Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Electronics, Hollywood Work Against 'Video Napster'
cadfael writes: "The EETimes reports that "a new working group within the existing Copyright Protection Technology Working Group (CPTWG) will review a technical method for flagging video content that is not authorized for Internet transmission. ... The group was formed at the suggestion of Gary Shapiro, head of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), in a letter sent roughly two weeks ago to Jack Valente, head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)." Does this make sense in the light of this article?"
Just like RIAA, MPAA must find a way to be much more attractive to consumers actually buy their product and avoid them to download it from internet.
Recently RIAA lowered their prices to US$10 for a regular CD. If I'm really interested in an artist I would buy a ten-buck-cd, I would pay for audio quality, and even for graphical quality (and of course know the real music name :o) and for a nice case.
This was the first RIAA intelligent step, and I hope MPAA follows its fellow.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Wasn't this more or less what CSS was supposed to do? Just like macrovision is _supposed_ to protect videos.
Oh well, we can run a sweep stake on how long it takes after release to get reverse-engineered. (I reckon 6-7 days)
If they start making broken CDs massively, all you will trust will be mp3. And you can be sure as hell that if the music is good enough there will be good quality mp3s around.
And if they buy legislation in the USA, it will take them about 5 years to impose it worldwide.
That is far too much time to stop the tide.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
It all comes down to the codec / software used, right? I mean, if I have a binary file that's an mpeg2 encoded video, and I ftp it somewhere else, it's the same video. You can't really do anything to the file that makes ftp say "ohhh, I shouldn't copy this."
I think the only way to enforce something like this technically is to build a check into the playing and transfer softwares. And of course, in order to make it work, it would have to be a closed spec, and would probably be licensed.
As long as "normal" software and protocols work, there's probably not going to be a compelling reason to switch to the new protected ones.
I hear you yelling. They want to flag a lot of videos that are being transmitted through file-sharing networks like Kazaa and Gnutella, right? It's gonna be tough to get some marker or flag to remain in place through the various compressions and wrappers (mpg, div-x, asf, avi, wmf, etc.).
Of course, if they do flag files, then it may b possible to use the DMCA as another method to sue the rippers, since the loss of the flag would be circumventing a "copyright protection mechanism".
Just my 0.02 [1]
woof.
About that .02 Euro: The plural of the Euro-cent is also "cent", giving you "Just my two cent". We have prices like "Fifteen Euro and twenty-seven cent". I already miss the Deutschmark (but not the Franc).
When I read about this, my first reaction was that every single second of TV broadcast will be flagged as uncopyable.
My second thought was "hmmm, I wonder if the comercials will be flagged as copy protected."
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
When will these companies realise that until they start making money out of what consumers what to do they're always going to be in a pitched battle against so-called 'hackers'?
So people use the internet to trade music. And they might invent something to trade video without the adverts. And years done the line they'll be trading whatever comes next. Why do companies insist on trying to stop what is obviously going to happen, and start embrassing it. Instead of trying to stop people doing this why not work on creating a business model that consumers are happy with and would be willing to pay for. I'd certainly pay a bit for television sans adverts (a bit of in-show product placement would keep the advertisers happy, I just hate the breaks), and if I could get these shows over the net as and when and whereever I want them I'd pay even more.
Companies that are wholely antagonistic toward their customers are really annoying.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Suppose companies start distributing video using the CPTWG encoder (whatever they might call it) to mark it as nondistributable. What's to keep folk from sending the video output to a DV device, then reading it back and re-encoding it to whatever 'open' format they choose? This isn't the easiest way to accomplish it, I'm sure, but if media can be played, can't it be re-recorded and converted?
It seems to me that whenever the powers-that-wanna-be try to establish total control of digital media, they lose whatever control or influence they already had. Why not redirect efforts toward better fair-use policies, reasonable licensing schemes, and accept that somebody will copy your work no matter what you do?
I think the real trick will be to improve Joe Random's perception of the recording industry to the point that he feels guilty about having media he hasn't paid for. Their current tactics will never accomplish that, and in fact will tend to perpetuate the Robin Hood fantasy that Napsterites currently enjoy.
"The more you tighten your grip, Valente, the more encoding systems will slip through your fingers." -- Princess RIAA
Macrovision has always been something I think the government should deem illegal-- especially in light of DVD players and how it infringes on a consumers rights;
Example: Mary has an old RF (coax) input TV that works fine, and she has a semi-old (1990) VCR attached to it to watch movies. This VCR has a video input on the back for hooking up other devices, camcorders and so forth. Mary decides she wants to take advantage of the latest price drops in DVD players (example: Pioneer DVD player at Costco for roughly $200-250). Mary buys said DVD player, takes it home and plugs it into her VCR using A/V cables (RCA jacks). Mary proceeds to try to watch The Matrix. Lo and behold, Mary notices that instead of a superior image, she sees the image getting extremely dark, then turning bright, then dark again, repeatedly. The culprit? Macrovision.
