Re: what moral obligation? (Re: DRM technology and policy)
At 02:23 PM 4/29/03 +0100, David Howe wrote:
Yup. and copy protected audio "non cds" such as the more recent album releases are actually an attempt to prevent you using your fair use rights, which are of course legal, without performing an illegal circumvention of the protection under the terms of the DMCA.
Actually, non-standard CDs sold with the CD logo are fraudulent, since they violate a published standard which the logo implies. I'm surprised this avenue hasn't been taken legally. The non-CD publishers are of course free to sell what they wish, but they can't claim standards-compliance, which they do.
Yup. and copy protected audio "non cds" such as the more recent album releases are actually an attempt to prevent you using your fair use rights, which are of course legal, without performing an illegal circumvention of the protection under the terms of the DMCA. Actually, non-standard CDs sold with the CD logo are fraudulent, since
At 02:23 PM 4/29/03 +0100, David Howe wrote: they violate a published standard which the logo implies. I'm surprised this avenue hasn't been taken legally. It has in the uk - no protected cd in the uk uses the cd logo. Doesn't make it any easier
at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:36 PM, Major Variola (ret) <mv@cdc.gov> was seen to say: though, as that is on the back of the case, and the cases are stacked with all the real-cd cases in the display racks; if you decide you don't want a not-cd, having discovered it is one on examination of the case, its not as if you have a legal alternative; you can't even buy it, download the tracks on [insert p2p here] and claim fair use, as that doesn't exist in the UK.
At 9:36 AM -0700 4/29/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Actually, non-standard CDs sold with the CD logo are fraudulent, since they violate a published standard which the logo implies. I'm surprised this avenue hasn't been taken legally.
I believe that the Philips, who holds the trademark for compact disks, has said that copy protected disks do not follow the standard and may not use the trademark. Cheers - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Due process for all | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@pwpconsult.com | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
At 10:48 PM 5/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:
At 9:36 AM -0700 4/29/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Actually, non-standard CDs sold with the CD logo are fraudulent, since they violate a published standard which the logo implies. I'm surprised this avenue hasn't been taken legally.
I believe that the Philips, who holds the trademark for compact disks, has said that copy protected disks do not follow the standard and may not use the trademark.
If so, couldn't the labels selling be charged with deceptive advertising? steve
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 9:36 AM -0700 4/29/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Actually, non-standard CDs sold with the CD logo are fraudulent, since they violate a published standard which the logo implies. I'm surprised this avenue hasn't been taken legally.
I believe that the Philips, who holds the trademark for compact disks, has said that copy protected disks do not follow the standard and may not use the trademark.
Which actually misrepresents the facts. The fact is that Philips position is one of power and authority, of course they will do this simply to protect their monopoloy (not the consumers rights, which aren't the same thing). If you don't think Philips is looking at how to license their TM to others wanting to add copy protection of various ilks then you are seriously misunderstanding the dynamics of a 'Capitalist' market. It's a matter of time & $$$, not ethical protection of consumer rights or the obligation of inventors/creators to supply the public domain. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
At 10:48 PM 5/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:
At 9:36 AM -0700 4/29/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Actually, non-standard CDs sold with the CD logo are fraudulent, since they violate a published standard which the logo implies. I'm surprised this avenue hasn't been taken legally.
I believe that the Philips, who holds the trademark for compact disks, has said that copy protected disks do not follow the standard and may not use the trademark.
If so, couldn't the labels selling be charged with deceptive advertising?
Probably, -if- it were in Philips best interest. It isn't. What -is- in Philips best interest is to change their standard so that they can license exceptions to this. This means they are in a position to monopolize the market of DRM in regards CD technology. An additional strategy Philips may be trying is to close down CD technology and force the market into some newer standard that would allow Philips a longer-lived income stream. What sorts of patents and IP does Philips have in DVD technology for example? -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:18 PM -0700 5/5/03, Steve Schear wrote:
At 10:48 PM 5/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:
At 9:36 AM -0700 4/29/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Actually, non-standard CDs sold with the CD logo are fraudulent, since they violate a published standard which the logo implies. I'm surprised this avenue hasn't been taken legally.
I believe that the Philips, who holds the trademark for compact disks, has said that copy protected disks do not follow the standard and may not use the trademark.
