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."
come on kernel hackers, you heard the MPAA, i refuse to run linux anymore until the 2.4 tree includes strong copy protection
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
I'm sure i'm not the only one who realizes it won't work without legislation. What incentive could companies posisbly have to add this to their products? ("Hey, let's screw over our customers and take it up the a** for the MPAA by adding expensive copy controls and limiting their use!") All it takes is one hardware manufacturer to tell the MPAA to go f*ck itself, and this whole thing falls apart. They might get pre-built companies like dell, gateway, sony (Since part of it is in the MPAA board), but.. what about build your own?
Are the people at the MPAA really so stupid as to think that they can actually allow us to listen/watch stuff, but not copy it? It has to get decrypted somewhere..
Dear Editor;
w ar e/article/0,,5921_900241,00.html
I'm entertained by Jack Valenti's assertion in his Feb 25th letter that
"According to the Boston-based consulting firm Viant, some 350,000-plus films
are being downloaded illegally every day."
If this is actually the case, then 350 000 * 6 Gbytes per movie (compressed
DivX at about 400x300 pixels) = 2 100 000 000 000 000 bytes per day.
That is 16 800 000 000 000 000 bits per day (8 bits per byte) or 16 800 Terra bits per day.
According to CyberAtlas (please see link below) the entire bandwidth of the
US internet is only 20 000 Terra bits per day.
So Mr. Valenti is using figures to advance his argument which imply that
(world) 'netizens downloading pirate movies would utilize 84% of *all* US
internet bandwidth. There must be a very 'fat pipe' to River-City.
Yours,
Bobzibub
http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/hard
The problem with this idea is that there is no incentive for PC makers to put in copy protection for movies. Unless it helps PC makers earn money, they won't bother. Margins are too thin as it is.
Not everyone cares about the movie/audio industry and they need to figure that out.
Does anyone see this happening anytime soon?
Half the reason they sell some many computers (whether they admit it or not) is so people can listen to music and watch videos and such.. Getting involved with the mpaa at this kind of scale would probably just drag the pc market further into repression making it even harder for college graduates to get jobs.
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
He wants to sit down with everyone who develops Linux, FreeBSD and other open source PC products for some good faith talks? That's one big table.
If you try to make it a hardware device, I won't buy it, or people that buy preassembled PCs will pay a geek to remove it.
If you make it software, I won't install it. If you build it into Windows, that's OK, I'll just boot into Linux. Want to include it in Linux? Fine, I have the source code and the knowledge to remove it.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
Jack, you should know that some companies in the computer industry make more than the entire membership of the MPAA combined. You won't have much luck twisting their arm...
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
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.
They did. They lost. They fight on.
- Dan I.
Asking PC makers to copy-control PC storage is like asking paper-makers to copy-control their paper.
"[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.
Hang on to those old PCs folks. Sooner than you think might be illegal to use them under the DCMA.
They'll pry my TI99/4A from my cold, dead fingers.
Of course Jack Valenti wants this. This is the same guy who once said "The VCR is to the Movie Industry what the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone". He's not exactly a visionary.
The question the semi-intelligent people who listen to Jack have to solve now is this: how can we force consumers to buy something they don't want?
The proven formula for this is legislation. Government mandated airbags have killed more children than school shootings - and more importantly, they've created a precedent for how a corporation can incorporate non-features into consumer products.
Do you think consumers really wanted to buy DVD players with region coding and Macrovision? Was that a feature? The total ownership of the DVD standard presents a second way to force unwanted hardware down the customer's throats: patent a standard, license keys, and use the DMCA to enforce the keyring.
The infamous SSSCA is their attempt at bring approach #1, and they may also (in parallel) try approach #2. If there's any word I can use to describe the actions of the Movie Industry right now, it's "desperate". They know that the precedents set right now will last for hundreds of years, and they are fighting for what they believe is their very survival.
The question is, will consumers keep buying Dell and ignore the EFF? And if so, what's the most effective way to raise awareness...
Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
Talk about taking away your basic rights as a human. It's like the government saying, "We can't trust the common person to not commit murder. Therefore, we must place everyone in prison. That is the only way to protect the innocent."
How does that make sense?
It is basically takign away everyone's right to make moral decisions about how to conduct their lives. You can't tell me that doesn't violate the constitution/bill of rights somehow.
"It's comin' back around again..." -RATM
Bootlegging of Music With Napster Hurts Free Software
I believe in the phrase, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". If this insane idea ever gets close to fruition, then he will be one step closer to having that. Copy protection built into PCs and PC like devices will only serve to alienate an already tech weary population. Not to mention Jack's idea of what the people think about 'the net' is a statistical fantasy. From the article: " A recent survey revealed that 68 percent of all home computer users say they're satisfied with their normal 56K computer modem." Does that count the 50% that can't get broadband?!? If broadband were available to everyone, it goes without saying that 90% of people would have it. Just like most people want the faster car or bigger boat.
Even if it is technically feasible to implement a copy protection scheme on PCs it would next to impposible to ensure they were working and enforced (unless we revert to a police state). Then he claims that this will "benefit consumers by giving them another choice for movie viewing." Hello? Did I miss something. How will removing the ability to make legal copies with my PC give me more choices? Get a clue Jack.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
If this happens, I will gladly violate the law. Period.
sulli
RTFJ.
Anyway, Valenti seems to be saying that copy-protection needs to be built into the hardware. I think it's fairly safe to say that if such a thing were to happen, we'd all need umbrellas to protect ourselves from falling pig droppings. Number one, you'd have to have legislation to do it, and such legislation wouldn't be very popular. Number two, can you imagine the outcry from the public? And number three, the technical details for implementing such a scheme are not trivial. I may be a hopeless optimist, but I really don't see this happening any time soon.
Eat me.
Love,
Brant
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
So, let's see... the MPAA wants to bug your computer to make sure you don't copy movies,
the RIAA wants to bug your computer to make sure you don't copy sound recordings, Microsoft wants to bug your computer to make sure you're not running copies of their software (and that you've paid your license fees for this week), and the FBI wants to bug your computer to make sure you're not threatening national security or communicating with terrorists. (And the ISPs want to tell you exactly how you can communicate with others)
If all of these organizations have their way, there won't be any general-purpose programmable computers anymore - just appliances that can do what Microsoft/MPAA/RIAA and the government think you can be trusted to do without taking away some potential money or power from them.
"MPAA wants a pony for Christmas"
Some things just ain't gonna happen.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
When are the RIAA and MPAA going to get it into their skulls that they are not the main source of artistic creativity in the world?
I always hear these protectionist arguments along the lines of, "well, if you don't protect the RIAA/MPAA, society will decay because there won't be any music or art." Hogwash. These organizations didn't even exist a hundred and fifty years ago, and somehow we still had art and music. In fact, I seem to recall art and music going back to the dawn of human history? What, are they going to give out licenses to take piano lessons next? That'll be the day.
Jack Valenti is just a middleman, he has no talent on his own. I doubt he even knows that people build their own computers. What, is he going to lobby for that to be illegal next? I wouldn't doubt it. How schizophrenic can society get, people hating Microsoft, but being all right with the crap these control freak organizations put out? It really scares me most times I think of it.
</rant mode>
---Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise!
'Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. The sooner people accept this, and build business models that take this into account, the sooner people will start making money again.' -- Bruce Schneier
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
They already settled with VCRs...they get a cut of every blank video tape sold. The RIAA gets a cut of every blank CD-R sold too (as long as it's labeled "for music").
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Guns that won't shoot innocent people,
Microphones that won't record copyrighted soundwaves,
Pencils that won't write copyrighted strings,
Speakers that won't vibrate to reproduce copyrighted current patterns,
Film that won't change when exposed to copyrighted rays of light,
Oh yeah, and brains that won't remember copyrighted material of any sort.
snow
Crystal Meth: Would you ingest somthing made from a poisonous gas and an explosive metal? You do it every day -- Salt!
Oh great...then what happens when EMachines goes bankrupt and sells the source code on Ebay for $12?
