Music, technology groups agree on copyright plans

Associated Press | January 13, 2003 | TED BRIDIS

[HAL9000]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The music and technology industries, which have battled over consumers downloading music on the Internet, have negotiated a compromise to protect copyrighted works such as movies and songs without new government requirements, people familiar with the plan said Monday.

The agreement, expected to be announced Tuesday in Washington, contends that U.S. laws do not need to be amended, for example, to permit consumers to make backup copies of compact discs they purchase or copy songs onto handheld devices. The technology industry also will announce its support for aggressive enforcement against digital pirates.

Under the plan, future generations of entertainment devices won't be required by law to have locking controls that make it more difficult to copy digital entertainment. Technology companies have complained that the locking devices are too expensive and complex.

The deal attempts to heads off government intervention in the rising debate over what consumers can do with copyrighted material they have purchased.

The agreement was negotiated among the Recording Industry Association of America, the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project. The software alliance's members include Microsoft, Apple Computer Inc. and Adobe Systems Inc.; the policy project is made up of chief executives from IBM, Intel, Hewlett-Packard and Dell.

Officials with those organizations declined Monday to discuss the agreement in any detail, except saying they had achieved "landmark consensus." Industry executives and others described its provisions on condition of anonymity for The Associated Press.

Notably absent from the new copyright agreement was the Motion Picture Association of America, which has aggressively supported new government requirements for built-in locking controls on new devices, such as DVD recorders. A spokesman for the group declined Monday to comment until after the agreement was formally announced.

The agreement could affect a controversial bill by Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., that would prohibit the manufacture or distribution of "digital media devices" -- such as handheld music players -- unless they include government-approved copy restriction technology. The bill's passage has been in doubt since the 2002 election, since Hollings lost the chairmanship of the Commerce Committee when Republicans won the majority in the Senate.

The agreement also could affect efforts such as those by Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rick Boucher, R-Va., to allow consumers to make backup copies of music or movies and use copies on different devices. Lofgren, for example, wants permission for consumers to sell or give away copies of music or movies they purchase, and to impose protections for consumers who break locking controls that violate these rights.

Boucher said Monday that he was told by executives at Intel that the company supports both the new agreement and his bill, which would require copy-protected music CDs to be labeled, among other things. Boucher said he believes that means the new agreement is "not inconsistent" with his bill.

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., praised the agreement for helping to overcome what he said was the "growing rift" between the music and technology industries.

"I hope the rest of the creative and technological communities get on board with a unifying message and ... we can tone down the divisive rhetoric that has otherwise predominated many copyright and technology debates," Berman said in a statement.

[Drago]

The lawsuit link is: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/707390/posts

HAL9000 didn't provide a link to the original AP article (probably from a newspaper or TV station website) but most if not all have a notice similar to this one from the local newspaper: "Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."
Reposting the entire article w/o a link is not "fair use" as defined by the lawsuit settlement.

[Dominic Harr]

In fact, you, on *MANY* occasions here at FR, post articles that you do not have the 'right' to.

Then you, therefore, are a thief?

[Dominic Harr]

I'm not sure how many of ya'll know this, but B2k constantly posts here articles in full from copywrited sources.

Uniquely ironic and hypocritical, no?

[jpl]

Copyrights expire, usually after the death of the author.

Why is the industry pushing for a modification in the proposed copyright extension which would extend it for up to 70 years after the death of the author/artist?

[Dominic Harr]

My issue is laws that define 'sharing' as 'stealing'. Laws that define 'ideas' as 'property'.

They're so obviously bad law, that the person defending them in this thread is guilty of breaking them in This Thread.

Clearly, the laws need to be rethought.

[Dominic Harr]

Please don't be shocked, but Bush2000 is a theif, having wilfully "stolen" this article from CNET.

I know, shocking it may be . . .

[Buckwheats]

If you've been around here for long, you realize that Bush-Boy is a certain type of troll. He (It?) doesn't troll everything and anything just to get some weird sexual rise out of sincere folks taking his (it's) bait. He's (It's?) in a certain sub-category of trolldumb; kind of like some of the WOsD trolls. He's (It's?) obviously got a financial vested interest. Bush-Boy's interest is Microsoft. Maybe it's actually Bill himself; he does have a lot of time on his hands these days (nah, he'd just have some low-level wanker doing that). Anyway, DO NOT respond to trolls of any persuasion. While that may not make them go away, it'll save you from being played for a fool by an idiot (unless you enjoy talking to telemarketers, or S&M or something like that).