If so, couldn't the labels selling be charged with deceptive advertising?
I believe they are being sued for trademark violation. Note that if they do not put the "Compact Disk Digital Audio" trademark on their disks, they aren't violating the trademark. "Compact Disk Digital Audio", your sign that this disk preserves your fair use rights. Cheers - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Due process for all | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@pwpconsult.com | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
At 11:18 PM 05/05/2003 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 10:48 PM 5/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:
I believe that the Philips, who holds the trademark for compact disks, has said that copy protected disks do not follow the standard and may not use the trademark.
If so, couldn't the labels selling be charged with deceptive advertising?
Only if the round pieces of plastic in decorative jewel box cases are labelled "CD-ROM" and/or use the "CD" logo. I've heard that some of the recent sellers of user-preventing round plastic have responded, correctly, to Philips's announcements about the issue by no longer labelling them as CDs. At that point, the implied assertion that the round plastic container for intellectual property packaging is a "CD" is no more deceptive than the implied assertion that it contains "music".
On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 01:02 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 11:18 PM 05/05/2003 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 10:48 PM 5/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:
I believe that the Philips, who holds the trademark for compact disks, has said that copy protected disks do not follow the standard and may not use the trademark.
If so, couldn't the labels selling be charged with deceptive advertising?
Only if the round pieces of plastic in decorative jewel box cases are labelled "CD-ROM" and/or use the "CD" logo. I've heard that some of the recent sellers of user-preventing round plastic have responded, correctly, to Philips's announcements about the issue by no longer labelling them as CDs.
At that point, the implied assertion that the round plastic container for intellectual property packaging is a "CD" is no more deceptive than the implied assertion that it contains "music".
Given that a tax is already collected to make backups of music (the 1992 Home Recording Act levies a tax on blank media), if one were to buy a CD at Tower Records and then not be able to make a copy, one would expect: -- a refund of taxes levied on blank media or -- a refund of the money paid for the alleged CD (plus compensation for the time and mileage consumed) Were Tower Records to refuse a full refund plus compensation, then of course it would be moral to burn down their building. Maybe after a few such burnings and 20 or 30 deaths of co-conspirators, the practice will change. --Tim May
--Tim May "The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton
On Mon, 5 May 2003, Steve Schear wrote:
I believe that the Philips, who holds the trademark for compact disks, has said that copy protected disks do not follow the standard and may not use the trademark.
If so, couldn't the labels selling be charged with deceptive advertising?
An interesting countermeasure would be releasing the sources to the CDR/RW drives' firmware, and possibly the related SDKs. This could stir the CD drive market in an interesting way - "make your own firmware upgrade" brings interesting options. (I'd surely want such drive.) Could have interesting applications, including reading/writing of heavily damaged and nonstandard media, and anything other that you can get by direct access to the laser and the motors of the drive. More later. Awfully busy now.
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 07:43:27PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Given that a tax is already collected to make backups of music (the 1992 Home Recording Act levies a tax on blank media), if one were to buy a CD at Tower Records and then not be able to make a copy, one
Remember what the freedom-loving Bush administration did today in a deal inked with the freedom-loving Singaporean government: http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-1000110.html?tag=lh
Under the deal, Singapore agrees to prevent its citizens from manufacturing optical discs unless they hold "a valid license to do so."
The actual text is here: http://www.ustr.gov/new/fta/Singapore/consolidated_texts.htm -Declan
On Tuesday 06 May 2003 22:43, Tim May wrote:
Given that a tax is already collected to make backups of music (the 1992 Home Recording Act levies a tax on blank media), if one were to buy a CD at Tower Records and then not be able to make a copy, one would expect:
-- a refund of taxes levied on blank media
or
-- a refund of the money paid for the alleged CD
If one were to buy a computer with Windows pre-loaded and then were to install Linux at first boot-up, one would expect to receive a refund of the price of Windows bundled with the computer. You see how well that worked out. Sometimes self-help is the only remedy. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel Guns will get you through times of no duct tape better than duct tape will get you through times of no guns. -- Ron Kuby
participants (10)
-
Bill Frantz -
Bill Stewart -
David Howe -
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
Major Variola (ret) -
Steve Furlong -
Steve Schear -
Thomas Shaddack -
Tim May