Comments on: USACM DRM policy statement http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8092 p2pnet.net offers not-your-lamescream news on movies music digital media P2P peer-to-peer TV television file sharing freedom of speech open source product news Wifi mobiles company Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:51:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8092#comment-35841 Reader's Write Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:57:28 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8092#comment-35841 It sounds all very well and good. but nothing will change because people in the us congress takes kickbacks and bribes from the MPAA and RIAA and the copyright law will never change. The whole thing is stacked SO FORGET ABOUT AND GET OVER IT. It sounds all very well and good.

but nothing will change because people in the us congress takes kickbacks and bribes from the MPAA and RIAA and the copyright law will never change.

The whole thing is stacked SO FORGET ABOUT AND GET OVER IT.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8092#comment-35711 Reader's Write Tue, 07 Mar 2006 05:20:06 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8092#comment-35711 "Copyright Balance: Because lawful use (including fair use) of copyrighted works is in the public’s best interest, a person wishing to make lawful use of copyrighted material should not be prevented from doing so. As such, DRM systems should be mechanisms for reinforcing existing legal constraints on behavior (arising from copyright law or by reasonable contract), not as mechanisms for creating new legal constraints." The word "balance" always brings apprehension to me. I always fail to understand what is meant by "balance". If balance is between the people (99 percent of the political votes) and businesses owners/investors (~five percent of the votes) then the balance of 20:1 in favor of the prople is reasonable. If the balance is 50-50, then the balance makes no (political) sense at all. Sure, too much copying could harm the music business, but music is not the music business and musuic could actually florish and rise from the bottom of the pit, where it is now. If that is the "balance" people want, let it be. In the 1960's, when copyright duration was about 1/2 today's duration, in the era of vynil records and tape recorders, anyone could make a flawless copy of an entire record, without the record sleeves, of course, without fearing a lawsuit. Many did not copy, and instead purchased records because they wanted the sleeves too It should stay that way: No DRM is needed to keep things as they were. DRM can only create new legal constraints. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com “Copyright Balance: Because lawful use (including fair use) of copyrighted works is in the public’s best interest, a person wishing to make lawful use of copyrighted material should not be prevented from doing so. As such, DRM systems should be mechanisms for reinforcing existing legal constraints on behavior (arising from copyright law or by reasonable contract), not as mechanisms for creating new legal constraints.”

The word “balance” always brings apprehension to me. I always fail to understand what is meant by “balance”. If balance is between the people (99 percent of the political votes) and businesses owners/investors (~five percent of the votes) then the balance of 20:1 in favor of the prople is reasonable. If the balance is 50-50, then the balance makes no (political) sense at all.

Sure, too much copying could harm the music business, but music is not the music business and musuic could actually florish and rise from the bottom of the pit, where it is now. If that is the “balance” people want, let it be.

In the 1960’s, when copyright duration was about 1/2 today’s duration, in the era of vynil records and tape recorders, anyone could make a flawless copy of an entire record, without the record sleeves, of course, without fearing a lawsuit. Many did not copy, and instead purchased records because they wanted the sleeves too It should stay that way: No DRM is needed to keep things as they were. DRM can only create new legal constraints.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8092#comment-35676 Reader's Write Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:59:21 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8092#comment-35676 Rather than outright opposing DRM systems which presume the owner of communications devices are the attacker, the USACM offers principles which policy makers should include in any related policy discussions. Those with a technical background will recognize that it isn't possible to have DRM which presumes technology owners are the attacker that are also compatible with these principles. The benefit of these principles is that they can be understood by policy people who have no technical knowledge at all, thus avoiding problems where a lack of technical knowledge has lead to flat-earth-enforcement style legislation. Rather than outright opposing DRM systems which presume the owner of communications devices are the attacker, the USACM offers principles which policy makers should include in any related policy discussions.

Those with a technical background will recognize that it isn’t possible to have DRM which presumes technology owners are the attacker that are also compatible with these principles. The benefit of these principles is that they can be understood by policy people who have no technical knowledge at all, thus avoiding problems where a lack of technical knowledge has lead to flat-earth-enforcement style legislation.

]]>