Slashdot Mirror

How about a phone number for Viacom / Comedy Central? We all know (firsthand, frequently) how easy it is to filter garbage text. It's a lot harder to not hear the phone ring.

These might still be valid...

Cbs-viacom Stations Group Los Angeles, Ca 90028 (323) 460-3000
Viacom Productions Los Angeles, Ca 90024 (310) 234-5000
Viacom Stations Group Los Angeles, Ca 90028 (323) 460-3000
Viacom Station Sales Atlanta, Ga 30305 (404) 261-2227
Viacom Mtv Networks Chicago, Il 60611 (312) 836-0668
Viacom Inc New York, Ny 10036 (212) 258-6000
Comedy Cental 323-956-5000

Also, note that (afaik) viacom owns paramount owns comedy central

http://www.paramount.com/studio/divisions

• Buena Vista - http://www.fandango.com/GlobalSearch.aspx?repos=Movies&tab=Articles+Movies+People+Theaters+Video&q=3d&wssaffid=11828_MoviesDotCom&wssac=131
• MGM/ UA's - no results
• Walt Disney Pictures - http://disney.go.com/search/?q=3d&x=11&y=12
• Paramount Pictures - http://www.paramount.com/news/press-releases/paramount-pictures-star-trek-to-be-released-as-imax-movie-may-8-2009 (only scant 3d use in connection with imax)
• Twentieth Century Fox - Avatar

My main point is media companies seem to see 3d as some saviour giving a unique selling point whilst protecting demand (profit) from pirates.

Hell, why limit yourself to 3rd party sites? A few tens of thousands of DMCA takedowns sent to the service providers of 20th Century Fox, Time Warner and Paramount ought to be good for a laugh.

Worried about the legality? Do it from a foreign country...

All purely hypothetical of course.

Linus Torvalds basically trademarked the name "Linux" as a way to keep others from doing it instead. This way Linus can control what and how the name "Linux" is used, and more importantly, make sure that some legal idiot doesn't get ahold of the trademark and hold the entire F/OSS community hostage (like SCO) because they got to the USPTO first with the trademark registration.

Linus has publicly stated that he doesn't mind the community use of the term. Magazines and journals (both dead-tree and on-line) using the name Linux were around even before the trademark was formally registered, and this use of the term is generally acceptable. Just don't speak for the Linux development community unless you really are a major contributor to the kernel and what you are saying is generally acceptable by the community (like, sure, we use the GPL for our software, etc.).

If you were to start a business that had the name Linux in it, or used Linux beyond a passing reference (such as creating a new distro that has the name Linux somewhere in the distro's name), it would be a good idea to track down Linus' e-mail address and drop him a line asking him for permission to use the name Linux, even if it is only a matter of courtesy. He'll probably grant it as well, especially if you are nice about it. Linus is not a big company that is jealously guarding its trademarks.

Not to be confused with Paramount ending the 10-year old Voyager program -- that happened three years ago.

Because when you're archiving digital data, recoverability is paramount.

No, Viacom is paramount.

"What if all I had was a piece of this data, say, a hundred gigabytes from the middle of the disk? Could I turn that data into useful information?"

As long as your codec is seekable, this works. Motion JPEG is trivially seekable, consisting entirely of keyframes. Toss a redundant copy of the codec on the volume after every GB or so of video data, and recoverability is preserved.

as long as you live in a democracy the people can easily take back the power.

Not in a "democracy" where a significant chunk of people tend to vote for the candidate that the TV tells them to vote for. All major broadcast TV and cable news networks in the United States are owned by parent companies of major movie studios: CBS and UPN, ABC, NBC and MSNBC, Fox and Fox News, The WB, CNN, and Headline News, all MPAA members. Campaign contributions by five out of seven MPAA member studios are in effect offers of free advertising time, circumventing the FCC's "equal time" rule.

Considering the facts that

• the name SoloTrek looks alot like StarTrek
• the font of their logo is remarkably similar to the font used for TNG
• they obviously are into science fiction

I started writing this post trying to make a joke, but now I have thought some more about it; dunno...

