Slashdot Mirror
Salon Interview With Head Of MPAA
awaterl writes "Salon Magazine is featuring an interview with MPAA president Jack Valenti, who has never downloaded an MP3, but does 'have staff members who have.' An interesting interview that provides insight into the mind of an aging guy who is honestly doing what he believes to be right, but cannot see why others might consider him clueless. "
...and Jack had a groove. But right now I'm talking about the other Jack, Jack Valenti.
:-)
Obviously Jack has seen and been through lot, having been a fighter pilot and in a war and all that. He was six cars away from Kennedy when Kennedy got shot, so I guess Jack V. was a big honcho even at that time. What I think Mr. Valenti is afraid, yes, terrified, is that bunch of pale hippie-borg bastards walk in and do something which causes the businesses represented by Jack Valenti get less money. This obviously is, from his point of view, unacceptable.
But what I think Mr. Valenti is missing here is that the internet and easy distribution is not a threat, but a possibility. This previously unseen bogey called the Internet is, after it matures even more, a great way to distribute movies. Okay, if it requires new technologies, then invent them! Don't go ballistic and sue everyone and their dog just because the movie industry's ass has gotten so big that it can't move fast anymore. This isn't like the leap from silent movies to voice movies, nor is it like the jump from black-and-white to colour. It's even bigger. If Jack's bunch isn't there, they'll be square
The next step would be for indie film studios and producers to move their stuff to the net/VideoCD/DVD/etc. if the big boys don't want to do it. And oh boy, will the big boys cry WOLF!! then...
Oh, one last piece of my mind: bringing NFL/Superbowl to Europe en masse? With all due respect to US football, I wouldn't waste my time by attempting that... I doubt that here is enough audience for that.
PS. Calling Jack an asshole or whatever won't help one bit. We should show at least some respect. I mean, I don't think he's the next Satan, but just very badly misinformed about things.
Not sure how he is a liar or a sellout and I bet he is not even a bastard either. Mind explaining what you said?
nice try, but we are not interested in your site, go market somewhere else
Funny, how nobody mentioned that it is possible to form a company get a DVD license and write software and sell it to the world. However many people in this forum have little morals or great ideals and would rather take the easy way out and steal it. Then stand by and say it's ok I did nothing wrong because nobody would GIVE me a DVD player. Hmm... I wanted to watch DVD's so I went and purchased a player. You on the otherhand are a member of a bunch of thieves who think they are doing the world a great service. How wrong you are.
Exhibit A> "When President Kennedy was gunned down, Valenti was six cars behind him."
Exhibit B> "A few hours later, while flying back to Washington on Air Force One, President Lyndon Johnson named Valenti his first special assistant."
Isn't it obvious everyone?!!! Sitting that close to the king when he was offed, obviously this is a powerful man behind the scenes.
And now he's fighting the rearguard battle to keep the geeks (technicians) from their movies.
And we know how well legislating morality and propping up someone's monopoly with laws when it can't fairly compete works.
Make criminals of your technicians (geeks) and the machinery thay keeps your decadant society on life support will fall.
A very Soviet sytstem. With a convoluted enough bueracracy, evryone is a criminal. Selective enforcement is used to coerce those who make too much noise into line.
They need to counter a technical problem with a technical solution. (And I mean something that enhances the _consumers'_ value, not cripples a standard to protect their products.). Not take it to the courts.
They did it with the drug war
They're trying to do it to thought
And now they've given up all pretense and are openly warping the fabric of the law for their own greed.
Soon, you'll need a license from THE STATE to own a compiler. You think I'm using hyperbole.
Once they partially wake up and see the danger the GEEK THREAT (tm) poses to their obscene profits, without seeing the doors to totally new markets (I like the blockbuster scenario described below...)You'll have to access your computer by waving the MSDN nubmer tattooed on your hand under the scanner.
Naturally, anyone possessing Linux will be summarily burned at the stake because of their foreign influences.
I feel much better now,
rantman
true, but:.... ,i love that intro ;-)
It doesnt matter wheter DeCSS is the decoder,
or a (cracked) win32 playback system....
Once the output is there it can be captured and copied.
Given the amount of info on reverse engineering windows software,
I think if decss wasnt there there would be and way to directly copy (digital and un-uncompressed)data from the windows playback software after it has been decoded by now.
Doesnt the decrypted data go to the driver of an mpeg decoder card....?
DeCSS is more efficient, but the l33t w4r3z h4x0r5 dont care.
What does matter is that DeCSS makes it easy to copy the encrypted stuff to cd-r, and read it with DeCSS since there no official decryption for cd`s, but why would one download/buy encrypted data when the data is offered unencrypted by the above idea?
I havent seen one idea about why noone anticipated that the keys would be found one day since they were (as far as is know) hidden by obscurity?
Or if they werent why noone figured they would get cracked by brute force?
Or what other reasons there are to using encryption then to make playback only posible on licenced hardware?
Want to complain about my english try my english teacher....
Where did all the hippies go?
No you weren't. He may be the Son of Satan(tm), but there are a million other demon spawn ready and willing to take his place.
(evil, communist ant-capitalistic etc.)
Just reread that and it could be taken as an insult. Sorry if I caused offence. I was trying to be ironic.
look at him he looks dead already. just wait a couple years.
ha
What someone should do to prove MPAA's argument wrong is: make a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD, and put the copy somewhere on the web for download, then publicize the whole thing. Yes, I know it'll be 4G+, but it'll prove a point. No DeCSS involved to copy a DVD, correct?
...and that licence has been paid sometimes more than once.
DVD software is included with drives, video cards, and is licenced, therefor the core of your comments are not very valid.
Having said that, I did enjoy reading them...even if they are based on an invalid premise!
EXACTLY! When the basic rights of the consumer get violated this way, everyone loses. If I cannot do WHATEVER I WANT within the confines of the law with property that I have bought legally, then the whole basis for personal freedom in this country is destroyed. Of course, MPAA apologists will ignore this and call Linux users cheap for not forking out more $$$ to watch DVD's we have already paid for.
This guy is probably already mega-rich anyway, so what could he have a use for more money. He looks kinda old too, so it's not like he's gotta save up for the next 50 years...
That's one thing I could never understand. All these wealthy old people that keep trying to amass even more dough. I'd be all set if I just never had to work again, and could spend all day coding/reading/exercising/etc. But no, I have to deal with lusers instead. *sigh*
Really think about this for a moment...
Consider how long it will take for it to be viable to transfer Gigabytes of vob files across the net in a timely fashion. Then apply moore's law to that equation considering how fast processors will be then and how likely it will be that professional grade mastering hardware will be available to a larger population of casual pirates.
He's defeated either way. If decss doesn't do him in, brute force decryption will, if that doesn't do him in then the transfer of bulk disk images will.
He's trying to follow the same pattern of media copy protection that has failed miserably with games and other computer software.
He really doesn't have any clue.
This is why CSS and the DVDCCA is such a fraud. They are sadly delluding their membership.
JackDK
Thank you.
I say mark the whole story as flamebait. Let the torching begin!
But you are either clueless, new or both.
I wonder if this interview can be placed into evidence at the trial(s)? It would be interesting to subpeona (sp?) Jacke Boy to see what his answers would be under oath.
You are correct that he is not clueless. He knows exactly what is going on. The problem is that he is lying through his teeth.
There is no way in hell that he is not well informed about the actual purpose (and significance) of DeCSS.
The bottom line is that the maximization of the profits of the members of the MPAA consists of:
1. forcing a monopoly through any means necessary.
2. Minimizing the return that customers get from purchasing items from members of the MPAA.
I think it is important to remember just what the MPAA is, nothing but a mafia-like group of middle men. The MPAA has never made a movie, all they do is provide funding for those who do make the movies. In return for the funding they expect exclusive copyright.
Without a monopoly the MPAA ceases to function. If the mafia didn't break thumbs then why would you go to the mafia dry cleaner? There would be one across the street that would do a better job for less money.
Of course the MPAA doesn't need to break thumbs, they have the broken American legal system to do that for them. In America it isn't about who has the truth on their side, it's about who can cover it up with expensive lawyers, just ask OJ.
If you were a journalist and interviewed the God Father would you expect him to say "Well, we have to kill people from time to time, but it's just business". I don't think you would.
Thanks for that probing and no doubt well-paid expose on what fools we Linux people are mr. paid MPAA representative.
Ah, Freakazoid, that's right. (Come to think of it, it couldn't have been Animaniacs: Jack didn't sing all the movies made since 1932.)
Didn't he end up determining that the family dog could go see X-rated movies or something?
And why the hell don't they show that more often on Cartoon Network??!?!
And how, exactly, will killing a Linux DVD player make this stop? What is to stop people from simply transferring the ENCRYPTED versions of these movies around?
Jack Valenti demonstrates that archetypal American maxim of capitalism above everything. It is outdated, yes, but only in economically chubby lands such as the US, where a switch to socialism is past due. Maybe he should be shipped off to some Carribean island to help with their banana trade...
In the meantime, I've never heard a convinving argument against bringing the film and music industries, or the bodies commonly thought to compose them, to their knees. By whatever methods - piracy, sabotage, genocide, anything.
I mean, what makes a good film?
A. Huge capital investment or
B. Talented, hardworking filmmakers?
Obviously the latter. And without the bloated infrastructure, or the incentive of profits, it would only be good stuff that got made. Same for music. Same for anything where basic living conditions and finance are a given, like now in America.
DeCSS won't stop people buying DVD's. We just want to play them on the device of our chossing. DeCSS is the first step to that.
That is 100% correct. So why don't we take that step and start an actual open DVD player project (not to be confused with OpenDVD.org). It wouldn't be that hard with DeCSS as a basis. There are just a few things that would need to be done in order to render the MPAA's suit pointless and still get to say "fuck you" to them. Things to include in the project:
1. Crack a few existing player keys and include a list of known keys. They'll like that.
2. Include key cracking as part of the DVD player. For example, a dialog pops up: "None of your player keys appear to work for this disk. Would you like to find some new keys? (This could take several minutes.)" Then just use brute-force to determine a new key.
3. Include actual DVD playback with the player. A real DVD player would kill their suit dead.
4. And of course, the real kicker, don't give the MPAA anything to gripe about (legally) - don't save (not even in a temp file) an unencrypted version of an encrypted work. They're new suit: "It cracks encryption, which is illegal under the MPAA... No. it doesn't classify as interoperability, it's piracy!... Well, no you can't save an unencrypted stream, but that's besides the point!"
5. As an added bonus, include an About window that says "None of this would have been possible without DeCSS" and include full source code (but not compiled - don't give them anything to gripe about). An extra little fuck you for the MPAA.
When the suit is dropped, let's all celebrate by buying at least one DVD.
It's Velma. If you're going to troll, troll accurately
Even in the US, bandwidth is not entirely unmetered for consumers. My monthly bandwidth cap is 7.5G.
Thus, a single DVD (going up OR down) could exceed my transfer limits for the entire month, nevermind how much time it would take...
Good point.
All we need to argue is that if we pay
for the information, we should have the
right to access it. You could even use
a variety of the Bob Young welded
hood argument (welded doors would
be a closer analogy).
I live in the US. I get (& pay for) Cable. I pay for STARZ as part of a package deal. STARZ is encrypted. I must use a descrambler supplied by my cable company, for a fee, to receive STARZ. This descrambler precludes using VCRs, automated recording, etc. So I almost never hook it up. (Much to my cable company's annoyance. They like to reprogram it periodically. So even if I want to hook it up and watch STARZ, I frequently can't without lengthy periods of time spent with their tech support. I tell ya, if I could drop STARZ without raising my cable bill, I would do so.)
It seems to me that I should be allowed to use my own software to descramble STARZ.
Now, I have, unfortunately, before this whole scandal broke, purchased several DVD's. It seems to me that I have entered into a legally binding contract with MPAA and their members under which I have paid funds to receive entertainment. Now, after they've got my money, MPAA tells me I can't use what I have bought unless I buy their other products. This is blatantly illegal.
I should be able to do whatever I want with this DVD with the exception of duplicating it. If I want to use it as a coaster for my drink, I should be able to do so. If I want to view every 10th frame backwards, I should be able to do so. If I want to run line-extension and 3-D extraction algorithms on a scene, I should be able to do so. If I want to colorize, or de-colorize, I should be able to do so. Provided I do not duplicate the movie.
Duplicating the movie is illegal, under copyright law. Using it is NOT. By refusing to allow me to use or view the movie, MPAA has broken the law. And, in my opinion, is quite deserving of a nice big breach-of-contract lawsuit. I hope they get nailed.
For those of you who still don't get it, I would like to tell you a story. Many years ago, I purchased a game called Wizardry by Sir Tech Software for my Apple II. I had a serial number less than 3000, so this was just when the game first came out. I had a blast with this game. I learned DOS. I took it apart, changed bytes around, created characters, items, everything directly onto the disk. I never did play it the whole way through "correctly". But I had fun. Which was the whole point.
Now, I didn't pirate the game. I did not create unauthorized duplicates. And the question remains: Does/Did Sir Tech Software have the right to tell me how I could play their game? To limit me to just doing what they, not our laws, determined was legitimate use?
And if Sir Tech Software doesn't/didn't have these rights, why does the MPAA?
I think the same reaction would be witnessed if transmeta only allowed aproved OSs to run on there chip or if someone wound up in jail for hacking up a better code morpher. The difference here is that transmeta does not restrict the private use of there product where as dvd's have had that restriction placed on them. The dvd situation has a greater simularity to MicroSofts insistance that a customer can only run windows on the computer that they purchased and not move the license to a new machine. Also, I see a great many comercials on television urging me to "own" the newest hollywood release today. To me this suggests that I am free to do as I wish with it in my own home. Reasonably this does not include mass distrobution or opening my own theater. As long as transmeta sells me there chip, I have a good feeling that they don't care what I do with it at home as long as I don't infringe on there profits. Viewing a dvd under linux should not hurt the MPAA's profits ( unless you take regional encoding into count).
Furthermore, decrypting is a necessary step for legal licenced use. ALL of the 'other' DVD players must unlock the disk and decrypt the streams before viewing. This is true for a hardware DVD console, a passthru PC card or a software decoder.
All of these 'tolerated' players must first decode the DVD data into a form that is subseptable to piracy at some stage.
The MPAA just chooses to single out a particular group for persecution, much like if the local movie theatre put up a sign: "whites only".
I know everyone is going to rail me for this
;-)
So, which quake server are you on?
"He seems to think that the purpose of DeCSS is to pirate DVD's rather than to watch them."
Hey wow - so does the judge in this case.
I certainl hope not, sugesting that he's prejudged the case is a rather serious accusation to make.
Does anyone have a snail-mail or email address for Mr. Jack Valenti? I'd like to share a few thoughts with him...
Are you trying to be clever, funny, controversial or what?
Arguing that you shouldn't have to use their player is like arguing you shouldn't have to have a DSS receiver to watch DirecTV broadcasts or you shouldn't have to buy your cable company's cable modem to hook up to their net.
It was long ago established that, just because you bought you phone service from the Bell System, you were not required to buy or rent your telephone intrument from them. You can do them same with your cable box, you can even buy or make your own which permits viewing of premium services, you're just obligated to pay the fees to the services you view.
I would like to pose the following scenario/questions to Mr. Valenti.
Suppose he and I and a police officer were in a room with a computer running linux and holding the DeCSS software, and I brought out a DVD movie still in its shrink wrap packaging as well as a receipt verifying my purchase of the DVD movie. If I unwrapped the movie and began to view it on the computer, would Mr. Valenti seek to have the officer arrest me? On what grounds?
50% of everything you hear is a lie.
It depends what you classify as a lie, but I'd guess it's more like 45% - the reason is because it is estimated that 90% of common knowledge is untrue, although it is not necessarily the result of a lie, which I classify as the intentional mistatement of the truth. I'd guess no more than half of the misinformation out there is an actual lie since if you don't know better, you're just spreading misinformation.
I'd say a better rule of thumb would be "90% of everything you hear, see or know is untrue." Still that doesn't sound as nice, and given the very fact that 90% of all information is false, can I really believe that statistic?
You handle books?
I think it's easy to determine what sort of 'books' you handle.
By the way, I'd see about getting your colostomy bag emptied.
Wingnut
the guy's 78, he's not a baby boomer. we're talking 1930's, depression.
You sir, are an idiot. I can't believe you are going to sit there and equate reverse engineering with construction of thermonuclear devices. Reverse Engineering is technically an extension of free use clauses as well as several other copyright/patent laws, hense leagal. How the hell do you think the 10,000 different IBM cloan manufactorers got into existence? The BIOS of the first PC was reverse engineered and reproduced. Now, so you know, the reason that we need to be liscenced to build thermonuclear weapons isn't because it violates and patent or copyright laws (who the hell knows if it does). The reason is that you could very easily blow 10 MILLION PEOPLE UP. Stop being stupid. It doesn't help anyone.
Does the "Home Recording Act of 1992" (or whatever) only apply to audio recordings?
Incoming message from the big giant head... This guy screams charicature.
Somehow I don't think telling people to abandon DVD for VHS is going to get you very far.
...had your "golden shower" fascination looked into? You must have had a trumatic experience at a urinal as a child. That would be, what, the other day? Shouldn't you be in school?
Because we don't get to read the license (which is what we're paying for) before shelling out money to buy a DVD or a piece of software for playing it.
You have a point but DVD regions are very large and cover countries with completely different censorship regimes. I don't think the UK and Sweden agree on how to classify films for instance.
AFAIK Clockwork Orange was banned for such a long time at the request of Kubrick who was upset at they way it was handled on initial release rather than strictly for censorship reasons.
A lot of investment is required to do i18n on films. Foreign-language films in the US are dubbed and/or subtitled, what makes you think similar measures aren't required when releasing English-language movies in Italy, Norway, or Uzbekistan?I agree it takes investment to do this but don't forget that many Europeans are multilingual. Even in the UK people often know enough French to ask for a beer!
I still don't see the huge delay for films from US -> UK as anything other than milking the market. If piracy is so huge a threat and cutting this delay would reduce it then why don't they do it?
jack valenti = can talk jive
Meanwhile, gang members who kill get out in 3 years "cause they were disadvantaged."
The young have forgotten how soon they shall be old and the old have forgotten their youth. One finds few under 20 who are not writing 'LUDDI' while few over 50 would not agree with the MPAA. Its not 'free speech' nor is it 'miserly old men' All it is is a distribution conundrum. It will all be figured out. But it is fun. n !
Didn't Wizardry run on the UCSD Pascal OS, and not AppleDOS? Anyway - UCSD Pascal was alot of fun - the entire OS was written in Pascal that was interpreted at runtime, so the programs were crossplatform between Apple or IBM. Sorta like Java, I guess.
Wow, soliciting a murder. I hope someone in law enforcement sees this and subpoena's Slashdot and sticks your sorry ass in jail for eternity.
You slashdotters are a bunch of god damn losers. You believe that you should be given everything on a platter because you're owed everything. In reality your primarily a bunch of penny pinch cheap egotisical bastards who have VERY little cognizent realization of the real world around you.
The article says Mr. Valenti is 78. That means he was born in either 1921 or 1922. The baby boomers were born after World War II! I am a baby boomer (1951), and Mr. Valenti is my parent's age. You are showing an incredible ignorance, Hemos, and you're the one who has no idea what's going on.
BTW, this baby boomer has 3Gig of MP3's on his hard drive and is not clueless about the issue, and I resent being lumped in with some old fart who is my father's age.
You misunderstand fair use. Fair use protects the copying of excerpts, not entire works, and only for use by peolpe talking about the copyrighted work: critics, satirists, educators, etc. Fair use does not protect copying of entire works or copying of works for private, noncommercial use.
Under present laws, you do not have the right to make an archival or alternate-format copy of a video work. I'm not saying you shouldn't have that right, but you don't.
Strangely, you do have the right to make an alternate-format copy of a musical work (not any audio -- just music). So your example of copying an audio DVD to a CD-R for use in your car very likely would be legal, even though your very similar example of copying a video DVD to a hard disk for use on your laptop would not.
Of course, you cannot ignore the DMCA, which prohibits circumventing technological protection measures or trafficking in technology intended primarily for circumvention of technological protection measures. So if DVD-audio comes with some flimsy, easily circumvented protection scheme (which it almost certainly will), you will be prohibited from decrypting the content by any means other than what the DVD Forum approves.
In summary, as I interpret all these laws: you cannot make a copy of a video. You can make copies of audio, only as long as you're doing it for noncommercial use (including, seemingly, distributing copies to friends) and not circumventing technological protection schemes to do so.
It seems strange to read such opposition on these comments from those of the Transemeta comments. I means people are up in arms defending Transmeta's right to close there source as a necessary evil to make a profit, yet with the MPAA this apparently is a dastardly and underhanded tactic in line with world domination and the next step towards 1984. I wish people would get on one side of the fence or the other.
FYI, here's the "official" designations (if there ever can be such a thing). Prior to this century generations weren't named because lifestyles tended to stay pretty much the same over several of them. We had the Edwardian era, followed by the Victorian Era (which spanned much of the 1800's and the very beginning of the 1900's). The first named generation was the so-called Lost Generation born 1920-1935 (because of the Great Depression, it was thought they'd have no future...WWII kinda changed that). Following that you had the Beat Generation from 1935-1945 (beatnik's...you know :). Between 1945 and 1955 you had the Boomers (named because of the population explosion they created). From 1955 to 1965 you had the "Me" Generation, named because they tended to put profits and personal wealth ahead of all else (think about the stock market barons of the early 80's, and the older extreme capitalists still bothering us today). From 1965 to 1975 we had Generation X, which was intended as an insult! We spent our time growing up playing around in arcades, wasting time on 'useless' things like computers, and disrespecting our elders. The X equaled "nothing", because that's what they thought we'd amount to :) People born between 1975 and 1985 are tenatively called Generation Next (presumably because they've looked at the accomplishments of the past few generations, and will be trying to come up with the Next Big Thing to further mankinds progress?).
Of course, the dates do tend to flex slightly depending on who's doing the talking, with some saying that GenX ended in '73, and others pushing it back to '78. The same thing with the earlier generations...there's no fixed date for "revolutionary" lifestyle changes.
man o man, he better lookout, cause i got DSL, and with my 128Kbit upload, im gonna be spreadin all these decrypted DVDs all over the internet oh man oh man, just wait.. er, hmmm.. perhaps he has no idea what hes talking about? personally i would find the old "carrying the media by hand" quite a bit easier than tying up a big ol chunk of bandwidth to send a movie to a friend.
Don't you realize? The world owes everything to Linux losers.
There is very little that will stop me from pissing in your face. You dumb turd.
DVDs can already be bit-by bit copied. So what if you can't decrypt the crypto? Just write what you see. DeCSS lets you **play** DVDs on platforms without players (not just Linux). Since DeCSS is not a copying tool (since it's not needed to copy), how can it in any way be "illegal" (even under the DMCA)?
I wanted to hear the part about pissing in your face. They shouldn't have rolled over that at all, it is the most pressing issue. And the interview should have been done by Mr. Dumb Turd, Esq.
E) Selling crack F) Urinating in public G) Fondling the elderly H) Resisting arrest I) Massaging someone of the opposite sex J) Tickling yourself K) Masterbating to the Teletubbies
Well, the people who run this site are now several years out of childhood (childhood ends at age 19) and reaching that point in time when young adults stop being touchy about it. Therefore they like to batt it around and make fun of people for their ages.
(and if you want a demonstration of childish behavior, just watch a bunch of < 18 yo children flame at this comment...)
That's a load of BS.
RMS is probably sitting right now in his fine office in the William Gates computer science building at MIT. He's probably just finished hiding his rolling tray back into hiding and is about to light up a spiff.
He should be serving 30, but not for weed.
Welcome to the wonderful new word of speed, bandwidth and no-cost method of me pissing in your face. This amazing new technology replace the Dumb Turd protocol which is still used by 90% of the people today to connect to the internet.
Aw, c'mere you. You know I didn't mean it. I love it when you shave my legs like that.
OpenDK the complete Velenti solution.
Thank you.
Just like Linux!
Dumb turd, you.
I wouldn't bet on ageism being the reason his age was pointed out. But our social surrounds as we come of age have a significant impact on how we order the world. Valenti, who came of age during the Depression, has had to grapple with a great deal of staggering change in communication technology. That probably helps explain why he considers the Blockbuster model of movie distribution as being totally different from the internet and digital distribution when many of us steeped in the newer technology from an earlier age would consider it really the same thing (though perhaps the digital method is like Blockbuster pushed to extreme limits). The aging boomer reference suggests, to me, that the article poster may be a boomer-resenting baby-buster like myself (I was born in 1968). It's hard for those of us living in the boomer shadow to not resent the youth-obsessed, self-absorbed, hippie-cum-yuppie-sellouts who gave us the derogatory Generation X label. Oh, see how these habits die hard... 8-) Of course I'm generalizing in my boomer digs (hippies really weren't that common, if they were someone would have probably instituted a program of aerial spraying to keep their numbers down) but it is a great deal of fun.
Weak arguement.
At the time Clinton made that statement, incontrovertable evidence hadn't been presented that he had done anything lewd with "that woman." The proof came later. So Clinton's statment wasn't "so obviously bogus as to insult the audiences' intelligence" when he made it. It would be now, of course.
it is better to assimilate technology than destroy it.
Seems to be rather bad weather for today. Is the plan just to pack raincoats and heavy jackets, or will this be postponed to a date with better weather? -- Nietzsche
Neo: Trinity! I'm home!
Trinity: Hey, Neo. Let me jack into the Matrix and kick some butt?
Neo: No way! You are always getting into some hair brained scheme.
Trinity: Me?
Neo: Remember when you got a job for the agents making candy and you ended up eating half of them in slow-motion?
Trinity: I did that?
Audience: *Roaring laughter*
No, actually, if you want to watch DVD movies you purchase a set-top box. The DVD drives in computers are mostly for accessing large volumes of data. For instance, the MSDN CD set can now be shipped as a single DVD-ROM instead of a whole clutch of CD-ROM discs.
Only a severely warped geek would want to watch DVD movies on a computer screen.
First, he referred to Valenti as "clueless" yet Hemos is the clueless one for referring to Valenti as a "baby boomer". Hemos must be gang raped by niggers with AIDS. Then let Oprah bitch slap some sense into him. Hemos is not even a man. He is an effeminate girly-man who has never done a manly day's work in his life. Hemos is a lard ass. Would you like fries with that sir?
i'm the same way with warez and mp3's. if i find something i like i go out and buy it. i have bought MANY cd's and several computer games i never would have touched if it hadn't been for copies floating around on the net.
"Hi, I'm Jack Valente, president of the MPAA. Look at my cheeks."
So all we have to do is distribute an MP3 of the sound of Jackie boy showing off his cheeks, and he'll be happy.
It's so simple!
You know a lot of poor college students.
They'll grow up and stop trying to make furniture out of bricks and boards, and home entertainment centers out of Pee-cees and 13" paperwhite VGA monitors eventually.
I made a phonograph player and furniture out of cardboard back in the "punk rock" era.
I've grown up some since.
Actually, while you're at it, why load Linux on the machine at all? Just leave Windows on it and enjoy watching your movies.
Slashdot people - press to see if you can get an interview with this guy - and have him answer the questions posed by the slashdot crowd. I would *love* to see the rhetorical dancing around those questions.
i know a lot of people who use their computers w/DVD drive as the central unit in their entertainment systems. why blow money on a seperate machine that does the exact same thing?
Killing Commander Taco? Yeah, I'm all for it. Here's what else I'm for:
- Pissing in your face.
- Dumb Turd abolishinism.
- Linux is gay.
- DVD encryption protects the consumer.
- More pissing in your face.party with big fat
I made up that word, abolishinism, by the way. But you are welcome to support my political party, the DTA, with big fat checks regardless. I'm the Presidenial Canidate, and here are the planks in my platform:
- Pissing in your face.
- Dumb Turd abolishinism.
- Linux is gay.
- DVD encryption protects the consumer.
- More pissing in your face.
Thank you.
Not to rain on the parade, but most of those people making their "independent" films have only one thing to say: Big media, hire me. Try reading this article from Salon (relevant quotes:)
(And does anybody care that the most recent golden independent, The Blair Witch Project, spent $2 million between Sundance and release fixing the soundtrack so you could make out what the actors were saying? Not counting the reshooting and special effects.)
As for "independent musicians"... Here are some facts from the inside. I'm a musician. I've been recording music at home for twenty years and I've never spent money in a studio. Making music is a major part of my life; if somebody wanted to release (ie, manufacture and distribute -- I do my own graphic design) CDs of music I've done I'd be fine with that, but I'm exploring areas that until recently had no commercial potential, and, really, I'm doing it despite the Old Paradigm music industry ways, not because of them. I won't release anything unless it's really good (I'm a merciless critic of my own creations).
My ability to make professional-quality recordings without signing over my rights to the recording majors has exploded. Over the last few years I've been able to put together equipment that allows me (or anybody else) to make high-quality digital multitrack recordings and burn them to a CD that I can play just about anywhere, costing less than 1/500th what it would have cost me ten years ago (assuming I could even afford it). Awesome! We have a thousand times as many ways to manipulate sounds as the Beatles did, better recording technology, and ten thousand times as many places (studios) to do it in. This is great!
Unfortunately, the same thing that happened to independent film has happened to independent music (and comics, too, if anybody cares). A few surprising successes, the majors swoop in to try to grab some market, then the guys with dollar signs in their eyes start showing up and imitating. Nothing wrong with that, but there are only so many slots (clubs, nights, opportunities to play) and people who think they're gonna get rich tend not to care about paying big money to get their 1 in 1000 chance of getting signed. (Something like Microsoft paying $$ to lock you into Windows. ...You should have seen what happened to Seattle when grunge hit. It was nasty.)
