NYT On DeCSS Case

The New York Times has a nice summary of the DeCSS case and the issues at stake with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Reporter Amy Harmon managed to put together the facts correctly, probably because she didn't spend too much time talking to the plaintiff's lawyers. There's a nice picture of Emmanuel Goldstein and Macki from 2600.com (mislabeled as Jon Johansen). See our last story for transcripts and other info from the trial. (Last day to sign up to vote in the ICANN elections!) Update: 07/31 15:32 by michael : The NYT has changed out the single picture of Macki and Goldstein to two separate pictures of Johansen and Goldstein. It's good to know they read slashdot. :)

Comments

DeCSS and the net

[ndpatel]

what the movie companies are totally failing to realize is that most people aren't going to start watching movies on ther pc's. most people want to kick back on their overstuffed couch, put their feet up, pop a can o' miller and watch a flick on the >19" boob tube, not sit in an office chair and watch a so-crystal-clear-it's sterile movie on their 17' monitor. there's something to be said for the fuzzy overwarm color tones of a good vcr/dvd console player plugged into a regular tv, and i don't think the average consumer has enough time, energy, or patience to rig up a scan converter or start burning VCD's of pirated movies, no matter how much bandwidth they have (where greater bandwidth= more rampant piracy). besides, last i checked, a program like astarte's m,pack for turning mpegs into burnable vcd streams cost $695. the people who pay $695 so they can watch a crappy handycam rendition of the matrix at vcd quality--the mpaa isn't going to ever stop them.

what the mpaa needs to focus on is having dvd permeate the media universe: removal of region codes so that consumers can purchase and playback dvd's anywhere, sanctioned playback software for every platform, dvd-roms that serves a purpose other than slick self-promotion, etc, etc. allowing dvd to be more widespread will make it the consumer's first choice in media, sidestepping piracy concerns. after all, it's going to be a while before the price of burning a dvd comes down to casual pricay levels, a la cd-r.

Re:DeCSS and the net

[jafuser]

It's true that most people will not watch net-copied movies on their computers, or go through the effort to have their computer project the movie into their home entertainment system. But that's just because these things haven't gotten easy yet. Eventually our computers will be connected to our home entertainment systems to do this easily, and many people will have internet connections which are fast enough that it takes less time to download the movie than to play it.

This is what worries the MPAA - not that people are doing it now, but that *lots* of people will be doing it later if it is left unchecked. And what they are worried about most is not the piracy itself, but their loss of their control. They have spent a considerable amount of time (perhaps decades) refining their marketing and distribution techniques to maximize their income. They can predict fairly well how much money they will make if they create a movie, put it in theatres, then wait x number of months and sell the videos for y number of dollars. They have mastered their marketing art into a finely-tuned equation of x's, y's, and dozens of other variables to make the maximum profit possible.

If the free excahnge of movies hits the mass public, they will have to change their method of distribution. Suddenly, their established marketing equations will not work anymore. There will be hundreds of variables instead of dozens.

If or when this happens, they will still make enormous profits. People will still go to theatres, people will still buy the videos. If the movie companies keep their present set of distribution restrictions without any flexability, then the pirates (most of which are fans) will continue to be large in numbers. Since these fans they can't put their money down for what they want *right now*, they will take time to find "alternate sources". To minimize the piracy, the movie companies will have to make all of their material available in as many formats as possible as soon as possible after the movie is released. They won't be able to place as many of their profit-motivated restrictions on their content. No more "waiting six months" for the christmas season to release videos.

But they don't know what will happen if they switch to this system, so it's just best for them to just stomp out anything else which threatens their legacy. It always comes down to companies losing a small amount of control when the 'net clashes with these companies. Aged businesses are afraid of losing their long-running legacy of marketing and distribution, which they have embraced for so long that they just can't imagine risking themselves to something completely different; so in the end, they wind up fighting and winning batters while losing the war, rather than embracing the internet and putting the pirates out of a job.

A History Lesson

[eagle_grinder]

Ms. Peters has been weighing arguments by copyright holders who contend they will have no incentive to produce digital material without the assurance of such protection


Conversation between Big Media and their programmer consultant, circa 1990

Big time Author / MPAA bigwig / RIAA fatcat :
"We'll produce digital material if and only if it is protected by the first amendment and copyright law."

Programmer:
Sounds good. But isn't it hypocritical that YOUR media, when changed into 1's and 0's, is protected, but MY media, which, in the form of .h, .c, .java files, and binary executables, ISN'T protected?

But that would also mean that the digital algorithm used to encrypt your format ISN'T protected, meaning anyone can flat out copy it and distribute it. Rampant piracy wound ensue.

Big time Author / MPAA bigwig / RIAA fatcat :
You're right. All digital media should be protected.

Programmer :
In that case, The "hackers" will just reverse engineer your algorithm under fair use and as before, distribute it.

Did anyone guess what the industry fatcats said next?
If you said "Buy legislation that eliminates fair use from digital media" You've correctly identified the DMCA! BOB, TELL THEM WHAT THEY'VE WON!

Why doesn't Warner Brothers sue the MPAA?

[rheise]

"Without the guarantee of that protection, a Warner Brothers executive testified in court, the industry would never have begun releasing movies in digital format."

Then why doesn't Warner Brothers sue the MPAA (or dvdcca) for selling them a dodgy protection mechism that could never have worked? They did get that "guarantee" they're talking about, right?

No matter how hard you try, you can't prevent people from making perfect copies of digital data. You can however prevent people from reading it if you have a brain to use encryption properly (why the heck are they making keys available before people are allowed to use them?)

http://www.progsoc.uts.edu.au/~rheise/