It's bullshit that people should have to purchase a brand-new television set to watch DVD movies (and this may in fact not be possible for the person used in the example above, after all, a new TV can cost three times as much as a DVD player).
It's also interesting to note that Laser Discs, for whatever reason, didn't employ Macrovision. Another problem I have with Macrovision is that (supposedly, based upon my little understanding of the subject) introduces errors into the video (and audio?) INTENTIONALLY, errors which the human eye supposedly can't see, but which confuse video inputs on VCR's and other 'video input' devices (video capture cards in PC's, and so on).
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
The main problem that both the RIAA and the MPAA have is that they have lost touch with reality. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, computer literate people. Because of this, you get idiotic decisions like the Cactus CD-Rip protection, the 0.99GB per .vob limit on DVDs, CSS, any all of the rest of the things that we love to laugh at.
/. and laugh at.
If they wanted to sell their products, they'd lower the prices (seriously, 10$ CDs are good, but 30$ for a DVD? Come on, a DVD isn't that expensive, and you've already raped the consumer in the theaters, so drop the price. 15$ or 20$ for a new DVD would be nice), as well as try to get intelligent people to protect their goods.
Instead of going after whoever cracked CSS, the MPAA should have approached them, asked for suggestions to improve encryption, not sue them for copyright infringement, or whatever bullshit they currently are pulling out of their asses.
Information will find a way to be free, be it ripping CDs, DVDs, or whatever. As long as you have computer-illiterate people making the decisions, we'll always have news stories to post on
Gawyn
Freedom of Speech?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
This path makes far more sense than fighting with the consumer on copy protection. Watermark their files so that it would be relatively easy for law enforcement to "know" a file has been illegally copied. Are they going to raid someone's home looking for them? Probably not. But they might look through a suspected criminal's computer (with a warrant, of course) and prosecute based on what they find.
I really don't have a problem with this as it would be no different than car manufacturer's putting the VIN everywhere they can on a vehicle.
In this case, enforcement might be substantially easier than prevention.
When is the RIAA and MPAA going to get it through their thick skulls that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PIRATE-PROOF DIGITAL MEDIA!
... the studios just need to do it.
... in my mind, I own it! I am not going to pay $1.99 an episode for each episode every time I want to watch a tv show I missed. I am going to download once, "time-shift" it on my Replay TV, and if I like it, I am going to archive it to VHS, VCD, DVD, etc.
You can do whatever you want to a binary file, but the reality is that when the consumer wants to listen/watch the file (You know, guys, WHY you made it in the first place!), there has to be a translation from protected digital to unprotected digital before it is converted to analog. All I have to do to pirate is capture that stream before it goes to analog.
Their answer seems to be to force everyone to push the translation from protected digital to analog into hardware and pass laws to make it illegal to break their algorithm. This will never work. Everytime you change your protection scheme, you make all the current players obsolete - pissing off your customers.
It takes months or years to get the new algorithm distributed to consumers in the form of hardware, but is takes only days or weeks for hackers to reverse engineer it in software and start pirating.
It is a game they can not win. They need to simply make it a hassle to pirate, accept that a certain percentage of people are going to pirate no matter what they do, and focus on their legitimate customers. Accept the price that the market will bare and get on with life.
It the day of ReplayTV and Broadband, it is moronic that I can not tie into media servers of all the major studios and download any movie or tv show on demand on a Pay-Per-View basis. They technology is *ALL* there today to do it
And they have to understand that once I have downloaded it
That is reality. That is your market. Sell to it and stop trying to using the government to be your Guido the Killer Pimp that throw people in jail because they dared to watch a DVD on Linux!
If they can limit it to a very few tech minded people they've achieved their goal. You can never eradicate piracy 100%. Napster was a threat because it was availble to so many average users and no real tech knowledge was required. Just install and download all the music you want. You don't really have to eradicate piracy anyway. Just make it hard enough that 90% will never figure out how to do it and you're good to go.
Good point. I wonder, though, if enough people will become enough tech-savvy that workarounds and hacks will still become widespread enough, or if those creating the hacks will make them simple enough for most people.
Also, what about the culture that has sprung up on the internet of not wanting to pay for things (God, we're all such freeloaders)? Is that going to hurt paid-for video over the internet the way it has killed music?