Trouble is, if there are 100,000 bands out there, most of which are copycats, how will anybody know you're original? Web pages may be an infinitely-growable resource. But the human attention span isn't, and neither is bandwidth. MP3.com is great as a repository of work that you want people to hear, provided you can direct them there (instead of being link number 5,271,009 at the bottom of a search engine return).
This guy worked in the Johnson Administration -- they were the enemies of the babyboomers even before Nixon was inaugurated.
pissbait!
In your face, specifically.
You're showing your ignorance. Generations are determined by the year of birth, not by the year they did something (i.e. when they were hippies). The heyday of the hippies was the late 60's, possibly into the early 70's. If you assume the average hippie during the hippie heyday to be around 20, then that would mean they were born in the late 40's to early 50's, which makes them part of the baby boom generation.
Most boomers just turned 40? That would mean they were born in 1960, which would put them at the end of the baby boom generation, or possibly even out of it, since there is no agreement on when the baby boom generation ended, only when it started. It's more likely that most boomers have just turned 50.
Read up on copyright law. It's all online, but a little rough going... (http://full coverage.yahoo.com/Full_Coverage/Tech/Digital_Copy right_Law/ under the related web sites is a good place to start...)
Basically, only the copyright holder can duplicate the work. So dual-deck VCR's are legal if you created (and own the copyright for) the master tape. And this situation does arise with sufficient frequency to justify dual-deck VCR's.
Specific exceptions exist for duplicating software (archives, installation), duplicating music (between media formats when you own the song), etc. There are currently no such exceptions for video. It sucks. Write your congressman or congresswoman today if you want it changed.
Fair use is grossly misquoted on slashdot (and everywhere else). However, I suspect the courts have extended the meaning of "Fair use" beyond the law. So, if you are not making money off it, and you are not interfering with somebody else's ability to make money off it, and you can afford the lawsuit, you may get away with it.
All that said, you can always become a public library, and then legally duplicate your stuff... But you may have to share it with everyone else... (Has anyone ever actually read this stuff?)
Something like that. I wrote my own programs to read from / write to the disk under Apple DOS. And began figuring out what bytes on the disk represented what items / character attributes / etc. Lots of fun. I still fondly recall changing the deadly ring into an infinite ring of some powerful spell. My fledgling steps into the world of hackerdom.
The person you're responding to isn't talking about bitwise copies. Here's what he wrote:
Couldn't you still copy the movie to disk by D to A and A to D, with only a trivial loss of quality, if MPEG output was your goal?
He's talking about playing the DVD (i.e. converting Digital to Analog), taking the video out, and then re-encoding it (i.e. converting Analog to Digital), in an unencrypted form. While not as perfect as a bit-for-bit copy, this will probably generate good quality. And then you can make a bazillion perfect bit-for-bit copies of your unencrypted version, using publically available hardware.
It was the boomer generation that declared that it was important to do something for others, to work for the benefit of society. They were the ones that made the peace corps work. They were the ones who fought with their black brothers for racial equality. They were the ones who started the whole environmental movement. There were many causes that the baby boom generation worked for. On the other hand, the generation that followed has only stood for making money and partying. Except for a few rare individuals, I don't see them supporting any causes; they don't seem to value anything except crass materialism. I don't see them valuing the betterment of society. I don't see them caring about the welfare of others. They are the generation that is self-absorbed, and who don't really stand for anything; thus the label, "Generation X."
When Clinton said he did not have sex with Monica he was speaking in terms of the definition of sex he was given by Paula Jones' lawyers in his deposition, and also by his own belief that sex means sexual intercourse. Look at it this way. If you were 17 and all you had ever done was engage in sexual contact, but not intercourse, and your friend asked you if you had ever had sex, you would reply, "No." Clinton has never admitted that he had sex with Lewinsky, only that he had an "inappropriate relationship." Sure he was being misleading when he made that infamous statement that you quoted, but it wasn't as bad as many of the outright lies politicians tell us. How about George Bush's statement that he was out of the loop on Iran Contra, and that he was never around when it was discussed. That was just an outright lie! And this was something that had to do with his job, not something in his personal life that was none of our business in the first place.
This reminds me of the appendix to 1984, where George Orwell talks about "duckspeak". The purpose of duckspeak is to render all language meaningless and politically orthodox, such that it has no more meaning than the quacking of a duck. (The main difference between doublespeak and duckspeak is that doublespeak involves lying or deception on the part of the speaker, whereas duckspeak implies that the speaker does not have his or her brain engaged at all.)
I think whoever sold 'em that lousy encryption system must have planted a bazillion ideas in the heads of everyone at the MPAA to get 'em to buy, and Jack Valenti is the pinnacle of stupidity here.
Er dude...let's do a little math here. The "classic" definition of the baby boomers includes the children born in the decade following the close of WWII. So let's say "All baby boomers were born between 1945 and 1955". Now let's spin the old calendar forward a ways. When would those kids have become adults? 1963-1973. Oh my god! That makes them...hippies!
:)
BTW, to the geneologists that track this kind of stuff, GenX spans children born from ~1965 to ~1975. I can't recall the name off the top of my head, but there is another generation name for people born between the boomers and the X'ers. I guess they just don't get much press
Look, I can't speak for him, but I think it has something to do with the fact that you can't trust ANYBODY. No one! Everything you hear in the media - TV, radio, print and YES INCLUDING THE INTERNET (even Slashdot!) is suspect. Lies, lies, lies. And that there is some serious face-pissing going on.
Aw, I didn't mean it. I'd never lie to you, you dumb turd. I love the way you grate my cheese.
Let me tell you, there is nothing like pissing in Scooby's face.
The MPAA not and will not understood that DeCSS is going not to be used to copy DVD. We're GOING to continue buying DVD's, but we want to see our EXPENSIVES DVD in any operanting system, and not only in windows because Jack Fucking Valenti wants to.
He was six cars back when Kennedy was assassinated and then promoted under President Lyndon Johnson? Is he the missing link to the conspiracy theories?
Not involved in any way with the arrest of Joh Johansen? Didn't even suggest he was a "pirate?"
Sounds like a gangster to me!
"Take this man for a ride to the lake and give him some new shoes!"
But maybe awaterl was referring to the bombs he dropped in WW2?
So much for democracy.
One man one vote -> one dollar one vote?
Why they haven't kicked out this dinosaur. Old farts like him need to be on the golf course or feeding pigeons.
Valenti is 78, 78-40 = 38. He's old enough to be a boomer's granddad!
aging baby boomer who is honestly doing what he believes to be right
Since when does one apply the concepts of "right and wrong" to the baby boomers? Or the concept of "honesty" for that matter? As far as I can tell, they sold all of that down the drain a while back, and so using the concepts of "honest baby boomer on a moral crusade" sounds not a little ludicrous, don't you think?
The only freedom we really have is the freedom to say "no".
when your entire basis of global corporate dominance is in that shitty 1972 lime green, beat-up Dodge POS, you start to get a little paranoid when someone so much as thinks about changing the dial on the stereo, even if you don't have one. which is why we gotta kick The Man when he is down.
"Not so on the Internet, where some obscure person sitting in a basement can throw up on the Internet a brand new motion picture, and with the click of a button have it go with the speed of light to 6 billion people around the world, instantaneously."
What net connection does this guy have?!? It takes me minutes just to download a large gif image!
And what world does he live in where every man, woman and child in the whole world has internet access? Furthermore, he has the obscure person SENDING the movie to every man, woman, and child in the world. What is he somehow instantly emailing 10 Gig of data to every person in the world. Valenti's ignorance of the internet is apalling.
Give me a break with the description that Hemos gives this guy. He's not clueless. He knows entirely what's what as seen by how he avoids answering questions. And Salon should be ashamed of this interview. How did they let him get away with that Bait and Switch answer about fair use where he compares a Movie ticket to the purchase of the media. If I buy a ticket, I can frame it and not see the movie if I wish because I purchased a ticket.
When I by a DVD, it's JUST like when I buy a book. I can do anything I damn well please with it, as long as I don't pirate it.
This guy grew up in the studio system. He wants nothing more than total control of everything we read, write and distribute, and they want a pound of flesh for each transaction. They are freedom mechants. They buy and sell peoples freedoms and abuse everyone in the process from the actor, writer to the view.
BTW - Intellectual Property is NewSpeak. What they have privatized is Cultural artifact. Every time they say Intellectual Property, we should be correcting them and to use the correct terminology - Cultural Artifacts.
There is nothing intellectual about Puff Daddy, and human thought is not property.
Ruben
And we can look forward to films turning up in Europe less than six months after they open in the US?
This is probably the biggest factor allowing large scale organised video and DVD pirates to operate and rake in money. This window of opportunity is handed to them for free.
The powers that be could largely wipe out the video pirates market overnight by releasing worldwide at the same time (ok I know there are translation problems etc.)
For some reason they won't do this and region coding seems designed to perpetuate the status quo into the new media.
Doesn't sound like free trade to me but people who talk about free trade always seem to want free trade when it's in their favour and protection when it isn't. DVD is just corporate protectionism.
But watch out, VHS is on the way out. Already stores are building up their DVD sections and squeezing out the older format.
In a year or so they'll be practically giving away DVD players to make people switch.
p.s. I've heard DIVX are teaming with the Psychic Hotline to make a player that deducts money from you every time you think about watching a movie.
It isn't that you take up very much time out of people's lives. One could hardly call you a spammer, since you aren't gunking up the conversation hardly at all. But you're just so fucking uncreative. I mean, the same fucking URL every damn time. The same fucking page (Never been updated). The same, the same, the same. And as you continue to post the same, tired, lame joke over and over, it starts to grate on me. Not the joke itself, but the fact that a person such as yourself even exists. Its just, so, pathetic.
--ell7
I actually heard this joke this weekend:
KNOCK KNOCK
"Who's there?"
PISSING
"Pissing who?"
PISSING IN YOUR FACE
You know a lot of poor college students. They'll grow up and stop trying to make furniture out of bricks and boards, and home entertainment centers out of Pee-cees and 13" paperwhite VGA monitors eventually. I made a phonograph player and furniture out of cardboard back in the "punk rock" era. I've grown up some since.
Try not to be a dickhead.
There are more uses for a computer playing DVDs than personal viewing.
Im currently working on a project to play video sequences(Advertisements) from a stored computer. Not being able to use DVD on linux limits our design decisions for the video server machine.
Im sure there are many other applications like this. Computing is not just for spreadsheets and wordprocessors these days.
I hope you do relize that. Are you at home masterbating, looking at your server logs, seeing how many people click though. Does it give you a hardon? a woody?
I bet you've got a small cock
So given that he is a liar, which is as close to an objective, established fact as we can get without torturing the guy, I think character assassination is fine. After all, what else can we do? Sue him? TWW
:In short, we do have legs to stand on, even if :we're certain to be knocked over and have them :cut off by the flaling sword
:of justice.
MPAA lawyer casts a spell at justice...
.
.
Justice goes insane!
.
.
Justice attacks
.
.
Jon is critically hit and loses both legs...
You still face:
a hoard of MPAA lawyers,
Justice(insane)
Will your stalwart party choose to Fight or Run?
>> The man seems intelligent, well-spoken, and thoughtful. Just because you or I or the Andover editorial staff disagree with him is no reason to resort to character assassination. That's the argument ad hominem, it was discounted as invalid as long ago as the Greeks. Slashdot certainly should know better.
;)
lala fluff...
Mr. Valenti has a good head on his shoulders, and all SORTS of clues. It's just that his universe rests on different assumptions than this community's, assumptions about the superiority of propriety and profiteering over freedom and sharing. This man seems to be very clueful at working with these assumptions to come to conclusions that are clearly thought out, self-consistant, and intelligent. And totally disagreeable to this crowd.
lala more flowery fluff. Selling the public media they cant read is wrong in any universe, do you use a cap'n crunch decoder ring to read the newspaper? would you ?
>> If you want to change the man's mind, work on changing his assumptions.
Couldnt care less what he thinks, I will simply not purchase encrypted media, be it newspapers or DVD's.
>> The average Slashdotter seems genuinely to think that the entire 'Net could be run on beige x86 boxes running Linux.
It almost pretty much is
Not to be a nit-picker, but if this guy flew missions in WWII as the article states, he would be part of the generation that MADE the baby boomers. Just didn't want to see you spreading misinformation.
See post.
I mean, see pissed, not post. In your face, specifically.
I thought about that for a bit; you're saying that Linux users are cripples? :) I'd think the cripples would be Windows users...
Mr. Jack is by no means a "Baby Boomer", since he was in WW2 his children would be "Baby Boomers". He is considerablely more our of touch than even a "Baby Boomer" would be. Him making a decision about digital technology is like my Grandfather doing so. More than likely he is an old man who fears his era coming to a close and he will fight tooth and nail to keep us in it. We must rally together and obliterate anyone who does not share our vision of the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Two man enters, one man leaves!!!!"
Actually, he does likely get it, but that doesn't mean he's a damn bit honest in an interview. (And working for LBJ is no positive credential. After all, LBJ got it too, just LIE to everyone on Nam and you get what you want. It does show association with those who feel it's ok to twist truth and lie to get what you want. Yeah, great credentials Valenti.) But back to topic at hand:
First, the interview was totally soft, and certainly not probing, which shouldn't be for Salon. The linking of Icravetv and DeCss into same discussion is brilliant for valenti (I didn't say he was stupid, just dumb.) There's no linkage. ICrave is a comparison to decoding DBS from Dish or directv, ie, stealing content that one has to pay for initially. DeCSS, using the ability to play content AFTER purchase (which is what I'd like to do), is different. The interviewer should have triped him on that one. The second one is the 'technology', with Velanti, the ever self annointed brilliant one, according to him, is the technology, and what it'll be in 'x' years. Is he right? possibly. But he then shoudl have been pressed on two fronts. First, that every brillian technology coming along will provide MUCH more encryption and tracking capability, they could track down someone really wanting to broadcast DVD or NFL games much more quickly (and if we don't believe that we're the dumb ones, especially after the DoS attackes this past week. There will be a BIG push on instantaneous ident of traffic). And lastely, Valenti got away with 'oh, but the Sony Betamax was different, analog, nothing like today'. Like hell. They knew the same technological advances would make that 'leap' from 70's to now just like he's saying it will from 2000 and next decades. I'll give Valenti credit for one thing, he's a hell of a BS'er. (I do wonder, think the interviewer had a script he wanted someone to read? Or did King Valenti just snow him to point of a press release instead of an interview. Either way, it's not the 60's anymore Jack, and we aren't the blind believers you'd have us to be. Maybe next he'll get McNamara to come on and tell us he's right, and this is for our own good, whether we can understand it or not. It's scary, he still has that 'we know best what's good for you' philosophy. What a incompetant fool. BUt one who can still twist things well to his liking. Like I said, scary.
The media portrays baby boomers as self-absorbed 50 year old former hippies, where in reality the punk-rock pioneering people born 1957-1962 are a bigger wave. They just turned 40 and have as much in common with gen-x as the 1950 "boommers".
It was worse than weak, it was pathetic. An accurate analogy based on the same theme would be buying the film reels but not being allowed to even look at individual frames unless the projector manufacturer coughed up coin for the MPAA.
How much ya got?
These people appear to believe that "Because we can" stands as an adequate justification for taking money from people.
To hit them where they live, stop paying them.
Ben,
I love Ben Folds Five! You guys are the best band EVER! Don't listen to anyone that calls you a one hit wonder - what do they know? YOU ROCK! Hang in there, sport!
Aw, c'mere you dumb turd, you. You know I love pissing in your face.
Bland as the article may be, it did give us one thing - a picture of JV. Where are my candles and pins?
Go to THEMPPA.org
And I quote: "So what constitutes fair use..?" "Any use by which you buy it at a price." There, ladies and gents, is a complete rewrite of the principal of fair use. Quick, start putting tolls on libraries, ban all academic work which quote acknowledge other works. Man, what an arsehole. Mark.
Why is this guy talking to Microsoft?
Microsoft may be closed source, but you gotta give them credit for not copy-protecting their media! Cant remember ANYONE ever being charged with piracy (exept various computer stores like Intrex or Lucky Computers for hard disk loading of cab files without selling the CD!)
But this man's arresting pre-pubescent norwiegians!
Go to THEMPAA.org I mean
Go to THEMPAA.org
Actually, your allowed to copy your CDs and tapes because of a 1992 law, not case law. The 1992 law covered only audio, musical recordings. And the DMCA contradicts it when the original is copy-protected.
I believe I also have the right to make an archive copy of a software program, whether this violates a EULA or not.
Correct. (Again, the DMCA will conflict with that if software publishers use access control/copy protection schemes.) However, this freedom only applies to software.
I think I should have this right for any medium
I agree 100%, but the law doesn't support you/us on the matter. I agree for three reasons: 1) media is frequently fragile, as you mentioned; 2) I may wish to play/view the content on more than one type of player; and 3) it does not diminish the seller's market in any measurable way, which is probably the main reason true fair use is allowed.
where I can read the courts decisions and rationale
The rationale is frequently "because the law says so." The rationale for the law saying so is "because rich copyright holders contributed to my campaign." Hrm.
Correct. I agree that it's dumb, but here's what led up to the law: CD players and audio players were roughly equal in popularity, and case law had not yet decided if one purchased copy could be played on both. So it was decided legislatively. At the time, video was not an issue because DVD wasn't yet on the scene. Remember, DVD has only become widespread in the past two years, and it doesn't rival VHS for popularity even now. So copying video for the same reasons was not then an issue. Now it probably is. Within a couple years, it certainly will be.
Actually, any entity that devotes itself to robotically harvesting all the wealth it can grab looks remarkably like a cartoon supervillian to me.
And while the MPAA and their ilk haven't suggested murder as a way to enforce their opinion on others, they have successfully lobbied for legislation (DMCA) to assist them in their devouring of wealth and to further separate people from rights they once held (fair use).
Besides didn't Old Man Jack make some comment about dominating the world?
Pardon me, it's time for my shot...
*ding*ding*ding* MODERATE #147 UP!
"... who is honestly doing what he believes to be right, but cannot see why others might consider him clueless. "
... ?" "Any use by which you buy it at a price."
I feel pretty clueless myself.
"So what constitutes fair use of a DVD in your eyes
If I got this guy right he wants one thing:
Access to content only for price. This is no bad thing per se, is it? Everybody wants to make money.
If I get Linux users correct they want DVDs to be playable on other platforms than the one currently supported, e.g. Linux.
Let's tell this the MPAA and see what they answer.
If they offer an answer (some interfaces so everybody can write/build his own player) everything is fine.
I understand that today "Any use by which you buy it at a price." is not reality. But now that he said this should be the means of access just tip your finger on it.
Just tell them: DeCSS was written because we want to play DVDs on Linux. See what the MPAA replies.
It was not primarily written for circumventing the copy protection. It's a side effect.
Welcome, my son, to the Land of the Free.
Where Freedom of Expression is truly cherished, and nurtured.
Where Freedom of Speech is enshrined in the Constitution.
Unless, of course, someone doesn't like it.
Using your skill and judgement, re-arrange the following words into a well known phrase or saying:
end wedge the thin of
Wingnut
jack valenti of the mpaa = Hi Jon, feel a vamp attack
in 1922, they were still making recordings acoustically! That is, the performers gathered around a big horn to make a 78 or 80 rpm, if not a cylinder - there were no electronic mikes or other transducers. Wow. Chuckster
This is way worse than usual.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
It's Valentines day, I love you mister confused old bastard, mmmmmmmmmmmmwah -yancey
My god, when will you people ever learn?
Late post, and probably buried in the noise, but oh, well...
I've been reading the responses on this thread, and IMO a lot of people are missing the point:
It doesn't matter if he's illogical. It doesn't matter if he's nonsensical. It doesn't matter if he's clueless. It doesn't matter if he stretches the truth. It doesn't even matter what his own opinions are (assuming he has any). And if you think that you can change what he's saying through debate, I've got a clue for you: It doesn't matter, because what he is saying is what he's paid to say. And he'll keep on saying it until his bosses tell him to say something else, at which point he'll flip-flop faster than Bill Clinton with a new opinion poll.A few years ago, our state legislature was considering a law to outlaw "blind bidding" for theatrical showings of motion pictures. (Blind bidding== putting up your money before seeing the product== buying a pig in a poke.) And Jack Valenti was there to testify how elininating blind bidding would spell the end of the motion picture business. And earlier, when cable TV was just getting started and the MPAA had mounted a "save free TV" campaign to try to block channels like HBO (!), Jack Valenti was there opining that pay cable would mean the end of the motion picture business. Was he right? No. Did he really believe what he was saying? I have no idea. But, again, that doesn't matter. He was paid to present the MPAA's position, and that's what he did.
In short, Valenti is an advocate, not a scientist. He's not there to discover the truth, or to test propositions against reality, or to find workable compromises. You can't convince him, because what he's engaging in is not argument, it's advocacy. You won't change his mind, because he's not advancing his own ideas, but those of his employer. So don't waste you time writing him. The time would better be spent writing your congressman.
I'd fight technology too if that was my view of the future. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy...
The point that he misses is that soon nobody is going to care if NFL broadcasts are protected because there will be 5000 other more interesting things available for free. For example, I don't copy commercial software - not because it's illegal, but because I can get everything I need from freshmeat. I spend about as much money supporting various free software causes as I would if I were buying shrinkwrapped stuff, but I'm much happier with the results. I can't wait to see what happens when music and film finally break free from the grip of the marketing departments.
The real wake-up call is going to come when the public at large gets fast net access and starts to figure out how tragically and cynically the film and music industries have sold them short for the last fifty years. I predict that in twenty years the idea of sitting down and passively watching a movie will seem as quaint to most people as the idea of watching an old silent film does to most of us now.
miles
See subject.
Down at the bottom of page 2, he says he's been meeting with "The Bill Gates..." Like it's not a person, but some kind of mystical entity.
"The almighty Gates will see you now."
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
heh heh heh...
It seems like the only way some things progress in the world is for some hidebound kurmudgeon to die of old age. Here is a prime example of it. The trouble is, now these buttholes can live a long time.
Incidentally, Jack ain't no baby boomer. I can't speak for the early boomers but the ones born in the late 50s to early 60s are probably more in tune with the mindset of the geeks than with Valenti.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
The difference is that, in the case of movies-theathers, there is, in most cases, an abstraction between "seeing a movie", and "where I see it". THere are some exceptions, like Lucas originally thinking of restricting Phantom Menace to certain "blessed" theaters.
Whereas, with DVDs, "buying a DVD", and "how I view it" are intimately tied. The ones producing the DVDs are the same ones blessing the DVD players. nick
Well, that's going to be a pretty hefty loss of quality to fit it on 1 or 2 CD-Rs... probably close to the same as recording on a standard VHS VCR. And I think the court cases of yesteryear proved that we are allowed to use/own VCRs. However, it's economically unfeasible to copy DVD to DVD just in the home (because of the cost of DVD-R/DVD-RAM discs, and because they WILL NOT play in a standard set-top DVD deck). It's not the same - you're not getting a 100% identical copy, you're getting a lossy copy.
And if you split the entire DVD down onto individual CDs, you'd be switching discs every 10 minutes just to watch a damned movie. (Yes, you could do it, but the average person won't - and they won't play in a set-top player like that...)
Yes, yes, we know copying movies isn't cool - but I mean, really, the kind of copying that the MPAA should be worrying about - mass-piracy operations in places like Hong Kong, with disc-pressing equipment.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
You're not wrong, but you're not 100% right either. Sure, the Baby Boomers are responsible for the nuts and bolts of the Internet. They got the infrastructure running and working.
But the things which people associate with the success of the Internet today or yesterday are Yahoo, Netscape, etc. These were things built by 20-30 year olds with enthusiasm.
And the really interesting developments in the Internet today are server side languages, trusted transactions, online applications, etc. These are things done by the 20-30 year olds of today.
Generation-X were teenagers in the early 90s. Guess what, we're all 20-30 years old now.
For example, MS, fights brutally in the software industry. Nobody has ever questioned the fact that they are intensly competitive. Then they start using leverage, it's against the law and for a good reason, they raise the price of entry into the market to protect themselves and a good portion of the populus just thinks that they are being really competitive. I think most MS employees think that's the case too. Placing price barriers on the market is a competitive tactic, never mind the fact that they trickle down to your own customers also... They are doing the right thing because they are being really competitive, not anti-compeititve. End user cost is a non-factor, it's all focused around the company and their stock.
Then there is the MPAA. The first thing that grabs me is that movies and music may be the only industry on the planet where the price continuely goes up but the output doesn't significantly improve and they are protected by laws. Even cars get more expensive but you get some value added, airbags, anti-lock brakes, etc.. stuff that wasn't there 20 years ago and the costs generally stay pretty close to a constant with inflation calculated in. In movies they have no competition, they have no reason to lower prices. Valenti's argument against putting the superbowl on the web was that the NFL couldn't then charge millions of dollars for broadcast rights. well, duh! the whole idea is to make it more affordable, easier to access, more convienient. The NFL has a monopoly on pro football and there is no competitive pressure to drive down costs. His whole mindset is based around protectionism, just like MS and their supporters.
What's even worse is that he doesn't understand that they create new content all the time, they could experiment, they could take 10% of the movies from one year and try to openly license them and see how it turns out, if they are getting robbed then they could stop it and only lose the movies from that year. It's not like they have to bet the whole farm on this new technology "the will be primitive in 18 months"
There needs to be some parity. And more people need to recognize the disconnection and call it for what it is. This is monopoly protection, and they are screwing us with it. they never lose money, they never have to "compete." They keep pumping out crap.
"He seems to think that the purpose of DeCSS is to pirate DVD's rather than to watch them."
Hey wow - so does the judge in this case. And, on the face of it, is there any evidence within the DeCSS distro that says "don't copy discs illegally with this, it's just a test so we can play our DVD's on linux!". If DeCSS is just for Linux, why was it developed openly on Windows? (Yes I know UFS wasn't out for Linux at the time, but why spread it far & wide if you don't intend to use it on that platform?)
I don't think so. What we have is a lot of rhetoric that's implying a certain intention, but no evidence to that effect.
The release of DeCSS should have been kept private until a suitable "shell" of a DVD player was created around it, and they should have been released as a package. At least then, there would be evidence in favor of the authors. For now, we're resorting to trying to destory the DMCA - which is a very long shot, and will take a LOT LONGER than otherwise clearing the case to make way for Linux DVD players.
-Stu
Okay, it's clear that he doesn't understand the way this community looks at restrictions. After all, we have a whole culture built up around the idea that restrictions to distribution are bad. But he's coming from a completely different culture.
Like a number of other posters have mentioned, movies are not the ultimate product of the MPAA. Rather, the distribution and paid access to those movies is the ultimate product. That's what the MPAA provides to the consumer, and that's what the consumer pays for.
Given that viewpoint, I'd think that to Mr. Valenti, access means access through a fee-based method that is controlled by the I.P. owners. Anything that works around (or has the potential to work around) the established control and fee structure when viewing a movie would be piracy rather than access.
So, to rephrase the question the way Mr. Valenti probably heard it:
Is there any wonder that he couldn't see the logic of the question? There's no way that the lawsuits will prevent people from buying a movie ticket, a tape, or a DVD, so from his viewpoint the question is indeed illogical.
I sincerely doubt that Mr. Valenti will ever understand the distinction that we see between access and authorized, fee-based access. But we must make sure that others understand this distinction. Like so many other posts have said, even the media often misunderstand the point at issue here. We've got to do our best to help both the consumers and the legislators to understand this distinction.
What the interviewer fails to ask of his subject is much more important than what was asked.
DeCSS, as we know, is not a tool meant to enable copying of DVDs, but a tool meant for expanding DVD viewing access beyond those players with the MPAA seal of approval.
The DeCSS lawsuits are not about copy control, thety're about access control.
What right (not legaly speaking, mind you) do they have to say that I can't use a linux box to watch the DVD I purchased? Would they also be pissed if I built my own VCR into my computer so that I can watch video tapes from my computer?
How about if I have the video output of my console DVD player play the movie's video signal into the TV tuner card on my PC so that I can watch it on my monitor while I work?
I don't see the difference. What if I don't use a Sony/Toshiba/Magnavox/etc TV to display the contents of the DVD? What if I use a DVD player not licensed by the MPAA (oh, that's right, I can't... and that's what this is all about.
He touched on the subject when he asked:
So what constitutes fair use of a DVD in your eyes --
To which Mr. Valenti replies:
Any use by which you buy it at a price. It's like saying is there any other way you can get into a movie theater without buying a ticket. The answer is, you can sneak in, I suppose.
To think that the MPAA wants to say what hardware/software I can or can't watch a copy of a movie that I bought on is quite angering.
I can understand them not wanting me to show my copy of the movie to a stadium-full of people, that obviously hits their pocketbooks, cause people won't go pay $9 at a theatre to see the same thing(Btw, how many movies do you attend that you feel was actualy worth $7-9?)
I find myself more and more disgusted with the big IP players we have floating around these days, the RIAA, the MPAA, the WIPO, etc...
I don't know where this is all going, but I know that if we sit back and allow these collections of megamediacorp entities to mandate what/when/where/how/why/on what media we view news/music/talk radio/TV/movies/the internet/etc/etc, then we'll be in bad shape in a few years... bad shape indeed.
