YTSEJAM Digest 6075 Today's Topics: 1) Pound sign... by email_address_removed (Steve Chew) 2) Copy protection illegal? by email_address_removed (Steve Chew) 3) Re: Copy protection illegal? by Andrew Coutermarsh 4) RE: Re: Copy protection illegal? by email_address_removed (Pat Worrall) 5) Pounds? Zounds! by "Paul W. Cashman" 6) For your reading enjoyment :-) by cheryl 7) Re: Re: Copy protection illegal? by "dreamryche" 8) two chicago shows???? by Michael & Pamela Nazer 9) RE: two chicago shows???? by "Todd O. Klindt" 10) DT Stateside tour by "Souter, Jan-Michael" 11) Re: Copy protection illegal? by Graham Borland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:20:22 -0500 (EST) From: email_address_removed (Steve Chew) To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Pound sign... Message-ID: >> 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: email_address_removed (Steve Chew) To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Copy protection illegal? Message-ID: 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 To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Copy protection illegal? Message-ID: 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 email_address_removed 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: email_address_removed (Pat Worrall) To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: RE: Re: Copy protection illegal? Message-ID: 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 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 >email_address_removed >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" To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Pounds? Zounds! Message-ID: > Date: 07 Jan 2002 14:51:51 +0000 > From: Graham Borland > To: ytsejam@torchsong.com > Subject: Re: LotR stuph > Message-ID: > > Graham Borland 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, email_address_removed ICQ 4151223 ----+ | Website: http://people.atl.mediaone.net/pellaz/ | | or www.paulcashman.com :) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:06:04 -0800 From: cheryl To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: For your reading enjoyment :-) Message-ID: 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" To: 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" 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 To: ytsejam Subject: two chicago shows???? Message-ID: 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" To: Subject: RE: two chicago shows???? Message-ID: <00a501c19845$5329fab0$message_id_removed> 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" Subject: DT Stateside tour Message-ID: 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:email_address_removed > > 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 To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: Copy protection illegal? Message-ID: email_address_removed (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: -- Graham Borland Picsel Technologies Ltd email_address_removed 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 ===