This is the NFL, which stands for "Not For Long" if you keep making those bulls*** calls.
I would like to address the legislature (US, EU, and everywhere else).
The internet is the greatest developement in communication since the invention of the printing press. More people have access to more information than ever before deamt possible. The cost of distributing information to unlimited numbers of people is virtually zero.
We can embrace this new technology and it's benefits, or we can reject it, cripple it, destroy it.
The adoption of any new technology means change. Any bussiness unwilling or unable to adapt to that change will fail. The adoption of the automobile meant the doom of the buggy-whip industry.
With the adoption of new technology businesses will fail. They will make way for new businesses and new possibilities. We will all reap the rewards.
As for the other choice, that road leads to maddness. In this specific case - flagging video - for this scheme to work EVERY SINGLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE must respect this flag. This means all other devices must be made illegal - including existing devices. It must be illegal to alter devices you own. It must be illegal to create your own device. It must be illegal to attempt to understand how these technologies work. It must be illegal to explain to anyone how these technologies work.
KNOWLEDGE MUST BE MADE A CRIME.
Furthermore, such restrictions must be enforced GLOBALLY. Any nation who resists must be crushed into submission.
Such is the madness of the DMCA, EUCA, and other attempts to "protect" us from progress.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You did a very good job of presenting their point. Here are a couple of my rebuttals: 1) Yes talented artists demand a lot of money but that is because somebody will pay it (much like Baseball players - see A.Rod). If you stop paying them maybe they will retire and then there will be another 500,000 people more than eager to take their place. A lot of these guys have become old hat anyway (like Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, Mel Gibson, etc.). Time to let some new blood into Hollywood. There is a big difference between making a living as an actor and being a filthy rich bastard actor. 2)Bombs in the theatre will be bombs in the video store also. Maybe if Hollywood focused on putting out a few good movies each year instead of bombarding us with constant crap then there would be less bombs. I can't believe that Movie executives can't see the bombs coming. I'm not even in that industry and I can't take one look at a movie and go "bomb." 3)Finally, If DVD's were more affordable then more people would buy them regardless of free bootlegs available. When presented with the choice of a $5 real movie or a free movie from a questionable source, I personally would choose $5. That is of course assuming that I want to own the movie anyway. If I don't want to own it then you never would get my money anyway. I would probably borrow it from a friend or the library and watch it once. I apologize for the long-windedness of this post but I hope my points make sense.
LOL - this will be fun ;P
/Sonny Bono/etc... such that the "good" "consumers" never get anything back as public domain...
...if we removed all watermarking and other copy-prohibiting technologies. Both you and we know that there are always a few bad apples in the cart, and we must take preventative measures to protect our copyrighted material. Instead of directing your anger at us, why don't you join us in our efforts to track down people engaged in illegal activites?
Recording artists and movie stars command very high fees for their services. If we were to offer them significantly less, many of the most talented and popular artists would simply go into retirement. In short, no pay, no play.
Geez - that wouldn't be because they get paid a hell of a lot more than they should in the first place, would it? Imagine the money that could be saved if actors got reasonable salaries, rather than multi-million dollar movie deals...
Sure...initially the quality might go down as multi-millionaire actors and actresses who have been spoiled by disgustingly huge salaries decide to start retiring - but with the money you save there, you could hire more/different actors and actresses, and have a more diverse offering.
Sure, the studios make large profits on hit movies and albums. However, there are also our fair share of bombs. At the end of the day, our return on investment is not significantly different from that in other industries.
In other words, because you can't learn from your mistakes, you want to sock it to us. Why am I not impressed by this viewpoint? Again - if you cut the obnoxious salaries, more money could be put into things like writing and development, rather than just producing special effects bombs, or stupid teen flicks.
We realize the consumers' desires to make personal copies, pass programming onto friends, etc. We simply cannot make a profit without sufficient copy protections to ensure that people actually buy our products.
Again, this is because your overhead is far, far too high to begin with. Cut the fat, and your numbers would look a hell of a lot different. Offer your products with good quality at a reasonable price, and people will buy it. Otherwise, they will find other ways. That's the way it is.
Although there are good consumers who would abide by our copyrights...
...which have been extended ad infinitum by Disney
Join us! Turn in your neighbors for their subversive activities! Be rewarded!
Look - first, stop trying to manage your own financial blunders by taking our rights away. Second, start taking a realistic look at why people are turning to alternative distribution methods. They're turning to them because you're not offering your products with good quality at reasonable prices, you're offering a mediocre product at an inflated price. Third, start taking a realistic look at your budgets, salaries, and other offerings, and see where you can make some cuts to save money, lower your overhead, and make the numbers work out.