------
Today's Top Deals
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.
I have decided that I want Kraft Macaroni & Cheese to be even cheesier...
Shit pretty soon Analog recording will be on the MPAA list of CIRCUMVENTION devices. If its not digital they cannot control it, even if it is digital protecting is questionable.
:)
I say we all tape our favorite films to 16mm kodachrome and tell the MPAA to go fuck themselves, I miss the days of that click click and splicing my own films
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
AFAIC, Jack Valenti is Public Enemy #1. He is the sterotypical grey-haired old man, trying to hold on to his power and empire in fits and spurts before he dies.
I hate this man.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Wait!
The DVD players are "licensed" already. That did not stop this?
The DVDs are already encrypted (if they wish to be protected) and that didn't stop this?
There are already laws "preventing" "illegal" copying and that didn't stop this?
What the hell is up with Jackie V? His only solutions are to make things more complicated and more expensive!
Here is a clue: prosecute movie pirates instead of magazines owners and DeCSS programmers!!! Get the cops to arrest people selling pirated movies RIGHT IN FRONT OF MPAA HEADQUARTERS for starters!
Ingenious!
Yes, I do expect a royalty if the above idea is actually ever used.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
It seems impossible to me. Maybe they can trick the unsuspecting punter, but not me.
Let me get this straight... he wants hardware that will detect all possible programs that will copy digital media...
So, from a theoretical computer science point of view, he wants a Turing machine that will recognize all Turing machines that compute a fixed function f. That sounds remarkably like a problem that is equivalent (by reduction) to the halting problem for Turing machines... Oh, did we mention that the halting problem is unsolvable??
But hey, if *Mr. Valenti* says so, it *must* be possible. After all, everyone knows that you can simply legislate away fundamental laws of mathematics...
Whats next? Valenti proposing that we set Pi equal to 3.0 to simplify calculations?
Nice letter. Now, go away. Let me talk directly to Mr. Spielberg, please.
Thank you.
Kindest regards,
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
That editorial written by Valenti was placed because Congress will be holding a hearing on content protection and broadband on Thursday morning. Even the Washington Post's editoral page can be hijacked by the MPAA's powerful lobbyists... The legislation to be considered will probably be Hollings' SSSCA.
SSSCA Working Draft. (via Cryptome)
>>computers and video devices must be prepared to react to instructions embedded in the film....
>>The movie industry is, however, consulting with the finest brains in the digital world to try to find the answer.
Well Pinky, by secretly embedding messages in innocent looking downloadable movies we're going to take over the world!
These guys still don't get it. Now they want other industries to bend over backwards to suit their interests? I think it's clear these guys have way too much money already. Hey, Jack, you want to recoup your investments? Then how about not paying a star upwards of 20 millions for a single movie? I mean, I know they have talent and all, but that's just plain decadent. Nobody should be making that much money anyway.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: the music and movie industry need to rethink their business model: give away the media, make money of the showing (movie theatres, live venues) and merchadising (i.e. artifacts you want to own, because they are nice objects to have). Musicians should also consider the "shareware" business model. They could offer some free songs, saying: if you really like this song, send us a buck directly (not to any record exec).
So, some useless millionnaires and industry leeches (hi, Mr. Valenti) will lose their livelihoods...really, who gives a rat's ass?
Reminder: find a new sig
from the article "Because making movies is so expensive, only two in 10 films ever retrieve their production and marketing investment from domestic theatrical exhibition."
That is not true, check out Studio Accounting Practices in Hollywood By Joseph F. Hart, Esq. and Philip J. Hacker, C.P.A. if you want to see how they do their accounting.
It seems like many more than 20% are making money, they just use "funny" accounting, ala enron.
Do the Ricco act enforcers (our 'give'rnment at work,) have a clue about what these guys are planning?
You'll be shelling out money to the RIAA and the MPAA (who actually produce no music, no movies no creative thing what-so-ever,) with every CD-R, CD-RW or DVD-R, DVD-RW drive you buy, with every blank platter that's sold.
They'll even buy the screwing up of the OS (give Bill Gates a billion bucks and you'll see just how much he cares about Windows, [that's why they hate Linux, no discernable income stream,]) so that Joe Average can't back up anything.
Greed by people who already have too much money and nothing to do but screw you ouf of more is messing with the ISPs, the hardware and the software until nothing new can be produced and when we all have to shell out by the second for re(re-re-re)runs of Gilligan's Island. That's when the --AA's'll be happy.
Of course, that's totally bogus. Any cracker worth his salt can do bit perfect copies and sell the product, FBI warning and all.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Because making movies is so expensive, only two in 10 films ever retrieve their production and marketing investment from domestic theatrical exhibition. Distributors have to use other venues -- delivery systems such as cable, satellite, TV stations, videocassettes, DVDs, international markets.
This is a very interesting and relevant claim, if correct. Since theater going is still considered an activity in mainstream society, it really hasn't been threatened by anything offered in the home since people still want to get "out of the house". But this may be the only venue that pirate video doesn't threaten, even the foreign markets could be affected if people decide they don't want to wait a year for a theater release in their home country.
I disagree strongly with Mr. Valenti's proposal, as I do with any proposal that places such a burden on the consumers. At the same time I don't want to see the death of those big budget Hollywood blockbuster extravaganzas, cut down because piracy has made them less profitable. There is probably an equitable way out of this potential mess, I have a feeling that the studios will only find it if their hand is forced.
He qoutes figures and throws around the number billions all day long...
The reality is much of content has become a facility of the service. HBO makes really cool shows so people subscribe to HBO. AOL bought time-warner so the content would attract people to the service with exclusive content deals. And Jack Valenti says PCs need to be copy=protected. He needs this because HOLLYWOOD HAS RUN OUT OF IDEAS AND IS COPYING ITSELF AND THEY WANT EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS ON DOING THIS!
I hate the MPAA and the RIAA and all the other middlemen with no talent taking advantage of IP laws for their own benefit.
Yes movies will be sent at the speed of light all over the globe, but if the industry would advance and come up with new ideas and disseminate these ideas, that would be a great thing! Think of the good this could do for the world... oh sorry, I meant that all creativity should fatten Jack's pocket and all the people's pocket's who think his shit is cholocate.
This is just a rant, mod me to the basement.
...consipracy at 11.
The MPAA is quickly approaching the paranoid conspiracy crowd with their anti-piracy ideas. So are they going to make these boxes, get hardware companies to make them, or buy another law from congress. Probably #3, as he mentions Congress in his closing. Does anyone believe the piracy numbers people throw out anymore? Between movies, music (RIAA), and software (MS, BSA) they must be losing like $300 gazillion per year!
I don't like piracy, and I've never downloaded anything I didn't own, so these increasingly crazy schemes they whip up really piss me off. This is why I stopped buying music back around 1995 (well then it was because all the music sucked) and haven't bought any MS software since Office 97. Can't quite get over my movie watching hobbie, and I can live with DVD region encoding, though I will probably mod my next player (can't mod my current one).
Maybe we should dress up like aliens and spook Valenti by scaring him and then leaving ripped movies on his porch.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
MPAA, not RIAA
-Dave
I build my own PC's. I'll probably be OK. Worst case, you hack the hardware and disable. He hasn't a clue.
I guess people will just start reusing old parts in that case... Perheaps the environmentalists should be told about this :] But actually, I think that for the hardware-companies, implementing such a thing is suicide... And if all of them agree to do this, they'l get sued for cartell-creation!
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
State-of-the-art broadband? To what is he referring? Ethernet? T1/T3?
Or some other technology that's 15+ years older than 56K modems?
dinner: it's what's for beer
What they probably really want is more money, just like they already get a tax on blank media. Maybe a tax on Internet bandwidth, going to the movie industry, or a tax on PCs.
It would be more like "Let's buy them out and then building this stuff into PCs will be in our own best interests. Oh, and we would get to fire Jack too."
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Computers, by there nature, are reprogrammable, and designed as such. A VCR or DVD is not.
