YTSEJAM Digest 6075
Today's Topics:
1) Pound sign...
by schew@interzone.com (Steve Chew)
2) Copy protection illegal?
by schew@interzone.com (Steve Chew)
3) Re: Copy protection illegal?
by Andrew Coutermarsh <a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu>
4) RE: Re: Copy protection illegal?
by pworrall@netscape.net (Pat Worrall)
5) Pounds? Zounds!
by "Paul W. Cashman" <pellaz@atl.mediaone.net>
6) For your reading enjoyment :-)
by cheryl <cherylcat@earthlink.net>
7) Re: Re: Copy protection illegal?
by "dreamryche" <dreamryche@bigpond.com>
8) two chicago shows????
by Michael & Pamela Nazer <mnazer@pressenter.com>
9) RE: two chicago shows????
by "Todd O. Klindt" <todd@klindt.org>
10) DT Stateside tour
by "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
11) Re: Copy protection illegal?
by Graham Borland <graham@picsel.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:20:22 -0500 (EST)
From: schew@interzone.com (Steve Chew)
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Pound sign...
Message-ID: <m16NfJm-000Jy2C@mail.interzone.com>
>> I would normally pay #4.50 for a film, which is about $7. But actually
>> I don't, because I pay #9.99 a month for unlimited access to any UGC
>> cinema in the country. It's a great deal.
>
>Damn. Some stupid mail server stripped away my pound signs and
>replaced them with hashes.
>
That's ok. In the US we often refer to the '#' as the pound
sign. I knew what you meant.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:22:34 -0500 (EST)
From: schew@interzone.com (Steve Chew)
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Copy protection illegal?
Message-ID: <m16NfLu-000Jy2C@mail.interzone.com>
Not to start another debate, but I thought the Ytsejammers might
find this interesting. It's a letter from Congressman Rick Boucher to
the RIAA regarding their "copy-protection" of CDs and other media.
Steve
-------------------
Subject: Letter to RIAA & IFPI heads from Congressman Rick Boucher - Jan.
4, 2002
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 08:36:32 -0500
http://www.dotcomscoop.com/article.php?sid=80
January 4, 2002
Ms. Hilary B. Rosen
President and Chief Executive Officer
Recording Industry Association of America
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
Mr. Jay Berman
Chairman and Chief Executive
IFPI
54 Regent Street
London W1B 5RE
United Kingdom
Dear Hilary and Jay:
According to many published reports, record labels have begun releasing
compact discs into the market which apparently have been designed to
limit the ability of consumers to play the discs or record on personal
computers and perhaps on other popular consumer products, such as DVD
players, video game consoles, and even some CD players, for traditional
fair-use purposes such as space shifting. I am particularly concerned
that some of these technologies may prevent or inhibit consumer home
recording using recorders and media covered by the Audio Home Recording
Act of 1992 (AHRA).
As you know from your personal involvement in its drafting, the AHRA
clearly requires content owners to code their material appropriately to
implement a basic compromise: in return for the receipt of royalties on
compliant recorders and media, copyright owners may not preclude
consumers from making a first-generation, digital-to-digital copy of an
album on a compliant device using royalty-paid media. Under the AHRA,
any deliberate change to a CD by a content owner that makes one
generation of digital recording from the CD on covered devices no longer
possible would appear to violate the content owner's obligations under
the statute.
To understand better the implications of this new technology for
consumers, I would appreciate your providing answers to the following
questions:
1. What methods have been used or are planned for use by your member
companies to alter CD content or ancillary encoding so as to constrain
functions of personal computers or other devices? Do these methods
involve the injection of intentional errors? Do these methods involve
compressed audio files separate from the CD-quality tracks?
2. Based upon your knowledge and upon any consumer contact received by
your member companies, have any discs entered the U.S. market that may
not be copied on a device or on media for which a royalty has been paid
under the AHRA?
3. What steps, if any, have your member companies taken to inform
consumers, retailers, or device manufacturers about the restrictions and
which of their discs have been or will be altered?
4. What steps, if any, have been taken by your member companies to
assure that the introduction of intentional errors as to encoded music,
or other technical means to block copying, will not detract from sound
quality or cause responses in equipment that could damage speakers?
5. Would you and your member companies support independent testing of
the effect on sound quality, on listening behavior, and on the
performance and operation of home networks, before these technologies
appear more widely in the U.S. market? Assuming you and your member
companies support such testing, are you prepared to provide assurances
that no assertion would be made that these tests and any peer review of
the tests would violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
Given the recent announcements from some record companies that they
intend the broad introduction in 2002 of copy protected discs, I would
appreciate a prompt response to this inquiry.