[Drago]

Probably don't need to be calling names on FR quite so easily...I might be called a "troll" because I "Lurk" mostly and post infrequently. This is a discussion forum, and I think Buchwheats description of "trolls" is a bit loose, in fact with such a loose description, one might consider his post a "Troll"!
In fact Bush2K's post WAS in violation as per:

"CNET Networks, Inc. copyright notice
All editorial content and graphics on this site are protected by U.S. copyright and international treaties and may not be copied without the express permission of CNET Networks, Inc., which reserves all rights. Re-use of any of CNET's editorial content and graphics online for any purpose is strictly prohibited. The materials from CNET's sites are available for informational and noncommercial uses offline only, provided the content and/or graphics are not modified in any way, all copyright and other notices on any copy are retained, and permission is granted by CNET.
Permission to use CNET content is granted on a case-by-case basis. CNET welcomes requests. Please visit our Reprints & Permissions page to submit a request.
DO NOT copy or adapt the HTML that CNET creates to generate pages. It also is covered by CNET's copyright."

I hope to e-mail JimRob soon to ask about posting here in light of the lawsuit (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/707390/posts). I see nothing in the posting guidelines (http://www.freerepublic.com/help.htm#guidelines) about making sure to post JUST an EXCERPT of an article and the LINK. I think that is the only way FR will susvive in the future.
I have wanted to post articles in the past couple of months, but need a clarification from Jim R. on what will keep him/FR out of legal trouble!

[Dominic Harr]

I think the law is so completely unenforcable and totally unethical that we are the just ones. FR is doing *nothing* wrong.

Sharing is not stealing, ideas aren't property, slaves aren't property . . .

[Right Wing Professor]

This site has been sued by (if memory serves me) the Washington Post and other publications for violating fair use guidelines. It's banned from posting entire articles from those news sources.

Sure. But the laws that apply to the WP apply to everyone. And if it's theft to reproduce articles from the WP, it's theft to reproduce them from National Review. Theft doesn't stop being theft because the owner decides not to call the police, or because the owner doesn't find out.

So if it's theft for me to download and listen to eminem (I choose the most hypothetical example I can think of; I'd rather put red hot nails through my eardrums), it's theft for you to download and read a copy of an AP article on FR.

Let me give you absolution. It's not theft in either case, and all you're guilty of is a little thoughtless sanctimony, without which minor vice this would not be the FR we all love :-)

[Drago]

Well, I am no lawyer (not even close), and I haen't read thru the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act)(http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf), but I put "copyright" on the web pages I write(part time), and expect people to NOT copy and repost them without at least credit and a link to the original site. I like this site(http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html) for simple explanation of the concepts. Copyright is still needed to protect authors, artists, etc., so "completely unenforceable" & "totally unethical" is a bit extreme I think. "Sharing" could be stealing, "ideas" can be property, and yes slavery is illegal.

[babylonian]

Copyrights do not expire after the death of the author. Jack Warner made Bette Davis and Humphery Bogart movies that Ted Turner now owns. Movies are chattel and can be passed from owner to owner. An initial copyright is for 28 years. Then, it can be renewed for another 28, and then for up to 70 years.

People here like to argue as to the fairness of copyright laws, but under current law it is illegal to come into posession of copyrighted works without purchasing it. Simply put, the copyright owner has reserved the right to copy that work for profit (under law), and if you copy it then that copy is illegal.

IMHO, copyright law should be in perpetuity. If my grandpa had written, say, Happy Birthday, I'd like to own it and collect a royalty, then pass it on to my family.

[Dimensio]

I consider 'theft' to be the act of removing the property of an owner without compensation or consent. The end result of 'theft' is that the thief has property while the victim is deprived of property that they once had.

Music piracy does not deprive the 'victim' of property that they once had. I am not saying that it is 'right' or that it should be legal, but I consider it something other than 'theft'.

[babylonian]

"I think the law is so completely unenforcable...."

Copy a rental tape or CD for your own use and you will definitely get away with it, but copy them and sell the copies, and you will quickly find out just how enforcable the law is. If you're lucky, an FBI agent will knock on your door and ask you to voluntarily forfeit your illegal copies, and if you do, your troubles go away. If you're unlucky, federal marahals will back a truck up to your house, confiscate all copies (legal or illegal), all copying equipment, office equipment and related property, and take your butt to jail. Then, they'll prosecute you.

[k2blader]

Bump for later read.

[Bush2000]

So if it's theft for me to download and listen to eminem (I choose the most hypothetical example I can think of; I'd rather put red hot nails through my eardrums), it's theft for you to download and read a copy of an AP article on FR.

That is true. Probably the reason that many news sources haven't asserted their rights in this regard is that the stated aim of this site is non-profit education/discussion.

[Bush2000]

Copyrights do not expire after the death of the author. Jack Warner made Bette Davis and Humphery Bogart movies that Ted Turner now owns.

Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart didn't hold the copyright on their movies. The studios did.

[LibKill]

Ho-hum. Another copy protection scheme.

Another 15-year old hacker will break it.

The only way for the media hacks to survive is to provide great content at cheap prices.

They should take a lesson from WalMart. Cheap pays.

[babylonian]

I didn't say Bette Davis and Humphery Bogart owned copyrights. I said Jack Warner made their movies, and he owned the studio at the time. (Thus, his studio owned the copyrights, and Ted Turner now owns them.)