As soon as copy protection schemes are placed into a computer, somebody will find a way around them.
Which means they will spend more and more money trying to develop copy protection schemes, and pass the costs on to the legitimate users.
The legitimate users will turn to piracy, more out of spite then anything else.
The Internet is generally stupid
" The writer is chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association."
Does this mean he IS DIRECTLY affiliated with the MPAA? While they undoubtedly think along the same lines this doesn't necessarily mean they are the same nor have the same strategies to get to their goals. Who knows their article may interfere with some horrible master plan the MPAA has in store for us and they are screaming in agony as we speak contemplating a quick and plainless death rather than face the information anarchy that will surly follow!!!
Well we can always hope:)
I stole this Sig
mebbe this is right then?
350 000 movies x 650 000 000 bytes/movie = 227 500 000 000 000 bytes/day.
1820 000 000 000 000 bits per day.
1820 TB/day world downloads.
1820/20 000 = equivalent of 9.1 percent of all US traffic.
And I thought I was on a role too...
It is fairly easy to determine how much they have made from sales of CDs, DVDs, Software, etc. All they have to do is determine how much was spent on the production of the item, how much of them were sold, and then maybe compare to how much they made last year.
Yet with determining how much they lose to pirates is very very difficult and you have to beleive that the numbers they throw are just complete bullshit.
The MPAA, RIAA, BSA... can't really do that because do they check how many people have gotten a copy of Microsoft Windows XP, the new Matthew Good Band CD, the Harry Potter movie, or the Clerks DVD from IRC, P2P, friends, stores, etc? No, because they can't.
I'll admit I have a fair number of MP3s on hand and that do over-use my Windows 98 license (only on two machines which belong to my parents, I am a Linux user), yet can these companies and organisations, in reality, determine the losses they suffer? No.
He manages to say in the same breath that while consumers are evil, we'll go ahead and latch on to the idea that less functionality is good, and moreso, that customers will eat the cost for such a machine. Oh how soon we forget the trials and tribulations that IBM went through merely trying to get a CPRM hard drive to market, and how they eventually backed down, i'm curious how Mr. valenti proposes an entire system would be willing to go the distance just to placate the film industry.
Here's a likely scenario: The MPAA has these supersecret talks with the major computer manufactuers (HP, Dell, IBM, Toshiba, Sony, etc.) and they hash out a preliminary. Word gets out to the rest of the copyright community -- Record labels, content producers -- hell even artists wanting to perfect a way for their pictures to be copy-proof on the websites -- and soon, the manufactuers are tweaking and tuning, and reconfiguring and modifying their parts in such a way that the box is nary more than a glorified television, streaming the content of -their- choice, at their discretion.
If such a system comes to be, I"ll become a luddite.
Witty quotes suck.
Interesting. It's nonsense that producers wouldn't want to be online...yet they're not online? Explain that one to me...oh yes, because we don't legislation forcing all computer and manufacturers to the whim of Jack Valenti. Your arguument is spurious. You fail to address the fact that movie companies are keeping their movies offline. Guilty as charged.
As time moves forward, information will be replicated into infinity. Deal with it.
Poppycock. I'm sure your "we're losing 3.5 billion dollars to VHS piracy!!!" rests on the SPA assumption that everytime sone one pirates, they would have paid for it. As far as digital copies remaining the same, apparently no one has told Jack that DIVX is a far, far, far cry from MPEG2 DVD (they only way I copy & store my DVDs).
Boo hoo hoo, it's all Congress and the PC industry fault! Nothing to see here, move along. Can't blame the movie industry, nope. Not their fault movies aren't online. Uh-huh. Sure.
Silly strar-man arguement. I'm sure that when scientists claim the movie industry is holding back inovation, they were ONLY talking about cracking codes. Perhaps they were talking about the movie industries harrassing of competing P2P, distribution, pay-per-view, compression and related "digital movie" technologies, all of which Jack and co have no interest in because they can't controll it 100%. And they'll sue you over it too. Jerk.
Since when is restricting fair-use, first-sale doctrine and free-speech "consumer friendly." I think you meant "consumer limiting." The rest of this paragraph is you and your pipe dream.
What's on USENET TV these days?
That's not what I meant.
Jack, fuck off..
I'll let you specify standards for my PC when I get to specify minimum nipple counts for your movies
What would Lemmy do?
The movie industry needs to set an example and be the first to use Copy Controlled PCs.
Then see if they can get any work done.
I find it interesting that the movie industry is the first to cry for strong copy protection, yet they depend on public domain works (like almost every big Disney movie) and "free" software (like Linux and BSD).
Personally I find Valenti a repulsive little gnome, but I don't think he understands just what would happen to his industry if he tightened down copyrights to the point that he seems to want. There would be nothing left to steal.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
I won't buy a PC with copy restriction 'features'. Hear that, industry? I refuse to support freedoms being taken away. This world will be a sad, sad place if content is so tightly controlled.
.AVI. Then I'd have it in the background as I'm manipulating a character I created to get a feel for how Mr. Chan moves. In other words, I have educational reasons for wanting to use a DVD rip.
I am a 3D Artist. Most of the learning I did was at home. I started with replicating scenes from Star Trek. Now let me explain something about myself, I'm not a foley artist, nor am I a musician. So I had to find some sound effects to accompany my animations, along with a sound track. This means I had to go purchase both a soundtrack from one of the ST movies, and an ST game with sound files in the appropriate format. (in otherwords, they were paid.) If the Music Industry or the MPAA decided to target me, they could still harass me with the DMCA. The only thing protecting me is the huge PR issue that'd ensue.
Today I'm moving into Character Animation. But in order to solidify my skills, I need reference footage. One of the ideas I had was to rip a Jackie Chan DVD and convert clips of it into an
When I finally assemble a demo reel to get a job with, I'm likely going to add a song for the sound track. Now I respect the artists out there making music, but I'm not paying a license fee for a limited use Demo Reel intended to get me a job. Just as I wouldn't expect them to pay me if they used their music with my artwork to get a record deal.
If I were to purchase a 'Copy Restricted PC', then the hardware would fight with me over the content I'm trying to use. This is *not* good. This would be a serious blow in my ability to learn how to work for the same industry that's responsible for that 'feature' going in. I have a feeling that if this idiot has his way, one of the casualties would be the talent pool that suddenly has nothing to start with. How about guys that do remixes of songs we listen to today? I've heard some incredible remixes out there. I really think there are people who have done some of these remixes who really should get hired by a music company somewhere, becuase man they are talented.
They didn't make the song, somebody else did, but they spun it in a new way that's really cool. I didn't like that song 'Torn' by Natalie Imbruglia (sp?), but I stumbled across a remix of it that really made me enjoy it. Whoever did that mix is seriously an awesomely talented person. If they were prevented from using that song, then what would they sharpen their skills on? You can't go learn how to remix in college. You can't learn how to be a talented effects animator for a movie studio from college.
So if you take my fair use rights away just because you think you're losing money to piracy, then you're also drying up your talent pool and you'll have a drought on content.
I wonder if they're expecting to suddenly gain 3 billion a year if this goes into place. They're basing sales losses on Napster without even thinking about the other conditions going on out there. The content sucked this year, the economy stinks (altho I suppose Intel and AMD having slow quarters could be linked to piracy of processors on Napster...), and the Sept 11th attacks have made people happier to stay home then go out. Perhaps the real problem is that the RIAA isn't making their content available to purchase online.
"Derp de derp."
The reason pitifully few films are legitimately available on the Internet is not producer hoarding. It is that those valuable creative works can't be adequately protected from theft.
He's right, you know. That's also the reason Napster got shut down and KazAA is trying to be: the movie and music industries will not put out their own copies of their media. I want freely-downloadable media for pennies a copy as much as anyone, but I can't get it because the owners won't put it out without copy protection.
What am I stuck with instead? P2P software that gets me assorted copies of pirated media, some of which is at an unusable quality, all of which is subject to interruptions and highly variable download speeds. I've been saying for years that I would gladly pay a single site $10 a month if it meant I could download my heart's content of music (or movies) of reliable quality, at reliable speeds over a reliable connection, with a useable search engine giving me complete results.