Yes, and while I can understand their desire to control the TV rights and whatnot if you read the small print it actually forbids you to make "an account" of the game, so if you actually paid for a ticket and went you're not allowed to publish a description of the event. THAT I find completely incredible.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Oh, I guess being an "aging baby boomer" is Bad. That's a shame, because no matter what Jon Katz thinks they were the people who REALLY built the Internet. The rest of us are just using it.
For what it's worth, the definition I've seen most is Boomers go from 1945-1960, with Gen X starting next.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Valenti's point is that no one is keeping you from watching the DVD you just bought. That you have chosen to try and play it on a computer running an operating system with no industry-supported play back software is your fault, not the MPAA. That you are using an operating system without a commercial organization behind it to effectively lobby software manufacturers to license and implement a player for your operating system is your fault, not the MPAA's.
Actually, that's not his point, it's yours. He says that any use by which you buy the DVD content at a price is fair use. MPAA is not straying far from the piracy angle. The "sneaking in to a theater" quote makes that pretty clear.
I imagine they're hugging the safe shoals of the piracy argument because the other aspects of CSS are a little less palatable. To get back to the theater analogy, most theaters reserve the right to restrict your soft drink choices to the products of one of the two major soda companies, but most people don't consider it wrong to sneak a beer in, the theater's concession profits be damned. You would say "if you want a beer, don't go to the movies." Other people would say that as long as they're not sneaking in or stealing and breaking things, the theater should butt out, and if it refuses, subterfuge is appropriate.
Analogies with CSS, region coding, and the studios' business models should be obvious.
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
i haven't read all of the comments yet, so somebody may have pointed this out already.
still, i think it's worth saying
So what constitutes fair use of a DVD in your eyes besides simply buying a DVD and using one of the MPAA's authorized players?
Any use by which you buy it at a price.
so, if i install linux on my computer that has a dvd-rom drive, which i paid for, and put one of my dozen or so dvd's, which i also paid for, into my dvd-rom drive on my linux box, then by his own words, i am perfectly within my rights to use DeCSS to view those movies on my linux box.
whether this is practical given the current state of video support in linux and whatever else, i do not know or do not care. the point is that he has blatently said that this is allowed.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
I have heard a number of times on /. that the content can be copied bit by bit (which seems to make a lot of sense), I'd like to know if anyone has actually done this, if so then Valenti's arguments are completely bogus.
for the average home pc pirate who rips mp3s or uses a cdrom burner to copy his friends cds, this is impractical for two reasons. one, writeable dvds have a smaller capacity than the pressed dvds. two, writeable dvds supposedly have the area on the disc where the key is stored blanked out so nothing can be written there. so if i go out and buy a writeable dvd-ram drive for my pc, i will not be able to make bitwise copies. then again, i wouldn't be able to make copies by decrypting them either, because of the disc capacity issue. it is possible (likely?) that one or both of these restrictions will no longer be an issue in the future. in any case, the average "home pirate" can likely find numerous other ways to get perfect copies of a dvd that doesn't even deal with encryption. one possible trick that comes to mind would be using the digital output that most set-top dvd players have, or doing some low level reading of the data stream off of the bus, much like microsofts secure music media was cracked within an hour by reading data as it went to the soundcard.
on the other hand, for largescale pirates who make pirated copies of movies in the thousands or more, it probably would not be too huge of a stretch to come across the hardware for pressing thir own dvds, in which case bit for bit copies would be perfectly indistinguishable (to the player at least) from the original.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Under windows, I can feed the composite output of my DVD player into my ATI All-in-Wonder Pro and MPEG-encode the analog video stream. I can then copy these MPEGs onto CD-Rs.
I don't need deCSS for this, and deCSS does not make my job of pirating DVDs any easier. If I was a professional pirate, I'd do a bit-for-bit copy using a professional DVD duplicator. As an amateur, if I wanted to make pirate copies, I would have innumerable opportunities to do so without deCSS.
-Dean
It seems the interviewer still misses the point: what happened to the "Do you understand that DeCSS does not aid copying DVDs, and in fact does the opposite?" question
That's exactly what I would ask, and it seems he's still missing this one.
There's all this piracy propoganda going round, when all it comes down to is media control and licensing with a poor coverup.
Sure, the MPAA want "the movie industry to make money" - when in fact they are limiting their audience by disallowing us to access data which we have already paid them money to access.
Someday, they will see. I hope. Otherwise I'll go back to by Betamax collection and watch I love lucy reruns. They were better than the matrix anyway.
Ironically, every movie I "sampled" from there that didn't suck ass I went out and bought. I probably wouldn't have otherwise.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
The answer is simple. Provide value. If whatever you sell is cheaper to get via the internet for free (even if not legally), no one will buy your thing.
If on the other hand you can add something to whatever you sell so that it's more attractive to buy then you'll have customers.
For example, no one has to buy anything from Red Hat, yet they seem to be making money. That's because sometimes it's just less hassle to buy a CD for $50 bucks with a nice book, rather than download for hours (or even minutes).
The movie and music industry are addicted to their outrageous profits and they are fighting to keep the status quo. In longer term it's a losing game.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Which leads to the question, Who is the MPAA attacking with it's current lawsuits? Are they claiming a Linux hacker watching DVDs on their home system is legit? I own several DVD discs and am unwilling to give up my right to watch them under the OS of my choice simply because the MPAA is afraid of what can happen in the future. I did not buy a DIVX drive due to the arbitrary limits they wanted to place on me. Now the MPAA thinks they have this ability.
If they want public support for their "principle occupation", they should clearly announce that a person who buys a DVD disc is free to watch it with the OS of their choice using the application of their choice!
Valenti appears to be on top of things (in terms of technology) pretty well. He's overlooking some obvious problems like, if I really wanted to I could copy VHS digitally and stream it to the world. He definitely has a handle on things, and the impression that I got is that he's really just trying to hold out until a licensing system can be established. Obviously he's going to be a bit pissy that DVD was supposed to be safe, and now it isn't.
Mr. Valenti has a good head on his shoulders, and all SORTS of clues.
Let's not get carried away about how clued-in Jack Valenti is. The guy's an unctious mouthpiece for the film industry who makes $1 million a year to speak for their interests. He's also the most public champion for ratings systems that prevent adults from seeing movies the way directors wanted us to see them, letting an anonymous panel of parents in the Los Angeles area impose ratings on films that greatly affect their commercial viability.
Case in point: Stanley Kubrick had to alter 65 seconds of the American release of Eyes Wide Shut to avoid an NC-17 rating. Because Valenti and his panel of MPAA censors took umbrage to nude adult bodies moving in "coital motion," they threatened to give the film an NC-17 rating unless a scene was altered.
Since NC-17 is widely viewed as commercial disaster for a film -- many newspapers won't run ads for pictures given that rating -- no director can get an R rating without passing muster with Valenti's MPAA goons.
In 1966, Valenti personally supervised the censorship of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, insisting that filmmakers change Elizabeth Taylor's line "Screw you!" to "God damn you!" Is there a better example of the arbitrary and capricious work of a censor?
Valenti also is the champion of the TV ratings system, helping to usher in its quick passage into law.
If you want to change the man's mind, work on changing his assumptions.
Valenti is paid to take the position he does -- trying to change his mind about something is like begging a prostitute for a freebie.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
He's heard the parallel before, but says "For example, in analog you have to go down to a Blockbuster store, then you have to copy it, then it has to be sent physically. [Distribution via the Internet i]s totally different, totally different.". Well, of course it is different! However, the problem is identical; The current business model is threatened, and instead of actively entering the arena to develop new products and thus be appropriately positioned when money is finally made, they're suing new-thinking people left and right to uphold status quo.
Worst of it is, with the cash cows these guys are sitting on, they probably have no other alternative but to try to keep them alive - artificially if need be. Don't look to this crowd for creative stuff - it will come from someone with a lot less respect, access to, and need for such cows.
In my honest opinion, it can be summed up as follows: If anybody can copy anything they want (think music, film and other "old-economy" copyighted material), they will. It's not that they won't necessarily pay for it, they just won't be willing to pay as much as they do today. Even piracy has its costs - on the Internet you still have to find stuff, download it, piece it together, copy/burn it to some other media, nag, nag, nag - but when you're saving twenty USD a pop, you can afford to use a little time. If your savings total a couple of dollars, it probably won't be worth it. There is a market right there, but the recording industry will have to cannibalise their own business to do it. But hell, that hasn't worked out too bad for the newspaper industry, has it?
I don't agree with him as a Linux user myself, but I think he understands it. It's just that his attitude is probably something along the lines of "Well, if there is any legitimate market for playing DVDs on this Linux-thing, some company would have paid the licensing fees, signed the non-disclosure agreements and sold binary-only player software like people do on Windows and MacOS". Now, *we* may consider this unacceptable, but to him, this is how people should handle the situation.
About three years ago, the NBA sued Motorola and its paging carrier partnet over a service which sent information about a basketball game in progress to the subscriber's pager. Their claim was that the live transmission of information about the game was a violation of the NBA's copyright. The court initially granted the NBA an injunction against Motorola, but it was reversed on appeal.
9 75.html for a copy of the appelate decision. A google search on Motorola and NBA will provide more context.
See http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndcircuit/January97/96-7
Instantaneous xfer of a whole movie!!! What the hell does that woman have running into her basement? Sounds like a nice setup.
This last line seems rather poetic, especially compared to Valenti's uninformed and uninspired words preceding it. Does anyone know if he is quoting someone there?
I think everyone WANTS to get some more REAL questions answered, no? .
Let's let the community grill 'em. .
(or is that a cruel and disrepectful thing to do to a senior citizen? Not in the business world - he could have retired years ago! If you're aging and still in the business you have to keep up with the rest of 'em, or you shouldn't be working anymore.)
If some existing artificial barrier is not useful, what should be done?
Well, just to throw another analogy on the fire :)
Theaters get a huge percentage of their profits from concessions (I think most popcorn is overpriced and tastes horrible, but that's for another thread). What if theaters started requiring purchase of a popcorn and a large DR Pepper in order to see a movie in its opening week? That doesn't seem fair to me in that I don't usually care for the popcorn and can't stand DR Pepper.
In analogy, I want to go buy/rent some DVD movies and watch them at home on my computer. I don't have a copy of Windows, nor do I want one, but they seem to be requireing me to get one.
True, a copy of windows I only have to buy once (I think) and not everytime like the popcorn, but I think this gets to the heart of the problem. Watching DVD movies is artificially tied to Windows/
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
(I'm out of moderator points again, so I'll just post my support this way :-)
It'll not even do that. We still need screens.
What I gather from the interview is that they're really concerned about losing the per-country licensing system, which I guess is really lucrative.
Shame they don't realize they're going to lose it whatever they do. They're just doing damage to themselves and to others in a fierce attempt to hold off the inevitable.
I'm getting less and less angry about this (not to the point where I'll stop mirroring DeCSS, obviously :-). They *are* clueless, and it'll be interesting to see whether they'll wake up and see what's going on in time or whether they are going to crash asleep at the wheel.
Evolution at work.
It is human nature for us to become "set in our ways" as we age...the elderly individual who remains open to new experiences (Thai food in Kansas, skydiving, wearing T-shirts in public) is a rare individual indeed. Everyone knows the cantankerous duffer who has seemingly devoted his sunset days to lamentations that things are no longer as they were in his day, that the youth are lazy and disrespectful, and that the music the kids are listening to is just a bunch of loud racket.
At a time when technology is rebuilding our society seemingly overnight, it is worth observing that many of our largest and most pervasive societal organizations (Hollywood, Congress, transnational megacorporations) are run by elderly men who have _demonstrated_ their hesitation to embrace the change. Think about how much the simple utility of e-mail has altered our day-to-day living, how useful it is for keeping in touch -- and then ponder the recent story on just how few Congressmen read their email, much less respond to it.
I'm baffled by the story contributor's reference to Valenti as a baby boomer, but the fact that he has revealed himself to be one of the herd who wants little more from age than the opportunity to cling to the world he knew -- and, let us not forget, has run for over 30 years -- is worth mentioning.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
Or does this guy remind you of the old
curmudgeonly banker in "It's a Wonderful Life",
Mr Potter?
NO DVD for YOU!
A computer without Microsoft is like ice cream without ketchup.
Because, of course, the future has to fashioned by corporations. Really. The Corp is mother, the Corp is father.
lamp \'lamp\ n
-
- a vessel with a wick for burning an inflammable liquid (as oil) to produce artificial light
- any of various devices for producing light or heat
- a celestial body
- a source of intellectual or spiritual illumination
(Webster's Ninth New Collegiate)Valenti's problem is that the lamp that illuminates the dark tunnel of the future is being held by a 16-year old Norwegian boy currently in jail, not by the old boy's club he socializes with. Maybe if he asks nicely, we'll show him the way out.
Darn, I wish I could come up with a good way to use the third definition under lamp right now. IANAOrator.
Teach your kids: "C++ made baby Jesus cry."
If you believe in the freedom of speech
(and lot's of constitutions in the world do
confirm this principle) you shall oppose the
DVD. It's the propriatory media, where there
is an organization that decides whether to
give me the license to produce the content.
I think the constitutional amendment is due -
"Mass media data format shall not be propriatory
copyrighted or patented"
Vassili Leonov
/"these enterprises [Baseball, Tv, movies] which, by the way, dominate the world..."/
Which is the real issue, isn't it? I've excerpted rather crudely in order to keep things short, but fundamentally his argument is this: American companies dominate media production, the Web cedes our finely grained control of the distribution of our productions to anyone ("a web site in Afghanistan" - interesting to see what the Taliban would think of that) with a broad enough connection.
Luckily for those of us in the 'dominated' world, the previous experience of intellectual property owners and the Net shows that, basically, you have to change. We've heard more or less the same arguments from image libraries, newspapers, software companies and so on: each has had to adapt to ESD.
I look forward to not having to wait six months for the Phantom Menace, just cos I live in airstrip one. Let the Net cause mayhem and misery to the MPAA until it finally 'gets it.'
(I don't think 78 year olds count as baby-boomers, btw)
-- need more time?
Yes, but Valenti doesn't understand that..
First... You can file down the firing pin on your daddy's hunting rifle and make it into an automatic weapon, but it's not your right to do that either
Please don't make comments like this unless you actually know what is involved with converting a firearm from semi-auto to full-auto. Statements like this only serve to fan the flames of argument and promote ignorance and are plain incorrect. I can "file the firing pin" on any of my hunting rifles and do nothing more than make a rifle that at best would be non functional or at worst dangerous to use.
Second...
Just because you can do something doesn't mean that society grants you the right
This is quite correct. However you fail to mention the fact that society does not grant you or me any rights at all. To quote the Declaration of Independence "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...", and "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men" Our rights come, not from society, but from God. And it is one of governments promary jobs to protect those rights, regardless of what Bill Clinton, or any other politician says
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
"It is human nature to become set in our ways..."
Poppycock.
Where is your hard evidence? All your post seems to me to be is a prejudiced rant rationalising your ageism.
For every stubborn elderly person I know, I know a stubborn youngster. Where is your *hard* evidence? Not anecdotes, not "I know people who..." but hard numbers, statistics, etc, etc.
t's those who use it to mass produce illegal DVDs hat is the real problem
This has nothing to do with the legality of the DeCSS source code (Except for the fact that the MPAA is tyring to make you THINK it is). Nothing. Period. Big DVD pirate shops dont even need to decode the data first. Its digital data. To make a copy, all you have to do is copy the data.
All this is about CONTROL. The MPAA wants to CONTROL how, when, and where you can view the content. and they make sure they are getting paid at every step. That is wrong, and its the reason behind the DeCSS lawsuits. Period. Anything else they try to make you believe is more of the same tactic to sway opinion and legal intreptation in their favor to ensure a continuation of their monopolistic powers.
http://www.historyplace.com/kennedy/jfkpix/swear thp.jpg
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
So the MPAA's position must be that you can rent a film from the distributer, you can buy a projector, but it is illegal to install the projector in a context where you can show the film unless the design is licenced from the MPAA.
"Any use by which you buy it at a price"?!? Sounds like V is arguing for the defendents.
For once, someone understands. I think this is the first post I've seen on Slashdot that accurately represents the situation. The real issue is absolutely whether DVD's should be playable upon purchase, or only with a licensed player.
There's a question that's been on my mind ever since this whole thing started. Is VHS proprietary? There's certainly some sort of VHS organization which controls the logo, so I'm thinking there must be some sort of DVDCCA-like group controlling that technology. If so, then how is buying a DVD player for your television any different from buying a VCR?
Hmmm...maybe this all will become moot when Creative makes its open-API, licensed decoder card...i'm waiting...
Aren't you dead?
These lawsuits seem more of a wild fury then anything planned. Perhaps its the death throes of something we all know has to die for this BS about American movies being unhobbled, and freely couriered around the world.
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
50% of everything you hear is a lie.
Which means, of course my statement could be a lie. You never know.
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
Unhobbled, in that they meet no resistance from local governemts, film industry, etc. Here in Spain all the chain theatres run Hollywood movies, and local stuff has more or less success, depending on the movie.
Harrison Ford always gets into the big theatres. Javier Bardem has to do something worth watching.
What he is talking about is getting his content to you for a price, with nothing to stop him. Not about the content itself being "free", even in the sense of portability.
"Well it's not Victory - but then it's not Death either."
This bit on Salon was kinda blah. The rolled over the part of the interview that I think Slashdot readers wanted to hear. About how he doesn't understand DeCSS and is trying to literally turn thousands of MPAA `customers' away from watching DVDs on their computers. While I'm sure many people will enjoy the article about the jolly old MPAA dictator, I found the article to be a token interview to make Salon feel like they are actually hip. Lukewarm == Spat out. Blah.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Mr. Valenti is trying to step on something he doesn't understand. It's not my obligation to understand or appreciate him when it is HE that is being offensive. Why can't the MPAA spend some money (which I know they barely have enough to get by on) to find out what to prosecute, who to persecute, and what to leave alone? His actions and intentions reek of ignorant, random attacks and things he won't spend time to learn about. Is he so old that he can't comprehend anyhting new?
I will not work to help Mr. Valenti change his assumptions when he has the means to help himself.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
And if the MPAA would take advantage of this now, they could be ready to swoop in when the bandwidth hits and make tons of cash. But I really get the feeling they won't do anything except wait until the bandwidth is larger and then say `Well, now we have a case to bust ass because people ARE downloading movies all the time." MP3.com is trying very hard to do just that right now and no one seems to be catching on in the RIAA and MPAA rings.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Even in context, my point still stands. If their principle occupation is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world, then why region codes? That does more damage to their principle occupation than it does help protect their IP.
Finkployd
This analogy is way off base. If I was paying, through some sort of tax or surcharge, for DirecTV broadcasts - whether I watched them or not - then I certainly would have the right to access their broadcast with any device I choose.
The key point is that I buy a DVD movie, therefore I am entitled under the DCMA to fair-use access to it's contents. This means I can use whatever method of playback I choose - regardless of it's licensing status with another organization.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
Or take these two quotes (from the same paragraph):
:) Doesn't sound very 'free' to me... *laugh*
"The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world"
"And in the last several years, we have been intentionally, seriously and energetically concerned with combating theft of our intellectual property."
So he wants movies to move freely... but not with the help of anyone else?
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
Absolutely not. In fact, creativity will thrive as people move away from being controlled by corporate entities. But the simple truth is that the Movie Studios will always be there. An independent producer simply can't afford the big names and nice production. Likewise, an independent musician can't afford all the great professional musical equipment, big name studio producers, or market the music. If anything, the internet creates more room for independent media. Big labels and Big studios aren't going to disappear anytime soon.
And if it brought the salaries of movie stars and sports "heroes" down to less than 9-digit levels, I for one wouldn't shed a tear over it.
The only people you forgot was the movie studio and record label suits.
simon
"she gets what she wants and walks away.
and she doesn't give a fuck what you might say"
Man that article was frustrating, and I'm not talking about Valenti's ancient answers to new questions. What I'm most frustrated with is the interviewer shying away from the DeCSS debate. He asked one veiled question about it and went on to other topics. I was really hoping that the interviewer would have asked him if he realized that DeCSS would help other people view legally bought DVD's on other platforms and that DVD's can still be copied without DeCSS.
--
Quantum Linux Laboratories - Accelerating Business with Linux
* Education
* Integration
* Support
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
I would DEARLY love a SlashDot interview with Jack Valenti. What do you think Rob/Jeff? Do you think you could swing it?
--
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
Any use by which you buy it at a price. "
I guess that's what most of us want: go out and buy our DVD's to watch on whatever player we find convenient....
Questions such as "How do you suggest that we play the DVD's we've paid good money for using alternative systems such as Linux, *BSD and Solaris?"
This is the main issue I think - he does not seem to understand that the MPAA is hindering legitimate use of the DVDs that have been paid for. He uses the example of trying to get into a cinema. He gives two scenarios - first, I buy a ticket and enter, second I sneek in.
I would say that the current situation is more like I buy a ticket and then I might get in - but whether I get in is based on race, skin color, OS preference or some other criteria.
"Dilbert" had a thread about the "stubborn ageing colleague with a v-neck jumper" a short while back. Kinda sprang to mind just then.
While Clockwork Orange is (finally) going to get a release in the UK, it's perfectly legal to get a private import of it over to here. You're allowed to buy/own whatever movies you like, as long as they comply with the Obscene Publications Act (which mostly covers porn anyway). It is not illegal to buy/own a film that hasn't been rated by the BBFC (UK film censors). What however is illegal is to sell or screen unrated films.
Import the films and sell them in your shop = illegal. Import your own films, for your personal viewing = totally legal.
Thus the film companies could just only sell products in the regions that they want to sell them in. People in countries such as the UK can then buy from whatever country they choose.
It's why many DVD players in the UK are chipped, and the most popular models are ones with easily-defeatable region locking. :)
qube
It is legal for you to d/l an mp3, *only if you own the song already* but who the hell actually does this?
Aargh! Leaving aside for the moment that this is exactly what the BeamIt case is about...
What if (drum roll) the RIAA doesn't control the content? What if independent artists create the content on their own? Obviously this is the sort of thing that the RIAA/MPAA/et al are trying to prevent, and they're doing it by attacking the technological means that circumvent their distribution schemes.
There's a lot of legal content at mp3.com that the RIAA doesn't control, and that's exactly why the RIAA has been villifying mp3.com.
-Zandr
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
Says Valenti, "Not so on the Internet, where some obscure person sitting in a basement can throw up on the Internet a brand new motion picture, and with the click of a button have it go with the speed of light to 6 billion people around the world, instantaneously." I really, really wish we had that kind of wild bandwidth here in Norway. I have to get moving over to the States RSN :)
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
When I travelled to Indonesia (among other places) in mid-1997, I found small shops that had tons of bit copied, or independently mastered, bootleg DVDs. I was shocked because when I left a few months earlier, I hadn't even seen DVD players on the market (I thought they were a year away, or so). There were bootleg DVDs of movies that had only just been released in the U.S that summer!
So, actual bootlegging worldwide is already a problem, but it is apparently done without the need for DeCSS or equivalent. And stopping DeCSS will not solve this particular problem (although being able to rigorously enforce the regional coding might help slow the spread...)
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Hi. I know everyone is going to rail me for this, but I come down on their side here.
:)
"The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world."
Why then, do you charge different prices in different countries?
Quote the whole paragraph... "The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world," says Valenti, defending the cases. "And in the last several years, we have been intentionally, seriously and energetically concerned with combating theft of our intellectual property."
And the total number of arrests in Hong Kong would be?
Hong Kong is a nightmare to them. There is all kinds of intellectual crime there, of every medium. They're trying to avoid a world of Hong Kong.
Final Question: You can even ask the audience or call a friend. Has anyone ever sucessfully used DeCSS to copy a DVD movie to another PC and then play it back?
I guess that this is the real point. Is that kind of thing really that far away?
"Is it true that when President Kennedy was gunned down, Valenti was six cars behind him."
Yes.
Now that's an alibi. Oh well, so much for that theory...
That's just inflammatory. But not totally unfunny.
First, sorry I sounded so pissed at you. I read a bunch of postings that bugged me, and it came across when I replied to yours.
:) But they just don't want to see a new distribution scheme emerge where they don't have any regulation, and hence any money. That's all.
Anyway, their principle occupation is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world... as long as it happens in their loop. Region codes are part of their loop. Yes, I see the loop/yoke analogy.
It's obvious he was speaking from the context of intellectual property... if you read the second sentence of that paragraph. I love it when people quote a snippet if it achieves their goal.
The full paragraph:
"The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world," says Valenti, defending the cases. "And in the last several years, we have been intentionally, seriously and energetically concerned with combating theft of our intellectual property."
Again, the magic "....", breaking bits of one idea and patching them with another.
Read the whole paragraph. He's not saying he wants to give it all away, he wants to find the best regulated distribution channels.
I disagree. The perfect analogy is that you put access ramps in and hang an infinite set of keys to the theater next to the ramp.
They don't care whether we watch them on Linux or not. They care that the only way to get that to happen is to do the exact same thing we would do if our intention was to rip them off. We can tell them that "Oh, we're really not going to rip you off," but that's not much consolation.
There are many differnt world views and
philosophies in the world. Not all of them are
compatible with yours.
That's actually exactly what I'm trying to say.
Not everyone sees what you would probably term
as "Intellectual Property" as property that can
be hoarded (still others would even argue that
hoarding physical property is 'stealing' and is
a resource that belongs to the masses)
I understand that, too. But I feel that this is a decision every person makes for themselves. And you can try your hardest to show people your way of thinking, and convince them that you're way is the right way to go. But I strongly disagree that you can take what someone else has done, and disregard how -they- feel about -their- work because of how -you- feel about -your- work. That's all I was trying to say.
As for being hopeful that their are few of us
who would argue these things...I hope our
numbers increase myself.
I hope so too. It's going to come from explanation and example.
Thanks.
I see your point about the injunctions. But that's the way the law works.
What I didn't like about your article is your apparent blanket dislike of the entertainment industry as it exists today.
What do you mean when you say "ole' boys network"? Do you mean the people who generate the product? The people who perform "auxillary" tasks in the organization, like sports owners, or management? I'm just terribly confused by what you mean.
Their whole gig is about getting their due. They work to do a certain thing, they get their due. They shouldn't be forced to give their product away. I mean, most people here at Slashdot like free software, but hopefully few would say "You -must- give away all your code." These companies are choosing not to.
Does that make them an "ole' boys network"?
Thanks.
That's because the "tolerated" players paid the (non-profit?) DVD consortium for that honor. In some ways, this whole mess is the first test of the ability of the entrenched corporate system to recognize the open source/free software development model as a legitimate enterprise that they will allow to coexist with their proprietary economic model.
From the /. interview with Jens Johansen:
...
1) About the cops...
by ronfar
Did the arresting officers say or do anything that blatantly hinted that they were doing this because of pressure from the MPAA or the United States government? What kinds of questions did they ask during the interrogation? Were they looking for other
The MPAA filed charges and the police was forced to investigate. There was a debate program on TV [ Redaksjon 21 ] where judging from the district attorney's comments, she meant that there was no doubt that I was guilty [ and this was before they had actually started investigating ]. She also compared me with an old case where a guy had sold "pirate-cards" for decoding paytv channels, and had earned tens of thousands of dollars. Luckily the biggest inet/computer guru [ Gisle Hannemyhr ] was there too, and the district attorney and the MPAA's lawyer were left biting the dust. Just one thing: if the police actually had any competence, they wouldn't have brought charges against me, because they would have known that they're plain lies. During the interrogation they asked all kinds of questions. Every detail, no matter if it was important or not, was to be included. IMHO, the only reason they seised my computers was in order to try to track down the two other members of MoRE
The MPAA are looking ahead. Maybe not now, but 15-20 years time.
Wow! I never knew pipes to those third-world countries were so fat! And the net has the bandwidth to transport a 5GB move to all of those 6 billion computers simultaneously!
Bandwidth is increasing at a huge rate, and for broadcasting there's this thing called 'multicast'. have a look sometime.
(What is 5GB x 6,000,000,000 anyway? Are that many molecules in the universe?)
3.e+19B. The second part of your question makes no sense.
-- I'm drinking myself to sleep again...
The MPAA is interested in having their movies freely distributed around the world, as long as it is *on their terms*. That's what the region coding is for.
I would love a Slashdot-style interview with this guy, there were so many questions that I wanted to see asked.
Like: "Is there a solution (acceptable to the MPAA) to the current css-auth/DeCSS situation short of a court battle?"
When Clinton said he did not have sex with Monica he was speaking in terms of the definition of sex he was given by Paula Jones' lawyers in his deposition,
Clinton did have 'sexual relations' with Lewinsky acording to the terms in the Paula Jones suit. Spesificaly He touched her vagina with his hands (and a cigar). You know this. Why are you lying (what purpose are you trying to serve? I don't see one)
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Take it a little further: that we when buy a ticket we shouldn't be required to buy an officially licensed seat from the seat-selling cartel in order to view the movie we just payed for.
The MPAA guy seems to like analogies, I'd like to see him respond to that one.
Make the price reasonable and people will gladly purchase the real deal.
On the other hand, keep prices unreasobable, charge more for an unnecessary scrambler, sue poeple who watch your movies, and people will gladly violate laws to fight you.
--
+&x
And be reminded, moral articulation against capitalistic oppretion bought the indian nation it's coffin
links?
--
+&x
Sorry for the tags btw. Should have used to diferentiate the two quotes...
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
need some sleep... That would have been:
Sorry for the <b> tags btw. Should have used <tt> to diferentiate the two quotes...
