EFF Comments on HDTV Copy Restriction Plans

Seth Schoen writes: "EFF has been following the work of the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (which was featured in a CNet article linked from slashdot on Thursday) since it was founded in November. Co-incidentally, we today released an EFF overview of this work which contains some of our criticism of these efforts to control the ability of future consumer devices to record digital HDTV broadcasts."

Comments

just great

[crayz]

Already it's tough to get people to spend the extra cash on those HDTV sets. Lets throw in some copy protection too, to make HDTV even more unappealing! Then we can all be stuck with NTSC for the rest of our natural lives.

Re:For Personal Use Only

[RatFink100]

Meaning that if the movie industry didn't exist, another one would grow up to replace it.

I agree - I'm just not sure whether it would be as large - which is why I wrote 'very little to play' rather than 'nothing'.

I keep coming back to the question of how would people wanting to make movies, music etc make money. People always phrase this in terms of the big corporations - and I understand why, they are the ones pushing for these changes, they are the ones with power, they are the ones responsible for most of the content out there. But do we really believe that the small independent producers have some secret to making money that the Big Bad Studios haven't thought of? So my view is that the small guys will be as vulnerable, or more so, to loss of revenue due to unauthorised copying of their work.

The other mistake, in my view, that people make is that they seem to treat the argument as if the current situation is static. The studios want to introduce a change that will reduce our rights - that much is true. But they do not acknowledge that the amount of unauthorised copying is increasing, or that this represents a real problem for the content producers. What the industry is trying to do is stem a tide, reverse a trend - it's not just about greed and getting more and more from the consumer, it's also about making sure their market doesn't diminish to a fraction of its current size. I see it as an unwelcome - but predictable and even understandable response.

Of course many people say that there's no point trying to restrict copying at all, that it flies in the face of the technology and that that particular genie is out of the bottle and won't go back. They argue that content producers should acknowledge this and simply find a revenue model that doesn't rely on copyright. Well the only one I can think of is the live concert/theatrical showing model - which would mean very significantly reduced revenues and possibly no official content at all. I can easily forsee a future where you can make a little money showing a movie in theatres but never bother producing a DVD because there's too small a market for it.

Which pretty much brings us back to our point of agreement (though you may not agree with my logic of getting there) - which is that if effective copyright protection doesn't exist then there movie and music industries will exist but be much more modest than there are now. You're not bothered by this because you say you wouldn't miss 'mega-budget trashy action movies'. Well you may not miss 'Armageddon' or 'Lord of the Rings' but frankly I would. They may or may not be great Art but they are entertaining.

Personally I see this as a great dilemma/turning point for digital media in our age. I'd like to hope that there is someone out there clever enough to be able to come up with a way to make money without attacking personal freedoms - but I'm afraid I'm pessimistic about it.

Re:The law should not control machine design

[someone247356]

Actually lockpicks are legal.

It's how you use them that makes them illegal. In fact I can buy a tool that allows me to open most car locks at the local dollar store. If they are in your possession when you are caught committing a crime you're in trouble, and if the cops suspect that you are committing a crime (or about to) and you have them on you might have a bit more explaining to do, but just having them isn't illegal.

I think that's the main problem with the DMCA. It makes just having or talking about things illegal. The reason given is that they MIGHT be used to infringe on copyright. If that were the case then why don't we make steak knives, or hammers, or baseball bats illegal? I mean forget about copyright violations, there is documented evidence that people are MURDERED with these things. Sounds kind of ridiculous now doesn't it.

Using any tool to commit a crime is illegal. Murder is murder whether you shoot someone, beat them to death with a baseball bat, or strangle them with dental floss (Oops, perhaps I shouldn't have said that, they might decide to strictly regulate the manufacture and distribution of dental floss) You prosecute the person who committed the crime. You don't make possessing material objects illegal.

Perhaps the problem is that corporations and the congressmen that back them have their priorities all messed up. Murder, starvation, rape, assault that's ok. Just don't do anything that MIGHT effect their profit margin.

Heaven no. Not that.

Uggggg.....