The idea that information is free is simply not true.
Hogwash. information is, and should be free. Products, however, should have a reasonable price based on their quality. The overhead involved should be carefully managed such that it doesn't force the price up beyond reasonable levels. But information itself has been, and should always remain, free.
Without a way of paying the producers for their time and effort, the amount of material would evaporate until nearly nothing remains.
The question here is not about payment. Noone will argue that for products of sufficient quality, which have reasonable prices, people will pay. Some people will choose not to, in any case. As you said before, there are always some bad apples. Instead of taking "normal" people's rights away in order to exert control over the bad apples, simply come to grips with the fact that they exist, have always existed, and will always exist. You can't simply throw your billions of dollars at congress and expect them to go away. They won't. But - you can sway more people to the paying side if you embrace what the people want, instead of trying to take away their rights.
Okay...it's far too early to have posted something like this - flame on!
I see a lot of posts which are very anti copy protection and I understand why - fair use rights being eroded, the deliberate crippling of useful technologies etc. However very few people seem to understand the other point of view. There's no proven revenue model for content that doesn't depend on keeping unauthorised copying to a minimum.
However much you may think that the MPAA or content producers are the evil empire, they are at the end of the day just companies trying to make a profit. They know they can make a profit if their content if their copyright protection is in some way enforceable. The problem is technology has made copying easier and with digital media copies maintain perfect quality. There are only two ways forward - find a different revenue model that can survive large scale unauthorised copying, or try to prop up the existing one. Most of the effort seems to go on the later because no-one seriously believes that a revenue model exists that doesn't at least strongly discourage unauthorised copying.
Personally I don't know where this will end but I can only see tough times ahead. Companies are not going to stop trying to protect their content and thus their revenue, and inidividuals are not going to stop trying to use the flexibility that the technology promises.
Isn't it ironic that this story is posted directly after the one about punishing freeloaders?
Get ready for more and more of these schemes to protect copyrighted material...also be ready for a larger percentage of the market to participate in ways of circumventing it. Every time these guys raise the bar it makes the act of "getting away with it" that much more appealing to Joe-Sixpack. Hey, who doesn't want to be considered part of the tech savy croud. The dinosaurs of the record and music industry will do whatever it takes to preserve their outdated business models. Inovation outside of their control is a direct threat to the empires they have built. I'm sure there were quite a few record execs that were grabbing for their heart medication when (gasp!) they found out that people were so fed up with paying $17 for a CD with one or two good songs and another 8 tracks of crap that their "customers" were now able to take them out of the loop. If they want to survive and, yes, even become more successful, they should consider cutting prices and making more profit on volume of sales instead of higher profit margins and embracing newer, more efficient means of distribution. I mean, c'mon, cd burners are selling for well under $100. These companies could save a bloody fortune in manufacturing, packaging, logistics and transportation by using electronic distribution methods over the internet. They could sell indvidual tracks over the net, cut out at least 3 middle-men in the process, save consumers money and possibly make more money than ever. Short-sighted morons!
Things move in cycles and the execs know it. Now that school dropped classes like music, art and other liberal arts courses, people are creating their own. There's no barrier preventing a gifted artist from distributing their work around the world without a media company making a cent. The modern metropolis created the need for distribution systems, but the internet has decreased the value of those institutions.
The core function of a media company is under attack from all sides. Look at the 405 movie made by a few guys that got world wide attention. Median execs are afraid that will become the norm and not the exception.
They're both illegal.
Under the landmark Sony v. Universal case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to ban VCRs because they could be used for time-shifting: i.e. watching Starsky & Hutch (or whatever people watched back in the '70s :) at a different time than whenever NBC (or whoever) decided to show it.
They decided that this was a fair use.
It's not actually stated, but it's pretty strongly implied in the decision that the now-common act of building ad-free libraries of TV shows is illegal.
And it's certain that distributing videotape copies of shows is illegal. It's a violation of copyright, not saved by fair use, even in the U.S.
Of course, people do it all the time. This is just one of the many inanities of copyright law in the modern era.
Another inanity: The U.S. is the only country in the Western world with a fair use doctrine in copyright law. That means that probably time-shifting is illegal in every other First World country. However, the movie industry knows that if they were to, say, sue to stop Brits having VCRs, they'd win the lawsuit but then the Brits would change copyright law - to make it weaker - and they don't want that.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
If only 10% of the people actually know how to do it then they still lose. Somone in that top 10% is bound to just write an app or instrictions.
Take script kiddies as proof of this. How many kiddies actually know how those "hack programs" work?