Fox has done an excellent job this year bringing 24 to their schedule...that show is fantastic, Keifer Sutherland is awesome, and Dennis Hoppers' addition to the cast in the past few episodes has been outstanding too...to me, this was the best new show on any newtork this season...of course, it sounds like their gonna ruin it next season when, according to articles i've read, the shows switch from 24 episodes each covering one hour of time...to each episode covering 1 24-hour block of time...it just won't be the same..please FOX, try to bring it back in the original format...

also...

Andy Richter Controls the Universe and Undeclared are, in my opinion, two of the funniest new shows this season...yet, Undeclared has been conspicously absent from the spring schedule, and there are rumours that Andy Richter will not be picked up for next season...these two shows are great...and if you haven't checked out Andy Richter consider watching..it's on Tuesday's at 8:30 (although not this tuesday) as a lead in to "24"...it's damn funny...and the office humour in it is great...

i do think Fox's lineup does have some potential over all....these 3 shows i mentioned....plus Simpsons, Malcom in the Middle, King of the Hill and That 70's show give them a nice core group of programming...albeit one that doesn't really appeal to older viewers....but it should appeal to the all important 18-25 year old male demographic...

just my opinion...

If it's already a classic in one form, why try to remake it?

Last night I saw a TV rerun that thoroughly illustrates this logic. Diagnosis Murder is probably the most unabashedly clichéd, corny, gimmicky and just plain stupid show in recent history. But I'd wanted to see this particular episode for a long time, every since reading Jenni Ringley's mini-memoir of her stint as a TV murder victim.

If you're a JenniCam fan, don't watch this episode to see a lot of JR. She gets maybe 5 seconds of screen time, plus a B&W head-and-neck "autopsy photo." So why bother seeking out the original Cam Girl for a part that could be played by almost any 20-something female? Business. JR probably got more exposure posing with the rest of the cast for PR photos than she did on the show itself. She was there to help geneate buzz, not to act.

• Drops All Non-relevant results! Tired of getting results for Debian and RedHat when you only care about Slackware? We filter based on the OS you care about, so you don't have to!
• Doesn't track where you go at all! We don't see what links you try, we have a magical formula to determine our demographics, without cookies, without logging GET and POST data, and without cheating with autoredirects!
• downloads instantly to your PC! We don't waste time with any graphics, for we know all you want is the search data. We don't send you tons of graphics for the advertisements we don't have!
• Auto Mind-Meld Technology! Our process is based on that which Paramount Studios developed for Mr. Spock on Star Trek(tm), enabling us to automatically know exactly what you want without needing keyboard input whatsoever! You just think of what you want, and you have it! No fuss, no muss!

Sorry 'bout the broken links shoulda checked them.

here's ones that work:

Walt Disney Company

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.

Paramount Pictures Corporation

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

Universal Studios, Inc.

Warner Bros.

Those at least work, not sure how helpful they are ;) (particularly since about 50% don't load uless you have Javascript enabled :()

Prepare to witness the most concerted and massive engineering effort -- both social and technical -- ever undertaken by mankind: The digital equivalent of damming the ocean.

I wrote about this on Slashdot almost a year ago, in the vague hope it might become a featured article: The music and movie industies are working very hard to prevent you from using your lawfully-obtained material in any way they don't want. To that end, they have formed the Copy Protection Technical Working Group (CPTWG), which is working hand-in-hand with a ton of high-tech companies to bring pervasive copy protection measures to your PC.

I saved my original screed on the subject, and it's reproduced below, with appropriate updates. Bottom Line: Do not let them sneak this garbage past you or your friends. If you find that a product contains copy protection, don't buy it, and encourage others to do likewise.

____________________

Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.

I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.

I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]

Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.

One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:

CPTWG has focused until now only on "casual piracy [sic]", characterized as what a grandmother can do in her home with her DVD. Piracy [sic] requiring even the level of expertise (and equipment) of her grandson, who might be an EE student, has been excluded from consideration. There is a growing awareness that a broader content protection effort may be necessary.

The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. It costs $100 to attend. According to the site, their last meeting was on 11 April 2000. It's not clear if additional meetings have been held at regular intervals.