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
I think Mr. Valenti would be a great /. interview.
;).
Hey I second that. I was really disappointed by the lack of depth in the questions posed, as shown by this blurb:
the other case aims to prevent people from using DeCSS, a program that can unscramble encrypted digital video disks (DVD) and let people copy them.
Again: You don't need DeCSS to copy A DVD. DeCSS is used to either descramble the content to pass it to a non-licensed mpeg-player OR to save the content on the harddisk for further treatment in it's uncrypted state (at which point, yes, you can copy it).
On a related note, I was simply baffled by the curriculum of this guy, Valenti:
Valenti is no stranger to conflict. In World War II, he flew 51 combat missions over Italy, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross and other honors. He also worked his way through college at the University of Houston, and after getting his MBA from Harvard, Valenti handled the television advertising for John F. Kennedy's presidential campaign. When President Kennedy was gunned down, Valenti was six cars behind him. A few hours later, while flying back to Washington on Air Force One, President Lyndon Johnson named Valenti his first special assistant.
A little over three years later, in 1966, Valenti joined the MPAA.
This guy sure had an interesting life. I admire that, wow (except the last line of course
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
(is burkino faso a nation?)
Burkina Faso is a landlocked country of West Africa. Area: 274,400 sq km (105,946 sq mi). Pop. (1996 est.): 10,615,000. Cap.: Ouagadougou.
=> Yes. But I don't know how many people are concerned with DeCSS/MPAA down there right now. I have a friend who did some humanitarian work there, and I can tell you they'd love to see some "internet stocks bubble" money get down there to improve their healthcare and education systems... going off topic, sorry.
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
The copyright statement aired at the beginning of NFL telecasts says something like "this telecast is copyright by the NFL and CBS[/FOX/ABC, whomever] - any unauthorized broadcast of this, or any accounts of the game, without the expressed written consent of the NFL is prohibited."
So, if your blimp-cam version of the game is an "account of the game" and you broadcast it, you're violating the NFL's copyright.
It does seem silly, since most folks wouldn't bother to publish or broadcast a game. However, I guess they must exercise this control to keep illegal Super Bowl videotapes, etc., off the market.
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
Need I say more?
You're equating a potential redistribution with an actual violation of intellectual property rights.
In any event, plain reading of the DMCA would seem to indicate that fair use is dead, and that if you view a DVD on a non-sanctioned player of any kind, you are "circumventing an access control device" without the authorization of the copyright holder. Distributing the tools to others is a separate offense. This is clearly insane, but that's the way it is.
It's important to keep in mind the distinction between a potential act, and an actual act. Using an unencrypted medium (one without an access control device to be circumvented) I may make a personal "fair use" copy. This copy has the 'potential' to be used in an infringing manner, such as net distribution, but is not actually an offense until I do so.
Call me crazy, but if the MPAA thinks they're getting the short end of the stick on software licensing revenue, they should provide linux software. As it stands, they're losing nothing from competition, as long as manufacturers bundle Windows playback software. What's wrong with the innovation that lets other, legal owners of all the proper equipment, use that equipment?
Good comment, lalas.
-schussat
The hour of noon has passed. Let us go and get some Kentucky Fried Chicken.
As my father, a man of Jack Valenti's generation, used to tell this aging baby boomer as he was growing up:
"Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see."
I believe the point is that you pay for content by purchasing the DVD. You are licensed to view the content indefinitely for non-commercial use solely on a reader licensed to decode the DVD format.
If DVDs were merely a recording media, then I doubt the movie industry would be releasing their precious software on DVD.
why would you need to decrypt for a disk to disk copy? Already it has been explained how the media is too expensive, making copying infeasiblle anyway, but why couldn't the original, encrypted data be copied too? Is the key stored someplace where DVD burners can't burn (like the hub). I can see encryption standing in the way of ripping video and posting it on the internet, but that is even more ludicrous than copying onto blank media. I don't think any company anywhere has a internet setup that could handle "6 billion" people hammering them to get several gigs of clips. I would think the only way to impede piracy would be to use GOOD encryption and not have any possible way for software to access it (like having the private key on the hub, read by a separate laser which can ONLY hook into a hardware DVD decoder that does the decryption and decoding on board. Of course I'm no expert, but it seems kind of like what Sony has done with the Playstation, which makes priacy of the games much more tricky.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
css-auth does all that..or most of it. ALL the keys can be cracked in under one minute..not some. and anyway, they can still sue you under the same laws.
Valenti's point is that no one is keeping you from watching the DVD you just bought. That you have chosen to try and play it on a computer running an operating system with no industry-supported play back software is your fault, not the MPAA. That you are using an operating system without a commercial organization behind it to effectively lobby software manufacturers to license and implement a player for your operating system is your fault, not the MPAA's.
Well, you are right that it isn't our fault...but should it be illegal for us to make player that plays their movies? What if Microsoft had written they player for their movies without their approval?
Arguing that you shouldn't have to use their player is like arguing you shouldn't have to have a DSS receiver to watch DirecTV broadcasts or you shouldn't have to buy your cable company's cable modem to hook up to their net.
There is a big difference here. With DirecTV, you don't have rights to the content being broadcast unless you've paid for the service. If you buy or build a custom box that will allow you to watch DSS, there is nothing illegal about it unless you havn't payed your DSS bill. With DVDs, you obviously have rights to view the media...and you own the physical disk. Therefore, reading the media off the disk to do what you see fit with shouldn't be illegal just because doing so would enable you to break some law somewhere. Also, AFAIK, there is nothing preventing you from buying your own cable modem and hooking into the cable service with a modem you own. The only thing illegal about it would be if you didn't pay for the service or if you were disrupting others service.
The bottom line is that no one is forcing you to buy DVDs and the DVD playback software is a licensed product. So don't expect unrestricted access to playback technology. You're misinformed if you think it's your "right" to have it.
It isn't our right to have them provide us with information on how to playback their media. They can control who they give that information to. However, they can not stop us from reverse engineering their product in order to write our own playback software.
Plenty of projects, not enough developers...
And, of course, 87% of all statistics are made up.
Bolie IV
But on a more serious note, his comment about the Superbowl distribution deal was so dumb it bears commenting on. He was basically saying that removing regionalized contracts (or regionalisation a la DVD) on webcasts would reduce the market value to the NFL of the superbowl.
Hang on. Who pays for the contracts the broadcasters buy? Isnt it *advertisers*? And if I could advertise to a particular *person*, not just a *region*, wouldnt that be worth more? Webcasting allows you to pick up a user profile (via cookies etc) and use this to identify what other stuff a user watches, and (on a registered service) their age and income group, on *top* of their country of origin. You can then use this info to tailor advertising and product placement to the people that are actually watching.
There was also a suggestion that more people watching a broadcast by the same broadcaster would lose the NFL money. Hang on...what about hit counts? Webcasters should know, better than anyone but pay-per-view retailers, how many people are in the audience. A savvy NFL marketing droid would sell a contract for *worldwide* rights for webcasting, on a per-viewer basis, with a min. number of viewers paid for up-front.
The broadcaster then sells the targeted world audience to advertisers, who would lap it up. I have somewhat mixed feelings over targeted adverising - at least as a bald geek I'll get mindstorms adverts instead of shampoo :o) but its an intrusion into my privacy. However, it IS the future. In the same way that Mr Valenti IS the past.
If you think that the entertainment industry as such has the concerns of artists in mind, then either you are a dumb fuck who has never been anywhere near it, or your nose is so full of payola coke that you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground. Take a look at MP3; the artists come down much more on the side of freedom, because they know they get the shaft from the industry/old boys network/racket every single day. This suit is the attempt to make sure that the artists can't go directly to the consumer, and needs the syndicate to survive. Fuckhead.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Farragut Park, Washington DC
Target time: 5:30 PM Friday, 18 Feb. 2000
Date is locked in, time may be moved up.
Print your own flyers (check http://www.2600.com and download) and come to the park. Earlier is better.
If you shop in the area, drop flyers off at the places you shop, the merchants have been very supportive in the DC area.
Check http://www.DC2600.com for updates.
Thank you!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I'm simply using Clinton's denial as a metaphor for statements so obviously bogus as to insult the audience's intelligence.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Wow. After reading that article I could almost feel the sense of panic this guy is feeling at the new digital world. Yeah, buddy, the future is dark. However I don't think you can do much to illuminate that darkness trying to apply old, worn out legal methods to new technology. We have to come up with something new, or at least be prepared to change the law to reflect circumstances.
Anyways. I was wondering just where this guy expects to find hackers and pirates with hundreds and hundreds of free GBs to play movies. And just where all the people out there with these huge hard drives are. After all, when a single movie weighs in at 17GB, you'd think that that alone would be detrimental to downloading movies over the internet.
Further does anyone else notice that in his model you never own a song. You own a right to listen to the song. The fact that you're holding a digital recording in your hand is meaningless: its essentially not your property. Is this right?
I take some comfort in knowing that the old coot will be dead soon. Brother. What an idiot. Bury him next to his butt-buddy LBJ and be done with him.
For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know.
Much easier to send a copy of a movie to all your friends if its just a file to be put on an FTP site to be downloaded and viewed off a hard drive, rather than obtaining/burning/shipping the physical medium that the "approved" players require in order to view the content. So DeCSS isnt really foiling "copyright protection", its foiling "distribution protection" (albeit protection which is only a hindrance, not a prevention, to illegal distribution), which would supposedly lead to a much higher volume of copyright violations as well as greatly facilitate pirate operations. This is obviously the fear of the movie industry, copying/distribution that does not require a specialized physical medium to move the information.
The part I found most disturbing went like this:
So what constitutes fair use of a DVD in your eyes -- besides simply buying a DVD and using one of the MPAA's authorized players?
Any use by which you buy it at a price. [emphasis mine]
In other words, once we've shelled out for this little disc, you want us to keep paying over and over? The part that's really scary is that he really seems to believe what he says. He really DOES seem to think that each viewing should equate to buying a movie ticket at the theater.
Does this make him evil? I don't know. Before this article, I would have said yes, but now I'm really not sure. I don't think he believes he's being a bastard to all the consumers out there, only that he's doing what's best for his industry. Not that it makes it right, but I don't think I can condemn him quite as easily as I could before.
Actually, no. You didn't purchase or license the software component that decrypts the MPEG stream. I can go out and purchase all of the components to build a DSS receiver. But I didn't get a license from DirecTV to decode their signal, so I'm technically in violation even though I own all the right hardware and pay for their service.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
I'm sure you believe it is your right, but it very likely is not. You can make bathtub gin that tastes just like Old Mr. Boston, but you have no "rights" to do so because you aren't licensed to distill alcohol. You can file down the firing pin on your daddy's hunting rifle and make it into an automatic weapon, but it's not your right to do that either. To carry your argument to the extreme, you could make your own "compatible" thermonuclear device. Clearly, that falls outside your legal rights, too.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean that society grants you the
- right
to do it. In this case, you can reverse engineer a piece of proprietary, licensed software whose license terms prohibit that activity, and you can make your own DVD player. But you don't necessarily have that right under our current set of laws and are technically in violation of the license agreement and probably several intellectual property laws as well. Go to the next step and distribute that software to all your friends and the rest of the Internet and you can see what happens.Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
The interview seemed to miss the whole DVD issue. It seemed to talk more about television licensing than it did about the DVD issue. Which I think was the fault of the person interviewing Mr. Valenti. The interviewer started off right, but somewhere in the middle he started asking questions about iCrave, which is a different issue than DVD one. With DVD I went out and bought a DVD and I want to play it in my Linux box. With iCrave, they're streaming TV shows, which weren't licensed to them to broadcast in the first place. Would have been nice to have questions about DVD instead of the television questions.
Really, I'm a baby-boomer, and this man is old enough to be my grandfather.
By why mention it at all? We dislike ageism so much when we are young, why are we so quick to apply it?
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
- Corrupt, money-grubbing, marketing driven entertainment industry scared to death because it's death toll is sounding
- A LOT of technology loving, big-corporate hating geeks that are actively pushing for death of "the industry" (in it's current form).
In this clash, we (geeks) are ultimately going to "win" (get what we want) because that's the way it everything is naturally progressing.The old entertainment industry only makes sense when cost of distrubution is significant.
The new entertainment industry will follow TOTALLY different rules because distrubution costs are quickly approaching zero.
Once entertainment distrubution costs nothing, the only way "the industry" can hold onto it's income is by artifical means.
Wha-LA! DVD encryption. A way for the old industry to maintain it's strangle-hold using technology. Now that the technology has failed to uphold their artifical distrubution controls, they pull out the guns (force, in the form of Government).
That's how I see it at least.
Q: So what constitutes fair use of a DVD in your eyes -- besides simply buying a DVD and using one of the MPAA's authorized players?
A: Any use by which you buy it at a price.
So what he is saying is that if the guys in Norway SOLD their software he'd have no beef with them. A bizarre idea as this would make pirate videos legal because the copier charges you.
Another exec who has an idea what the internet is from listening to his golfing buddies, lawyers and accountants.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Seriously, though, this guy seems like he would get it if he weren't missing some vital clues.
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
And, the reason that iCraveTV has been succesfully litigated off the net is because they were adding their own advertisements to the bottom of the screen on their rebroadcasted signal. Fully illegal, and justifiable.
Wah!
Dvd is crap laserdisk is better for christ sake. I hope Fmd ousts dvd from the market as i am sick
of all the news i keep hearing about dvd it all
seems to be negative for linux users and the open source community as a whole .
I understand that, too. But I feel that this is a decision every person makes for themselves. And you can try your hardest to show people your way of thinking, and convince them that you're way is the right way to go. But I strongly disagree that you can take what someone else has done, and disregard how -they- feel about -their- work because of how -you- feel about -your- work. That's all I was trying to say.
- ----
The irony of this partial thread is the fact that these industry people are telling us that their way is the right way. Meanwhile, the people who take a stance on open standards are saying that there is no right way. But in order for us to show that there is no right way to do things, we have to establish the fact that the right way is that there is no right way. It is hard to show people how to get IT when they have blinders on and don't want to see that there really is no right way. The path of least resistance is often the one where you relinquish control. The MPAA does not wish to relinquish control of their cash cow, and we as an open standards supporters feel that by opening their stnadards they will still maintain the ability make money off of their industry, and also have a product that fills the void that they have created.
---------------------------------------
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
Wow, that is the first time I have seen the word "meme" on Slashdot, and personally I am shocked that I havn't seen it here sooner. I read it in a book called "Beyond Civilization" by Daniel Quinn. Mr Quinn borrowed that term from another author (the person's name escapes me at this time), and it is quite the perfect term for what is being described here.
- -------
I am going to give it my attempt to form a definition of the term for those of you who don't know what a meme is (sounds like theme )
meme: a cultural gene. A trait that gets passed from generation to generation much like traditional genetics. A meme is an idea, not a trait that we are born with, the only way to change a meme is to change people's minds.
This is a loose definition, please feel free to expand on it if you feel that my definition is inadequate.
------------------------------------
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
good catch...my Dad was in OCS (V-12 program) with Valenti in '42-43, and my Dad is 79. Valenti's is no boomer, but a "Greatest Generation" guy.
He's a lobbyist--he doesn't set policy for Hollywood studios on things like DeCSS. But if you can change his mind, he can influence the industry's mindset. He did this in the 1970s over film ratings, convincing them to do something in their own interest rather than risk government ratings.
---
So, all you need is an OC-3. Is this part of the typical DVD pirate's took kit now?
How did you (or your friend) save the file on the other end? What kind of file system allowed you to store the entire movie--say, 4-5GB. I'm limited to 2GB files right now under win or Linux.
Why would anyone use this method to pirate a DVD movie when they could just copy the disk for a lot less money, and much less chance of getting caught?
---
Jack Valenti is obviously an intelligent man. However, he is out of touch with the technological world. He has grown up with more traditional means of communication, and at 78 years old, I don't think he fully understands what it's all about.
/. interview. I've seen some very well thought out questions asked in /. interviews, I can't help but think that maybe a few well-worded questions might have him reconsidering his stance. Of course, it won't change things overnight. The fact remains that the companies need to see profit before they begin to like something.
Many have made the argument that by blocking iCrave and DeCSS, the MPAA is actually hurting the business of those that they are trying to protect. While this may or may not be the case, what needs to happen is that the companies need to see that they can profit from this. They don't give two damns about free speech. They want to make money.
I think Mr. Valenti would be a great
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
I would much rather see us lobby against DVD - goto movie stores and tell them about the evils of dvd and stuff. they probably wont care, but... heh. I mean, we could even get hard core and start handing out flyers to the people renting them. Just like the poster of the message to which im responding said, we need to use our market muscle. And I'd love to see someone come up with a more open standard - that supports the things that the dvd people want - region control, etc.. but that doesnt force you to implement it and doesnt force u to pay licensing fees. That'd win me over - then we dont run into the little record and movie companies getting pushed around by the big ones and stuff. I'm thinkin "ODRS" (Open digital removable storage) or something like that. hehe
Well of course Bill Gates doesn't know, duh...
404 File Not Found The requested
Why wasn't Valenti asked about DeCSS a bit more, namely, if he actually understands what it does, and that it's not a tool for making pirated copies? And that, actually, DeCSS would open up a much broader market of Linux (and probably other non-MickeySoft OS) to DVD movies? Why were these basic questions not asked? I believe Valenti would be glad to learn a few new things from the interviewer itself. We all learn new stuff all the time, and it's not like Valenti's head is too thick to "get it". He sounds like a smart guy and I have to agree with most of what he said. Too bad he wasn't asked the right questions.
(btw. Valenti is by no means a baby boomer, but you all know that already, don't you)
Sigged!
I think the interviewer took the wrong tack in questioning Jack Valenti. Instead of asking so many questions about iCrave he should have asked more about DeCSS. Personally, I think that iCrave is acting illegally and are violating real copyrights. That is a black and white issue. So, the interviewer should have spent more time on DeCSS which is a tool with legitimate uses. If he had raised this point and asked more questions about it, he could have made more impact on the DeCSS case.
I'm sorry to disagree with the vehement sentiment here, but I agree with the guy. Not in general now, but in this interview. The problem is that we asked the wrong questions.
In the case of iCraveTV, who can diagree with him? iCraveTV is taking copyrighted material, and broadband distributing it without a license. That is, without question, illegal. TV and radio stations cannot deliver whatever they like, only what they pay for. Remember that nice little "FBI Warning" that shows at the beginning of VCR tapes? That says that the owner is licensed for personal use, not distribution. The same applies to TV and radio broadcasts.
A more reasonable question is about DeCSS. He seems to want to legitimately distribute movies, but does not recognize the need to allow people to write playback software. I doubt he realizes that that there are people who cannot get playback software because of CSS. Put it in terms Jack Valentini understands: Do you know how many millions of Linux users cannot see these movies because of CSS? Do you know that you can copy movies without CSS, and that DeCSS only opens up a new market? Let him respond to that. These people must understand that DeCSS does not make them lose money, but helps them to make it. But when the hacker mentality surrounds it, they cannot hear the clear facts.
Here is the question that hit the nail on the head:
"How do you propose to stop 'pilfering?'"
I don't know.
This question refers to the larger issue of Internet distrubtion, and that is a legit answer. How do you allow for legal, copyrighted content distribution, without piracy? If I may coin a phrase, that is the "The Internet Dilemma." Noone is quite sure. We can talk about PKI and encryption, but we just don't know. And whoever can DEFINITIVELY answer this, will solve a monstrous problem.
*1)*
> Any process of copying involves a decode step and an encode step...
Only if you wish to segment it. Not disagreeing, just clarifying.
*2)*
Can you segment without deCSS? Even without decoding the file, could you split it up? If you can get structural info without decoding the frames, then it is no problem. How much can you read of a DVD without decrypting?
After seeing this guy's picture I remembered something from an english class I took. It was called media english and it taught us about how the various types of media (radio, TV and movies) worked, how they portrayed their messages to the world. In this class we learned how the Canadian Movie industry is hindered by that of the big Hollywood blockbusters. We can't compete. When we tried to impose a ratio system that would give Canadian movies $0.06 of the ticket dollar instead of the $0.03 they get now. The MPAA raised an uproar and threatened the government with the removal of many investments of companies who are in quite well with the MPAA. Jack Valenti gave an interview (which I saw in class) that defended his practice citing competition in the marketplace and quality work as reasons.
This guy has been on my list for a long time
(although his argument about sneaking into the theater is pure hogwash)
yes this is true.
if i BUY the DVD and cannot play it because i don't run windows, i still payed for the DVD, his "ticket."
If i buy a ticket at a movie theatre, do i have to pay for the projector as well?
I dunno, I don't really like this guy and how he is so closed-minded. We need someone with some technical knowledge in the area. And even if you do use DeCSS to get a degraded copy of the movie, you still wouldn't be getting the best experience. i'd think it's worth the $20 for a surround-sound high-res version of the movie, but not if i have to pay for the player!
This is, i believe, the principal argument of this case. These people don't understand Linux and OSS, and arrest people because they want to use THEIR media on THEIR machine.
And they still don't get that fair use policy.
And like all good people in the movie business, his life is on the web.
.... Himself (aide to LBJ)
.... Himself
From the imdb:
Date of birth (location)
5 December 1921,
Houston, Texas, USA
Mini biography
Texas born, Harvard educated, Jack Valenti has led several lives; a wartime bomber pilot, advertising agency founder, political consultant, White House Special Assistant, movie industry leader. In his current role as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association of America, Valenti has presided over a worldwide sea change in the industry, which has radically changed the landscape of the American film and television industry here and abroad. It is Valenti's duty and challenge to lead the U.S. film and TV industry's confrontation with these global dangers and opportunities. Born in Houston, Texas, Valenti was the youngest (age 15) high school graduate in the city. He began work a a 16-year-old office boy with the Humble Oil Company (now Exxon). As a young pilot in the Army Air Corps in World War II, Lieutenant Valenti flew 51 combat missions as the pilot-commander of a B-25 attack bomber with the 12th Air Force in Italy. He was decorated with the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal with four clusters, the Distinguished Unit Citation with one cluster, the European Theater Ribbon with four battle stars. He has a B.A. from the University of Houston (doing all his undergraduate work at night, working during the day). He graduated from Harvard with an M.B.A. In 1952, he co-founded the advertising/political consulting agency of Weekley & Valenti. In 1955 he met the man who would have the largest impact on his life, the then Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, Lyndon B. Johnson. Valenti's agency was in charge of the press during the visit of President Kennedy and Vice President Johnson to Texas. Valenti was in the motorcade in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Within hours of the murder of John F. Kennedy, Valenti was on Air Force One flying back to Washington, the first newly hired special assistant to the new President. On June 1, 1966, Valenti resigned his White House post to become only the third man in MPAA history to become its leader. Valenti has written four books, three non-fiction, THE BITTER TASTE OF GLORY (World Publishing); A VERY HUMAN PRESIDENT (W. W. Norton Co.); SPEAK UP WITH CONFIDENCE (Wm. Morrow Co.); his newest book is a political novel, PROTECT AND DEFEND (Doubleday, 1992). He has written numerous essays for the New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Reader's Digest, Atlantic Monthly, Newsweek, Cox newspapers and other publications. France awarded him its highly prized Legion d'Honneur, the French Legion of Honor. He has been awarded his own Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He and his wife, Mary Margaret, live in Washington, though he spends half his time in Los Angeles. They have three children, Courtenay, John and Alexandra.
Actor - filmography
(1980s) (1960s)
1."Vietnam: A Television History" (1985) (mini) TV Series
2.Rowan & Martin at the Movies (1968) (uncredited)
Notable TV guest appearances
1."Cold War" (1998) (mini) playing "Himself" in episode: "Vietnam: 1954-1968" (episode # 1.11) 12/6/1998
2."Freakazoid!" (1995) playing "Himself"(voice) in episode: "Chip, The: Part 2" (episode # 1.7) 11/11/1995
3."Freakazoid!" (1995) playing "Himself"(voice) in episode: "Chip, The: Part 1" (episode # 1.6) 11/4/1995
--
Chorizo
Why can't I?
Basically, my question is, why shouldn't the MPAA have the right to use whatever boneheaded methods they want to prevent people from seeing their media?
I'm sorry sir but you cannot read that comic book w/o using our BrandX 3-D Glasses. We will see you in court.
I hope that clarifies things a little. If I pay for a product, I own that product. Note Own, not license, OWN!
And drop the copying BS you don't need a German speaking photocopier to copy a note written in German. It's just another medium, same laws of Physics, Ethics, and Logic.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I was upset that the reporter missed the obvious follow-up question to Valenti's assertion that this case is about controlling theft,
How do you respond to the assertion that DeCSS while allowing copying of DVD content is IN NO WAY NECESSARY to copy that content and in fact CSS only restricts access to viewing that content?
Oh well, I didn't really expect that question because the reporter asserts that the DeCSS case is about copy protection in the second paragraph before the interview even starts.
I have heard a number of times on /. that the content can be copied bit by bit (which seems to make a lot of sense), I'd like to know if anyone has actually done this, if so then Valenti's arguments are completely bogus.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
regionalization, cartelization ...
that's the hole point, and i think it's unfair to call the very first pimp of the music industries clueless. I'm obsolutely sure he knows what his dogsofdoom are going for. And be asured, this is just the start of the campaign.
jsut understand that all the bucks don valenti's family was pumpin into this next big tec thingy (whatsit, deeveedee?), and let nobody try to blow their great idea how to secure local nationalized distribution networx, rendered completely useless in the digital age, by makin the customer pay.
And be reminded, moral articulation against capitalistic oppretion bought the indian nation it's coffin.
Apparently not, because now the MPAA says that I must only use software that they license to view the DVDs. OK, I'll accept that...point me in the direction of the Linux software. Oh, there is only an ILLEGAL piece of software that will help me out. So what are my options?
The MPAA has sent a clear message to me that in addition to my drive, mpeg card, and DVDs, I must also spend $100 + on Windows.
I agree that no one forced me into this situation. I did play my DVD's in windows originally, but I did this because I believed that I would soon be able to play them in Linux. I feel that the MPAA has not only locked out a potential market with their actions, but has damaged the Linux community with their accusations about the use of DeCSS.
"The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world..."
It sure looks liek they should be. Oh, wait, sorry, nevermind. There I go again, trying to apply logic...
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
"Any use by which you buy it at a price. It's like saying is there any other way you can get into a movie theater without buying a ticket. The answer is, you can sneak in, I suppose. But is that right? And if somebody says, 'You're interfering with my freedom of speech and freedom of movement. I just want to go into your theater but I don't want to pay any money for it' -- the absurdity of that becomes quite apparent. I'm baffled by some of the people that have written me [laughter] rather angry e-mails that I'm interfering with freedom of speech, and I'm a Luddite, and I'm trying to hold back the tide like an awkward king. I don't understand that. Because it literally makes no logic, no sense."
Isn't buying a DVD at a store and wanting to play it under the Linux OS "buy[ing] it at a price"? This guy is clueless... He totally skipped the implied question and turned the whole thing over to piracy again.
Reread the article yourself. The broadcasting part is concerning iCraveTV etc., not regarding DeCSS.
Sigh. My point was that the numbers he is stating now (6 billion) implies everyone in the world is on the net now, which is fabulously untrue.
As for multicast, it needs to be standardized first, then implemented in every router between the mythical Afghanian website and each of those 6 billion computers.
Thats not to say it won't get easier, or faster. But even in 20 years, I doubt it will be possible "instantly" (his words) to send a movie to "6 billion" people, of which most of them don't even *have* computers. Even with fat pipes, even with multicasting. The fact is that most of the world is not and will never be on the net.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
But if it was on the Net, 6 billion people would have access to it.
I had no idea all of China, India, and Zimbabwe had computers and ISPs! Such progress in such short time! (Maybe that's why AOL's stock is so inflated?) I doubt there are even 6 billion TVs in the world.
Now, you put it on some obscure Web site in Afghanistan and all of the sudden, it's in every computer in the world, simultaneously.
Wow! I never knew pipes to those third-world countries were so fat! And the net has the bandwidth to transport a 5GB move to all of those 6 billion computers simultaneously! (What is 5GB x 6,000,000,000 anyway? Are that many molecules in the universe?)
[The net] is an extraordinary new delivery system.
That's all it is to him.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
All I know is that 18 months from now the technology today will seem very primitive.
The quote above is typical of someone who doesn't want to understand technology. He is purposfully ignoring the possibilities of the internet, trying to cripple it so that it conforms to his business model.
Assumption: Propriety and profiteering are better than freedom and sharing
Conclusion: The internet must be controlled or destroyed
Assumption: Our content must not be viewed, transmitted or copied outside the bounds of it's licence
Conclusion: we must make it illegal to view, copy or transmit data outside the bounds of it's licence and make it impossible to do so, just in case our licences are overridden by the law.
Making it illegal to circumvent the access prevention scheme even if used for legal acts is the really neat touch.
If people like Jack have their way, the internet won't be as we know it anymore. It'll just be another pointless cable-TV system with more channels full of meaningless shit than ever.
I have been in meetings with the Bill Gates and the Warren Buffets and Jay Walker, and Jeff Bezos, and Jerry Yang, and all these people, and they don't know where it's going either.
Now this I find a little scary.
Yeah, just men... Just men who control huge industries and rewrite laws to suit their own purposes. Just men who impose restrictions on international trade and how their products are used to squeeze every dollar possible out of everyday people. Just men who would rather impose their controlling regime on everyday people rather than do the hard work of stopping real criminals.