If having MS install copy-protection at the OS level means the media companies will finally make this available, then I can stomach it. They don't have to eliminate MP3s or AVIs, they just have to include something that will play files that are copy-protected enough to satisfy the media owners. If they don't want me copying it to recordable media, then it should be free or pennies apiece. If they don't mind me making copies for myself, then I'll pay more. And they can quote me on that.
Furthermore, on the 'build-your-own' thread, try telling the component manufacturers from China to include hardware copy protection in their devices.......
Really? And here I thought innovation meant creation of something new or 'innovative'. Apparently I was wrong. Never one to leave such a thing alone though I checked Webster's Online Dictionary. Imagine my further supprise when I found this:
Is Websters' Wrong? THE dictionary of the United States. Not necessarily. Mr. Valenti asserted that we were using the word in lieu of "legalizing the breaking of protection codes, without which there is no protection." Therefore the relation might not appear in the dictionary.Never one to give up on a trusted source so lightly I returned now to (drum roll) the Thesaurus! again however I come up dry getting only:
No discussion of copy protection there.But then I noticed something. I noticed vicissitude. Webster's defines this as:
Note the term Unfavorable Change. At last the mystery was solved. Jack Valenti was not (to my everlasting dsmay) wholly misdirected. Neither was my trusted Dictionary/Thesaurus wrong. Obviously Jack was just employing a nontypical pair of synonyms in an effort to drag the complex language of "unfavorable events", "difficulty or hardship attendant on a way og life, a career, or a course of action and usually beyond one's control" into the language of everyday life. Because, as he points out elsewhere in his letter: "Other ingredients are necessary to protect digital content, but it gets too complex to explain in a few sentences." Jack is just tying to save space.
Well my friends all that I can say is: Up with VICISSITUDE!
As poorly rewritten as this editorial is, it hammers on Lessig on three points:
- People don't want to pay taxes, and they don't want the economy slowed down by "overregulation". So we adopt the passive compromise. Passively regulate by letting things like copyright law govern the market rather than active oversight. When industries realize this, they push to rewrite the law that shapes the market (there is no "free market", just different kinds of legal control) to give themselves plums. The current case in point is Enron, but let's not forget the previous Bush-deregulation debacle: Michael Keating and the S&L crisis.
- People don't want to lose their jobs either. This means when a big business or a whole set of them encounters rough financial straits - maybe they did something stupid, like Enron, maybe the world changed, as in the case of steel producers (who now use subsidies and tariff regulations to stay afloat), or maybe both as for the MPAA and RIAA, there's a lot of pressure on the government not to let them fail. But subsidies and payouts make good targets for "government waste" exposees, and arcane legal restrictions do not. This is why
- Anyone with the wherewithall and the disposition to realize the above two points is probably and intellectual and possibly also and academic. By naming a small community of professors Valenti's ghostwriters put in the only piece effective writing in this whole sham of an editorial. In short, if you're a cardigan-wearing, pipe-smoking, hoity-toity professor, you hate people who work hard and make money.
Wish I knew how to counter those, but that's where government's relationship with business seems to be headed these days.One the other hand, iff you're a hard-working, truck-driving, music-loving regular guy, you're with us and our good ole way of doing business, and you'll tell you government to support us supporting you. And those charges are damn hard to shake off.
The movie industry is under siege from a small community of professors.
I'm blushing, jack. No, we're not all professors.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
While we are doing this i have a few other ideas
Lets make guns so they cant shoot people
Lets make cars that can only go 65mph
Lets make spray paint that will recognize when you are writing graffiti and shut themselves off
Lets make car stereos that only play at volume level 2 - even though they are capable of much more
Lets make computers that cant copy.... oh wait, that is what we are doing.
Don't Tread on Me
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
We should consider ourselves normal, because as every other generation has shown, freedom is gained through risk, fight, and struggle and no other way (not even voteing sometimes). However, today our risks are a lot less thanks to others who have got us this far.
Here, I think the best solution is defiance and civil disobedience of copyrights alltogether. It is only when we get to the root of the problem that we will "free up our children" to go onto the "next generation of fighting".
Hey this just be my simple minded approach to things but instead of spending Millions if not Billions of dollars coming up with protection schemes and filing suit against those that break them. Would it not just be cheaper, make more sense and be far more effective to make the movies such a good deal that you don't want to put the effort into stealing them? Sell the movies for $10, there would be no extra cost for distributing a digital movie other than bandwidth. No editing (to fit your TV), production (movies onto tape and DVD), shipping, or shelving fees, all you'd have is the bandwidth cost. Would I download a movie for free when I can have a legitimate copy for $10? Hardly, leave all the special features etc for the DVD just give me the movie, cheap, and I'll buy. But hey, again thats just my perhaps overly simplistic way of thinking.
The problem for the MPAA is that they cannot understand that as far as the economy goes they are not all that important. The computer industry is an order of magnitude larger. The not very hard to spot plan here is to bribe enough congressmen to push through their scheme. that is a pretty hopeless approach if the computer industry has more money.
I have done the DRM bit. I have even gone to an SDMI conference. My conclusion is that the MPAA and RIAA are Cheap, Greedy and Stupid.
First off, as every vendor that has attempted to get into the DRM space knows, the content owners want all the work done for free, or as near to it as makes no difference. One leading content provider had the idea that a complete DRM system should cost no more than $0.50 per device with the option of buying it out for $100K, this for a bespoke product that would cost several million to develop and would save the customer several hundred million a year.
Secondly the content 'owners' are greedy. Look at the little scheme they had in the DMCA (now repealed) to steal the 'returned rights' of artists by retrospectively designating them 'works for hire'. The scheme that is planned for insertion into the Hollings bill at the last minute will redefine publication through the Web to be a 'mechanical right' and not a 'Performance right'. This will allow them to steal the copyrights currently controlled by the composers.
Thirdly the content owners are stupid. They seize upon every piece of cryptographic snakeoil that comes to the market. The demands that the computer industry save their ass for them sound remarkably like the demands made by the likes of Louis Freeh over key escrow 'we do not believe that it cannot be done, your denial clearly means you must be lying'.
what we need to do is make congress aware of the abuses these people are already engaged in. The DVD zone system has one purpose, to allow the price of DVDs to be set by the amount individual markets will bear. This is illegal under EU law and they will get their just deserts in the end. But why should people like this have the benefit of niche laws to protect their interests if they don't obey the law themselves?
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Unless there is some new way to copy a video stream digitally, why can't movies be rented and streamed like the trailers are now? I think that would solve 75% of the problem right away. I think if the cost of streaming a movie around the time it became available to rent as a DVD were about half the cost of a rental, and it could be watched as many times as someone wanted in, say, a 72 hour time window, that would be fine.
I really fail to see how anyone would be able to afford the phenomenal bandwidth required to make a 2-3GB file available for download by a lot of people. University connection or not, there just isn't enough available to make it worth anyone's effort, and I certainly don't think students are going to saturate their network connections so a bunch of random people can download movies all day and night.
Congress does NOT need to get involved with new laws. It is ALREADY against the law to copy a movie without a license.
You misspelled COCK.
HTH. HAND.
It's exactly this sort of mindset among non-gunowners that allow the gungrabbers to spread their fear-mongering so effectively.
/you/ in self-defense.
"If you had a gun, which you don't, and you got mad, you'd go out and hurt someone!"
I own firearms. It's a right, and it's a responsibility to be taken seriously. Anyone who would say that they're going to "go mess someone up with a gun", jokingly or not, is not someone I would trust as a responsible adult citizen.
Were you aware that even making such a statement could be interpreted as assault, or a terroristic threat?
And don't give me 'freedom of speech' BS. Person A is NOT free to tell Person B "I am going to **** you up with this weapon."
All that does is announce your intent to cause harm to Person B. Now that you've demonstrated intent, you've made it that much more legally justified for Person B to shoot
Or put another way: what are you, 12 years old?