- Ordinary users now have an ever-increasing array of high-bandwidth transfer mediums at their disposal: ftp, IRC, ICQ, email, web hosting, CD-Rs, tape drives, removable hard drives, laptops... you think the new iMac's DVD burner is going to be used for home movies?
:)
- Ordinary users still have freedom to choose what code their machines run, which means content is in enemy territory. It can be unlocked, transferred to a new format, edited, or even just played.
Content providers need to address these underlying problems, not the latest Napster clones. This will mean locking down media, data, networks, protocols, OSes, apps, BIOSes, hardware, the whole lot. Pretty doubtful, methinks.You seem like you are informed on the subject (more informed than me), so I wonder if you could answer a question for me. What would be the legality of the following:
1. My brother who is living in a different state records a show on a channel I do not receive and sends (either on VHS tape or digitally) it to me.
2. My brother who lives in the same city (with the same TV channels) as me tapes a show I was too busy to see and drops it off at my house so I can view it later.
3. My brother who lives with me tapes a show I missed so I can watch it when I get home.
4. (2), and he watches it with me.
5. (3), and he watches it with me.
6. I tape a show with my TiVo when neither of us are home and we come home and watch it together.
It would seem 3, 4, 5 and 6 would all fall under the fair use doctrine, but are they really any different than 1 or 2?
Enigma
But wouldn't this then violate First Sale doctrine? A copy that you legally possess is yours to do with as you will -- watch, sell, donate, burn, etc. -- as long as you don't copy it. At leas that's how I understand it.
As to whether you can create ad-less video libraries: If I went through my collection of Scientific Americans and cut out all the ads, then stored the remainder, would that violate copyright? I don't think so -- I think you may do whatever you want, so long as you don't distribute a copy.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Okay, let me get this straight:
Movie studios took a risk a few years ago by putting money and support behind a new format (DVD -- and don't come back by asserting that there was no way the format could fail so therefore it wasn't a risk). DVD brought consumers high quality, non-degradable copies of their favorite movies in a small, convenient, and AFFORDABLE package. Why is everyone so intent on spitting in their faces? Let's take a look at some of the common reasons:
1. "If they would price DVDs reasonably, I wouldn't pirate them." $20 (or less) isn't a good enough for movies that are of excellent quality, will never degrade (theoretically), and usually come in very nice packaging? I've got news for you... just because it cost $1.00 or so to produce that DVD doesn't mean that companies are making $19.00 of profit when it's marked up to $20! These movies cost many millions of dollars to produce and market, and many fail to even break even. A lot of my favorite movies were complete box-office failures or are very obscure... I think it's very GENEROUS of movie companies to take a risk and produce thousands of copies of movies which they might lose money on just so a relatively small number of people can have high-quality copies of their favorite (obscure) movies!
2. "Sure, lots of movies bomb, but that wouldn't happen if the studios weren't making crappy movies." I've got news for you... studios aren't nearly as stupid as you may think. They've been in the business long enough to know what moviegoers want, AND THEY MAKE THE MOVIES THAT AUDIENCES WANT TO SEE! Teens love stupid teen movies, so movie companies produce them. Most people enjoy crude humor, so movie companies produce crude comedies. It's just that simple. Movie companies are only willing to take a risk on cutting-edge movies if they have a feeling that audiences will go for it, which usually doesn't happen. Maybe our society should broaden its tastes and then Hollywood will respond.
3. "Movie companies aren't willing to embrace the internet revolution and they're getting what they deserve." Okay, hotshot. You've just spent $50 million on a movie. Naturally you want to make that money back, right? How do you plan on doing that if you distribute your movie on the internet with no copy-protection whatsoever? Charge a "reasonable" price for a download of your movie (which can be viewed indefinitely)? What might be a reasonable price to you is a ludicrous price to someone else. You may think $5 to download your movie is reasonable, but there's a bunch of pirates and freeloaders who think your movie sucks far too much to be worth a whole $5. And, since you don't believe in copy-protection, it's even EASIER for said pirates to share your hard work with everyone on Morpheus. Good job. You're now bankrupt.
I think the whole pro-piracy/anti-RIAA/anti-MPAA issue boils down to this:
1. If given a choice, most people would take a movie at 90% of the quality for free over 100% quality for $20.
2. People who support pirating movies/music believe that if the tools to reproduce and redistribute movies/music are there that it is their God-given right to use them.
What you people have to realize is that movies and music ARE NOT PART OF YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Companies can charge WHATEVER THEY WANT for their products. Movies and music are LUXURIES, they are not necessities. Things would be different if the MPAA had a stranglehold on milk/bread/fruits/vegetables/etc. and started charging ridiculous prices for them -- BUT THAT ISN'T HOW IT IS. They have luxury (non-necessary) items that they spent billions of dollars on FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT -- all they ask of you is that you give them a modest amount of money to compensate their efforts. Grow up and stop trying to get a free ride.