Let's see - lack of social ethics, delusions of doing good, hired goons to the dirty work, lie to the public when convenient. This guy is only a lycra suit and an underground laboratory away from supervillian status.
Actually, a mechanical wheelchair with built in weapons would probably be more appropriate.
Don't you yanks have nice retirement homes?
threadeds blog
Funny, that seems to be the principle (sic) occupation of the binaries groups on Usenet, too. I guess we're all in it together. Thanks, Jack!
I mean, yes, it should be legal for you to copy a DVD movie onto your harddrive *as long as you own it.* Those are the key words. But who actaully does this? The possibility of illegal use is there and that is why the MPAA and other such organizations are fighting deCSS, mp3, or whatever. It is legal for you to d/l an mp3, *only if you own the song already* but who the hell actually does this? People get the songs they don't have, and this hurts those artists that would have gotten money if those have actually bought it.
There's the argument saying that people wouldn't buy the CD or song anyway, so d/ling the mp3 would just increase the popularity of the artist. But why buy the CD or song at all when you could get it off the net. People may have bought the CD/song if they couldn't get it in mp3 format, but since they could, why spend money, when you don't have to?
Some people say CDs are too expensive and the RIAA and MPAA are ripping you off.. well, hey, no one's forcing you to buy those CDs or movie tickets... it's called supply and demand, if you're at the placeon the curve where you feel it is too expensive, then you don't have to buy it, but stealing it, i.e., whether it be d/ling an mp3 or sneaking into a movie theater is wrong.
The underlying concept Valenti voices in the interview, which some readers here have bought into, is the idea that programs themselves have an intrinsic value, and that people who produce them "deserve" to be compensated when someone else gets ahold of the product. I doubt Valenti really believes this, because the MPAA's actions show clearly that they understand that an item's value is only what people are willing to pay for it. The content they are trying to control has more value because it's scarce: you can only get it from one source. And like diamonds, the value is kept artificially inflated by controlling how much of the product is available in the market. That is, members of the cartel Valenti refers to as a "copyright assembly" allow limited licenses for shows or music so that no license holders are competing for viewers/listeners in the same territory.
Certainly that's been a profitable route for studios in the past, and the Internet holds the potential to end it (insert here predictions of doom by music studios who feel threatened by MP3) but like the music studios, he misses the new opportunities created when the material reaches a much larger audience than the relatively limited group who want to pay directly to watch or listen. Increasing access doesn't necessarily reduce sales overall: reduced direct sales of music or movies could be made up by increased sales of other stuff associated with the group/movie, or by that perennial favorite, advertising on the sites where people go to get the content. And at least for movies and sports events, people will still pay to go see those in person because almost none of us have the facilities to recreate that experience at home (at least until virtual reality becomes more like genuine reality). But when the artificial scarcity ends, all the studios can see is their loss of control over the artificially small market, and that blinds them to the possibilities of a new paradigm that takes advantage of the hugeness of the new market once distribution limits are removed.
Valenti is right to refer to his cartel members as businesses "to which copyright protection is vital"--without that ability to create artificial scarcity, the whole house of cards as they know it comes down. He claims that the nation's economy will suffer if that happens (apparently foreseeing the demise of the entire movie and broadcasting industry), and if the interviewer had asked he'd probably say that nobody would make movies any more because they wouldn't be able to get their money back. But we know that's not true: independent filmmakers are all over the place, borrowing from family and maxing out their credit cards to make a movie because they have something to say. And bands are continually putting their OWN material up as MP3s to let people hear it. Loss of access control would suck a lot of the money out of the current system, but it wouldn't be the death of creativity. And if it brought the salaries of movie stars and sports "heroes" down to less than 9-digit levels, I for one wouldn't shed a tear over it.
Jenny
Perhaps he means "Any use by which you buy the use for a price." That would cover the fact that he obviously expects you to use an MPAA-sanctioned player.
Jenny
DISCLAIMER: I'm not affiliated with Vitaminic nor MPAA/RIAA
I have read the acticle and I was stunned of the short-sightness of Mr. Valenti. I don't know if Salon intended to show him in a bad light, but they surely succeded in doing that.
IMHO, the MPAA is missing the point in their view of the long term. They act as they will always have full control of what is broadcast/played/etc. But have they envisioned a future where the artists don't go after them to sell their works?
What if appear an indipendent company that distribute MP3, films and other content on the Net with a fee very low and attract the new artists? The air supply of MPAA & RIAA will last a generation and then (perhaps) they won't have enough money to continue their bullish operations.
In Europe Vitaminic.com has begon to operate this way, they distribute MP3 of new artists. In the USA MP3 also operates with a similar model.
MPAA and RIAA are like headless chickens that are running away trying to save their heads from being severed and without realizing they are already dead. Perhaps they will manage to win in US courts, but the Internet law will prevail.
the Lord Snow White
Ironclad Security only exists when you have Chuck Norris on the shift. Do we really have to discuss this? (Plutonite)
As an aging baby boomer myself, I resent the clueless Jack Valenti, a man born in 1922, being called a baby boomer. Just for the record, a baby boomer was born in the years 1945 through 1963 with 1953 being the peak year. Valenti was a member of the Depression/World War 2 generation.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
Com'on people. He's just a senile, clueless old man. He doesn't have his facts straight, he's not able to differentiate fiction from reality, he has no clue what's going on.
Oh. Wait, what? He's in charge of the MPAA? HE is the person making the final decisions?
God Help Us.
> What do you mean when you say "ole' boys
> network"?
The "old Boy network" usually refers to almost
an informal monopoly. Companies and individuals
who have been in the buisness for a long time and
know eachother.
I am not saying people shouldn't know eachother,
however, the result of this is an small clique
who control an industry.
The only way to get anywhere in the industry is
to work through the network. Remember phrases
like "Its not what you know, its who you know".
If I remember right, 90% of US media is controled
by 4 men.
> Their whole gig is about getting their due. They > work to do a certain thing, they get their due.
I supose we are not to question what is really
due to them?
> I mean, most people here at Slashdot like free
> software, but hopefully few would say "You
> -must- give away all your code."
There are many differnt world views and
philosophies in the world. Not all of them are
compatible with yours.
Not everyone sees what you would probably term
as "Intellectual Property" as property that can
be hoarded (still others would even argue that
hoarding physical property is 'stealing' and is
a resource that belongs to the masses)
As for being hopeful that their are few of us
who would argue these things...I hope our
numbers increase myself.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I think the fair use that Valenti is thinking of is "however the movie industry wants you to watch the DVD" - so that the price you pay is for watching that movie on the approved player.
Of course, IMO, this is complete BS. You should be paying for content that you can then view/consume however you like. When you buy a book, no one tells you how you should read it. The same goes for a DVD. I thought Valenti's movie theater analogy was weak. Sneaking in to watch a movie has nothing to do with choosing the way you want to watch a DVD that you paid for.
I didn't get the impression that it was a softball interview. Seems like the Salon guy pressed him, but I'll bet this Valenti is as hard as nails and there was only so much pressing he could do. I just wished he would've argued from a content standpoint.
Just a quibble -- Jack Valenti, at 78, is no baby boomer. He's a baby boomer's father.
But you shouldn't. Does DirectTV mind if you use some alternate, as long as you pay their monthly fees? I don't know, I'm asking.
As far as the cable company is concerned, it's perfectly legimate to buy a cable modem from someone else (as long as it's approved, for many obvious reasons, by the cable company) as long as you pay for access. I was given the choice - and they recommended a brand and model, if that's what I wanted. I chose to lease their modem, since things are changing so fast anyway.
I don't see that this argument flies at all. In fact, cable descramblers are perfectly legal to buy - you are still required, by law, to pay the cable company for the content, buy you are not required to rent their boxes. This is why many cable companies now have the ability to cut you off at the source, instead of the destination.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
They many not be, but they sure act like it. Have you read the DMCA? The DMCA is what happens when MPAA and RIAA lawyers get to run free, and it reeks of damage to the consumer. It's disgusting. I think that's why you're seeing so many people getting upset here - these non-supervillians are attempting to control what we do with our legally purchased equipment! Whatever happened to Fair Use?
I believe the point is that you pay for content by purchasing the DVD. You are licensed to view the content indefinitely for non-commercial use solely on a reader licensed to decode the DVD format.
Where's this alleged license agreement, then? There's not even the dubious hook of a shrinkwrap license to hook this argument on - DVD packages dont' say anything about a requirement to view the DVD on a cartel-approved player. They just say it's for home viewing only - same as any other copyrighted video content.
"Free movies eventually mean no movies" is not the same as an equivalent statement about writing, coding, or speech. Why? Because writing, coding, and speech effectively only take time. A writer can write when he isn't at his day job, so can a programmer, etc. The cost of entry is very low for high quality product.
However, books are not free writing nor is TV free speech in the monetary sense. You have to pay money for books. You watch commercials on TV. There is a market for $7 paperbacks out there, that is why they are made. There are no more scribes, there are now printers, but job of putting words on paper still costs $.
Now look at free movies. All you need is a camcoder, tv card, and some software and you can make a cheap movie for practically nothing. However you still need lots of $ to distribute it. Robert Rodrigues made El Mariachi for $5k but it still cost $100Or you can distribute it on k to distribute it. Well, you could distribute it on the internet for free, this works for fan movies like on theforce.net. But you don't recoup any of your losses so making the next one gets harder. And because of the cheap equipment you recorded it on, the movie will probably look like crap.
Have you seen low budget movies? I have and they tend to suck. Bad. Pro movies can hide their flaws, they have learned to professionally and pay people to find them. Amateur movies don't. The only good amateur movie that has come close to Hollywood is The Blair Witch Project. That's because they managed to write the cheap production techniques into the script.
So Hollywood or some other proprietary institution will still have control of all the really good content out there. Should they offer it to people at home for free instead of on VHS? No putting the movie on VHS or DVD costs money, why bother. Instead they simply will abandon the home market and put their movies on cable and broadcast TV, because this costs them less and they make a small profit.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
I hear what you are saying. Other people who have replied have disagreed and I'm not in a position to say if you are right or wrong.
The thing is that copying is not necesarilly illegal even in America. Americans are allowed to make copies of "The Matrix" if they want. It's distributing them and viewing them that make it illegal.
In Germany, people are allowed to copy rented movies and watch them later (with familly and friends only.) Germans pay a special tax for this right and DVD is trying to take their rights away.
Personally I think it's fairly stupid to have the DMCA in America. The copyright law before says that you are allowed to make copies for personal use but then the DMCA says that you are not allowed to figure out how to copy stuff if it's copy protected.
Personally, I'd like the Law to decide who can copy what and not some stupid corporation.
We do have the moral high ground on this issue.
It's good to be fair. But you assume that DeCSS actually makes copying easier. Some people would disagree with you. I don't know if it does or not. But certainly it's not the only way.
Sure, this must be scary for them. No one really knows what the internet will be like in 10 years. But they won't starve... Actors will still get payed. Movies will maybe be cheaper but markets will be larger. I don't ever watching a pirated movie while in the United States (Although I watched one or two in Kenya) Why? Not because it's hard to copy a movie but because copying movies is lame.
They have no authority to take away our right to copy movies where it is legal. I should be able to watch DVD's with Linux if I freaking want to.
We hold the moral high ground here.
"So what constitutes fair use of a DVD in your eyes -- besides simply buying a DVD and using one of the MPAA's authorized players?
Any use by which you buy it at a price."
That quote is actually very significant. All that the DMCA prohibits is decrypting, etc., without the authorization of the copyright holder. If that isn't authorization by the copyright holder to play legally purchased DVDs by any means one chooses, including a DeCSS-based player under Linux, I don't know what is.
Disclaimer: IANAL
I don't support piracy and I don't think most of us who support DeCSS and its author do. Valenti would do well to understand that if he doesn't. My personal feelings on the matter is that no matter what he says about "wanting to do the right thing" he is really only concerned about keeping the power within the movie industry's elite's hands.
Who thinks that the world will start downloading DVDs.
It's easy to copy a video, but people still buy them don't they. It's easy to copy a CD, but people still buy them.
DeCSS won't stop people buying DVD's. We just want to play them on the device of our chossing. DeCSS is the first step to that.
After reading yet another softball-filled interview (well, to be fair it looks like the reporter tried to ask tough questions but didn't follow through), I wonder if any reporters tried to ask Valenti the questions which come up over and over again on Slashdot? I haven't read every last Valenti interview available on this subject, but it seems like no one ever points out to him that DeCSS doesn't do much to prevent illegal redistribution. In the Salon interview, Damien Cave gets Valenti to say that any use of a DVD by which the consumer pays a fair price is fair use. But Cave doesn't follow up and ask Valenti to map this onto DeCSS. Valenti says he wholeheartedly endorses the prosecution of Jon Johansen, but the reporter never gets him to say why. We know from other interviews that Valenti for some reason thinks DeCSS will facilitate copying, but this reporter misses the opportunity to press him on that bizarre issue. Valenti then accuses his email detractors of illogic, while in the same response to a direct question about permitted uses of DVDs, all he really talks about is copying. The issue raised by DeCSS isn't copying, it's viewing. But both Valenti and Cave ignore this completely.
At the same time, at some level I sympathize with Valenti. He is trying to protect a very big industry, and he either knows or suspects that what he really wants is impossible. If I can see it, I can copy it. No copy protection scheme is liable to have any lasting effect on this, once they let me bring a copy into my home. I don't personally copy movies, and I don't plan to put them up on a server. But people will, and it's possible the movie industry will eventually be harmed as a result. Of course, that will take some time. Even music is not quite there yet, although MP3s sound reasonably good. But even if Valenti's concern is legitimate, I have a hard time mourning the Hollywood machine. As much as I have enjoyed the occasional big budget movie, I think they're a reasonable price to pay.
I would DEARLY love a SlashDot interview with Jack Valenti. What do you think Rob/Jeff? Do you think you could swing it?
Count my vote for this, too. In fact, I'll submit this into the story contribution list.
You've brought up some things I hadn't thought of, but after thinking about it, I gotta say I haven't changed my mind.
"You can make bathtub gin that tastes just like Old Mr. Boston, but you have no "rights" to do so because you aren't licensed to distill alcohol."
I wasn't aware I had to have a license to distill alcohol. Bummer. I was actually going to, too, for a alcohol burning engine I'd like to build. I'm not into drinking the stuff, personally.
"You can file down the firing pin on your daddy's hunting rifle and make it into an automatic weapon, but it's not your right to do that either."
Some people would argue there's nothing wrong with having such a weapon, as long as it isn't used in a crime. Examples of that being, a storeowner defending against a rampaging mob, the US Army using them to drive Hussain out of Kuwait, or Austrailian farmers trying to wipe out their rabbit infestation.
Personally, I can't stand guns - horrid, nasty, brutish things. But it's very important not to give up our rights to have them if we choose.
"To carry your argument to the extreme, you could make your own "compatible" thermonuclear device. Clearly, that falls outside your legal rights, too."
Actually, this is my favorite example... granted, a private citizen doesn't have many ethical uses for a nuclear bomb, at least while he's on Earth.
Asteroid miners could (and I'm sure they will) use nukes to break asteroids into smaller pieces, or carve out a crater to get deep inside. The Orion drive uses small nukes for propulsion. A thousand tactical hydrogen bombs would work great there. A large radar dish might use a gigaton nuke to generate an EMP, then listen for the bounce-back, ala Arthur C Clarke's Spaceguard. An asteroid colony might find itself on a collision course with another asteroid, very close, and the only choice might be to nuke the asteroid into rubble.
In short, private citizens don't need nuclear devices on Earth, but we will in space. Actually, if you count cold-fusion research and electrostatic fusion reactors as "nuclear devices", then it's very important to keep our rights to build and use nuclear devices, as long as we don't hurt anyone.
"Just because you can do something doesn't mean that society grants you the right to do it."
Maybe that's our fundamental difference of opinion. I'm a right-leaning Libertarian, so I believe rights are a default. We can do anything we want to, so long as it hurts no one else. If I hurt someone else, then I deserve to be tossed in jail or worse. But until that point, I'm totally free to do anything I'm able to and want to do.
Btw, I'm not talking about what's legal. I'm talking about what's ethical. If you want to talk about what's legal, I'm not qualified.
"Arguing that you shouldn't have to use their player is like arguing you shouldn't have to have a DSS receiver to watch DirecTV broadcasts or you shouldn't have to buy your cable company's cable modem to hook up to their net."
Actually, it's like arguing that once I've paid for DirecTV access, I can toss their DSS receiver in the trash and build my own, better one. I'm not stealing anything when I pay for cable, then use a software decoder to watch that cable.
"The bottom line is that no one is forcing you to buy DVDs and the DVD playback software is a licensed product."
No one is forcing me to buy DVDs, in fact I've been boycotting the MPAA for some time now. No cable, no movie theaters, buying no tapes or DVDs. If I want to watch a movie I wait for it to be on broadcast tv, or I borrow it from the library. In the meanwhile, I have a stack of books to read...
"So don't expect unrestricted access to playback technology. You're misinformed if you think it's your "right" to have it."
Oh, I don't care about their playback technology. But I can make my own, compatible playback technology, and there is not a thing wrong with that. That's a right.
Doesn't he remind you of the evil sttion manager from the movie UHF? Weird Al rules! >:)
Never go out to fight for freedom and justice wearing your best trousers.
>my point remains: DeCSS CAN BE(and indeed IS) >used for copying DVD content.
This just in... All parties are currently under court order to cease distribution of "cp" and "dd" as they can be used to copy digitized information!
--8<--
I was going to post this quote but thought I'd read through the earlier posts first. It reminded me of the way people argue with children when the kid says something correct that makes the adult look like a moron. The adult in the situation ussually laughs the child off for the benefit of on-lookers and tries to ignore the truth (this goes out to anyone who spent high school wondering why his teachers couldn't answer any questions).
Anyway, it seems like the MPAA et. al. are like the adults who've been shown up by a child (or in this case an intelligent and resourceful young man, and the "collective intelligence of the Internet"). Their feelings are hurt, they dignity is bruised, and they happen to be rich and powerful. What do powerful people do? They lash out.
This will all seem like just another growing pain of the Information Age eventually, it's the interim that will suck. Yes, there are important issues at stake, and there are no easy answers, but issues as important as these shouldn't be decided by media-baron thugs and self-serving lawmakers (who should solve them though? Any volunteers?)
--8<--
Well the same thing will happen to the movie business and once it does, their monopoly on the means of productions (my, I sound socialist today :-) ) will evaporate. And once that happens, their content will dramatically decrease in value.
With the new press in home movies on the iMac, i guess you could say this.. But i think the bigger issue is the means of distribution. If the MPAA doesnt embrace internet based distribution of hollywood-type movies, then they are going to faulter.. because someone else will do it. Call them pirates or Information Freedom Fighters or whatever, but as long as there is product placement in films, the studios can make money. Hell, they can make even more money if they put it on the 'net.
"Mr. advertiser man, this new 30 million dollar hollywood film is going to be on the internet and therefor accessable by billions.. were charging more for product placement now."
Not to mention the fact that all their merchandising can reach uganda and china and burkino faso and ever other nation. (is burkino faso a nation?)
Pity about all this, as I love dvds.. blah, greyhairs.
no
Here is a quote from Mr Valenti :
For example, in analog you have to go down to a Blockbuster store, then you have to copy it, then it has to be sent physically. Somebody's got to take a truck or a car or DHL and get it to another country. There is a brutish kind of awkward distribution system. Not so on the Internet, where some obscure person sitting in a basement can throw up on the Internet a brand new motion picture, and with the click of a button have it go with the speed of light to 6 billion people around the world, instantaneously. It's totally different, totally different. First off, there is still the akward situation where someone has to go and buy this DVD. Secondly, I don't know that many obscure people sitting in their basements who have the bandwidth to distribute +- 5Gig of data to the 6 billion people in question. Let alone at the speed of light being discussed. For even one person to download a 5gig dvd image you'd have to have a ton of available bandwidth. For 4 or 5 people, even more. For 6 billion people downloading this 5gig image at a realistic speed, you would have to have more bandwidth going into the back of your machine that you can buy. And all this to save £18 pound on a DVD? I don't think so!
While we're on the point of all this bandwidth that you'd need to have, take into account that America is one of the few places with unmetered Internet access. It's coming to Britian, but slowly. And the rest of the world? I used to pay for my 'net access by the minute back home in South Africa. Same goes for most of the world. The cost of downloading this 5gig file would just not be worth it.
But I would like to make it known that if this is the kind of bandwidth floating about down at the MPAA, I'd like a job there... I only have 320K... Light speed would be nicer. Someone please beat this man with a clue-stick!
Exactly! Let the MPAA have their fun. Let's just move on! I mean from what I've heard, most musicians get shit for their record sales from the record companies. They have nothing to loose and everything to gain, unless you believe in playing the lottery of trying to make it "big."
With the advent of things like that Linux movie maker, we really are comming to the point where we can just tell them to go fuck themselves and make our own better content.
As I said, I know of one person here who HAS pirated DVD content over the Internet. I don't mean he had a DVD burner somewhere else, he simply ripped the MPEG content with DeCSS, then sent the resulting (v. large) file over our OC-3 connection. Funnily enough, he DID get caught...
Anyway, it isn't DeCSS we should worry about, but css-auth and css-cat. DeCSS is of no use for playing DVDs under Linux - that's what css-* are for.
The really sad thing here is that encryption CANNOT be used to make an anti-piracy system - but explaining/proving that is extremely difficult. I suspect that "the movie industry" went to some technical company who sold them an "anti-piracy" system (CSS) claiming that it would prevent piracy provided the keys and algorithm were kept secret.
Now, you and I both know perfectly well that this is technically impossible - but they don't (which is why they got someone else to devise the CSS in the first place). Just like all those sites which installed Windows Not Tested as a mission critical server, then discover they are having major problems - but their technical guys won't admit NT is a poor solution, because they are the ones who chose it. Instead, they go looking for scapegoats - hardware, other applications, "hackers", the weather etc.
In short, though, DeCSS can be used for piracy, and has been. So can we just shut up about how this Windows program "is only useful for playing DVDs under Linux" please?
Yes. He took a DVD, used DeCSS to rip the unencrypted MPEG data, then sent that across an OC-3 Internet connection about two weeks ago.
This would appear, IMHO, to be DeCSS's primary use (after all, there ARE other WINDOWS DVD players).
Personally, I think we should ADMIT that DeCSS is indeed a tool which can be used for pirating DVD content over the Internet (given a fast enough connection, which most of us do not have yet) and quietly drop it. Instead, the battle should be fought over css-auth and css-cat which ARE tools for playing DVDs under Linux/*BSD.
I meant the purpose for which it is currently USED and DISTRIBUTED by many - namely as a DVD ripper. I have already read most of the material (including the source code...) - my point remains: DeCSS CAN BE(and indeed IS) used for copying DVD content.
Excuse me here, but IANAL and I'm british, so this seems like a bit of a strange statement.
:)
:) and tape the proceedings from there with a good camera & zoom? That seems *really* strange.
:) as I can see those being an artistic work. But playing a sport? The game itself under copyright? Someone tell me I am mistaken here, and that I have got things wrong.
Is it meant literally? Like the NFL owns the copyright to the playing of a game, and to all the possible works that can come from the recording of any aspect of such?
If so, how is a particular game, in its totality, being an instance of a group of people playing a sport, considered an artistic work, and hence protected under copyright law??
I can understand a content providers (i.e. TV station's) recording of that event being an artistic work. And I can understand a stadium wanting to prohibit recording materials into a stadium, so that it can then waive that prohibition for a large fee to content providers. (And to waive it exlusively to a single content provider for an even larger fee
But is it under copyright law in that is is illegal for me to fly a helicopter near an open-air NFL stadium (providing I can get my flight plan approved
Now, I can understand the scripted perfoming of actions under copyright (such as the acting of a play, or professional wrestling
Something that's just occurred to me. Where would unscripted artistic performances (such as 'Whose Line Is It Anyway') fall under that? Hmmmm....
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
hehehe check out my clipboard:
"...some obscure person sitting in a basement can throw up on the Internet a brand new motion picture, and with the click of a button have it go with the speed of light to 6 billion people around the world, instantaneously. It's totally different, totally different."
what i was going to say was: this guy is 78 years old. 78!! but the real kicker is that he doesn't know anything about computers, the internet or the digital economy. sure, he knows what it smells like in the cockpit of a fighter plane over italy in WWII, and what it sounded like when JFK got shot 6 cars ahead of him, but he should realize that CNN and MSNBC are not information enough to base his point of view on.
i would say he should step away from the case, because he seems ignorant to the big picture.
"..Constructive critizism is always welcome however."
I'm still not seeing how they came up with the idea that anyone is going to easily be able to pirate DVD movies... at minimum they're going to be a gig or two. More if the original quality is kept. If they want to stop pirating movies. Work on keeping people from stealing them from the theaters. Or bringing their cameras in and taping it. Furthermore. Anything that makes it to DVD would be old old news on the warez scene. Nobody would care by that point, so the issue is mute there anyways.
Hrm loving these
Now, isn't it possible that you and the Motion Picture Association, having been in an old-medium mentality for a long time, just don't really get what all of this freedom means?
You're suggesting that there's not one single smart guy that works for any of these companies. I just take exception to you. I don't believe that simply because I understand the Internet that I'm smarter, that my vision is longer, my understanding is deeper. That's foolish, totally foolish. We've got some of the most extraordinary people in the world. We've been working with Cal Tech and MIT, and others -- New York Institute of Technology; the finest brains in the so-called technological world, and that's going on all the time.
I think both sides of the debate understand each other well enough. We have a fair understanding of the legal situation, and they have a fair understanding of the technology involved. Fair does not mean perfect, but it's good enough. I don't belive that either party is incapable of comprehending each others arguments, it's just that they don't really want to. I belive that many people are missing the underlying problems that are fueling this battle.
The real issue is one of ethics and, in a way, philosophy. Two completely different points of view are involved. We consider our basic freedoms to be sacred. We feel that we should be able to speak, code, and transfer information as we please. It's not surprising that alot of us get irritated when someone, especially an "outsider" tells us we can't. Valenti does not see the world this way. His environment is one of big business, where the dollar is sacred. His goal is not to freely distribute information, but to maximize profit. In the interview, I find it funny that several questions about freedom are answered in terms of money. He's not concerned about being fair to the customer, he's concerned about licecing terms. He feels that a buisiness should be able to increase profit by just about means deemed legal. The two conflictiong viewpoints are really independant of the technology and the legal issues which they surround.
So, who is right? Well, I belive niether extreme is correct. There has to be a balance. We should have a right to fair-use of information, and they should have be able to make a fair buck.
However, there are a number of smaller problems that need to be resoveld in order to find a solution. How much control over thier intellectual property should they have? Should corporations be able to enforce things like region codes or, for that matter, shrink-wrap licences? How much more money and power are we going to give up to corporations? Where is the line that divides fair-use and piracy?
It is nieve to belive that corporations will ever be able to completely enforce and control the use of their products. At the same time, we must realize that even they have some basic rights to thier intelectual property.
Life is pain. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
I wrote this letter to the editor and though that it would be appropriate to have it posted here as well.
In this article, the author Damien Cave was explaining the lawsuits that the MPAA is currently active in. Damien described the DeCSS lawsuit to be against "a program that can unscramble encrypted digital video disks (DVD) and let people copy them."
I would like to know from what source Damien learned that the decryption allows for the disk to be copied? It is my understanding as a programmer/data analyst that the media can be copied with the right equipment whether the data stream is encrypted or not. It is like taking a book in a foreign language that you do not know and copying it; as far as the copying process is concerned, it just makes a duplicate.
Later in the interview, Damien asks Mr. Valenti the very important question "So what constitutes fair use of a DVD in your eyes -- besides simply buying a DVD and using one of the MPAA's authorized players?" This question was the most interesting part of the entire article. This question is the question that most proponents of the DeCSS program would like to ask the MPAA yet Mr. Valenti avoided it completely!
You may ask Why is this question so important?
DeCSS allows for a DVD to be decrypted. The encryption does not prevent copying, it prevents the unauthorized viewing of the media content. In accordance with the Digital Millennium Act (DMA), the MPAA copyright protects the way the DVD is viewed. The DeCSS program allows people to view the content on a DVD on different computer Operating Systems that the MPAA has not offered compatibility for. Furthermore, the DeCSS program also allows people to view media encoded for one region to view it in another region. (If you do not understand the region coding on DVDs, then don't buy a DVD player until you do!) Well, the lawsuit is about CONTROL and what constitutes 'fair use' and 'interoperability'. The big question is "Does the MPAA have to right to control how you watch a DVD that you bought??" Many feel that if they buy the movie, they can watch the movie as they please, and the MPAA is concerned about the possible ramifications of that. It is up to the courts to decide whether the DeCSS program falls into the 'fair use' category or not. This is also the first case to really challenge the Digital Millennium Act that was passed last year.
I wish that Mr. Valenti could have answered that question rather than giving an analogy that implicates 'fair use' as walking into a movie theatre without buying a ticket!
There you go, let me know what you all think. Do I understand this case well enough? Am I missing something? Does the MPAA see it this way??
Moderate parent post up, please.
This is very *true*.
...but I would disagree with your last sentence. They *do* help create and market the content, no?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I think the biggest problem that the MPAA is facing with the DeCSS case is that they're trying to stamp out illegal distribution by axing both illegal AND legal copying and viewing. The overkill here is what has people up in arms. If it were a measure that somehow prevented only piracy, we wouldn't have had nearly the amount of outcry that we have had. But no one likes it when their freedoms are slashed because someone suspects that they might abuse it.