The attendance roster from the April meeting (RTF file) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:

• MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America),
• AFMA (American Film Marketing Association),
• Sony Pictures Entertainment,
• Universal Studios,
• Warner Bros.,
• Disney,
• Paramount,
• CEMA (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association),
• MEI (parent company to Panasonic), makers of consumer electronics,
• Pioneer, makers of consumer electronics,
• JVC, makers of consumer electronics,
• Philips, makers of consumer electronics and VLSI components (including video encoders),
• Sony, makers of consumer electronics, computers, and displays,
• Toshiba, makers of consumer electronics, computers, flat panels, disk drives, digital cameras, copiers, and laser printers,
• NEC, makers of computers, displays, printers, and telecomm equipment,
• Hewlett Packard, makers of computers, printers, and testing/measuring equipment (oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, etc.),
• Quantum, makers of disk drives,
• IBM, makers of computers, disk drives, and bunches of other stuff,
• Compaq, makers of computers,
• Apple Computer, makers of computers,
• ATI Technologies, makers of PC graphics cards,
• Dolby Labs, creators and licensors of audio enhancement technologies,
• Intel, makers of microprocessors, motherboard controllers, and graphics and peripheral chips,
• Microsoft, software market monopolists,
• Dow Chemical (I have no idea why they're here),
• DVD-CCA, licensors of CSS, and currently in court trying to prevent the spread of DeCSS,
• A number of law firms.

If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.

If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.

What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.

Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.

Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:

• DSS (Digital Signature Standard)
• Diffie-Hellman key exchange for device authentication,
• Blowfish cipher for content encryption, with a keylength of 32-128 bits,
• Digital watermarking techniques to declare "rights" (right to playback, right to copy, etc.) to the receiving device.

The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).

Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)

Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.

Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.

In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).

This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.

The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.

Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.

The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.

We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.

Schwab

OK gang, so we're talking boycots and we're talking about how MPAA et al are bastards. Great - even if all of us just boycot, I'm sure we're not going to impact that much (unless we buy lots of DVD's on a daily basis :)

So, why not take the time & effort to email/contact them? Tell them that you're boycotting, that you're telling your friends and that you're supporting the DeCSS/LiViD folks.

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a statement that could be wrong: I'd say most of us on /. are fairly typical in one respect. We'll bitch, we'll moan, we'll talk it up - but when it comes to the crunch, we never quite get around to doing something about it.

Don't you just hate that? This is why governments/corporations take notice if 1% of a target demographic respond. For every person who does do something, there are at least 10 who want to but don't get around to it. Thus that 1% represents about 10% and that's enough to count as a vocal majority.

This is also why highly organised groups/cults/sects/religious organisations/etc get the ear of politics/corporates. They manage to influence/order a lot of their consituents to do something, thus inflating the numbers and throwing out the "Total Number x 10 = % population who are annoyed/concerned" :)

Anyhow, to help you folks tell these people what you think, here's some handy info:

MPAA
Their web site has no "contact us" that I could find. How convenient, no? :)

If you want to get physical, try their snail mail address:

15503 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, California 91436
USA

Or phone on: (818) 995-6600

Otherwise, email to WareNet (the guys who made their site) and ask why no online "Contact Us" was supplied.

Disney
The investor relations feedback form at http://disney.go.com/mail/investorinfo/ would be a good place to hassle them.

Sony
Go to http://www.world.sony.com/Feedback/in dex.html, select the part of the world you're in and tell them you're so annoyed, you're not going to buy any more PlayStation stuff and you've kicked your AIBO out in the snow :)

MGM
Fill in the form at http://www.mgm.com/corporate/email/in dex.html and let them know.

Paramount
Send an email to info@pde.paramount.com and ask for information about their logic behind this as you're sure it's not what's being said in public :)

Fox
Send an email to askfox@foxinc.com and ask them why they're doing this. You might also want to mention the fact that their Simpson's splash page is seriously lame :)

Universal
Go to http://www.mca.com/fp/contact_form.html and fill in the form.

Warner
No "contact us" in an obvious location, so I gave up - there must be one somewhere here but it's very well hidden :)


Now, much in all as I'd love to say "Wild, uncontrolled bursts - we do more damage that way" - the reality is that a reasoned, controlled message stating that you disagree with their actions and have commenced boycotting their products will have much more impact than a flame or mail bombing.