You can't handle the responsibility and right of owning a firearm.
Remember Microsoft's Digital Rights Management (DRM) OS patent? If Congress were to enact legislation requiring this kind of copy protection at the OS level, then I imagine MS would be quite intent on making sure everyone pays them royalties, whether they're actually due or not. And that's assuming they'd place "nice" and even "allow" other OS's to contain copy protection. A few years ago, I would have thought the feds wouldn't let them get away without freely sharing a legislated key technology like this, but now I'm not so sure... . Not to sound too pessimist, but royalties like this could be a big pain in the arse for struggling Linux vendors.
Course, if it did happen, I could just start using a European-based Linux distribution, since they don't treat software patents the same. For now, anyway...
this has been another episode of pure speculation and meaningless FUD...
To answer the question in the subject, the MPAA sees the personal computer as the single most popular and efficient method of illegally distributing copyrighted music, and to a degree they're right. CD burners and personal MP3 players aside, how else can you transfer gigabytes of copyrighted music? Their pressure on the PC industry shouldn't surprise anyone.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
One states that Jack is always full of it, and 2 mention that Jack's reference to a "Maalox Moment" is a violation of Maalox's trademark, as he doesn't bother to credit Maalox for using their name.
Its good to see that people outside of the /. world also think that Jack is full of it.
Jack Valenti one of the main proponents of the DMCA
:)
True, but you make it clear you don't know what the DMCA is when you say:
The RIAA is also the group who sued 2600.com for publishing a link! to the DMCA source code.
First, Jack Valenti is the prez of the MPAA, not the RIAA. 2600 was sued by the MPAA, not the RIAA, for publishing the link to the DeCSS, which is made illegal by the DMCA. Your mis-guided effort were hilarious, until I remembered that uninformed malapropisms like the ones you spout are a leading cause of moronic legislation like the DMCA. Please, please PLEASE get your facts straight - the enemy is listening, and they like it when the Side of Good is represented by loud-mouthed dittos who speak without thinking. C'mon.
Final hilarity - some moderator modded this guy up +1, Informative. How the heck does a post by a guy who gets every major fact wrong get modded as informative?
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
The ability for millions of Internet users to zap perfect copies of movies around the Net destroys the current business model of the movie industry. And I find very little reason to deny that claim.
That leaves the movie industry with two options (logically). Either prevent millions of Internet users from being able to zap perfect copies of movies around the Net, or change the business model of the industry. Both are fraught with problems.
Let's take on the topic of copy prevention. Essentially, it's not possible, as long as the PC in its current incarnation persists. You can encrypt media to the gills, but somewhere, somehow, in a PC, that media needs to be converted to a cleartext stream in order to be played. And anyone with a bit of technical know-how can capture that cleartext stream. The only way to prevent such copying is to embed copy prevention into the very lowest levels of hardware. Which will render the PC useless for doing anything useful. Besides, it precludes fair-use.
Next option: transmission prevention. Slightly more feasible. And with more of the broadband "biomass" being rounded up by a small number of media companies and telcos, this is probably the first avenue the MPAA is going to take in this battle. In six months to a year, most Morpheus users (for instance) will be forced by their ISPs to shut down their clients or lose their accounts. It's probably happening already. Sure, there will be a few maverick ISPs that don't play by the rules, but P2P filesharing systems become useless without a critical mass of users. Now, the MPAA will win the battle on this front, but at the cost of killing the biggest "killer app" to hit the Net since the browser. And at the cost of depriving Internet users from sharing perfectly legit files: stifling what could prove to be a huge revolution in human communication. Oh, well.
Of course, the other logical option would be for the movie industry to change its business model to something like TV: free and advert-driven. I don't know if this is possible, because I don't know much about business. But, I'll tell you this: destroying the PC or destroying the free exchange of ideas in a new an exciting medium, so that a few companies can keep their bottom line, is wrong.
dinner: it's what's for beer
>
>Somebody get Mr. Valenti a copy of Godel, Escher, Bach -- STAT!!!
You can give a PC to a Homo Habilis and he'll use it.
He'll use it to crack walnuts, mind you, but he'll use it.
Yes we have seen this before, and yes it failed with the HD manufactures, but we have seen this even a 150 years before that.
In the 1830's there were those who thought that the entire purpose of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton gyn to extend the size of their plantations for unlimited profit. Today we have a similar problem in the information age - people who think that the only usefull purpose of information technology and the internet is to extend the use of their intellectual property rights for unlimited controll. Today as back then, they couldn't be more wrong, couldn't be more delusional, and couldn't be a bigger threat to individual freedoms.
The only real solution is cut the vine off at the root and attack copyrights directly with defiance and civil disobedience till (like then) they run out of steam and quit trying to take away our freedoms.
What's next? Do you plan to require that my friends each purchase the DVD as well when I have them over to enjoy my home theater?
They can stick their copy protection into my PCs when they pry them from my cold dead hands. Pure and simple. The whole media industry can go to hell for all the stuff they've tried to pull. They already don't deserve the rights they have(see: 150 year copyright terms, DMCA style laws, huge media ogliopoly, ability to buy as many laws as they'd like), I'm obviously not in favour of giving them more.
It's been a long time.
Could this be because four out of five movies put out by the movie industry are drek and people aren't willing to pay the umpteen bucks the movie companies want for them?
Maybe the best thing the movie industry could do for their own financial security is MAKE BETTER MOVIES!
You've got all these Bowfingers out there trying to make something out of nothing with bad writing and bad acting, and then trying to cover it up with expensive effects and advertising. CLUE: A thousand bucks worth of quality script is worth more than a hundred thousand bucks in overhyped advertising.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
According to our favorite media mogul, Jack Valenti (as stated in this letter in the Washington Post, all money should be deposited in his bank account. 'People of all ages need to sit at the table with the movie industry. Together, in good-faith talks, they must agree on the ingredients for depositing money directly into my accounts and then swiftly implement that agreement to make the dream of making me rich, rich, rich a reality.' Way to go, guy."
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Assuming they'd manage to come up with some way to really protect a DVD from being copied, you could still put it into a hardware DVD player, attach it to a good old traditional VCR and rip it from there... I don't think most people would even notice the quality loss.
I know they're stupid, but are they really stupid enough not to see the obvious?
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
... a violation of the DMCA?
Since the video card COULD be used for viewing illegally copied material (keep in mind fair use and legitimate use no longer have any meaning)
To quote Spock of the USS MPAA... The needs of the many...err...f' em
Yep, that's pretty much it. They ask Microsoft to implement it, then Microsoft refuses to ship windows to any hardware vendors who arent implementing (impossible to upgrade with unsigned) DRM Bioses on all their machines (to prevent copying of Windows, of course). The DRM bios will not boot an OS that cant give a cryptograpical integrity handshake and check at boot (no hacking your PC please). The DRM Windows OS wont play (much less allow copying of) copyprotected works, unless it can verify your ownership.
Goal achieved. The BIOSes wont let Linux boot on any PC available in a store anymore, you cant upgrade the BIOS to a non-DRM enabled one you'll fry the motherboard. Maybe you'll be able to find Linux-only motherboards from some unafraid manufacturer who isnt scared of getting killed off by MS, but they will probably be illegal anyway (DMCA copyright circumvention device).
Now that's just the sort of mindless MSFT bashing I would expect to see here. Now observe the proper way to bash Microsoft:
In December of 2001, MSFT was awarded a patent for an operating system that incorporates strong Digital Rights Management (do your own darn google search). This means that anyone and everyone that has any device that uses an "operating system" and enforces copy prevention technology needed to eliminate the potential for copyright infringement will be paying licensing fees to Microsoft unitil at least 2018. Naturally the license fee will just happen to exceed the retail price of the corresponding MSFT operating system by ten per cent. Just like the currenty MSFT tax, it won't matter if you recompile your own kernal to exclude the technology, you will still have to write that check to MSFT. If you do not license from them, well yes it really will be illegal. But you have to explain these little details. Just spewing anti-MSFT sentiment du jour is simply unacceptable laziness.