The media companies are going to figure out how to wrap video content into a streaming form with "copy protection" built into the stream. In a closed source environment, in which the API layers that translate the stream into viewable video are hidden, it will work perfectly.
But what about an open source environment? When the stream-to-video APIs are open source, it becomes trivial to stick a frame-grabber on top, instead of a media player. Instant, lossless recording of any internet video stream, whether it be "copy protected" or not.
Access-controlled streaming is going to be the standard MO in the media industry, and that means two things: one, that open source OSes are going to be left out of the content-on-demand game, and two, if Linux takes over a commanding portion of the desktop, Big Media will be inhibited from doing any sort of access-protected media streaming.
The best reason, in my mind, to use open platforms is that it keeps the entire Internet open and functional for everyone.
dinner: it's what's for beer
But then they wouldn't have their egos stroked by paparazzi and their throngs of fans. These people are not driven by economic utility, and that is what you are basing your model on.
Brad Pitt would make movies for half of his going rate if that is all that was offered. What else is he going to do, sell used cars?
Quit treating these people as dispassionate, rational agents out of an ecomomics textbook. It doesn't wash.
Okay. 2-6 are probably all okay according to Sony v. Universal, as long as you don't keep the tape for archival purposes. You're watching a show that you're legally entitled to watch, just at a different time from when the original broadcaster put it on. It's when you keep tapes lying around that the law gets messy.
1 is questionable, and not a matter of settled law, at least not in the U.S. AFAIK. There are two possible sub-branches. I will deal with each of them in turn.
This probably isn't what you meant. But in this case you're almost certainly breaking the law. Effectively, you're using your brother's VCR to reduce your cable bill. You could get the show (and tape it to watch whenever you wanted) just by paying your cable company some more money (and possibly buying a VCR). I'd have a Real Hard Time arguing fair use here.
This is probably what you meant. And it's tricky. Sony v. Universal doesn't deal with it. The entertainment industry would say that the right thing to do is to lobby your cable company to add the channel you want, or get DirecTV or something like that. You might say "But I can't get DirecTV because I live in an apartment building, and my cable company won't listen." It'd be a fun argument. However, given the rulings in the 2600 cases, I suspect you'd lose in the current U.S. judicial climate.
Does that help?
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Okay, I should have said Western European, sorry. :)
I was trying to exclude Russia et al., didn't get quite specific enough.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Check with a British IP lawyer before either:
As it so happens, I live in a country which has a very similar Copyright Act to yours (or theirs; perhaps you're not a Brit, but you certainly write like one).
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
For a few years people have been working behind the screens to make the general purpose PC a certified hardware device.
All hardware vendors are involved in the "trusted PC" initiative. From BIOS, See www.trustedpc.org
The specification has been published in december 2001.
Certified by an additional chip on your mainboard, before your BIOS even boots. It certifies BIOS, then bootblock, then OSloader, and then the OS and its applications. They really want you not to be able to see or hear content if there is even a single piece of hardware or software not certified. Let's hope it will become a failure.
Ofcourse, it is all done as a "privavy meassure" with a "privacy Certificate Agency" that will only unique mark you as anonymous entity, and which will not "store" your information after your application. Right.
Leto
Wait, do you mean you just got an adapter from the DVD player directly to the TV? That's not nearly as exciting...
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Typical arrogant Brit bullshit. Sigh. Read my other post to another Brit. I'll explain in more detail right now. Fair use is unique to the U.S., at least in the Anglo-American world; what the Commonwealth uses is a concept called fair dealing, which is considerably more restrictive.
Fair dealing shows up in the U.K., Canada, Australia... probably all of the Commonwealth, those are just the copyright acts I've read.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
I should also comment on your abuse of my handle. It's a reference to a classic British SF novel which you evidently haven't read. I usually go by the nick Haflinger. Between these two nicks, you should be able to figure out which novel I'm talking about, unless of course you're an illiterate peckerhead.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
- convert theaters to digital,
- print more films,
- change the initial distribution of the limited prints we have,
- release DVD's independent of global (variable) theatrical release dates,
- or think of any other way...
Naah! We'll just legislate that it's illegal for our customers to use technology to get our product before we're ready to make it available to them at our own, completely arbitrary schedule.They need to reverse the process and ask: How can we use technology to make our product more available to more people?
