AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Seems the music industry is trying to use something similar...... This is a letter I recieved form my congresswomen......


Dear Mr. Ward Iii,


Thank you for contacting me regarding online digital music and copy protection. It is good to hear from you, and I apologize for the delay in my response.


Technology in the music recording industry is progressing very quickly, and our existing laws are sometimes difficult to apply to a more technologically-advanced setting. As the internet moves into new areas of communication, it is inevitably going to raise new issues related to privacy, commerce, and intellectual property. There are two major debates now underway relating to digital recordings and copyright law.


First, there is a debate about access to music and video online. Under the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), recording devices designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making digital music recordings were granted some protection from copyright infringement claims. The covered devices are required to incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. In addition, the manufacturers of these devices pay a royalty to copyright owners. The AHRA does not allow for the widespread distribution of copyrighted music. The recent case of the online music company Napster is an example. Napster did not obtain permission from the owners of much of the copyrighted music available on the site and faced serious legal challenges under the AHRA.


Some are concerned that the recording companies have been inappropriately restricting access to online and other distributors. The law is clear in requiring that composers and performers receive payment for the use of their copyrighted material. Companies like Napster and MP3.COM have complained that licenses for use of these materials are not being made available or are only available at an excessive cost, making them effectively unattainable. I am hopeful these internet companies, copyright owners, and the recording industry will voluntarily develop a workable system that allows online music access to prosper. I believe it is in the recording industry's best interest to facilitate access to their music.


Should the industry not develop a fair, workable system that provides reasonable, affordable access for consumers, I would support Congressional action to address the problem. Two pieces of legislation, H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, and H.R. 1066, the Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations (BALANCE) Act, would allow circumvention of copy protection measures that do not result in infringement of the copyright. These measures, introduced by Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) respectively, have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, on which I serve.


In the previous Congress, Representatives Boucher and Chris Cannon (R-UT) introduced H.R. 2724, the Music Online Competition Act (MOCA) that would create a compulsory license for digital recordings. This would mandate access to a composition at a preset negotiated rate on a non-discriminatory basis. They may introduce this or similar legislation during this session. I will carefully consider this, and other legislation, with the goal of ensuring broad consumer access to music online.


The second major debate in this area is over copy protection. The recording and motion picture industries are increasingly concerned over illegal reproduction of their copyrighted materials. While illegal copying has always occurred, it was not until the development of digital copies that the problem has become more acute because digital copies have no degradation of sound or video quality. Since they are an exact copy of equal quality, pirated copies are very valuable. When an illegal copy is sold, the composer and performer do not receive compensation for their work.


Under current copyright law, when a person purchases a CD or DVD, they are buying the right to view that material and reproduce it for their own personal use. Thus, if you buy a Madonna CD, you can put a copy on your computer, re-record it on a cassette tape, or burn it on a new CD for your own listening. In order to prevent illegal piracy, companies are developing various technological means to prevent copying. For example, some recording companies have marketed CDs that cannot be copied to a computer. Others are experimenting with tethering technology that would allow a person to listen to a recording for a limited period of time before it is disabled. The customer would play for the recording for that period and would have to pay to renew it.


Last session, there was also legislation introduced in the United States Senate that would mandate copy protection technology. The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), previously known as the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA) was introduced by Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC). This bill (S. 2048) would require all digital devices sold in the United States to include copy protection. The copy protections standards would be established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and include civil and criminal penalties.


Another bill last session was H.R. 5211, the Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act, that would give copyright owners a limited safe harbor from liability when they prevent piracy of their works through publicly accessible, peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. This bill was introduced by Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) and has been referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. Proponents of H.R. 5211 argue that this will allow copyright owners to protect their content while allowing P2P networks to continue to operate. They also point out that this limited safe harbor does not provide the copyright owners any additional rights beyond current law. Opponents of the bill argue that this bill would turn copyright owners into vigilantes and provide too much protection from liability.