Combine this with the earlier story about howMSFT has determined that HTTPis "obsolete" and you will soon find yourself unable to network with other computers without paying Microsoft for the privilege of using MS-HTTP.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Government mandated airbags have killed more children than school shootings
And how many children's lives were saved by airbags?
Gun nuts complain all the time about gun control nuts only showing stats on how many people were killed by guns, never showing how many lives were saved by guns. You are guilty of EXACTLY the same crap.
Infuriate left and right
...but don't you think it quite ironic, nay hypocritical, that many here cry foul when anyone suggests violating the GPL yet when anyone violates another's copyrights many here cheer? Little do you know that without copyrights your GPL becomes unenforcable. Before you condemn thers for wishing to control their work, think about what you're doing when you place the GPL on your software.
Why hasn't this been started in the technical community? There could be a slash site with info on representatives with the potential to support or harm our interests as geeks, and organize some contribution/lobbying for certain causes. I'm sure the support would be there, and this might end up having a significant impact on US politics. Imagine a site with the traffic of /. geared towards lobbying representatives for causes we care about. The site would have to be sectioned geographically. If well-implimented, this could change the way democracy works, with people actively supporting causes they care about, and a government resposive directly to the people. PAC groups, or Political Action Commities already can serve a similar function, but the organization is lacking to get individuals involved in their political system, and business interests are often at the heart of such groups. A sort of open-sourced lobbying would be a good way to bring the influence on the political system back into the hands of the people it is meant to represent. Work should start on this immediately, although I personally lack the technical ability, or time to impliment such a system. Time to ask the community for some help.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Imagine this scenario:
"In accordance with the Microsoft Excel EULA, the required upgrade to Microsoft Office 2005, the latest version, has not been met. Please upgrade to decrypt your data."
Would anyone really put it past them?
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
It's hard for me (a practiced paranoid) not to be really worried when this type of stuff bubbles up to the surface. Imagine a world where it's *illegal* to have full control over your computer. Imagine a world where running a non-copy-protection-compliant operating system (like anything not made by microsoft) is illegal.
Terrifying.
Yep, you just described the perfect setup for the American consumer. No, there are no more American citizens, just consumers.
Now go out and spend some money to help get us out of our recession. It's your duty as an American.
My, but I hate getting cynical.
(Yes, this comment is obviously not meant for the sizeable number of non-American Slashdot readers... but don't worry, our government doesn't have a problem passing laws it thinks applies to you anyway.)
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I started writing a letter to the Post, but I didn't like how it turned out. All my arguments are crap. I hereby release it under the Dork Public License: if you decide to use it (either in relation to this article or something else), please don't sign my name to it (since I didn't have the balls to send it, I don't deserve any credit), and please post your version.
---
I am writing in reponse to a letter you published on Monday, February 25th, by Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America. In it, he states that movie distributors are eager to utilize the Internet as a medium to distribute movies, but will not do so until computer and video-device companies "agree on the ingredients for strong protection of copyrighted films" in their products. If there is no agreement, Valenti argues that Congress should step in and mandate this strong protection in consumer products, limiting the types of access the consumer has to these products in these devices.
I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Valenti. I support the right of copyright holders to protect their works from being used without their consent. However, I believe that their proposals (especially trying to get Congress to make new laws for them) go way beyond what is intended in the law regarding the balance of rights between copyright holders and the general public.
Valenti makes the claim that over 350,000 movies are being downloaded illegally every day, and implies that it is easy even for people who do not have fast, broadband connections to the Internet. But what he fails to mention is that the same technology that created this phenomenon has benefits to the distributor as well. Technology is a two-way street, and frequently alters or even invalidates business models. The Internet has changed such diverse industries as Retailing, Photography, Communications, and countless others. All of these industries had to adapt to the good parts and the bad parts of changing technologies. Valenti seems content to take the good parts for his industry, while lobbying Congress to make the bad parts not apply to his business.
What he also fails to mention, and what is at the crux of the matter, is that Copyright Infringement is already crime, no matter what medium it is in. Do we really need more legislation to protect access to copyrighted works? If the movie industry and device industry cannot agree on a way to limit consumers' access to copyrighted works, we should come to the conclusion that the public does not want their access to these works limited, and we should trust them to act in accordance with existing law, and prosecute them if they do not. But new laws to protect the Movie Industry at the expense of the General Public is not the answer.
...and I want 20 million bucks, A small Caribbean island, and a bunch of blonde bimbos to cater to my every whim!
Of the two, I think my want is the more likely of the two to be realised.
You're using her as bait, Master!
As long as you're converting, seems like it should be 16.8 Peta bits/20 Peta bits.
Oh, and your story link won't get botched by slashdot for being too long if you actually link it.
As for the third charge -- that copyrighted movies are destroying digital innovation -- what the critics mean by "innovation" is legalizing the breaking of protection codes, without which there is no protection.
No, Mr. Valenti, what we mean when we say "innovation", are things that give the consumer, the end user of your products, the choice of what we want. Surely, as head of the MPAA, you must be aware of your own members outstanding lawsuits against the truly innovative device makers Replay TV and TiVo. Perhaps it is time for you to stop treating your customers like criminals and thieves.
Times are a changin'. Those who choose to go forward will reap the rewards of satisfying consumers needs. Those who choose to drag their heels will fall by the wayside.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
If you replace "prohibition" with DMCA, the whole thing still makes sense.
If worst comes to worst, the raw signal components can be extracted from CRT neck boards. LCD screens with potted up components are harder but not impossible. There are chemicals specifically designed to dissolve expoxies while leaving other plastics undamaged. Even if that is not an option, there are always Dremel tools and X-Ray machines. Expose the neck board or the wire matrix driving an LCD and that signal is had. I've also seen CCD cameras that produce very watchable results when pointed at a display screen. Is that a lot of trouble? Absolutely but only one person has to post the results.
As for their little encrypted USB speakers...forget it. The hi-fi market alone is enough to blow those guys out of the water and even then I don't care how many potted up magic chips are in the speakers. I'll cut the cones out and clip out most of the voice coil. Replace that voice coil with a fixed inductor and resistor and guess what? I'll cheerfully blow 20 bucks on a pair of USB-O-Matics to create that little "circumvention device". Idiots.
Like, for many people, dragging and dropping their way thru life, command line copying is strong protection.
Of course, the next time I issue a cp command I'll probably have a DMCA violation on my hands.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
People will base thier moral perogative on YOURS. What does this mean? It means if you are morally right 99% of the time in your own business dealing, you will find that 99% of your customers will play fair with you.
People, unlike corporations, don't steal from the weak just because they can. If that were the case, *every* church collection plate would come back empty. But they don't, ever. Becuase a church is morally just, and so the people who contribute feel that they need to live in the same moral framework.
If you are worried about piracy, take the moral high road. If you take the low road, all the legislation, copy protection and strongarming in the world won't save you, but if you are morally justified in everything taht you do, you could give you music away for 100% free and find people donating money to you out of thier own good will.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Whenever a person or an industry asks for legislation, one should always ask two questions:
I understand very clearly how what Valenti wants is going to benefit the movie industry, but I do not understand how this is going to benefit the people of the United States of America in the long term.
Which is better for the people of the United States in the long term? A movie industry dominated by a few very large oligopolistic Hollywood producers that make movies that cater to the common denominator, or a movie industry with hundreds of small, vibrant, innovative but independent movie producers that cater to a wide variety of styles and tastes, in other words, that offer consumers a choice?
Do we want to support with legislation all current business models? or should we let the MPAA adapt their business model to the times or go out of business?
Firstly, the real cost is only the sales foregone. Many, probably the huge majority, of these "pirates" would simply not buy, and so their "piracy" doesn't represent any real loss.
Secondly, the loss is hugely inflated by using the full retail value instead of something more realistic like the either the wholesale value or better yet, the lost profits.
What Valenti wants to legislate is a permanent revenue stream, a tax, if you will, on visual entertainment, with the MPAA as the sole beneficiary.
I, for one, object to Valenti's proposed tax on visual entertainment.
Happy Jack says:
Help me congress, my business model is going the way of the Dodo. The only option is for congress to step in? For the consumer's benefit? Jack seems to be saying that the MPAA will hold online distribution hostage unless congress forces hardware manufacturers to protect his fragile business. Tends to support the assertion: The very same assertion that happy Jack labels, "palpable nonsense." So, lets recap, Jack sees three options for online movie distribution, (1) Hardware manufacturers voluntarily increase their costs and decrease product performance to protect the revenue stream of the MPAA, or (2) congress forces hardware manufacturers to protect the revenue stream of the MPAA, or (3) No online movie distribution because the MPAA can't collect all their nickels and dimes. How any of this benefits the consumer is beyond me. Perhaps consumers benefit by their goverment catering to the needs of large movie studios? Perhaps consumers benefit by being forced to purchase less versatile digital devices with decreased performance and increased cost? Honest Abe must be rolling in his grave, because "government of the people, by the people, for the people" appears to finally have "perish[ed] from the earth."Because they control the flow of information to the public. The public only hears about, and eventualy cares about, what the media wants them to.
The power that they wield is hugely dispraportionate to their economic power.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Jumping to Conclusions.
So, somehow, my PC has got to distinguish between video that I shot myself of something that I'm "allowed" to shoot and a film in the cinema that I'm not allowed to shoot (to make a screener to distribute)?? Not gonna happen. What's more likely is that the MPAA will push to throttle all media creation on a consumer-grade machine without express permission from them. Or, at least cripple any such media creation as to make it worthless (ripping MP3's with the stock WMP springs to mind).
Of course, there's quite a few comments here that claim that Linux is the solution to our woes, but I wonder... what is the Linux equivelent of iMovie? or iPhoto? But even more than that, is Linux even legal if the PC's are meant to incorporate these controls at the hardware level? How many minutes would it take for the MPAA to declare Linux a circumvention mechanism under the DMCA and wipe it off the face of the earth (or at least the US market)?
My heart is filled with dread at the thought of what happens when the interests of the MPAA in controlling their content is at odds with my interest in making my own films/music with a modern (content-control-enabled) PC.
Where the value of X-Mailer: is the true measure of a man...
Besides tapes? or learning to play Guitar? or VCRs?
I'm pretty sure the MPAA and RIAA have attacked all of these at some point.
"Stop him! He knows how to sing! He'll circumvent our copyrights!"
It's been a long time.
At the risk of soundding like a troll, I personally agree with the artical. Unlike the RIAA, where most of the crap that comes out of it is out of a template and manufactured in mass quantity for the sheer raping of boy/girl-band lovers, it actualy takes the hard work and effort of many 100's if not 1000's of people to make a movie. And for whats it worth, i feel that we should just pay the money asked of us to see that movie. I mean, where i come from, pirated movies are = to 1USD each, but i still go to the movies, pay more to see the movie. So why can't we just do the same here? I mean, sure with enough hacking, copy protection will fail anyway, but unlike charging for MP3s which is really like getting raped, there is value in paying for a movie.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
That is one which I would like to see :) That big dog on the OpenBSD web page, OpenBSD's best friend. Here's lunch boy, come and get it! Gnaaarrrrllll.
A good DRM format is not very difficult to implement. Rather than data, make movies into executable files, ones which require communication with a central server to play. For added security, the executable could delete itself upon the end of the movie, or after a certain time period.
Now granted, someone's going to crack this. But the beauty of this approach will be revealed when this happens - once the file format is cracked, the authors need do little more than rearrange the format, and the crackers are back to square one. Because the movie format is executable, the programmers don't have to worry about "breaking" compatibility with existing players - they are free to implement a wide range of encryption schemes, further thwarting pirates.
Granted, this won't stop those who walk into a movie with a camcorder, but then again, that kind of piracy would still exist with or without PC's and the Internet.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
1. Which has the biggest impact on profits?
A - Exact bit-for-bit duplication of products from legally obtained originals, with the resulting copies sold on streetcorners and eBay.
B - Production of products that rely on stupidity to make money and are of little or no value to the consumer.
C - Evil naughty hackers.
2. What should you do to ensure that "piracy" does as little damage as possible?
A - Produce products with enough value that people would prefer to purchase a legitimate copy rather than deal with quality and legality issues of questionable copies.
B - Encourage harsh prosecution of those who profit from the sale of "pirated" content and launch a PR campaign explaining your side of the case.
C - Punish all consumers for not giving you enough money and argue that you should have complete control over everything you sell for all eternity, followed by evil laughter.
3. When your product can no longer provide adequate profit in your market, you should:
A - Change your product to better fit the market.
B - Move to a different market.
C - Grab market by the legs, spread them wide, and shove your product up the most convenient orifice.
I can't think of anything that would cause a code-fork faster than copy protection making it into the kernel :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The problem for the MPAA is that they cannot understand that as far as the economy goes they are not all that important. The computer industry is an order of magnitude larger.
No, the problem is that they do understand that, and they want it. They see the computer as nothing more than a means of entertainment. They don't know what a computer is, but they see it playing videos. Then they look at the amount of money people are spending on computers and software, and their jaws drop. They think that money should all be theirs. If it isn't theirs, that means to their little pea brains that it must have been stolen from them. It's up to their lawyers and hired guns to figure out a way to prize the money away from the computer industry.
Oh, yeah, they may have some sort of awareness that computers are used for other things, like what the script girls would have used typewriters for back in the old days, but they don't have to dirty their hands with that.
Remember back during the Bush (Sr.) campaign when everybody was surprised he did not know what a supermarket check-out scanner was? It's like that. People at this level of politics or plutocracy simply do not have any clue. At all. About anything. They don't deal with reality; they hire people for that.
In other words, they're not stupid; they're delusional.
Jack, et al, know that the general public is controlled by the media moguls. Expect to start seeing characters in sitcoms being repulsed at the idea that someone is 'stealing' movies off the internet. Expect to see the 'disgusting thief' ostracized for his/her 'illegal' behavior.
There is power in words.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
'Computer and video-device companies need to sit at the table with the movie industry. Together, in good-faith talks...'
Cough. Cough. Excuse me? Good faith? You have the cajones to use that phrase?
There's nothing "good faith" about the MPAA or RIAA. I won't speak for movie stars (just yet), but ask a recording artist what they get from the label. IF their album goes platinum, they MIGHT make money off their next album, if they tour a lot.
Let's face it, though: They spend too much on the stars, get too much for themselves, and then sit around and bitch and moan about how they're not making enough.
If you reduced the pay for "stars" to a reasonable amount, you could cut the budget of the average major production, significantly, you could then afford to have the movies play in the theatre for less, you could charge less for DVDs and rentals, more people would buy these products because they'd be priced reasonably, AND YOU'D STILL MAKE AS MUCH MONEY OR MORE.
Sorry, but I think it's wrong that Tom Cruise makes God knows how many $$$ per movie, while school teachers, cops, firemen, people who do something really important for society get paid crap.
Sorry, had to rant a bit. I think they're all a bunch of blood sucking vampires myself.
I know there are alot of people downloading whole movies from the internet, but is it really that big of a problem? People have been downloading pirate software for as long as I have had internet access, and the software industry is fine. I remember the advent of mp3s and the initial downloading craze, and the music industry is still kickin'.
I guess the big quesiton is, how much of the entire consumer base is downloading and not buying. Yeah, we all know somebody who is uber-1337, and likes to brag about how he doesn't pay for anything. This person is usually very immature and just generally annoying. But take me for example. Here at work I have access to all the bandwith I can handle, a cd burner and an Internet full of illegal movies. But do I horde them, laughing the whole time because I am getting away with something? No, I don't even bother because it is not worth my time.