In order to send information through my body, you are required to accept my "Body Pass-through Usage Agreement", which simply states that you completely and instantly transfer all copyrights and ownership on that material to me (If they don't like that, all they have to do is to stop sending thier radio waves through me).
So, I am the sole owner of those shows and music that you are hearing, and I officially give you permission to copy them and pass them around to your friends.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Would you mind passing along a citation or two that I could look over? I think this sort of work is neat, and I'd like to know more about it. Just reply to this message & I'll check it out. Thanks in advance . . .
1. Cry me a river. For some reason, pity doesn't exactly gush from my heart for the poor, poor movie studios. The cost of any movie not considered a flop is recouped in the theatrical release. Making the DVD is gravy.
2. Umm, studios make mediocre, derivative crap because they are afraid to take risks. This is why they make sequels. They know that enough people will go see it to make back their investment, and then some. This is what happens when a supposedly ``artistic'' industry is run by a bunch of accountants.
3. Like I said, theatrical release almost always makes the cost of the movie. They could *give away* digital copies of the film once it had made back the investment plus ten percent. What a wacky concept, eh?
No. But fair use is.
Yeah, so?
I think we have two different perspectives here. Sure, piracy is illegal. But any technique that would supposedly prevent piracy would also prevent fair use. I'm sure the studios will be crying all the way to the bank.
I'm having a really hard time believing you're a) serious, and b) not Jack Valenti.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The reason that actors and other performers are often very highly paid is because the constitute a marketing brand. It is the brand that has the value (and brands DO have a very marketable value). But you can't separate the brand from the person, so the person ends up commanding big bucks.
The only good weather is bad weather.
How? By putting a real "watermark" on the data. This watermark is not to prevent copying, and in fact it must have absolutely no effect on any consumer device. They then have an easy automated test they can do to data they find on the internet, and detect people selling or otherwise distributing copyrighted works, and go after them with the law. Once the illegal data has been detected humans can look at it and easily determine and prove that it is copyrighted, there is no need for the watermark's techniques to be revealed in court.
Unfortunately they are going to insist on blowing it by trying to avoid the need for law by making consumer devices recognize the watermark and trying to avoid copying that way. The problem with this is that it provides hackers with a trivial test to see if the watermark is there and allows them to remove it!
They could try both, but they shoud realize that if the hacker is encouraged to mess with the data due to the copy-prevention watermark, it is quite likely they will accidentally remove the other watermark, or they will detect the other watermark during their attempts to remove the copy-protection one (since it is likely the technologies will be tied together).
The people running the MPAA, etc. are idiots. They are sabotaging their own ability to stop pirates, and pissing off the consumers at the same time with difficult-to-use and overpriced equipment. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to change their mind because they have no knowledge of technology.
From the article:
***Looking to stave off a potential video versions of services like Napster, ***
Not only is this bad grammar, isn't this called Limewire (insert app of choice or favorite videohound on IRC)?
Or to really break it down, as so many have already tried to say in great length, if it's 0s and 1s, it's going to be transmitted over the Internet and all you can do is make it a little tougher to get started.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
"The days when there was a select group of artists, created by the studios, up on top are over, because today anyone can create anything," said Chuck D, an independent music maker on the panel. "The studios put all their money into Britney Spears, and they tank if she doesn't have a good year. Meanwhile there's a whole field of Britney Spearses out there."
The solution is simple: if we don't want the RIAA/MPAA's encrypted proprietary formats, make them obsolete. Put them out of business by offering something better: a new generation of independent media. Chuck is dead on when he says "today anyone can create anything." More and more musicians, even just hobby musicians, have everything they need to make exceptional quality recordings in their basements. If not, they probably have a friend that does. The same can be increasingly said for movie production. Prosumer DV cameras are getting cheaper and better. Off the shelf computer hardware can produce CG effects that surpass what Hollywood could muster 5 years ago. Free software for audio and video editing is slowly maturing. And regardless of the technology, TV shows like South Park have demonstrated that most people don't even care about visual quality if the desired content is there. (not that I particularly like SP..)
So in conclusion, the best way to fight the media giants is to provide an alternative, much as Open Source has provided an alternative to MS and proprietary software.
It appears that you've managed to move the focus of the debate from "Industry Lobbies To Curtail Fair Use!" to "Lazy Slashdot Punks Are All Pirates!".
Regardless of whether the industry is losing its shirt, we have the right to fair use. When the industry sells us product, we as consumers have the right to fair use. The industry's desire to eliminate the potential for crime is a distant priority at best.