Why is it that anyone who ever has a dissenting opinion "paid" by the opposition? Why do "DeCSS is bad" posts always get marked as paid for by the MPAA? Why is everyone who says they like NT more than Linux attacked as being a plant of Microsoft? Some people...
They do have the right to use whatever boneheaded methods they want to - just as we have the right to circumvent them via legal reverse-engineering. If they put a provision in the liscense agreement stating that "this DVD can only be viewed on an MPAA-approved player," things would be different. Of course, that would pretty much make their intent crystal clear and might cause public outrage... better to be sneaky about it.
Dang! The interviewer hinted toward asking, and then let it go.
The question: Why can't we play purchased DVDs on non-MPAA authorized players? That's what this whole debate should be about.
-JimTheta
My stupid web site
- Arguing that you shouldn't have to use their player is like arguing you shouldn't have to have a DSS receiver to watch DirecTV broadcasts or you shouldn't have to buy your cable company's cable modem to hook up to their net.
- The plain, simple fact is that there are all sorts of regulated, metered, for pay content out there. DVDs happen to be one form. Complaining that you have "rights" to watch it any way you please is simply unfounded, given the ample precedence for other forms of content with controlled playback mechanisms.
As the first replier pointed out... DVD is a product. Internet Service Provision, Direct Satellite System is a service. In a service you pay for the fact that the administrators of the service are continually adding value by performing the service for you. With a product, the value has been added once, you pay for it once and after that it's in your hands.
- the real issue is simply one of market economics.
if that's the case, then there should be an antitrust case against the MPAA for their monopolistic licensing practices.
- The bottom line is that no one is forcing you to buy DVDs and the DVD playback software is a licensed product. So don't expect unrestricted access to playback technology. You're misinformed if you think it's your "right" to have it.
(software) DVD Players are licensed, yes... but 1) would that make DeCSS any more legal if it had been brute-force reverse engineered... eh, probably. 2) the licensing system in itself is more than likely in violation of the law, that doesn't give us the right to violate licences we've agreed to, but if the license isn't binding on you (i.e. jon in norway) then there's not really much that can be done about it, unless you want to encode exclusivity clauses into click-wrap licenses for windows software players which isn't the case. DeCSS in theory shouldn't be touchable because it was legally produced: the contract preventing one of us from making something like DeCSS by reverse engineering is in all likelihood not binding on him, so it's fair game.
Physical players themselves aren't licensed; they're physical property, not intellectual
Physical DVDs are licensed, but in the same sense as movies... that you can use them for private, non-commercial applications, and you can't redistribute... you've read the FBI WARNING i'm sure.
in short, we do have legs to stand on, even if we're certain to be knocked over and have them cut off by the flaling sword of justice.
__
alt.geek
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
The same could be said about VHS. just try and watch a video tape without a VCR. i don't agree with him, but i am able to see his point of view. as for the statement being crap, it isn't. in fact, it isn't anything. the man said nothing except lie about his involvement in the arrest of JJ.
the fact is DeCSS in it's origional incarnation is not a copyright violation at all. it was created as a vehicle for legally purchjased dvd's to be viewed by a market which the MPAA has made a conscious choice to ignore, namely linux users. why is that so hard for people to see (i know there's plenty of people on slashdot who do see that, but i'm ranting)?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
> most likely born before 1927.
:)
The first paragraph says he is 78. But at least you know he's not a baby boomer
--
http://gammatron.weblogger.com
What I want to know is the bonus on offer to Jack Velenti to pull this off. I mean he can hardly sit there having done some 40 odd flights in the desperate attempt to free us from slavery and communism to slap us on the face after a couple of generations telling us to behave and do as we are told.
We need to end this trend to believe that more is good, go back to roots (and I don't mean go and live in a cave), enjoy living instead of fighting over something that nobody is quite sure of who owns, if anyone, something. Jack Valenti should step down and let some younger talent into the picture, to bring some fresh meat as it were, to the argument. Maybe then we may see a change in attitude of "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine".
c0rarc
It will be the same way with the web and low or high band access. You should accept the fact that historic organizations like the motion picture industry never actually adapt to radically new technologies. Instead, the old organizations are slowly eclipsed by new ones that have figured out how to work the new medium.
What's going to happen with the web is creative individuals are going to figure out how to use it to deliver content, and that content will be optimized, molded, and written especially for an internet world. Instead of putting so much time and effort into preaching at people who's job is to uphold the status quo, we need to give time, money, and exposure to people and organizations who are dedicated to taking advantage of the net.
One example of how this might work is a site like mp3.com. What I do instead of getting pissed off at the RIAA, is purchase music from individuals who don't go through the traditional power structure. Organizations like the RIAA and MPAA won't change until its too late-- that's their nature. You might as well accept that fact and start supporting the artists and organizations who are doing things right. Michael Czeiszperger Raleigh, NC
Round of applause to Salon for this one.
I disagree. I think it was mostly a softball interview, especially where DeCSS was concerned. Valenti was asked what he thought constituted fair use of DVDs, and replied "Any use by which you buy it at a price." At this point, the interviewer could have pointed out that CSS made many such fair uses of DVDs difficult or impossible, and that DeCSS re-enabled consumers to make those fair uses. (The example of the person who wants to copy a movie to his laptop hard drive so that he can watch it on an airplane without having to spin the DVD drive would be good.)
It would have been great to force Valenti to admit that yes, the MPAA is happy to prevent consumers from doing various perfectly legal and legitimate things with movies they've bought and paid for.
If software to do that decryption is available under a 'free' license (i.e. DeCSS, I believe), you do not need to purchase such a license. And since the CSS algorithm is not patented, there is no need for authors of software like DeCSS to purchase a license to use that decryption algorithm in their software.
is totally jumping on this quote: "a program that can unscramble encrypted digital video disks (DVD) and let people copy them." WTF!?!?!? I can copy DVD's all friggin day long, right now, without DeCSS. (if someone has made this point, I didn't see it - sorry) Now, it admittedly does give a pirate the ability to make a perfect digital copy of the original MPEG, as opposed to having to copy the analog steam coming out of the codec. But I would opine that pirates give exactly 1 rat's ass about their pirated copy being sligjtly less than perfect due to copying the analog stream. I guess one day I'll quit being dumbfounded by how ignorant the average reporter is
mas cerveza, por favor politically incorrect stu
But what about videogames? And software?
The gaming industry has surpassed the music industry in earnings, IIRC
Both groups have been concerned with digital piracy longer than Movies /.,
but...at least from what I've heard mentioned on
They've adopted a different approach to the problem, going after actual pirates rather than panicking and prosecuting everyone with a CD Burner, or, heaven forbid, A Hard Drive!And don't even mention that vast collection of evil programmer's tools (Disassemblers, Debuggers,oh my!)
Could someone tell this guy to get some professional help? And no, I'm not going to say what kind ;)
He still remembers the time when his old good gramophone was replaced by a tape player, but that was not too bad. You can still manufacture your tapes, of course you can make copies but the quality goes down, and there is no way to make more copies at once as you have tape players.
Of-course digital internet made it easier to make copies and distribute content across the entire world and by allowing 'some obscure website in Afghanistant' do so, this present is intimidating him and all others like him.
Oh, well.
You can't handle the truth.
hehe would be great, but actually, if it's in southern california, you could blame ciggarrettes, conservatives, high sugar intake from too many twinkies, anti-whateveryouhappentobe hehe, note to LAPD, this is where your corruption could come in handy, nothing like a little 3rd world assassination buddy
My god, when will you people ever learn?
Yes.
Now that's an alibi. Oh well, so much for that theory...
Why do you call that an alibi? Lee Harvey Oswald was at a 130 meter distance. A car is about 6 meters long, assume 2 car lengths between cars, then 6 cars behind would put Valenti closer to JFK than Oswald...
From the /. moderator guidelines: If you can't be deep, be funny
Not involved? C'mon!
Evasive?
Yup, he sounded evasive. And clueless as well on some questions.
I don't know. All I know is that 18 months from now the technology today will seem very primitive. Technology is just baffling everyone in the celerity with which it's looping, so the answer is, I can't give you an answer. But by God, we're going to find one. We're devoting a lot of resources, with our kinsmen in the copyright arena.
Yeah? Well you guys are definitely not working fast enough.
Come on. The guy's 78 years old for cripes sake. Boomers range in age from 55 down to about 40 or so. But he is an old fart. That much we can agree on.
:wq
the MPAA not over their stance on DVD, but because he does not get cast as the Tom Cruise character in any of the good flicks.
His number one demand is being cast in a movie called Top GNU, where he is the daredevil, out of control renegade coder. Stallman insisted on doing a nude scene, but the movie snack industry did not want people to lose their apetites in the theater and puke up popcorn everywhere.
That frightens me. Nowhere does it say MPAA didn't 'politely' ask Norway to arrest him. The effort was undertaken by the authorities, but maybe not without outside influence. Maybe I'm just a paranoid nutcase, but also it is interesting that he was brought to the US to be tried... Hmmmm....
On a somewhat unrelated note, isn't the MPAA responsible for Princess Mononoke (Excellent, btw, well worth the $15 I paid to see it 3 times in a row-Elendale (Chops off heads with arrows...)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
-Elendale (Boycot the MPAA! Read a book! They don't own any of those yet!)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
I think that using the argument that it is impractical to copy DVDs or bradcast high quality content is a week one, using it gives the impression that this is the only barrier to a mass of illegal copying, and using this bad argument lends credibility to other stuff arguments the MPAA put forward (in the eyes of someone impartial).
They can always give the example of recordable CD which has dramatically reduced in price.
What the argument should purely focus on is our right to use information we have payed for however we like.
The question which put forward this argument was the only one with a valid counter argument.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
D BREAK - CONT repeats
This guy reminds me of many of my co-workers. Someone that I would probably like if they weren't completely clueless about their job and too thick-headed (or stubborn) to change their ways.
kwsNI
Better yet, let's cut the quality by 10 and then watch it. Hmm, wouldn't you get better quality duping VHS like that?
kwsNI
So, Bill Gates, where do you want to go today?
kwsNI
I'm not flaming you here, but what does a president that can't keep his pants zipped have to do with DeCSS?
I guess I'm not seeing a real connection between the statements from Valenti and Clinton.
kwsNI
"And in the last several years, we have been intentionally, seriously and energetically concerned with combating theft of our intellectual property."
Theft of Intellecual property? Isn't that like the proud owner of a 1972, lime green, beat-up Dodge POS with no tires and no stereo worrying about his car being stollen?
kwsNI
Gotcha, thanks.
kwsNI
people who talk about free trade always seem to want free trade when it's in their favour and protection when it isn't
Different definitions of free I'm afraid. To a (evil, communist ant-capitalistic etc.) person like you it means unrestrained. To a (benevolent open-minded generous etc.) organisation such as the MPAA, it means free as in Beer.
If the extinction of the dinosaurs didn't kill him, nothing will.
Well, there are some signs of lacking a clue. He seems to think that the purpose of DeCSS is to pirate DVD's rather than to watch them.
Based on this assumption, his opinions on the matter are totally reasonable and consistent. He just doesn't seem to want to consider the possibility that we might want to view them legally.
He seems to think that the only way to deal with rebroadcasting on the internet is to prevent it from happening.
If you think about this a bit further, you realise that the total viewing figures are actually increased, or at worst constant.
This means that if some countries TV stations lose out on revenue, it's because people are receiving it from another country, and increasing the audience figures for the other station. So simply charge more to the companies that are being rebroadcast, and less to those that are losing out based on the predicted number of people who would prefer to watch the superbowl on the internet.
He also doesn't seem to realise that it is easier to digitise an analogue video or analogue output from a DVD player than it is to use DeCSS to do so.
And while he seems to have talked with the Bill Gates, he doesn't seem to want to talk to the Linus Torvalds.
Okay, so clueless is kind of strong, but he doesn't really seem open to alternative viewpoints.
A better analogy would be that we should not have to pay for a ticket then be charged for a seat.
It's just sad to see someone who just doesn't seem to get IT. We have to remember though, these people are relics from another era. They are the old guard on their way out. As long as we keep up the fight for more Open technologies, we will defeat them in the long run. Mr. Valenti, if 6 billion people demand something, neither you nor the greedy corporations you work for can ever stop them. Too bad no where near 6 billion people have internet access yet.
Infect your mind: http://pcp.lanl.gov/MEMES.html
"... the other case aims to prevent people from using DeCSS, a program that can unscramble encrypted digital video disks (DVD) and let people copy them...."
./'ers know, this is _almost_ the case.
This is what is happening with the entire DeCSS trial and media saturation; They don't understand it, yet they report as if they do. In the above statement from the Salon reporter, DeCSS is classified as a "program that can unscramble and copy dvds". As most
The media either, A: Doesn't understand the purpose of the DeCSS code (to enable playback of DVD's) or B: Understands what the DeCSS software is meant to do, yet reports on it the way it does, because it makes for a better story. Blame it on the evil 'hackers', they want to steal things, and copy DVD's all over the world.
End of my pointless rant.
Ben Brewer
brewer@nullified.org
An interesting interview that provides insight into the mind of an aging baby boomer...
He's 78 years old. That puts him a full generation older than baby boomers. If you guys are going to flame someone based on age stereotypes, at least get it right.
"Not so on the Internet, where some obscure person sitting in a basement can throw up on the Internet a brand new motion picture, and with the click of a button have it go with the speed of light to 6 billion people around the world, instantaneously"
What net connection does this guy have?!? It takes me minutes just to download a large gif image!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
It may be that bandwidths will increase dramatically (although I still think "speed of light" is pushing it), and it may be that everybody in the world suddenly gets net access (assuming there are still around 6 billion of us), but considering the rate that bandwidth speed increases in Europe and the cost of connecting, I still think it will be cheaper for me to buy the DVD even in 12 years time! (Assuming we're still actually using something as antiquated as DVDs!). It'll still be cheaper to get a DVD-writer and a set of unburned blank DVDs from somewhere in Asia. P.S. I have a 56K modem, and I _still_ can't download a 4 meg file in under 2 minutes from a most places!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Because there is an important lesson here that a
lot of you don't seem to have learned.
To spell it out for you - these people are just
that, people. Not some cartoonish corporate
supervillians sitting around trying to think of
ways to screw the public out of their god-given
rights.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe for one second
that things like region encoding and CSS are
beneficial to the public. And I am rooting for a
sucessful defense against the MPA and DVD CCA in
court.
On the other hand, I find the words and actions of
many of the people here to be as distasteful as
those of either of those organizations. Afterall,
at least the MPA hasn't yet suggested murder as a
way to enforce their opinion on others.
*sigh*. Everyone on slashdot seems perfectly willing to babble on about Valenti being clueless, even though he's clearly a savvy businessman. (working for the minions of evil, but still reasonably intelligent)
It gets to the point where the criticism becomes even more inane than the original point. Seriously, how long will it take until you *are* able to send a DVD in just a few minutes to millions of people. Five years? Ten? Two?
share and enjoy
Man, Salon needs a little work before they're ready for serious journalism. As far as I can tell, this article was just the interviewer throwing a couple of softball pro-piracy questions out there, and letting Valenti swat them around with the company line. If you want to run an interview, fine. Ask the person about their work or whatever it is that makes them interesting to people. If you want to do a "free information vs. corporate control" piece, then don't make it into an interview -- have people write some point-counterpoint articles, or maybe even an ongoing email debate... Oh well, I guess it's better than the interview with Orson Scott Card, where the interviewer talked about herself for about half the write-up.
share and enjoy
"You're suggesting that there's not one single smart guy that works for any of these companies. I just take exception to you. I don't believe that".
...............................................
The movie and TV industries? Of course they're filled with geniuses, look at the brilliant and informative programming that they create.
I don't know if I agree...I mean, look at how many new shows are pulled off the air after only a few episodes. And look how many 150 million dollar movies bomb, often because they expected the public to be swayed by a few special effects shots and some dramatic music..
He and the readers /. need to rent the movie - Gone With the Wind - A sotry about how an entire society that was based off the false foundation of slavery, and the consequences that followed. Today, we are just as foolish. A trillion dollar industry is built on the false assumption that copyrights are a basic right, but they're not - and when new technologies force the issue - the consequences will be harsh.
damn, he dug himself in such a deep hole in that interview. talk about a 78 year old person who should retire and not make choice as to what and what shouldnt be in the industry. he is completely clueless
Good points. The biggest problem we see in folks like the MPAA is the lack of imaginiation needed to harness the potential of the "net" and other new media. All of a sudden, they have dropped at their feet a way of distributing works throughout the world for next to nothing in terms of a real business cost. Just think, they can do away with much of the distribution infrastructure and its attendant costs by going direct to the consumer. Yet, they spend a lot of effort trying to reign it in. It boggles my mind. The net and its ablity to distribute artistic works at a very low cost is what's making it possible for me to start up my recording label. I suspect that in a couple of years I might be able to get away with not even pressing physical CDs.
The biggest problem is in creating a culture of trust that makes consumers want to pay the price of the work--be it music, video or whatever--rather than pirating it. Really this problem is nothing new, but its crucial because without the payment, the artist doesn't get paid, and can't devote their time to the art. The old school media people controled physical production and kinda imposed a payment scheme. Even with the advent of tape duplicaton and so forth, if the consumer wanted a high quality product, they had to buy into the big comnpanies' infrastructure. With the advent of digtial communications that doesn't hold tru anymore, and that brings us back the golden rule. Rather than try to impose technological restrictions media enterprises need to make the consuming public aware that if they don't kick in some cash for what they want, the artists aren't going to be able to produce it. Mind you, the big companies are also going to have treat their artists a lot better in terms of getting a share of the revenues. Thats the other side of the new media coin here: the tech is cheap enough that small--almost hobby operators like myself--and the artists themselves can go into business. The established media represented by the MPAA is facing a dual threat to the way they do business: Small competitors and a growing number of artists who decided that they don't need the big guys to distrbute their work. So, the MPAA and their ilk has gone into attack mode to defend their effective monolopy. What do they attack? The tech that made the threat possible and the people who support and develop it.
Stanley Kubrick (the director of A Clockwork Orange) withdrew the film in the UK soon after it's initial release. With his recent death his estate have now reversed that decision and the film is (or soon will be) released in the UK with an 18 certificate. It was not therefore 'banned' in the manner implied by Spud Zeppelin. Many have speculated about Mr Kubricks motives, but I don't think that anyone realy knows the reason for his decision.
See http://uk.imdb.com/SB?19991207#5 for more details.
I have seen several interviews of different people here on /. recently... how about we put together some questions to ask him in the samne manner as these other interviews?
... just my $.02...
I think you're on to something. You may have actually just done something that apparently rarely happens on Slashdot: help someone change their mind. I have been on the DVD Forum's side for the entire saga, but I may have to seriously commit to rethinking my stance after reading your post. Interesting...
MODERATE THIS UP!
I have a website. It's about Macs.
The vast majority of net users couldn't use DeCSS, nor could they store a DVD movie locally...
I have a website. It's about Macs.
That is assuming that movies stay at the current size. We all know DVD will be surpased by a backwards-compatible medium that stores far more information that will seem just as sluggish to transfer over my 100MBit connection of the future as a DVD over my 10MBit connection of right now.
That increasing bandwidth argument doesn't hold, in fact it runs counter to his analog-doesn't hold-a-candle-to-digital argument.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Primarily?
I have a website. It's about Macs.
After reading this interview, I really wonder how people like this get to be in the positions they are. This is a classic example of "I really dont have a clue but I know its wrong syndrom". This is the typical excuse of big business. This type of mentality is destroying the "open-ness" of the internet.
I bet if you asked this guy if he knows how much harddrive space is consumed by one movie he wouldn't know that either. Why hasn't this been brought about in the case ? Its clear that it would take the better part of a day with the fastest DSL or cable modem to d/l a single movie.
I really dont even understand how a Judge can rule on something that he does not understand. Until this ingnorance ploy it eradicated in the Justice System, these types of cases will coninue to prevail, and destroy the internet.
I hope that we will begin to see people take public office that have been exposed to the opensource movement and the internet while they were in college. When this starts to happen, then and only then will there be significant change in the way the Government (clueless) and big business (even more clueless patent whores) can throw there weight around.
</RANT OFF>
Being 78 years old, and having flown missions over Italy during WWII, it is incorrect to say that this guy is a Baby Boomer. He's a member of the generation of Baby Boomer's parents who returned from the war and set about restoring the diminished population level, with great success BTW.
;-)
However, being mixed up with Kennedy, a case could be made that he is a Communist, which is pretty close to the same thing, but, while all Baby Boomers are Communists, not all Communists are Baby Boomers.
In the end it's all fascism, or at best an oligarchy.
I have to say this: That guy knows precisely NOTHING about what DeCSS and MP3 are for. He says that only if you pay him for the priviledge of using the DVD should you view it. That's crap. I paid for the god damned disc, didn't I? And as far as MP3's.. I've bought albums of mp3's from emusic, d/l'd legit tracks by the disc-ful at mp3.com, and copied CD's to my MP3 player for the road (when I'm too god damned lazy to copy to MiniDisc).
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
I know that Salon isn't exactly an outlet for the technologically savvy, but I'd have hoped that they would have at least gotten part of it right.
t i/index.html
I'm talking about the quote:
".... the other case aims to prevent people from using DeCSS, a program that can unscramble encrypted digital video disks (DVD) and let people copy them."
In response to this, I emailed the author and the editors of salon. It's probably a lost cause, but education is our best bet.
You can reach the editors of salon @
http://www.salon.com/contact/letters/index.html
And the author of the article @
dcave@salon.com
Feel free to use or discard the following email.
Hello,
Slashdot recently linked to your recent interview with the head of the MPAA. The link is below:
http://www.salon.com/tech/view/2000/02/14/valen
In this article, near the top, is the following quote:
".... the other case aims to prevent people from using DeCSS, a program that can unscramble encrypted digital video disks (DVD) and let people copy them."
I have to take exception to this comment. The DeCSS code has *NOTHING* to do with being able to copy a DVD. The encryption on a DVD disk is such that you can make a bit for bit copy onto a hard drive, or another DVD and the movie and the encryption will be intact.
It's *STILL* cheaper to go out and spend $20 on a DVD than go out and spend money on a DVD-RAM drive that you can copy it to. In other words, you're not going to get ANY significant benefit from copying a DVD, wether you do it with or without the CSS Encryption.
The MPAA suit is about one thing, and one thing only:
The control of CSS license fees. Every maker of DVD players has to license the technology from the MPAA (I believe). None of these companies has yet put out a DVD driver for the Linux (or any other unix derivative) operating system.
The Norwegian programmers reverse engineered a Xing DVD player to create code to do what the DVD players do in hardware. This allows people to watch the DVD's they LEGALLY PURCHASED on their linux box.
This isn't about piracy, this is about the right to watch the movies you've legally purchased on the platform you wish.
When a publication with the reach of Salon publishes that the DeCSS case is about copying, you further the cause and aims of the MPAA, who is trying to control the public audience, who is probably not aware of the lawsuit, except as one against "some hackers".
I would hope that you'd correct this mistake somehow, but unless it's public, I'm afraid it may be too late.
is this pissing thing a new troll genre, or have i not been paying attention lately?
in either case, may i suggest "did natalie portman piss in your grits?" as some hot new slashdot lingo.
one things for sure, that old fucker needs someone to piss in his pace.
-hemos
I'm hemos., aka Jeff. Bates.. I help run this site, along with Rob. Malda.. I handle books, and generally posting storie
"Well, can you imagine broadband access, a 2000 percent improvement in the quality of the technology? And you let an iCrave get away with that? Why, it would put those television stations out of business."
Valenti just does not understand. iCrave T.V. won't put the television STATIONS out of business, it will put the Sony television manufacturing division out of business. All that iCrave does is to level the playing field causing increased competition. A television station in Halifax will now have to worry about competition from a larger station in Toronto. But that same Halifax station will have the chance to reach to a broader market if they are broadcast on iCrave too.
Exactly! His analogy to wanting to sneak into a movie theatre is way off. A better analogy would be that we want access ramps put into the theatre so all patrons can get in equally.
Today very few people have T1 links in their basements, but that doesn't mean things will be the same in 5 years. It wasn't even 12 years ago when my bestfriend upgraded his 300 baud modem to 1200. If you had told us then that you could download a 4 Meg file in under 2 minutes from your home, we would have died laughing.
If bandwidth increases as much in the next 12 years as it did in the last 12, I suspect downloading an entire movie to watch in realtime will seem simple.
The reason this concept draws a blank is because there basically _aren't_ any in the public eye, because both the music media and film media industries are heavily controlled. However, this is really the best counterargument against the RIAA and MPAA- given enough access to the market, at some point people may be copying indie music and film _more_ than the copyright protected works of the industries.
There seems to be this assumption that the nature of technological empowerment is strictly to turn good consumers into bad consumers- there's this Berlin Wall between the consumer and the artist, and if you don't live in Hollywood or LA you couldn't possibly be an artist, therefore you must be a pirate. The idea is that there will never be content created except by the industry- so if content piracy gets too out of hand, and the ability to make and duplicate media gets too accessible, the industry will wither and die leaving nothing in its place. And all the industry artists will starve and get regular jobs (pointedly assuming they're making anything with the industry! Which is rather statistically unlikely), and then all the consumers will sit on their butts, with no music and no TV and no films at all, because there will be nobody left to produce them.
This _is_ fscking absurd, of course.
The trouble is, there need to be more artists driven to support new media in the same way that some programmers feel obligated to support free software- an ethical decision that furthers a particular agenda, even at the expense of profits or popularity. It turned out that once a certain number of people were using free software things snowballed and we got Linux. There need to be a certain number of people ready to produce MP3 music, to produce some sort of film that can be distributed on mainstream media, to get a similar power base against the media industries- only then can media start to be seriously decentralised, much as communication is now seriously decentralised what with email and the Web and all.
The trouble is, we're at a point where (intentionally or not) the industries are taking steps to block access to independents. It wouldn't take much to make consumer DVD players refuse to play indie DVDs- they already refuse to play out-of-zone DVDs, which is already an abuse of their power over the new global economy! You can hunt for budget DVDs on eBay, but the players are set to refuse to play such DVDs. BMG has been attempting to introduce a new CD format that is no longer Red Book CD Audio- if things go badly we could not only lose the ability to author our own films on DVD, but even the ability to author our own music CDs on CD-R. This goes beyond having CD-R taxed so that if you author your own music you are forced to pay a tax to the very industry which is fighting you and trying to crush you (which is what already happens)- it goes all the way to attempts to legally forbid you to author media for the public at all, based on the fact that you're using the same recording media as 'media pirates'.
It is really a shame that the Salon interviewer didn't think to ask Jack Valenti about these issues. Of course, he has been so successful in hurting and blocking other movie producing markets (such as Canada, see Nebular's post) that it doesn't even occur to most people that anything other than the MPAA can make a film- or that anything but the RIAA can make a CD.
_That_ has to change.
Forgive me for being contrary, but this _is_ exactly the same as the claim, "Free software eventually means no software" or "Free writing eventually means no writing" or indeed "Free speech eventually means no speech". In each case, a type of creative behavior that can be worth money is being competed with by the same behavior done freely. This only hurts the commercial offering to the extent that the commercial offering is artificially maintained above its freemarket value. There was a time when engraving was very expensive, and scribes were well paid for their access to pens and paper and ink and their ability to write things down, an ability the regular person did not have. I'm sure they argued that free engraving eventually meant no books would ever be written, and that the written word would die out completely because peasants couldn't write. Of course, Gutenberg yanked _their_ chains even worse- another example of technology destroying culture. Look at the Yellow Pages- do you see a _single_ _scribe_ listed? So, logically, the written word is dead...
Regarding software, people (perhaps even you yourself, 'Life Blood') made this very argument, that free software would so hurt the profit margins of commercial software that all software would die and there would be no software left. Well, the reality turned out to be this- if you want a free software author to write something in particular, hire 'em. The free market miraculously survives, cutting away the deadwood, shaking loose the dependence on artificially high profit margins and making the capitalists _compete_ as they claim to want to do. It seems that most capitalists would really rather be either the State, and be communists, or the Biggest Stick, and be fascists. I frankly see very little real capitalism in the arguments of capitalists- you'd think they would accept the challenges of further capitalism, but they always want to win and then be protected from ever having to lose again. Only natural I suppose, but the world doesn't work that way.
With regard to movies, what free movies will mean, what independently-authored movies will mean, is that the studios will have to actually compete for a change. They will have to make special effects so grand that you _want_ to go to a theater to experience them. They will have to hire better writers than the amateurs can (seemingly not a problem, or so you would think). They will have to hire better continuity people, grips and gaffers and the whole crew of people for making serious movies, and actually produce not 'product' but genuine works of art- and then they will have to have the merchandising ready and be able to sell you things based on the chances of their movie being copied from here to Taiwan with _everybody_ watching it and talking about it and being excited about it.
Isn't that what they _want_?
Imagine 'Men In Black' being viewed _everywhere_ on release. Now, consider the profitability of a 'flashything!' toy, perhaps with a little strobe. I'm not aware of them ever making one, but this would be an absolute slamdunk of an idea- and potentially as profitable as the movie itself, as you don't _have_ to sell a toy at $8. A sufficiently good Flashything(tm) could go for $30 and still sell like Furbies.