Thanking you for your time and attention to this matter, I remain
Sincerely,
Rick Boucher
Member of Congress
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:12:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew Coutermarsh <a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: Copy protection illegal?
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0201071510070.60319-100000@oz.plymouth.edu>
Thanks for that heads-up, Steve. The problem is, though, that I've known
that what the RIAA is doing is illegal since I heard they were trying to
prevent CDs from being copied. The mere act of preventing a disc from
being backed up violates all license agreements on that music, hence
rendering the very act of attempting to copy that disc (and/or distribute
that music once it has been copied) moot, because the license has been
broken by the record company itself.
Does that make sense?
Basically, I think the record industry is trying to shoot itself in the
foot by doing this. All forms of media are by their nature allowed to
have one backup made by the consumer to protect the original data. By not
allowing these backups to be made, the industry is violating its claims on
that media.
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Coutermarsh
a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu
http://cout.dhs.org/
-------------------------------------------------
"Friends are people who'll help you move. REAL
friends are people who'll help you move BODIES."
-------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:14:35 -0500
From: pworrall@netscape.net (Pat Worrall)
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: RE: Re: Copy protection illegal?
Message-ID: <527D0BBD.0D43AA9A.00A887D7@netscape.net>
Another thing to consider is that the record companies are paid royalties on CDRs. If they copy protect CDs they should no longer recieve these royalties.
Pat
Andrew Coutermarsh <a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu> wrote:
>Thanks for that heads-up, Steve. The problem is, though, that I've known
>that what the RIAA is doing is illegal since I heard they were trying to
>prevent CDs from being copied. The mere act of preventing a disc from
>being backed up violates all license agreements on that music, hence
>rendering the very act of attempting to copy that disc (and/or distribute
>that music once it has been copied) moot, because the license has been
>broken by the record company itself.
>
>Does that make sense?
>
>Basically, I think the record industry is trying to shoot itself in the
>foot by doing this. All forms of media are by their nature allowed to
>have one backup made by the consumer to protect the original data. By not
>allowing these backups to be made, the industry is violating its claims on
>that media.
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>Andrew Coutermarsh
>a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu
>http://cout.dhs.org/
>-------------------------------------------------
> "Friends are people who'll help you move. REAL
>friends are people who'll help you move BODIES."
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>
-- blah blah blah....__________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:16:00 -0500 From: "Paul W. Cashman" <pellaz@atl.mediaone.net> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Pounds? Zounds! Message-ID: <3C3A1010.63C7@atl.mediaone.net>
> Date: 07 Jan 2002 14:51:51 +0000 > From: Graham Borland <graham@picsel.com> > To: ytsejam@torchsong.com > Subject: Re: LotR stuph > Message-ID: <86u1tydxiw.fsf@daffy.picsel.com> > > Graham Borland <graham@picsel.com> writes: > > > I would normally pay #4.50 for a film, which is about $7. But actually > > I don't, because I pay #9.99 a month for unlimited access to any UGC > > cinema in the country. It's a great deal. > > Damn. Some stupid mail server stripped away my pound signs and > replaced them with hashes.
Err, actually it replaced your pound symbols with -our- pound symbols. It's all about the U.S.A. Resistance is floortile. You will be askimilgrated. :)
-- +--- Paul W. Cashman, pellaz@atl.mediaone.net ICQ 4151223 ----+ | Website: http://people.atl.mediaone.net/pellaz/ | | or www.paulcashman.com :) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:06:04 -0800 From: cheryl <cherylcat@earthlink.net> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: For your reading enjoyment :-) Message-ID: <3C3A45FB.16AD1B8@earthlink.net>
http://www.knac.com/article.asp?ArticleID 0
p.s. I ordered my tix today for the Wiltern show....woooHOOOOO
cheryl
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 13:13:02 +1100 From: "dreamryche" <dreamryche@bigpond.com> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Re: Re: Copy protection illegal? Message-ID: <001d01c197ea$00e16f00$243536cb@PaulTadday>
One would also assume that the record companies, by copy protecting their recordings, would be saving money on revenue that would otherwise be lost through piracy. Therefore we would hope that these savings would translate to lower cd prices for the end user, although, we all know only too well that that would be a naive notion to say the least.
Having said that, I guess the extra technology that goes into copy protecting cd recordings may in fact bump up the retail prices of cd's in the long term.
Hmmm... this could prove to be as big a can of worms as the whole mp3 debate!
Paul.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Worrall" <pworrall@netscape.net> Subject: RE: Re: Copy protection illegal?