It is never okay to abrogate a right in order to remove the potential for crime. I'm trying to think of an example to put here, but they're all coming out police-state-y, and I don't want to fall prey to Godwin.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I read an industry commentary a couple of years ago in Electronic Musician or something like that. There was one comment I thought was very perceptive. The author talked about the observation that most people will listen to a given 5 minute song they like MANY many more times than they would watch a favorite movie, television show, or even short or segment of a show.
Now, granted, this observation was made by a music fan/musician to music fans/musician. And you have to take into account that for every time you can watch "The Mummy Returns" or "O Brother Where Art Thou" you can listen to "Short Skirt, Long Jacket" or "Man of Constant Sorrow" about 30 times. however, I've listened to William Walton's "Belshazzar's Feast" which is about 30 minutes probably hundreds of times. Brandenburg Concerto #4, ditto. And most people will listen to a complete album (like, say, U2's Joshua Tree) over and over. So I think the generalization holds. People's interest in music holds longer (whether or not there's less material). The author of the article held it was because there's a mental/emotional participatory nature to music that isn't present in TV or movies. I think the way he said it was "In music, there's an 'us'. In TV, there's only 'them'."
Anyway, the point is, a Napster for video would work differently, and perhaps not as well. I think you'd have a smaller number of people constantly scouring the thing for files. Fewer people on as often reduces the value. Except for real film fans (you know, the people that actually BUY most of the movies they watch, rather than rent, or that work at blockbuster and/or majored in film at school), most people would have a small collection on their hard drive of a few favorites, and perhaps a season or two of their favorite show. So mostly, it'd be easy to find "E.T." and "The Simpsons". Films by Zhang Yimou might be available when the right people got on.
Yeah, that problem existed with Napster. But it'd be magnified for video... because fewer people I know are as anxious to make video a constant and repeated presence in their lives. Music just trumps it as an art form.
(Of course, it may just be that since I stopped watching the TV in the early 90's -- occasional exceptions for Animaniacs, Simpsons, the Tick, and the X-Files -- I haven't made friends with TV people, and am out of touch.)
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
I am going to make the $10,000 toothbrush. Then, when nobody buys it, I'm going to complain that I can't make money, that imported commie toothbrushes are destroying my market.
And then, I'm going to demand protection by the government to make sure that I *do* make money.
Or, I could see the writing on the wall and make cheaper toothbrushes. If I make $10 toothbrushes or $1,000,000 movies, its harder to lose your shirt.
Yeah, in the future, the $100,000,000 movie may not exist. So? Home Alone cost a couple of million dollars. There's no way India's film industry (bigger than hollywood) makes movies costing that much.
Trust the free market. They'll make money; hell, like television and the VCR, this will probably lead to more profit than ever before. (despite their origional claims to the contrary) The demand for Entertainment is insatiable, and hollywood is DAMNED good at manufacturing it by the ton-lots.
They will find a way to make money.
This too has solutions, of course, like embedding copy control systems into the output device (= monitor). By using a crypto handshake between all the devices, from disc reader to monitor, it can be the monitor itself which refuses to display the watermarked data.
I've wondered about this for a while, and if the MPAA/Studios/whoever else are really convinced they're losing as much money as they say they are, a fix is realtively easy: They simply commission several big-name consumer electronics companies to build a really nice flatscreen display with copy-protection embedded in the monitor's silicon, then subsidize the heck out of them in the marketplace.
Think about it: How many people wouldn't jump at the chance to get a nice 42" HD plasma screen for $500? Not many. (In the volumes we're talking about, those prices wouldn't even need all that much subsidizing - big flat screens are expensive now at least partly because volumes are low.) People would suddenly decide they didn't care very much about that little poison pill embedded in the product, and once enough of the market is seeded, then rights managment is a de facto reality.
The interesting thing is that this could work quite well right now, but there is a limited window in which there is a tasty enough piece of bait (flat screens) that people want, but don't have. It works for the content owners because they now know that the screen owners will have to obtain thier content legitimately in order to view it.
Perhaps I should write this up and let them pay me for building such an initiative...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
This means that in addition to the content providers wanting to stop a video napster, the cable internet companies will also want very much to squash it. The impression I got with audio naptster was that the bandwidth usage was low enough to not hurt cable performance, and so the cable companies didn't care that much, and so didn't want to get involved.
Video peer-to-peer will have a much harder time catching on, I think...it won't take many cases of ISPs canceling accounts of people who do it to scare people away.
That's right, noncommercial use is presumptively fair. That doesn't mean automatically fair. Presumptively fair just means that the copyright holder has to defeat the presumption: it sets up a higher bar.
Odds are that duplication for archival would go over that bar.
However, we may never know what those justices would have thought; the main aim of the DMCA IMO was to overturn Sony v. Universal anyway.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore