Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Wants Copy-Controlled PCs
phil reed writes: "According to our favorite media mogul, Jack Valenti (as stated in this letter in the Washington Post, all PCs need to have strong copy protection built in. 'Computer and video-device companies need to sit at the table with the movie industry. Together, in good-faith talks, they must agree on the ingredients for creating strong protection for copyrighted films and then swiftly implement that agreement to make it an Internet reality.' Way to go, guy."
I was just having a discussion w/someone last night about how unfree we are.
who the fuck are they to control PC's? If a vendor wants to force copy protection it is up to them. Tough fucking shit if we decide to boycott, destroy, crack, etc.
I am sorry but I would rather suckass w/the latest technology of today than suffer through copy-protected PCs of the future.
Fuck you MPAA.
"[W]hen social policy is created in smoke-filled back rooms, between movie/record company executives and computer company executives [..] [i]s it unexpected that such back-room policies end up favoring the parties who were in the room, at the expense of consumers and the public?" - John Gilmore.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I think what a lot of people don't understand is that when you allow any copyrights at all, you set up a system and situations that inevitably lead to the endless extensions, the DMCA, copy controls on every PC, and eventually the removal of the freedom of speech all together. Sadly, too many people think that idea solution is some type of compromise or reduction, it is not - that will only eventually lead us back to where we are today. It is only when we are willing to fight copyrights altogether with defiance and civil disobedience and make a stand that wee will cut the vine off at the root. I wish people would understand this.
The MPAA has two primary goals, which are typical of almost any agressive corporate entity. First, they want to make as much money as possible. And second, they want to reduce the possibility of losing any revenue from new technologies or competition.
In the spirit of competition, two entities would try to outdo the other by producing a better product and ultimately both products will enhance as a result. This works great, IF there's competition. But who does the MPAA compete with? Although the member organizations might in theory compete with each other, they choose to rally together to protect the industry as they have defined it, and marketing forces can do very little but sway which direction they go. They simply do not need to worry much about an outside entity in their industry depriving them of any signficant revenue.
That being said, the only threat they see is a reduction in established revenue. They worry about piracy, because although 300,000 free downloads a day might seem like a lot, if the technilogically inept were to discover and participate in these endevours, it might result in a 10 fold increase in piracy and that they most likely would feel as a serious pinch in their bottom line. So they figure, even though the cat is pretty well out of the bag, that they can at least stem the tide somewhat by setting some standards on software and hardware for future codecs that might prevent the less serious people from "stealing" their property.
However, those that will steal, will do so with or without these protections in place. People are a weird sort. They will go out of their way and spend a lot of money to acquire something for "free". Your average online movie collector probably spends more time and more money on his internet connection than it would cost him for a decent cable or dish option, and he ends up with lower quality media that he will probably watch once and erase. Chances are good, he's getting these very movies over the same lines provided by the same company that offers the same media for higher quality and less cost. I'm talking about the cable companies. The MPAA should already be in bed with them. How are they missing this glorious opportunity that sits right under their noses.
Just offer up the same low quality movies for free right from the cable company servers to subscribers to the internet service, free of any restrictions other than a copyright notice. Might they get copied? Sure. But they are anyways. At the very least, you'll cut way down on the required bandwidth needed as all the transfers will be over the local network. If the cable companies suddenly had a 50% drop in the uplink bandwidth requirements and could spread some of that love back to the MPAA, they'd probably end up BETTER than they are now.
The MPAA could silently chuckle and give the occasional antipiracy rant just for good measure. The pirates would be deleriously happy. And all these controls would be unnecessary.
But thats not really what its all about. The MPAA wants to have complete control of the industry so that they and ONLY they can dictate how it will function. They have to be able to control all media and stifle innovation so nobody dreams up a way to put them out of business unless they have full control over its deployment and operation. Because it COULD happen if they're slow to react and too worried all the wrong things to pay attention in time. And they don't want to risk that.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here