> Another thing to consider is that the record companies are paid royalties on CDRs. If they copy protect CDs they should no longer recieve these royalties. > > Pat
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 06:24:24 -0600 From: Michael & Pamela Nazer <mnazer@pressenter.com> To: ytsejam <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: two chicago shows???? Message-ID: <B8604118.1F2B%mnazer@pressenter.com>
Do you guys think this is true two shows back to back in chicago??? I figured one of those dates should be the Minnesota show?
Pam
> First wave of Dream Theater US Tour Dates > Updated on 01-07-2002 > > An Evening With Dream Theater - World Tourbulence 2002 > > Sunday 3/3 Mexico City, Mexico - National Auditorium > Tuesday 3/5 Monterrey, Mexico - El Escena > Thursday 3/7 Phoenix, AZ - Web Theater > Friday 3/8 Los Angeles, CA - Wiltern Theater (tickets on sale 1/7/2002) > Saturday 3/9 San Francisco, CA - Warfield Theater > Monday 3/11 Denver, CO - Paramount Theater > Friday 3/15 Chicago, IL - Vic Theater **NEW** > Saturday 3/16 Chicago, IL - Vic Theater **NEW** > Sunday 3/17 Milwaukee, WI, Eagles Ballroom > Friday 3/22 Boston, MA - Orpheum Theater > Sunday 3/24 Washington DC - 9:30 Club > Wednesday 3/27 New York City - Beacon Theater (tickets on sale 1/9/2002) >
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 07:06:45 -0600 From: "Todd O. Klindt" <todd@klindt.org> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: two chicago shows???? Message-ID: <00a501c19845$5329fab0$3864a8c0@klindt.org>
Friday AND Saturday shows??? I think that's worth the drive to Chicago and the cost of a hotel room.
Minnesota is MUCH closer there. I wouldn't mind go there either.
tk
-----Original Message----- From: ytsejam@torchsong.com [mailto:ytsejam@torchsong.com] On Behalf Of Michael & Pamela Nazer Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 6:14 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: two chicago shows????
Do you guys think this is true two shows back to back in chicago??? I figured one of those dates should be the Minnesota show?
Pam
> First wave of Dream Theater US Tour Dates > Updated on 01-07-2002 > > An Evening With Dream Theater - World Tourbulence 2002 > > Sunday 3/3 Mexico City, Mexico - National Auditorium > Tuesday 3/5 Monterrey, Mexico - El Escena > Thursday 3/7 Phoenix, AZ - Web Theater > Friday 3/8 Los Angeles, CA - Wiltern Theater (tickets on sale > 1/7/2002) Saturday 3/9 San Francisco, CA - Warfield Theater Monday > 3/11 Denver, CO - Paramount Theater Friday 3/15 Chicago, IL - Vic > Theater **NEW** Saturday 3/16 Chicago, IL - Vic Theater **NEW** > Sunday 3/17 Milwaukee, WI, Eagles Ballroom > Friday 3/22 Boston, MA - Orpheum Theater > Sunday 3/24 Washington DC - 9:30 Club > Wednesday 3/27 New York City - Beacon Theater (tickets on sale 1/9/2002) >
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 08:32:02 -0600 From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com> Subject: DT Stateside tour Message-ID: <3CEB2BD450223743A4895C0D0C5DFC3A7338B2@haxlcsechp0.healthaxis.dom>
Cool deal. Maybe they'll play the first CD all the way through, take a break, and come back and play the second CD all the way through. Awesome !
JM
> -----Original Message----- > From: mike leslie [SMTP:mikeysguitar19@yahoo.com] > > according to the uacm online newsletter there will be > no opening act on DT's stateside tour. Read it today. > It is supposed to be in two parts with a break in the > middle. Thought ya'll might like to know if ya didn't > already. > mike leslie >
------------------------------
Date: 08 Jan 2002 14:51:08 +0000 From: Graham Borland <graham@picsel.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: Copy protection illegal? Message-ID: <86666cdhgj.fsf@daffy.picsel.com>
schew@interzone.com (Steve Chew) writes:
> Not to start another debate, but I thought the Ytsejammers might > find this interesting. It's a letter from Congressman Rick Boucher to > the RIAA regarding their "copy-protection" of CDs and other media.
That's not quite the whole story. Read this interesting followup: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/23587.html>
-- Graham Borland Picsel Technologies Ltd graham@picsel.com Glasgow, Scotland
------------------------------
End of YTSEJAM Digest 6075 ************************** === Contributions to ytsejam: ytsejam@torchsong.com === === Send requests to: ytsejam-request@torchsong.com === === Brought by the ghost of ytsejam@arastar.coms past === === Reach the owner of this list at: ytsejam-owner@torchsong.com ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:13:31 EST