The clincher is this: MIB developed that mindshare not by marketing pressure, but by being a damned good movie as movies go. In order to be able to do the merchandising and take advantage of people copying your movie, take advantage of 'flash mindshare' and having the world suddenly mad for Flashythings and Will Smith, you not only have to allow the copying, you have to MAKE A GOOD MOVIE. People won't copy it if it sucks! The only way you'll really get that kind of saturation is if you really do a good movie! Only then does it become possible to use the other methods and sell toys and run a Men In Black 'Everquest' clone for money etc. ad creativitum.
And if you do an equally good movie that's up against the MIB, and you're successfully stopping anyone from copying and MIB is _not_ limiting copying- you lose! You blew it- you saw slippery data as a threat, they saw it as an advantage, _they_ are the ones on top of the big fad movie of the moment and _you_ are out to lunch, your carefully guarded theatre profits in the toilet because everybody spent the money on FlashyThings(tm).
This is inevitable. It's merely a question of who can figure it out quickest- and what media ends up making it possible. If DVDs do not, then DVDs will go the way of Beta and VHS tapes and vinyl records- eventually the technology will go to the point where it _is_ possible to DL entire movies in a few scant minutes, or send them about in an envelope by third class mail, and this whole scenario of slippery-data as a weapon will play itself out- and the world will never be the same.
_Text_ used to be only for the rich- until Gutenberg.
1) When the (supposedly) clueful media just can't get it right regarding WHAT DeCSS actually DOES, they CANNOT expect the respect of the clueful community they so desparately seek respect from.
they've all banded together to try and make it clear to the Congress that if a hosting or thievery or absconding or illegal use, or unauthorized use of the property of all these enterprises -- which, by the way, dominate the world -- is allowed to go untended by some kind of a protective shield, the nation's economy is the loser.
2) Now THAT's scary. This guy really believes that not only do these mega-entertainment-conglomerates actually "dominate the world" , he says so in a tone that actually screams "and that's the way it SHOULD be, damnit". I'm surprised noone has brought this up yet.
The prosecutor was made aware of the violation of copyright law. But the MPAA doesn't control the Noregian government or their prosecutors; they can only lodge a complaint.
If the MPAA filed a complaint, then Valenti was lying when he said they weren't involved with his arrest. Saying they weren't involved is like me firing a bullet at someone and claiming that I wasn't involved in his death. It was just between him and the bullet.
So you do agree that once you've bought the DVD drive and the DVD disk, you have the right to use whatever tools you want to view it on a Linux computer?
Of course. However, you do not have the right to distribute those tools, or to repurpose those tools to violate studio's intellectual property rights by copying the tracks off the DVD for potential redistribution across the 'net.
The simple fact that 99% of the 'net using world cannot download a dvd movie from the net due to bandwidth and/or time constraints would seem to signify that the primary use of the DeCSS software is, in fact, something other than just ripping copies of dvds to trade with friends. It has also been demonstrated that you can't watch dvd movies using Linux without a software player that requires DeCSS. Even if a commercial player becomes available, there's no reason anyone should have to purchase it. There's also no reason that the DeCSS creators should have had to distribute it in binary form only. The encryption algorithm is not protected by patent, and no copyright was violated in its creation. The only reason this thing is still in court is because the MPAA lawyers got the judge to look at the DMCA in some backasswards way that effectively removes a consumer's right to fair use. If we aren't allowed to bypass encryption (even a token encryption scheme that is trivial to break) for the purpose of achieving interoperability (in this case, in order to view the contents of a dvd that we purchased on Linux), then the MPAA has effectively granted itself much more powerful copyright protections than the law itself ever did. Therefore, I believe that DeCSS's use (and distribution) should be allowed under fair use guidelines.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Primarily?
That's the real question. I think that since the vast majority of 'net users couldn't possibly download a dvd movie, the primary use must be for simply viewing movies that were legitimately purchased.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Thanks. I like that quote. I think I'm going to make it into my .sig.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If what you say is true, and I'm not entirely sure it is, then there are a lot of serious legal inconsistencies that need to be resolved. If the courts have ruled that I can make a copy of a CD or tape, then why isn't the same logic applied to DVD or any other format? I believe I also have the right to make an archive copy of a software program, whether this violates a EULA or not. I think I should have this right for any medium, simply because they can all be destroyed relatively easily and I shouldn't have to re-pay for content that I've already purchased simply because the storage media is fragile.
I'm going to have to find someplace where I can read the courts decisions and rationale in cases related to copyright.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
That's the small picture view. Is using DeCSS within fair use guidelines? I would personally agree. However, the big picture is one where just about everything movie ever produced can be reproduced and downloaded in the same way we download a tarball today--and pirated just as easily.
No, that's the current situation, and in the here and now, people are being prosecuted for exercising their rights. I don't give damn if it will be possible for half the net users in the world to download a movie five years from now. It has nothing to do with prosecuting people for publishing or distributing the unpatented CSS decryption algorithm. They had reasons that have nothing to do with what will be possible five years from now. Their acts should be entirely legal. If the government wants to take some real action regarding copyright law in the future, then let it do so, but let's have it be discussed and very visible to the American people. After all, its their rights that are on the auction block.
_Sprocket_ posted this quote from the Betamax case that seems pretty relevant to the DeCSS case.
From the Betamax case (US Supreme Court, 1984, Sony Corporation v. Universal City Studios):
The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
By that standard, I think the DeCSS case should be tossed out.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
In other words: To screw the consumer. That reason cares no weight, and it shouldn't. I'm very sympathetic to other businesses need to turn a profit (as a fellow business owner), but not when it comes exclusively at the cost to me and is not market driven. Region Codes create an artifical shortage of product, and do not benefit the comsumer. Why would a consumer want to spend more? (Its a rhetorical question - the answer is they wouldn't).
The prosecutor was made aware of the violation of copyright law. But the MPAA doesn't control the Noregian government or their prosecutors; they can only lodge a complaint.
Thats only partially true. The MPAA is a very powerful political powerhouse. They may not directly control the Norweigian government, but they also do not directly control the US Government, and yet their wishes become law somehow thru the US Congress. The reason behind this is very simple, they're a very powerful political lobby. Look at what Jack Valenti used to do!
Its the epitome of niave to believe he couldn't get the Norweigian government to do his bidding. Especially in a case that is hard to explain to the unwashed masses, and is very unlikely to be challeged or questioned by the Norwegians. Don't forget, US courts have bene persuaded by the MPAA to restrict freedom of speech for the MPAA. This is nothing for someone like Valenti to do.
Need I remind anyone that he used to work for Kennedy and Jonhson? I'm sure he has plenty of political favors owed him, and can walk the halls of congress with impunity. Can you imagine what sort of money the MPAA can bring to bear to support a US political? Imagine having the MPAA help run a campaign against you... the threat of that alone must be enought to cause most polticians to buckle on the spot.
And you don't think he can pull some strings and ask the Norweigian government to have one insignificant kid arrested for supposedly breaking a copyright law? If you believe that, you don't understand the world of politics. The MPAA has plenty of control over the Norwegians just like its got the entire US Government in its right pocket.
--
Python
Python
Yes, I know that argument. But if you think about it a minute, you will see that the digital world is as far away from the analog world as the lightning is from the lightning bug. For example, in analog you have to go down to a Blockbuster store, then you have to copy it, then it has to be sent physically. Somebody's got to take a truck or a car or DHL and get it to another country. There is a brutish kind of awkward distribution system. Not so on the Internet, where some obscure person sitting in a basement can throw up on the Internet a brand new motion picture, and with the click of a button have it go with the speed of light to 6 billion people around the world, instantaneously. It's totally different, totally different.
No its not. You still have to get in a car and drive to blockbuster, or where ever and get the DVD or VHS tape in both cases (analog and digital). In both cases you can copy either the VHS or DVD into a digital form or "analog" form (I think he means physical versus non-physical copying), and in both cases (the analog copy of the movie and the digital copy of the movie) you can with the "click of a button have it go with the speed of light to 6 billion people around the world, instantaneously."
And in both cases, DVD and VHS, you can also pirate them the "old fashioned" way, which doesn't seem to have such a high marginal cost of production either (since its done).
Additionally, since VCDs and VHS tapes are not protected by CSS, there is a totally unprotected and CHEAP channel (cheaper than DVD) for pirating works into a non-physical form WITHOUT every having to mess with decrypting ANYHING. In short, CSS does not protect the MOVIE, it only protects playback of DVDs. You can still get the entire movie from a totally unprotected source with the full blessing of the MPAA! VHS tapes and VCDs are completely legal and totally unprotected!
Piracy can still carry on, unfettered, no matter what happens with CSS. Tthe MPAA is talking out of both sides of their mouth. Its OK to not protect VCDs or VHS tapes and make fair use of them and yet its REQUIRED that DVDs be protected, that you not be able to make copies of them and that its not OK for you to make fair use of them. Which is it? They both can't be right, and therefore its logially inconsitent.
His logic is so fallacious and vapid, but what do you expect from someone that clearly doesn't understand that movies can be copied right now without ever touching a DVD and be put on the net right now. The world passed Valenti by a long time ago. He was dead wrong about VCRs (and has since admitted it) and he is dead wrong now. This is the exact same argument he made about VCRs. Ah yes... its all so clear to me now: "those that can't remember the past are condemmed to repeat it."
How quickly we forget.
If someone has found some comments of his from the VCR debates of the 80's, I'd love to see them.
--
Python
Python
Valenti's entire bag of assumptions are probably equally bogus given how aggregious this one was, and some of the others he touts as "facts". Why anyone listens to him is beyond me. He was dead wrong about VCRs and could have cost the Motion Picture industry BILLIONS if he got his way, thankfully he didn't and we are ALL richer because of it.
In any other industry we would have been fired for such a lack of vision. The sad part is that really important people hang on his every word, and if he says its so, then it must be. This is VCR's all over again. Too bad he's having so much trouble understand it. Honestly, I think he still believes VCR's are a bad idea, and only cause "piracy" (as he claimed only a few years ago). My guess is that he pretends to believe otherwise so as not to look like such a fool in light of the overwhelming fact that he was dead wrong. Wrong to the tune of several billion dollars, while still not understand why he was wrong. I suspect it baffles him personally why VCR's make the industry so much money, when everything he understands about the world tells him they should do otherwise. In short, its probably a fair statement to say that he really does not understand the changes that have taken place in the world of information over the last couple of decades.
The real question is why is the Motion Picture industry listening to him again when he's clearly been wrong about this same sort of thing before? Is this all part of some plan to stall the industry which the MPAA works up some sort of plan to create YET ANOTHER artificial shortage?
I say that is exactly what this is all about. Make your mouth piece someone that doesn't get it, will say what you want him to say, and buy yourself some time so you can engineer the public into paying for a product that they used to be able to get for free (no pay per view!). The sad thing is the American people will go along with it and the world will probably follow along in lock step.
The MPAA and RIAA are all trying to create the same thing: a world where every song, movie, TV show and other form of entertainment is a Pay Per View event. A headlong rush to take the world back to the days where there were no TVs and you had to go to a movie theater to watch a movie. The master plan I suspect is to turn every TV, radio, CD player, computer and so on into the virtual equivalent of a Movie Theater. Pay for your ticket or else!
--
Python
Python
It costs $8 less to copy a DVD to a pack of CD-R's. $20 less to downsample the DVD to 1.5Mbit/sec and store it on CD-R. On modern computers it's just like ripping audio tracks. Any process of copying involves a decode step and an encode step to segment the files into 650 meg chunks. The decode step is only possible with deCSS.
In this case, you can reverse engineer a piece of proprietary, licensed software whose license terms prohibit that activity, and you can make your own DVD player. But you don't necessarily have that right under our current set of laws and are technically in violation of the license agreement and probably several intellectual property laws as well.
Show me the clause is a DVD's license which says you have to use a licensed player, as I have yet to see one. (I'm not trying to be argumentative here; I honestly haven't seen one.) If the license doesn't require this, how can the MPAA and the DVD CCA require it and have a legal leg to stand on?
"My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
This is at best a specious argument. If a retailer can legally get the product for lower cost than the distributor will sell it, then the cost that they pay is the distribution cost. Exactly what gives the middleman the right to be inefficient. He has made no input to the creative process, which is the sole claim studios have for their copyright monopoly. Indeed there will be different prices in different countries, but these should be determined by the market and taxes.
Closer to the truth is the fact that US filmakers release films overseas later than the US release to be able to recycle film and save on marketing costs. They don't want to compete with DVDs of their own movies.
So you do agree that once you've bought the DVD drive and the DVD disk, you have the right to use whatever tools you want to view it on a Linux computer?
First of all, copying a track off a DVD for my personal use is my right. I may want to watch my DVD on my laptop which doesn't have a DVD drive. In the case of TV and CDs courts have said that time shifted viewing and viewing on a different device is ok under the principle of fair use. Distribution, not copying is illegal, therfore tools to enable copying should not be illegal (and certainly not ones needed for viewing).
While this is true, the fact of the matter is, if I can view a file in any way on a PC, I can copy it (with potentially reduced quality). Are you going to insist that CSS be put in every video card and that frame capture cards should obey Macrovision? (I wouldn't be surprised).
You can't win by fighting the ability to copy, only by stopping mass distribution. One of the best ways to stop mass distibution is with reasonable pricing. Copying inevitably costs more in time, materials and/or bandwidth than the initial production. If it doesn't than the producer should be using different technology. Make the price reasonable and people will gladly purchase the real deal.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
> Jack Valenti
> They're not at all. I don't follow you're logic there.
Me to Mister Jack Valent:
Then you and your whole parasitic distrubution industry are DEAD, and there is nothing you can do but stall and look stupid in the process.. Evolve or die your castles in the sky are coming down..
They've been selling $2.50 DVD bit-for-bit copies for over a year now (well predating DeCSS you'll note). Anyone with pro DVD mastering equipment can trivially make bit-for-bit copies, and that's exactly how the HK guys do it.
"The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world,"
Yet they are encoded with region codes that prevent this from happening. The MPAA is directly preventing a method (DeCSS) that would actually allow this to happen.
Sorry, but he IS clueless. At least about his own lawsuits and practices.
Finkployd
Watching a DVD on an unapproved Linux player is like...
A) Stealing the keys to a department store
B) Sneaking into a movie theater without paying
C) Car jacking
D) Murder
Never mind that there are also sociopolitical issues with releases that staggered release dates, DVD region coding, etc. help to alleviate as well. For example:
So, perhaps we are the ones who need to step back and evaluate whether we are being short-sighted WRT the realities of their business model, before we commit to stringing the MPAA up by their thumbnails for trying to control what physical jurisdictions their content is being viewed in.
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
"The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world," .... says Valenti, defending the cases.
Wouldn't the best way to make movies move freely and unhobbled around the world be to unencrypt the movie, or atleast allow others to? That way they can be copied and distributed to everyone.
Note: I'm joking, but you can see my point.
---
I use to have a funny sig, but slash cut it off, and I forgot what the punchline was.
I am 99% certain that these are all cases which have been explicitely allowed by the courts. It may be that, due to their private and non-commercial nature, they are considered outside the scope of what copyright prevents. The examples that you give are all times when fair-use allows re-distribution of a copyrighted work (either commercial or non-commercial.)
Now, the DMCA is truly an evil beast. It allows the copyright holders to place any type of lame, ineffective, or imaginary system of "access control" in place and then harass any customer who dares to try and enjoy any of the fair use rights that the courts have recognized as being part of societies half of the copyright balance. It gives the copyright holder all of the benefits of copyright, while outlawing virtually all of societies half of the bargain. Truely amazing.
However, the DMCA also requires the copyright office to determine if any classes of copyrighted work should be exempted. They are accepting written comments right now about what things should be exempted. Please go take a look at this to get more information. Please read over the comments they have already received in order to get an idea of how to (and how not to) write your letter.
Remember, this is not about DeCSS per-se. It is to determine which types of copyrighted work will not be protected by the DMCA. It should be easy for us to make the argument that any work whose access control system prohibits the fair-use and private copy allowences that the courts have recognized should not be protected. The deadline for comments is Thursday. Check it out, and please try and find the time to write a well thought out comment. This is an excellent opportunity for us to make our voice heard!
You have to understand the MPAA's POV though, If they dont control the way the media is distributed, they cant profit (enough) from their product and wont be able to make it anymore.
Personally I think that's crap, but that's going to be the position of someone in the movie industry. They are an industry, they want to get paid. Controlling the way content is distributed is the only way to maintain profitibility when content can be easily duplicated and distributed. (Again, their opinion, not mine)
-Rich
This question nags me:
Interviewer:
But in terms of the iCraveTV and DeCSS injunctions, (which the courts handed down in January), both are keeping people from accessingt he product of the Motion Picture Association.
Jack Valenti
They're not at all. I don't follow you're logic there.
He doesn't seem to get it at all. Surely he must understand that all we wish to do is watch DVDs under Linux, why is that a crime?
My main reason for wanting to bypass cable scrambling is so that I can get rid of that stupid converter box. I certainly don't want to have to get a box for every TV and computer.
I also find it interesting that cable companies try to charge an additional outlet fee (at least mine does). That sounds a lot like back when AT&T only let you use AT&T phones before they were broken up.
"What about the arrest of Jon Johansen, the Norwegian teenager partly responsible for DeCSS: did the MPAA have anything to do with it?
That was done by Norwegian prosecutors. We were not involved in that.
And your reply to the prosecutor who said they did it at your request would be?"
Ummm...
Ooh! Did I miss some big story about the Norwegians claiming that the MPAA told them to make the arrest? Why wasn't it on Slashdot? Will the Norwegians next open an embassy in Hollywood? Will Janet Reno prosecute anyone making a Qt front-end to DeCSS? Will Bill Clinton admit that he used Chinese political donations as a means to launder AOL/Time/Warner payoffs?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Frankly, Valenti strikes me as the kind of person that only opens his mouth to switch feet. He doesn't seem comfortable being reminded that in the past he was clueless, but why learn from past mistakes? I wouldn't call him a Luddite as much as simply a knee-jerk reactionary for anything that wasn't fostered by his precious consortium...
just my two Lira
z
What the hell is the point of having a huge mass of encrypted, usless, data? If you can't decrypt the data, you can't ever watch it. If you don't take the decryption keys when you copy (witch you can not do with a normal DVD-ROM drive)
.VOB file possible. (Yes, there other means, but almost all require at least some kind of special hardware (MPEG encoder cards, or huge, 140gig hard drives at the least). What the hell is the point of having a huge mass of encrypted, useless, data? If you can't decrypt the data, you can't ever watch it. If you don't take the decryption keys when you copy (witch you can not do with a normal DVD-ROM drive)
.VOB file possible. (Yes, there other means, but almost all require at least some kind of special hardware (MPEG encoder cards, or huge, 140gig hard drives at the least).
The only way to watch a movie after you have the encrypted file is by decrypting it. A licensed player can't play a file without they keys (although a lot of people on slashdot don't seem to understand this). So, in order to watch the movie, you need to decrypt it. This isn't hard; because DVD encryption is amazingly shoddy. But, you still need to use something to do it... something like... (say it with me, people) DeCSS.
You need DeCSS on one end of the equation, or you haven't copied anything. DeCSS makes doing a pure digital copy of a
The only way to watch a movie after you have the encrypted file is by decrypting it. A licensed player can't play a file without they keys (although a lot of people on slashdot don't seem to understand this). So, in order to watch the movie, you need to decrypt it. This isn't hard, because DVD encryption is amazingly shoddy. But, you still need to use something to do it... something like... (Say it with me, people) DeCSS.
You need DeCSS on one end of the equation, or you haven't copied anything. DeCSS makes doing a pure digital copy of a
But if you don't want to believe me don't. It doesn't matter what you think at all.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This man has done some great things, perhaps, but in this particular circumstance he appears not only over his head, to be making ill-informed decisions that will affect you and I. Is there a "right" answer about DVD and copy protection? Not really; both side appear guilty of instinctive responses, but one is constructive (DeCSS), the other destructive (Injunctions). Judge it as you will. I seem him, Jack Valenti, bureaucrat, full of non-answers and faithful illusions.
They are an industry, they want to get paid. Controlling the way content is distributed is the only way to maintain profitibility when content can be easily duplicated and distributed.
Which brings us to the crux of the problem for both ther MPAA and the RIAA, the Internet. Both industries have spend the better part of the century building distrubution networks to leverage their position. Now, a new technology has arrived that has totally undermined their entire operation. I don't need their multi-billion dollar network to see movies or listen to music, nor do I need to subsidize it or their profits. Because I don't need them, I don't want to pay for them. I'm all for paying for good media, but why pay highway robbery prices when there is no need for the highway?
--
+&x
Finally, a thread that looks forward. Reading Mr. Valenti's statement about his purpose here "The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world," you'd think he'd listen to his own points "But if it was on the Net, 6 billion people would have access to it."
The problem here is that they want to make money the old fashioned way in media, licencing it and selling it directly. That's not going to work. It works fine when the natural way for it to be distributed backs this up (i.e. The producer makes a physical copy, trucks it to me, I buy a copy, there is a media cost, on which I pay a small mark-up), but that's not the way distrubtution works now (i.e. I am already paying for the physical media and distrubution system, (bandwidth and diskspace), all the physical costs are mine) so all I am paying for is a license. But they don't make much money on the license, at least not when compared to the mark-up they get after coupling it with hard media, so the idea is not to sell it that way.
Unfortunately I don't see a need to buy a CD, or a video, or any hard media, BECAUSE I DON'T NEED TO. The market forces have changed. So where is the value? They can't sell hard goods, so they have to sell soft. Suffice it to say, that they value they get from their media should not be the face value of the stuff its printed on (which I already paid for and won't again), but the value they get from the attention paid to they media. By maximizing distrubution and its ease, they will be able to leverage this attention for profit, all the while paying no distrubution and minimal advertising (if they have a good prouct) costs.
Unfortunately before this can happen they 1) need to realize that fighting/sueing consumers isn't in their best interest and 2) realize that their old networks are not worth what they once were and, basically, get with the times.
No it won't be easy, but having an entire new medium appear that makes value disappear is not something most companies deal with on a regular basis.
The unfortunate part is Valenti's close ties to the Gov't. I have no doubt he had a HUGE hand in crafting the DMCA, as well as getting it to pass.
--
+&x
In order to maintain his products value he needs regulation.
hence the DMCA, do you wonder if Jack, being in Washington and all, had anything to do with its passying?
Can anyone here think of a good way to license movies over the internet that works with the MPAA system?
First off, you need to realize that an Internet distrubution system most likely will NOT support 10 freakin' 30+ million dollar movies a week. No system should. If you don't think that Hollywood is already out of control (Waterworld!?!), then this solution won't make sense (I wonder how much they spent on the DMCA?). However, what the Internet will support is massive parallel distrubution (i.e. Napster) and, someday, ubiquitous presence across socioeconimc barriers. The trick is to leverage the public in to doing your job for you.
So what does that leave? Yep, you guessed it movie theatres. See it on the big screen or wait a couple years and see it at home. A couple years!!! what! Movies come out on video in a matter of months now, but that's because there is a home market. Uh, oh I just scared you. The home market changes just a bit in this plan, you add an -ing to it. Home marketing. The industry needs to do what Domino's has done, use personal property as a means of distrubution. Who does your promotion? I do. Why? 'Cause I love your movies and want my friends to see them. Who does your distrubtion? I do. Why? 'Cuase I love your movies and want my friends to see them.
You see, the studios have painted themselves into a corner by making their product so available. Now consumers are considered having "seen" a movie, even if it's one their 13 inch. What the industry should move to is a more classis approach, control your content in the only forum now possible, the theatres. You make it valuable by controlling scarcity. You do that by not publishing it publicly (which is what VHS, DVD are) until it's full value has been realized, I'm propsing two years. It is then used as good will, brand building, marketing, that can be freely distributed in the home market(ing). The movies sare distributed digitally from the company's web site after logging in and giving your demo and working e-mail. This allows cross-promotion of that new movie, as well as extremely valuable consumer data.
Woah, you're saying, give up the home market? Yep, because it's not worth fighting for. To create any type of secure format viewing area will lead to countless battles like this, each one alienating more and more consumers. Also because it can't be won. The Internet makes control of digital media impossible (or at the very least economically, politically, socially difficult), realzie this and try to go back to what first made seeing movies great, the Motion Picture Theatre Experience (oh yeah, and making good movies).
So what happens. A new movie comes out, people like it, they tell their friends. The friends now have a choice, pay to see it now, or wait (years) to see it later. Some friends wait, some don't. Those that wait see the movie two years later, realize how cool it was, that this company/director/actor makes good movies, and later pays to see the movie in the theatre. Did I mention ticket prices go up? During this time the friends have also been watching tons of free movies (since network TV still sucks in the future) and are then that much more likely to see a hit movie at the theatre.
The other thing. Persecute the shit out of piraters. Now it's easy. One if they're selling movies, everyone know they're cheating and since movies are free anyway, why buy 'em (that's cut out the demand, which is always a better plan than attacking supply). If they are viewing them and them haven't been "released" yet, they are obviously *stolen* and worthy of prosecution. I think that would simplify things tremendously.
Yes, this whole thing is drastic and half-baked. But it focuses on using the technology and existing rules to reach a suitable settlement. I don't have a full business plan worked out, but there will always be money to be made in good movies, but not on a per copy basis. Per seat, yes, but only if that seat is valuable. Fighting the tide of the 'Net will NOT work. Most of us already see its power and are working/advocating keeping it as open and free as possible. The only way any licensing system will work is to remove that freedom or obliterate privacy, two things I won't stand for. There ya have it, butcher at will.
--
+&x
And exactly what was the value added by DeCSS? Couldn't you do exactly the same thing without ripping the movie to disk? Couldn't you still copy the movie to disk by D to A and A to D, with only a trivial loss of quality, if MPEG output was your goal?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
He's talking about playing the DVD (i.e. converting Digital to Analog), taking the video out, and then re-encoding it (i.e. converting Analog to Digital), in an unencrypted form. While not as perfect as a bit-for-bit copy, this will probably generate good quality. And then you can make a bazillion perfect bit-for-bit copies of your unencrypted version, using publically available hardware.
Yes, precisely. Especially if you could avoid staging the data on an analog medium, your copy would be free the noise inherent in reading an analog signal off of iron oxide glued to plastic tape. It would be more than good enough for almost any conceivable purpose.
The argument seems to be not DVD copying, but possible Internet based piracy. This is not practical today, but in ten years this could be a real headache for MPAA. In this sense, Mr. Valenti is not a clueless as people think (although his argument about sneaking into the theater is pure hogwash).
However, as right as Mr. Valenti is to be concerned about future Internet based piracy, I don't think that is the business case for pursuing DeCss. Unfortunately, DeCSS while not very essential to Internet based movie piracy, would indeed be useful if such a thing were practical. On the other hand while DeCSS is essential to playing DVDs on Linux, it is not currently useful since there is no DVD player software at this time as far as I know.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
....will this guy stand up to his words? I quote from the article:
:)
"So what constitutes fair use of a DVD in your eyes -- besides simply buying a DVD and using one of the MPAA's authorized players?
Any use by which you buy it at a price. "
I guess that's what most of us want: go out and buy our DVD's to watch on whatever player we find convenient....My respect for MPAA just grow significantly
It could be most interresting if someone could get to talk to this guy, and ask him fair and square questions to have him elaborate on this. Questions such as "How do you suggest that we play the DVD's we've paid good money for using alternative systems such as Linux, *BSD and Solaris?"
He definitely must have a good solution to this, considering his other statement in the article:
"The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world,"
Am I just clueless, or aren't the "region codes" and the combatting of DeCSS counterproductive to the "principle occupation of the MPAA" ????
-- "Life is a bitch - and she hates me..."
The powers that be could largely wipe out the video pirates market overnight by releasing worldwide at the same time (ok I know there are translation problems etc.)
You're looking for a technical problem where you should really be looking for an economic one. The reason why they don't release movies worldwide at the same time is that it's economically unfeasible to do so -- under the current system, the studios can see which movies succeed and which movies flop in the domestic market, and having figured out which ones are winners (or at least figured out how much they expect each to make), start marketing them on the international market. Releasing them everwhere simultaneously would add a lot more risk to the equation, although there are ways around it -- more sampling, etc.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
The movie and TV industries? Of course they're filled with geniuses, look at the brilliant and informative programming that they create.
Just look at the audience, why don't you? It takes a clever person to spoonfeed an entire nation horseshit and convince them it's caviar. If you're depressed by the results, then it's because the American People (tm) are not demanding enough of the producers. You can say the same thing about Congress.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
What the MPAA is trying to do is prevent the user from using the legally purchased dvd even if he's willing to assume all the technical/other risks inherrent in doing so. Two of your justifications are legal/political burdens, which could just as easily be assumed by the user who imports and uses the disc. Your third reason doesn't account for the enormous number of English-speaking foreign nationals.
There is still a buck to be made in catering to backwardlooking governments (of which the US is still one) and to value-added products like translated versions. But none of this is any reason to prevent the willing user from using his legally purchased item. Their current business model may be the most profitable for them under the current circumstances, but we just changed the circumstances -- they'll scream and kick before submitting, but they'll still go home with gads of money.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I've never seen a prosecutuer arrest Bob Vila because he sells hammers.
Years ago many cable TV systems charged per outlet. "Cable ready" TVs and VCRs existed, but you had a pay a modest premium to avoid the hassles of a separate set-top box.
:-) If I put the BTTV upstream of the cable box, I lose the ability to watch or capture from my VCR or scrambled channels. If I put the BTTV downstream I lose the ability to watch monitor two channels at the same time, or play with geek toys like a program that scans a dozen channels and displays snapshots of each.
Laws and technology changed, and now most cable TV systems charge per household and most TVs and VCRs are "cable ready." My household has a couple TVs and a video card which I often use to keep a small video feed on my computer monitor.
So why am I paying $10/month for HBO which I can't view? Because TCI/AT&T decided to get eliminate hardware cable scrambling when it rebuilt my neighborhood for digital cable. My big TV has a digital cable box so it can also handle software decryption of the analog premium channels, but I can't do that upstairs with the TV/VCR/BTTV/camcorder setup. (The camcorder is an occasional webcam on the adjacent bikepath, you pervs!
A software bttv decoder won't allow me to view the digital cable TV channels I can legally view, but it might allow me to view the analog premium channels that I've paid for.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
The MPAA, and their bretheren media industry organizations, hate that.
They also hate "fair use". They've taken the issue to court. They lost.
There have been legal precidents set that support the copying of intellectual property for personal use AND the movement of this property from one media to another.
Distributing illegal copies of intellectual property is a different matter. The fact that DeCCS may aid in this is a moot point.
From the Betamax case (US Supreme Court, 1984, Sony Corporation v. Universal City Studios):
The baby boom era is called that because people returning from WWII had babies in large numbers. Hense this demographic "boom."
However, Jack Valenti flew a plane in World War II. That means he was born well before the baby boom era, and so is no boomer.
The simple fact that 99% of the 'net using world cannot download a dvd movie from the net due to bandwidth and/or time constraints would seem to signify that the primary use of the DeCSS software is, in fact, something other than just ripping copies of dvds to trade with friends.
Today that's 99.9% or some such.
Tomorrow, that's 90%.
And the next day, it's 50%.
I think I'm going to show my age. However, when I first started serious programming, the idea of storing more than a couple of pages of > on a computer seemed like an outrageous problem. (I remember sitting around with my friends discussing how cool the future will be when we can store an entire 100+ page book on our computer.)
When I first started college, the notion of storing an entire track of a song at resolutions high enough to compete with the audio fidelity of an album was unthinkable. (Hell, such a creature would completely fill up that $800 20 megabyte hard disk I bought to hang off my MacPlus.) And the idea of *downloading* such a file was just completely outrageous--given the fact that if you were even on a BBS, you probably were hooked up at 300 baud. The same goes for pictures--the idea of digitizing a picture and storing it on-line sounded completely outrageous.
Today, we connect fast enough that pictures are routinely inserted into web sites because they look cool as icons. (Borg Bill, anyone?)
And sites like MP3 are doing quite well. And people are storing *hundreds* of songs on their hard disks.
The worry of the MPAA is not that people *today* can pirate movies freely. The worry is that *tomorrow*, there will be so much bandwidth that downloading an entire movie at DVD video quality will just take a few minutes.
And don't tell me that it sounds completely outrageous that someone will be able to download an entire movie off the 'net in a few minutes. It's just a matter of time.
Therefore, I believe that DeCSS's use (and distribution) should be allowed under fair use guidelines.
That's the small picture view. Is using DeCSS within fair use guidelines? I would personally agree. However, the big picture is one where just about everything movie ever produced can be reproduced and downloaded in the same way we download a tarball today--and pirated just as easily.
This is at best a specious argument.
I know that. However, it is the argument that is given by various manufacturers to include region codes into their products.
That is, they do it because it's cheaper for a manufacturer to include region code technology and keep the distributers in a particular country happy than it is to try to bypass those distributors.
If a retailer can legally get the product for lower cost than the distributor will sell it, then the cost that they pay is the distribution cost.
And the distributor that store front bypassed will never do business with that store again, causing that store's supply of products to effectively dry up.
To an American like me this sounds shocking, surreal, and extremely anti-competitive. However, it is the current reality through most of the world, where anti-trust laws are totally non-existant.
Closer to the truth is the fact that US filmakers release films overseas later than the US release to be able to recycle film and save on marketing costs. They don't want to compete with DVDs of their own movies.
While it may be true, it doesn't completely track with "region code" technology that is used in other tech products such as video games. The reality is the manufacturers are trying to play nice with the regional distributors rather than bypassing them. By the way, this is extremely important if you are trying to export to Asia, where established distribution channels can effectively make or break your product--because of a tightly interwoven distribution channel.
While this is true, the fact of the matter is, if I can view a file in any way on a PC, I can copy it (with potentially reduced quality). Are you going to insist that CSS be put in every video card and that frame capture cards should obey Macrovision? (I wouldn't be surprised).
Actually, if you bothered to read the bottom of my original post, you would have found where I said that I don't agree with much of the arguments I'm echoing. What I am doing is presenting the other side of the argument; that's all.
Personally, what I think the MPAA needs to do is to figure out a value-added proposition which adds value to a DVD movie in much the same way the software industry adds value by providing printed manuals and other things to software products. That is, make it so that even if you *could* pirate a DVD movie, you probably won't, simply because you'd rather have the non-digital value-added materials that accompany the DVD movie.
You can't win by fighting the ability to copy, only by stopping mass distribution. One of the best ways to stop mass distibution is with reasonable pricing. Copying inevitably costs more in time, materials and/or bandwidth than the initial production.
The problem is that this is changing. There are companies who are trying to figure out a way to put fiber into your home, with T3 speeds, in about a dozen years. I tried ripping my South Park DVD with DeCSS; it resulted in about 10 gig of data. If we have fiber at T3 running into your house, I could send you the South Park movie in about 30 minutes--a lot less time than it takes me to drive to the local shopping mall, and a hell of a lot less time than it takes to wait for a shipment from DVDExpress.com.
There's the problem. A dozen years ago 1200 baud was considered fast, and 100 megabytes was considered a lot of hard disk space. Today, MP3.com succeeds, and an 18 gig HD can be bought from Frys for about $200. In a dozen years? If you could store 3Tb on your disk, you could download 10 movies in an afternoon and stick them in your "Movie Warez" directory in the same way I can download MP3s today.
You're equating a potential redistribution with an actual violation of intellectual property rights.
Actually, I'm just parroting the other side of the argument. But you're right--just because I can potentially copy something doesn't mean that I will.
In any event, plain reading of the DMCA would seem to indicate that fair use is dead, and that if you view a DVD on a non-sanctioned player of any kind, you are "circumventing an access control device" without the authorization of the copyright holder. Distributing the tools to others is a separate offense. This is clearly insane, but that's the way it is.
And I hope the DMCA is eventually rulled unconstitutional.
Look, I don't agree with the MPAA; said something to that effect in my original post. But the MPAA does have a problem--within our lifetimes we'll be able to download the data to play back a movie at full DVD resolution off the 'net in the same way we download MP3s now.
And that has the MPAA worried sick.
Aren't copyrights and patents for the good of the society not of the owner? That is the reason they expire right? They are merely an incentive for people to invent and produce new things. They are given exclusive rights to those things for a period of time, after which they become property of the society which enabled them in the first place to create such things. This may seem like reverse tyranny, but corporations do not DESERVE profits, they are not GUARANTEED a market. If that sounds unfair...well, the answer is TOUGH. Nobody has guaranteed corporations that somebody in some other company will not rip off their product. That is a matter of diplomacy and international law. NOT local, or even national law. When the playing field changes it is _corporations_ that are forced to adapt. Society and technology is not here for their sake. When it changes, so must they, and if they don't that's just tough. Then need to get up, dust themselves off and head in a new direction. Not cry and whine that falling hurts and is unfair. I really have no sympathy for the corporate mentality that the world owes them something and must act "fairly" to them. Their existence is incidental to society, not the other way around. And if the world changes so much that corporations must cease to exist...so be it. The world does not mold itself around corporations. Corporations in a free country and free market should be grateful for what they get, not whine that technology is impairing their ability to lock up markets.
My DeCSS shirt from Copyleft.net should be arriving soon. I would like to see them dare to come down and haul me away.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Yes, you can make analog copies fairly easily, although there are a few obstacles. (Macrovision copy protection, loss of quality, and the fact that analog output jacks will be dissappearing in the distant but foreseeable future.)
At any rate, while I don't know the legal details involved, I suspect that the MPAA is much more concerned about legal precedent than about DeCSS. They're afraid that their ability to prevent copying in general might be impaired if they don't fight DeCSS. (I can see the
MSK
You cannot make a bitwise copy of a DVD with publically available hardware.
I and a few others have been pushing this point since this fiasco started, so I won't rehash the details here. A cursory investigation of the CSS system should show why it is true.
At this time, the only feasible way to make a digital copy of a DVD is with DeCSS, or a similar program. (And granted, similar programs were around before DeCSS. Ironically, the only thing that makes DeCSS different is that it is less clearly illegal; unlike the others, it does not contain a stolen player key.)
MSK
I don't know why nobody has mentioned this, but what dose any one know about the subject matter of the following quote:
We formed what is called a copyright assembly just two weeks ago, in which every single enterprise in this country to which copyright protection is vital -- professional baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, NASCAR, NCAA, broadcasters, television stations, cable systems, music songwriters, movies, television programs -- they've all banded together to try and make it clear to the Congress that if a hosting or thievery or absconding or illegal use, or unauthorized use of the property of all these enterprises -- which, by the way, dominate the world -- is allowed to go untended by some kind of a protective shield, the nation's economy is the loser.
I assume this means a more consered lobing effort. What is the best way to discredit these lobiests? I mean when I call my congress person should I specifically ytalk about how bad this orginisation is for the future of the internet and how they don't really have a clue? Or should I focus on specific issues?
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
AFAIK, Jon Johansen is going to be tried in Norway. There is another DeCSS trial going on in the US against some websites.
But note how this MPAA tough-guy is afraid of admitting he even made a polite request for a teenager's arrest. He implies they did nothing at all, when the Norwegian prosecutor says otherwise.
I think it would be quite an unwelcome precedent if a Norwegian citizen were to be extradited to the US for breaking a US law while physically located in Norway. IANAL, but extradition treaties are all about returning fugitives, not extraterritorial law enforcement. Even wire fraud is prosecuted in the home country unless the fraudster willingly travels to the victim country.
Put it this way: There are some neoNazi groups in the US whose writings are illegal under German law. Do you think the US police could turn them over to the German police even if they wanted to? But it might not be too smart for them to travel to Germany. (But no-one has ever accused them of being smart).
You make good points, but there are some people who aren't interested in purchasing DVD's until there's a reasonable Linux player for them. And you're right, we don't have a `right' to use their playback software. But don't we have a right to build our own?
What he and you are saying is that we can't look at another piece of software and reimplement our own with the same functionality. How many DOOM/Quake clones have there been, functionality the same as the origionals? That's the issue of look&feel all over again.
I won't reboot into windows just to play DVD's. Nor can I afford the money to get a multimedia system. (TV, VCR, stereo, dvd, cd, speakers) My computer, specifically linux, fulfils that role for me.
So, I will sit around with the DVD drive in my new computer, waiting for a good linux player. When it comes, I will start purchasing DVD's. Unless the other equipment comes down in price, I don't see myself purchasing it.
I have never used a windoze DVD player (yet) but..
I would think it would be easy to create a virtual DVD drive, that looks like a normal DVD drive to a licenced DVD player but actually stores everything
on a harddisk.
Would the MPAA jump up and down about this? It does not break the encryption. You could argue that it does not even circumvent the copy protection/access control.
This would allow all the evil things that deCSS supposidly does, and probably be legal?
(or which bit is illegal - reading the disk? storing the disk? playing the disk?)
For another public figure to not understand the question would be understandable. But he is the head of the MPAA. It is with his sanction that the lawsuits have been filed. The first sentence of his answer is simply not true, but is the policy of the MPAA. For him to ave said otherwise would have been incredible. The second appears to be willful ignorance on his part, prehaps a disavowal of responsibility for understanding.
This one answer and the context in which it was given speaks volumes. Whether he doesn't know, doesn't understand, or is pretending ignorance isn't particularly relevant. He is publically stating that the central issue of the lawsuits is irrelevant and is trying to shift the focus.
This isn't even about profits. In the end, DVD will be opened up to the world or it will die. There are too many bright people out there who will be happy to replace it with something that the MPAA doesn't control. And that is the central issue. These two lawsuits are about the MPAA defending the illusion that it is still relevant. Over the next few years, it will change or it will disappear. These lawsuits, if they are won, can only serve to delay that for a moment.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
I pay for TMC, Showtime, HBO.. If I want to watch them on my PC with this software, I damn well will. My local cable company has had a long standing policy of 'if you pay for it, we don't care', because everytime they tried to seize the descrambler some paying customer was using to watch HBO on another TV elsewhere in the house, they got their ass removed from the property and lost the civil suit. If I want to lease my cable box from the company, fine. If I already own one, or own a cable-ready TV, I will certainly not lease one.
iCrave is doing nothing wrong according to Canadian law, which governs it. Just because it has questionable legal standing in the States doesn't mean it is illegal! Additionally, iCrave has yet to even make it to trial. You cannot say whither or not the first of its kind is illegal before a trrial. Just because paid-corp-puppet Valenti says it's illegal doesn't mean a damn thing.
Why shouldn't the MPAA be able to use these boneheaded measures? Gee, it constitutes illegal restraint of trade, violates any number of goods treaties, elimination of fair use, exercizing a monopoly standing to crush ones opponents. Pick one and run with it.
.sig: Now legally binding!
I suppose the question would be how far the statement had to be away from the letter of the truth to be considered untrue, or how intentional the untruth had to be to count as a lie. For certain venues, what I say can be radically different from the letter of the truth and still be correct. Say I choose to explain networking to one of my [l]users. I say to him 'See those big phone wires plugged into the back of the PC? The computer sends information over them to that big stack of equipment, called a switch, which sends it to all of the other computers. The switch is hooked up to a bigger switch, and so on until you reach the switch at Sprint. Once you reach that top switch, your data can go anywhere.' Now all of us can see that is a box truck of manure, but it is closer than anything in the [l]user's head, so it can be called the truth.
.sig: Now legally binding!
I won't rehash the tired arguments along the lines of "A dual-deck VCR can be and is used to pirate movies, but that's not it's main use", etc etc, because by the manner of your speaking, you're clearly smart enough to realize that DeCSS and it's derived works have an important and legitimate use that falls completely under the protection of fair use legislation, which makes any illegal role they may play in piracy completely irrelevant.
You also seem bright enough to know that DeCSS is completely pointless in any operation to actually duplicate DVDs for distribution and public consumption, that decrypting the DVD doesn't figure into the piracy process at any stage. The astute pirate just duplicates the bits that are on the disc, and doesn't give two damns if they're encrypted or not. The ONLY reason anybody could EVER want to decrypt CSS is to view it, not to copy it. Period.
And, since you're well read, you also know that there is not now, nor is their likely in the immediate future to be, an economically viable way to duplicate DVD movies for the purpose of piracy. The files are ridiculously large to be moved over the internet, and to store and distribute them on other media (burned CDs, Jaz discs, etc) is not economically viable (costs more than the legit DVD)
This isn't aboot piracy, it's aboot maintaining a stranglehold on the industry... it's aboot a monopoly... it's aboot... it's aboot....
What's so goddamn funny ?
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
> In short, though, DeCSS can be used for piracy, and has been. So can we just shut up about how this Windows program "is only useful for playing DVDs under Linux" please?
But that's just the point... it CAN'T be used for any PRACTICAL and economically viable form of piracy. You can put the file on your hard drive and you can send it across the net. If you have a clean OC-3, and are sending to someone with a clean OC-3, you can do this in a reasonable amount of time. BUT, the percentage of the population who has access to a clean OC-3 is not enough to comprise a problematic pirating network. Furthermore, even the biggest hard drives that anybody really has right now, the Maxtor 40gb jobs, can hold 9 or 10 movies. And that's a $300+ drive. It's just NOT PRACTICAL. It's cheaper to buy the movies. There's no financially viable way to pirate DVDs that in any way involves DeCSS/css-auth decryption.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
> This would appear, IMHO, to be DeCSS's primary use (after all, there ARE other WINDOWS DVD players).
You are in error. Johansen and company started out with DeCSS to provide a player for Linux. That was their express purpose from the getgo. The reason that DeCSS is for windows and not Linux is that when the project begun, Linux lacked support for the UDF filesystem. Read the interview with Jon for this and other clue-inspiring facts, brought to you by Slashdot.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
First off, I'm definitely NOT on Jack Valenti's bandwagon - I don't agree with a lot of what the MPAA has tried to do in recent years. However, ... he DOES have several valid points. Comparing the internet to the SONY BetaMax lawsuit is comparing apples to oranges. They are NOT the same thing. It >couldanyone had a few hundred, let alone a few million people over at their house?
Let's be realistic here, people - and Valenti should take note of this too - it's not the people who use DeCSS to make a copy of a DVD for a friend - or even for those warezers who download them - that percentage is small. It's those who use it to mass produce illegal DVDs (in the same manner that some illegal outfits mass produce counterfeit MS software), that is the real problem. Right now, VCDs proliferate the net - however, since they are primarily of poor quality, most people use them only for a quick look before shelling out the cash to see the flick in the theatre (consider how many box office bombs there have been lately) - it is still a LOT easier to wait for a title to be released on VHS, then dupe a copy for yourself. I have a feeling that the DeCSS case will be handled in the same manner as the SONY BetaMax case was.
Perhaps the internet issue might be solved by the formation of companies/organizations who LEGALLY relay/re-broadcast events under secure, subscription channels. Sure, those will probably be hacked too (like the "live" adult website channels are), but those losses will only have a minimal impact.
This issues of copyright and licensing are legitimate and serious ones. Again, just because it's the internet, does NOT mean that you should get something for free.
We can only hope that the MPAA and other involved organizations look on the brighter side of the Net - as a way to expand their product audience - and that the internet community suport them in this, rather than vilify them.
[With conventional media,] somebody's got to take a truck or a car or DHL and get it to another country. There is a brutish kind of awkward distribution system. Not so on the Internet, where some obscure person sitting in a basement can throw up on the Internet a brand new motion picture, and with the click of a button have it go with the speed of light to 6 billion people around the world, instantaneously.
Do you realize that it's not necessary to break the encryption to distribute the contents of a DVD over the internet?
Um....
I don't know [how we'll stop 'pilfering']. All I know is that 18 months from now the technology today will seem very primitive. Technology is just baffling everyone in the celerity with which it's looping, so the answer is, I can't give you an answer. But by God, we're going to find one. We're devoting a lot of resources, with our kinsmen in the copyright arena.
We formed what is called a copyright assembly just two weeks ago...
Do you realize that it's logically impossible ever to have a digital media that's possible to playback but not record? That as long as the information has to pass through my hardware at any point, I can capture it losslessly, and no amount of resources or number of assemblies can change that?
Um....
And that therefore, since there's no way to prevent copies from being made if the users so choose, and there's no way to unmake the internet, that you're entrenching yourself more and more firmly into a completely untenable position from which you'll alienate most of your customers while not making a dime of profit, not to mention trampling on consumer rights that have been established by law?
Um....
I don't recall saying he was clueless, just a liar. And his lies need to be addressed. We still have to await our real day in court.
I'm doing my part. I've written editorials to my local paper and to CNN online.
I even wrote Michael Moore trying to educate him ont he issue in the hopes that he'd put it on his Bravo-TV show, THE AWFUL TRUTH.
First, he said BILLIONS, not millions.
And who knows how long it will take, that's not the issue.
He implied (if not outright SAID) that it could be done now. For the billions of people he's describing... it can't. With my unstable 56K dialup connection it would take days to Xmit one full length DVD film, probably weeks.
Ignore Alien Orders
I doubt he's stupid, but he's certainly woefully out of touch.
The MPAA have a "theft protection system" that is broken and useless. It prevents an acknowledged legitimate use (GPL player for Linux) and it doesn't prevent bulk piracy (it was broken by a teenager). I sincerely weep bucketloads for the lost profits of studios, but if they want to prevent piracy, then damn well invent a copy protection system that isn't so inept as to disqualify perfectly legitimate usage of a disk that you've paid money for. Don't blame Johansen for the DVD's bad implementation.
Seems to me Mr. Valenti has a surprisingly good head on his shoulders. Of course he doesn't seem to understand DeCSS doesn't prevent pirating material (look at all the Chinese DVDs out there), but he seems to have some clue.
Valenti seems to have some valuable points. The regional lockout is technically meant to protect individual companies regional distribution licenses. Disabling it devalues those licenses. Likewise, I doubt the legality of iCraveTV. Sure it may be legal to purely rebroadcast a signal under Canadian law, but is internet transmission really broadcasting and are they putting adds with their signal which would invalidate it as a pure rebroadcast?
I think Valenti would love to make money off the internet. He just can't figure out how without destroying the current regional licensing system the MPAA uses. He's just having backward compatibility problems. He can't figure out how to regulate it so he can't figure out how to sell it. In order to maintain his products value he needs regulation.
Many slashdotters think all information should be free and given away. This is actually kind of stupid, because if studios can't make a buck somehow they won't make a movie. That's how capitalism works. Free movies eventually mean no movies. The truth is distributed efforts like Open Source work well of some things and badly for others. /. doesn't seem to grasp this very well.
Don't get me wrong, I hate the inflated price of DVDs. Studios could widen their market and make more money by offering them for less, but they don't because they're short sighted and greedy. DVD is the future. The MPAA is a lot like the teamsters, they're protecting the good and the bad indiscriminantly.
Can anyone here think of a good way to license movies over the internet that works with the MPAA system? Please post if you can. If not seriously consider that before you start rampantly criticizing the MPAA.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
Now, that's 5,368,709,120k for the movie.
Multiplied by 6,000,000,000 people.
That's 32,212,254,720,000,000,000k total.
Assume that a movie is 2 hours long, that's 120 minutes, times 60 seconds, is 7200 seconds.
Divide the data by the time and you get 4,473,924,266,666,666k/second. That's 4,266,666,666 gigs/second.
Anybody got a really fast net connection?
Sort of sums it all up in one little package. The guy, remided me of an Andy Rooney look alike, "Did ya ever wonder why the technical industry is so, well technical?"
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
I think no secret should be claimed as "intellectual property". How am I to know what's your property otherwise?
If I buy a DVD and don't want to buy the decoder, the "intellectual property" is just an apparently random collection of bits. If I apply some mathematical function to those bits and a motion picture appears, then that movie is *MY* property, because I created it using *MY* mathematical function. Of course, I did use their bits, but it's the same thing as using ink to write a book. The ink manufacturer cannot claim property rights over the book I wrote with the ink I bought from them.
You cannot claim copyright over a text you keep in secret. To claim copyright, you have to publish it in a publicly understandable way, not in a way that can be understood only by some people who bought a secret key.
From the /. moderator guidelines: If you can't be deep, be funny
The man seems intelligent, well-spoken, and thoughtful. Just because you or I or the Andover editorial staff disagree with him is no reason to resort to character assassination. That's the argument ad hominem, it was discounted as invalid as long ago as the Greeks. Slashdot certainly should know better.
Mr. Valenti has a good head on his shoulders, and all SORTS of clues. It's just that his universe rests on different assumptions than this community's, assumptions about the superiority of propriety and profiteering over freedom and sharing. This man seems to be very clueful at working with these assumptions to come to conclusions that are clearly thought out, self-consistant, and intelligent. And totally disagreeable to this crowd.
If you want to change the man's mind, work on changing his assumptions.
If you want to call him names, feel free, but don't expect anything to come of it.
--
So, all moral righteousness aside, how do people here defend their stance that all of these things should be legal? Basically, my question is, why shouldn't the MPAA have the right to use whatever boneheaded methods they want to prevent people from seeing their media?
--
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
I udnerstand that the MPAA is trying to secure the rights to it's content. Unfortunateley, I don't think their content is worth much. Take my situation: I live in Europe, have 25+ cable channels, most of which are filled with b-grade movies most of the day. Every once in a while someone schedules a decent movie (this is seldom enough that I'm almost convinced that this only happens by accident) but most the time it's bad movies mixed with Jerry Springer and game shows. The MPAA can control this stuff as much as it wants because I don't really want it.
:-) ) will evaporate. And once that happens, their content will dramatically decrease in value.
...
Of course they are fighting a loosing battle: just look at what technology did to music. You can today, at a reasonable expense (that is, if you're on a decent computer geek salary) buy recording equipment which will allow you to put your music on CD with a decent sound. Not professional studio-quality sound, but good enough. Well the same thing will happen to the movie business and once it does, their monopoly on the means of productions (my, I sound socialist today
I think the internet could well have the effect of splintering society and removing the dominance of the current media mogules. Once that happens, there will be nothing left for them to control because the market will be too fragmented. Now if we could only make this concept clear to the 99% of the population who are not geeks
"I did not have sex with that woman," says Clinton.
The latter statement is -- let's be polite and call it "contraindicated" -- by the DNA evidence. The former statement is similarly contraindicated by the region-coding crippleware which protects, not intellecutal property, but market cartelization.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Man, I must have one REAL slow connection.
And when did everyone on the planet get connected?
This man's lies need to be corrected.
Ignore Alien Orders
If this man flew 51 missions in WW2, he's no baby boomer (usually considered the cohorts born 1946-1965). More like one of their parents, most likely born before 1927.
Regardless, he seems scared of being implicated with the arrest of the Norwegian teenager who authord DeCSS (Johanssen?). Most of his replies were evasive, as is customary among PHBs. But that one wasn't. I infer he's feeling some heat.
Why then, do you charge different prices in different countries?
Because of different distribution costs in those countries. Different markets have different markups because each market has it's own distribution system which requires different markups so that the people along that distribution chain can be paid for their work.
(This is the standard reason given by most hardware manufacturers as to why PCs cost about 50% more in certain parts of the world than in others.)
Region codes exist on DVDs in order to prevent retail marketers from circumventing their own internal distribution model. That is, the distributors that the studios deal with to distribute materials around the world pretty much demanded that some sort of region code be added so that the distributors can maintain their effective market position, rather than be bypassed by the store fronts who could otherwise buy the materials from a distributor in another country and save money.
And the total number of arrests in Hong Kong would be?
They're working with the PRC in order to raise awareness of copyright issues in Hong Kong. However, the MPAA does not control China, and so negotiations are necessarly on-going.
And your reply to the prosecutor who said they did it at your request would be?
The prosecutor was made aware of the violation of copyright law. But the MPAA doesn't control the Noregian government or their prosecutors; they can only lodge a complaint.
So you do agree that once you've bought the DVD drive and the DVD disk, you have the right to use whatever tools you want to view it on a Linux computer?
Of course. However, you do not have the right to distribute those tools, or to repurpose those tools to violate studio's intellectual property rights by copying the tracks off the DVD for potential redistribution across the 'net.
One thing that Mr. Valenti does get is the explosive nature of bandwidth over the Internet. That is, while now it is impractical to download a 10gb movie file, tomorrow better compression technology and higher bandwidths will make it trivial to do. Just as 10 years ago, the thought of storing one record album for playback on your computer was seen as completely impractical--while now, people are routinely storing dozens of CDs on their hard disk for convenient playback.
I personally see a time in the near future where downloading a movie over the net will be nearly as fast as downloading a picture is today. And when that happens--when it is possible to download "Star Wars" off the 'net in a few minutes--either some form of infrastructure needs to be in place to protect the intellectual property rights of studios, or "Star Wars" will make the top "MPEGWAREZ.COM" download for 30 weeks running.
So I personally suspect if you ask the MPAA the above question about Linux, that they'd respond that as soon as they get a request from a closed-source developer who will develop a DVD player for Linux gives them a viable request to build such a beast, they'll gladly license the CSS algorithms. And I suspect given the flap over Linux, they'll even do it at a discount, just so they can prevent the open-source community from producing tools that could be easily repurposed for piracy.
And don't give me the "we won't repurpose the code" bit--remember, the biggest strength in the open source community is it's biggest weakness: that when source is open and free, programmers are able to reuse the code for whatever purpose strikes their fancy.
Final Question: You can even ask the audience or call a friend. Has anyone ever sucessfully used DeCSS to copy a DVD movie to another PC and then play it back?
http://www.dvd-copy.com
Duh.
You know, if you are going to ask hardball questions, try to ask questions that are more hardball than this. Because most of these questions have already been asked and answered elsewhere.
Personally I think that the MPAA has a problem. And I personally think their approach to solving this problem is the wrong approach. Alienating the very technical community they will need in the future to help them maximize the value of their properties is not a good thing to do.
And personally I don't agree with some of the answers I gave above: using technology to protect monopolies is just plain wrong IMHO. But in industries where technology can be used to protect distribution monopolies, it's being used. And that includes country codes in digital media such as Sega games and DVD movies.
Why then, do you charge different prices in different countries?
Ummm...
"And in the last several years, we have been intentionally, seriously and energetically concerned with combating theft of our intellectual property."
And the total number of arrests in Hong Kong would be?
Ummm...
What about the arrest of Jon Johansen, the Norwegian teenager partly responsible for DeCSS: did the MPAA have anything to do with it?
That was done by Norwegian prosecutors. We were not involved in that.
And your reply to the prosecutor who said they did it at your request would be?
Ummm...
So what constitutes fair use of a DVD in your eyes -- besides simply buying a DVD and using one of the MPAA's authorized players?
Any use by which you buy it at a price.
So you do agree that once you've bought the DVD drive and the DVD disk, you have the right to use whatever tools you want to view it on a Linux computer?
Ummm...
Final Question: You can even ask the audience or call a friend. Has anyone ever sucessfully used DeCSS to copy a DVD movie to another PC and then play it back?
Ummm...
well, that was a fun show, any comments from the audience?
"Is it true that when President Kennedy was gunned down, Valenti was six cars behind him."
Yes.
Now that's an alibi. Oh well, so much for that theory...
-----
No Zen is good zen