecting commercial interests and (and I quote)
....strengthening enforcement of IP rights, whether thorough clamping down on piracy or trade in counterfeit goods
The one thing that hasn't been mentioned in either the Gowers report or the IPPR review is how this right will affect the legitimacy of methods which crack encryption. If I have the right to backup a DVD I've bought, does that right supersede laws such as the EUCD that (theoretically) prevent me obtaining the tools I need to exercise that right?
Yep, i was thinking about what will happen with dvds and css with shifting video for ipods, psps etc becomeing more and more popular.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Erm, that was the point I was actually making... under current law it's extremely, extremely unlikely that any record company will press charges because some guy has used itunes to rip a CD he owns to his ipod, BUT it's good to know that the law is being changed, so that ripping your own CDs to put on your own MP3 player is not in that "grey area". Just nice to have a bit of legal confirmation - that's all.
So how are music corporations currently "taking the wee-wee", as you say they're already doing?
By having the temerity to use the law to enforce the rights the law gives them? By going after people that breach those rights? That's precisely what Gowers is advocating should be strengthened.
Where to start? Sony's lovely rootkit fiasco, only allowing custom programs on Windows systems to play the CD (easily bypassed by turning Autorun off). The RIAA's various bizarre bullying techniques, and all sorts of other methods used to prevent playing on PCs or Macs utilised by companies such as Warner, BMG and more.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to protect their content - it goes without saying that people shouldn't be allowed to steal copyrighted music, but instead of treating their actual paying customers like naughty children by stopping them from using their music fairly, they should be allowing us some sort of freedom to allow us to play it on any equipment we own.
The vast majority of people that own pirated music get it off torrent sites / p2p programs. Can you name me a copy protected album that isn't currently on several torrent sites? I doubt it. The pirates will work their way around it, free downloaders will carry on getting their music easily, and the only people disadvantaged will be those people that buy CDs to either make copies of to keep in their car (like I do) or rip to their MP3 players.
No matter what they do to "prevent" copying, someone somewhere will bypass it, and despite measures brought into place to curb file sharing, I'm willing to bet that the vast, vast majority of people will get their free copyrighted music by downloading it rather than getting a copy off one of their mates.
That is how they're taking the 'wee-wee'.
It wouldn't surprise me if the law is being changed in more ways than one. In their lobbying, the record labels might well be trying to offset additional anti-consumer constraints with a 'good news' headline that enhances their reputation, and discourages resistance.
Well, that's what I'd do if I was them, and out to screw everyone...
Whether they're indeed trying to do that I don't actually know.
personally, i still don't see how thats taking the mick. lets consider a bank. they have big glass barriers with tiny holes you have to talk to the cashiers through - pretty annoying right? and of absolutely no use to the average consumer. yet theres maybe one-in-a-million customers who wants to rob the bank, and steal all their money. The bank doesnt want this, but the only option they have is to treat all the customers like "naughty children", so that they don't get robbed.
is it flawless? no. banks still get robbed.
does it help? certainly
now, i don't agree with the secret rootkit side of things, but i've no opposition to a record company trying to protect its own property by using drm and restricting copywrite in anyway they can. its currently illegal to rip a cd anyway, so if they want to enforce that by making it hard for you to do so, fair play.
hughlunnon@yahoo.com | I have sigs turned off..
Agreed. I'm always of the belief that copyright should provide an incentive to create, by granting the right for others to read / listen / view your work in exchange for some income.
Controlling the means of access to the work strikes me as outside of what copyright is (or IMO, should be) all about.
If I decided to grant access to my new album, on condition that everyone listening is legally required to listen to it while hopping on one leg wearing a gimp suit, I'm not sure such draconian licensing really falls within copyright's remit.
Sure, the labels aren't introducing that particular requirement anytime soon, but the point remains. IMO, copyright should be about buying a license to listen to the creative work, with no further conditions attached.
And there is the issue. They can try, but the chances of a 100% unbreakable DRM system is slim.
The major flaw being that you have to give both the protected content and the keys to access this content to the person at some point, in some form or another.
So in the process of "trying" to "protect" their content, they often end up hurting the real paying customers too. Ya know, the ones that actually pay their wages.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)