Although I believe that illegal piracy is a concern, I am skeptical that mandated copy protection is the best way to address this problem. I am also concerned about providing liability safe harbor to copyright owners. As this debate continues, I will carefully examine the various proposals to determine what is in the best interest of the consumer. I serve on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property that has jurisdiction over this area of law. Rest assured, I will keep your views in mind as any legislation comes before my subcommittee or the full House.


Again, thank you for sharing your views. Your opinion matters to me. If I can be of service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to let me know.


Sincerely,


Tammy Baldwin



Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin's 2nd District


Madison Office:

10 East Doty St., Suite 405

Madison, WI 53703

Phone: 608-258-9800

Fax: 608-258-9808


Beloit Office:

400 E. Grand Avenue, Suite 402

Beloit, WI 53511

Phone: 608-362-2800

Fax: 608-362-2838


Washington, DC Office:

1022 Longworth HOB

Washington, DC 20515

Phone: 202-225-2906

Fax: 202-225-6942

http://tammybaldwin.house.gov


This paragraph is what I am afraid of:


Under current copyright law, when a person purchases a CD or DVD, they are buying the right to view that material and reproduce it for their own personal use. Thus, if you buy a Madonna CD, you can put a copy on your computer, re-record it on a cassette tape, or burn it on a new CD for your own listening. In order to prevent illegal piracy, companies are developing various technological means to prevent copying. For example, some recording companies have marketed CDs that cannot be copied to a computer. Others are experimenting with tethering technology that would allow a person to listen to a recording for a limited period of time before it is disabled. The customer would play for the recording for that period and would have to pay to renew it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,675 Posts
Quote:
Others are experimenting with tethering technology that would allow a person to listen to a recording for a limited period of time before it is disabled. The customer would play for the recording for that period and would have to pay to renew it.
The market simply won't allow this. No one would buy CDs made like this. People refused to buy Divx, they'll refuse to buy this new Disney travesty of throwaway DVDs, and they'll refuse to buy these kinds of CDs if they're ever made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
David F: I totally agree with you. What gets me is there not letting this idea go. Sorry for the rant here, but I see how companies need to grow profits, but lets get away from the control thing. It seems they want to control what we see and hear, much like Clear Channel and other larger compaines go. I want lots of choices so I can pick and choose, cable companies and Direct TV are already limiting us to the crap they air. That is all I need is more home shopping networks. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts
As we speak, thousands of unplayable divx discs are being used to line the roofs of peasants in the third world. However, I can't bear to part with my 2 dozen unopened discs, which I keep around to remind myself of how the movie industry has shafted me not once but several times around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
trailergod: I heard there was a site where you could download movies before there released into the Theaters, they only do it for a few days at a time, not sure but I forgot the name of the site because I heard it through someone else so not sure how true or untrue it is.........


Ollie: That is too funny........ Maybe they can be crushed up with Cement and make our Roads last longer...... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Ollie: Don't feel bad. I still have over 100 divx disc, purchsed @ .99 cents ea. I hoped that CC would reward early adopters ( which technically I wasn't truely adopting) by leaving the disc "open" when they shut down. An acceptable risk (100 bucks) , yet I was still disappointed (as opposed to totally pissed as a true supporter of the "format" may have been).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Jordan420
the divix codec is a totaly diferent thing than the Divix DVD format that Circuit City tried to force on us
The DivX codec was actually NAMED the same as the Divx format specifically as an insult to it, which led to alot of confusion for a while....

Anyway, the Divx used a different encryption method then DVD. Instead of DeCSS, they use TripleDES, which is pretty much unbreakable.


But... while I hate the format, Divx was good to me-

When Divx died, Circuit City market down all the Divx-players, and I was able to get a SWEET Proscan for $200, plus free goodies like monster cables, 5 'real' DVDS, and 20 'divx' DVDs... so I can't complain.


Well... except that my divx copy of ROCKET MAN stopped playing before I could reclock the player, and there is NO DVD YET! I loved that movie!


Actually, I think there still are 30 or so Divx movies that were NOT released on DVD. Like Cocoon, High Art, Mulholland Falls, and a few other good ones.


The most amazing part is people still sell them on Ebay! Yikes!


Nick
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top