Do it right and we get respect. Do it in classic "Script Kiddy, 31337 Wanker Fuckwit Mode" and we're doomed :)

• MPAA.ORG
  MCA.Com
  Paramount
  MGM
  Sony
  Disney
  Fox

All of the above URLs are active as either email addresses or contact form pages. I would suggest that now would be a good time to exercise the /. effect and your brains (don't just copy my message) on behalf of the websites targeted by the MPAA.

P.S. If any of the URL's don't work, please fix them. I felt like it was more important to get this posted than to triplecheck all the links.

• Universial Studios
• Paramount Pictures Corporation
• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc
• Sony Pictures Entertainment (owner of Tristar and Columbia)
• New Line Cinema (owned by Time-Warner)
• Disney Enterprises, Inc
• Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

I submitted this to Slashdot's Your Rights Online section some weeks ago, but it was rejected. I think the article is pertinent here.

Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.

I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.

I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]

Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.

One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:

CPTWG has focused until now only on "casual piracy [sic]", characterized as what a grandmother can do in her home with her DVD. Piracy [sic] requiring even the level of expertise (and equipment) of her grandson, who might be an EE student, has been excluded from consideration. There is a growing awareness that a broader content protection effort may be necessary.

The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. According to the December meeting announcement, the next meetings will occur on 11 January, 2000, and 9 February, 2000. It costs $100 to attend.

The attendance roster from the November meeting (PDF file, sorry) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:

• MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America),
• AFMA (American Film Marketing Association),
• Sony Pictures Entertainment,
• Universal Studios,
• Warner Bros.,
• Disney,
• Paramount,
• CEMA (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association),
• MEI (parent company to Panasonic), makers of consumer electronics,
• Pioneer, makers of consumer electronics,
• JVC, makers of consumer electronics,
• Philips, makers of consumer electronics and VLSI components (including video encoders),
• Sony, makers of consumer electronics, computers, and displays,
• Toshiba, makers of consumer electronics, computers, flat panels, disk drives, digital cameras, copiers, and laser printers,
• NEC, makers of computers, displays, printers, and telecomm equipment,
• Hewlett Packard, makers of computers, printers, and testing/measuring equipment (oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, etc.),
• Quantum, makers of disk drives,
• IBM, makers of computers, disk drives, and bunches of other stuff,
• Compaq, makers of computers,
• Apple Computer, makers of computers,
• ATI Technologies, makers of PC graphics cards,
• Dolby Labs, creators and licensors of audio enhancement technologies,
• Intel, makers of microprocessors, motherboard controllers, and graphics and peripheral chips,
• Microsoft, software market monopolists,
• Dow Chemical (I have no idea why they're here),
• A number of law firms.

If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.

If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.

What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.

Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.

Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:

• DSS (Digital Signature Standard)
• Diffie-Hellman key exchange for device authentication,
• Blowfish cipher for content encryption, with a keylength of 32-128 bits,
• Digital watermarking techniques to declare "rights" (right to playback, right to copy, etc.) to the receiving device.

The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).

Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)

Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.

Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.

In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).

This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.

The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.

Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.

The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.

We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost.

Nevertheless, the CPTWG and the organizations supporting it are blindly moving forward. It may turn out it's impossible to dam the ocean, but they're gearing up to give it one hell of a try. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.

Schwab

Yes, the theaters have the right to say "OK, you are a problem viewer and you may not visit our establishment".

They do not have the right to say "We as a corporation feel that we are better qualified to judge who the target audience of this movie is than the MPAA". The MPAA gives every movie a rating which is intended to guide parents on the content of the film.

In agreeing to show movies, the movie theaters should be following the pre-established guidelines for the film. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a letter-writing campaign to the studios informing them that your local theater chain is not allowing all of the potential customers in to see the film would generate good results.

This moral decisionmaking is being made at the corporate level for us, so bring in another corporate level to help counter the idiocy. Making movies is a business. If the studios can't get the movie out to be seen by everyone who wants to see it, then they will eventually come down on the outlets that are limiting their take on the film.

Here's a few links for you all....

• Eyes Wide Shut
• American Pie
• South Park

And remember how to go about the advocacy, people. The studios aren't going to care if you and your brother, both 15, couldn't get in to see these movies. But they will care that theaters are shutting down legitimate 17-year-old viewers because some corporate menegement weenie thinks he has a better grasp on the morality of your children than you do.