Also, I hear about how digial copies are so pure, and just as good as the original. Heh, I hate to break it to everyone, but a divx movie that I might download from any of the many sources on the internet, is nowhere *near* what I would consider DVD quality. Hell, it's barely watchable quality. Not to mention the fact that I will have to view said movie while sitting at my computer desk. Well you don't *have* to watch it on the computer, but they alternatives aren't much better.
I can make a crappy vcd out of the file I downloaded. But it will take god knows how long to convert the movie into vcd format, plus the fact that it will be generally pretty crappy. Oh I guess I could hook up a computer with a tv-out to my tv. An easy thing to do, but I'm just too damned lazy.
Basically, the movie industry is going through the same thing that every industry does when it becomes painfully evident that their revenue stream is in jeapordy.
Where exactly does this number come from? Cites? Sources? Valenti pulling things out of his ass rather than shoving them in there for a change?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Sony is a pissant company compared to, say, Microsoft or IBM.
Sony's market cap = ~$42 billion
AOL Time Warner's market cap = ~$100 billion
Microsoft's market cap = ~$319 billion
IBM's market cap = ~$169 billion
I know market cap is not the only or even the best measure of a company's size, but it's a decent measure of the leverage a company can wield. To put things in perspective, the total value of all Sony's floated stock (i.e. market cap) is a bit more than the amount of *real, liquid cash* that Microsoft has on hand (~$36 billion as of their last filing).
Media giants like AOLTW are small fry compared to the giants of tech or many other industries. They just have disproportionate influence with politicians and the public. Why? For one, they have a long, long, long history of brutally effective lobbying and tight political connections. Jack Valenti was riding in the car behind JFK in Dallas, and was the first advisor to LBJ to be sworn in. The main reason, though, is that they have enormous influence over the public. Politicians don't get elected without the media. Elections are won and lost by media coverage. Popular entertainment media like movies and TV can shape public opinion.
That's why politicians get on their knees for media companies - nobody who cares about reelection wants to piss off the owners of CNN (AOL Time Warner), FoxNews (NewsCorp), ABC (Disney), CBS (Viacom), etc.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
What they forgot to talk about is the seating arrangment they want; where the computer companies are sitting under the table performing fellatio on the Industry Associations.
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Isn't it funny that after all these years, the humble PC is still considered one of the most controversial devices invented in the last 30 years?
If good ole' Happy Jack had his way there wouldn't be PC's, but there is and there's not an easy solution to the power they represent for people like "Happy Jack".
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I find it interesting that Jack Valenti doesn't mention stream in anyway shape or form, but places the entire focus on downloading. Before Movie 88 was shut down, they were doing streaming via realvideo which at best was fair. At a $1.00 per 5 day rental it had gr4eat potential. If you remember last year Madonna did a webcast of a mini concert in London that was streamed. 26 million people tuned in. Imagine $1 each. Even if half decided they didn't want to pay, that would leave 13 million. More than any single concert has ever grossed, by far. Imagine Harry Potter opening on the web, or Lord of the Rings. You think your numbers for a weekend opening are good now?
Remember this is the same guy that said that the VCR is to the movie industry what the Boston Strangler was to women, in testimony before congress, and lived in the White House as an aide to President Johnson.
I know this apears to be slightly off topic. But it isn't.
We, me, you, and anyone else who cares about our rights need to show it. Little by little our rights are windled down to little more than slaves so that big copperations can find new ways to make money off of us.
We need to show the government that we have a voice. And that we will no longer tolerate this kind of behavior. I am tried of being a sheep, are you?
So once again, I ask who else lives near the Washington DC Area?
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Seriously, the only people who seem to get very upset about these types of restrictions are us techno/computer geeks/fanatics.
I've tried bringing these issues up to "average people", pointing out all the limitatons that have been involuntarily placed on the DVD player sitting on their entertainment center, etc.
Usually, they come back with a big "who cares?", because they think other issues are much more important. As long as they can go to the store and buy a movie for $19.95 or whatever and it plays for them, they're happy.
The true change will only come about when the MPAA and others like them keep pushing and pushing, until *something* does directly affect the average Joe and Jane. I have no doubt it will... and soon, at the rate we're going.
The recent announcement that the proposed encryption of HDTV broadcasts will render all units made before Jan. 2002 obsolete is a start. Only thing is, most "average people" didn't buy one yet.... So once again, they mainly pissed off the geeks who were "early adopters".
c_j_n(at)yahoo(dot)com
Even if you don't live iun the DC area, you can still help. Information for handouts and so forth.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
As for the movies, so the fuck what? Yeah, I spend money on movies - lots of 'em, in fact, since I'm a movie buff. But no, I won't buy any copy-protected devices. I know this to be true because:
a) I'm an adult, and
b) I goddamn well said so
Suck it up, kid. I can go to the movies twice a month and still refuse to buy copy-protected devices. These two things aren't incompatible no matter how much they fuck with your sense of how the world should be.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
It would have to be in the hardware level or this won't work. Yeah I'm sure Microsoft would do this and maybe even Apple. But whos gonna tell the free community that they need to limit what they can do?
RIAA: "Hi Mr. Torvalds, we need you to enforce the DMCA in your kernel"
RIAA: "Hi Redhat, we need you to enforce the DMCA more and Mr. Torvalds told us to contact you."
RedHat: "Umm... we don't actually do the coding for those media projects, you'll have to contact Gnome, KDE, and all the other little developers"
RIAA: "Oh... thank you, you wouldn't happen to the phone number for 1337hac0rz34 would you?"
RedHat: "Haha... click".
Actually this would be funny, I'd like to see them do something like this, because in linux the dmca,etc will never be software. So unless they're hacking firmware which would be a whore, this won't work.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
but this guy is on crack.
...a charge issued only by those who have a blurred knowledge of the financial fragility of the film industry.
Computer and video-device companies need to agree on the ingredients for creating strong protection for copyrighted films...
I guess he thinks all computers are sealed-case, off-the-shelf pieces of crap that can be built to keep an eye on the contents of your files, and what you do with those files.
Because making movies is so expensive, only two in 10 films ever retrieve their production and marketing investment from domestic theatrical exhibition...Videocassette piracy costs the movie industry worldwide more than $3.5 billion
Hey, I'm all for copyrights and piracy prevention, but let's get real. Just because clever bookkeeping makes most of your movies "losers" doesn't mean that you aren't swimming in cash from the few successful ones. Just walk across Wilshire Blvd up into the hills, knock on some doors, and ask people what they do for a living. Not a lot of insurance salesmen up there.
I think Mr. Valenti has a blurred knowledge of technology. As I said, I'm all for copyrights and piracy prevention, but depending on an entire industry of manufacturers, programmers, and users to base their standards and protocols on your security needs is ridiculous. Might as well ask car makers to build their cars so you can't fit a duffle bag full of pot in the trunk.
And, an unrelated aside:
A recent survey revealed that 68 percent of all home computer users say they're satisfied with their normal 56K computer modem.
Hey! Isn't that equal to the number of users on AOL/MSN?
Evil is the money of root.
(or whatever the acronym was)
Remember that proposed law that would _require_ such a thing from Sen. Fritz Hollings?
I guess they couldn't buy it in D.C. and now are trying to buy it somewhere else.
Weazels.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
It is hilarious that they start making that argument about the costs that they need to recoup for their films... in well under a decade, the costs of studio quality cameras are going to be in the consumer price range. It is going to be hilarious when the first person says to Hollywood about their beautifully videotaped, independent, non-spaceship, non-effects heavy production, "I don't need you anymore. Buzz off. And I don't need your distribution. So double buzz off."
That is going to be a funny day. The days of the $20 million dollar stars are coming to an end. So are the griping Ally McBeals out there, and their perks. The market will be flooded with independent producers of television and movies (which will look the same in quality... totally) selling their wares for cheap with cheap actors, until they get more money to develop their shows. Actors that are good will have ways around the system, and not have to play games with some sex-driven producer. It will be much more equalizing.
By the way, I have never, ever bought the idea that some movies never make a buck out there. That sounds like crap to me.
I live in Nashville and have seen country lackeys that live like kings with zero name recognition for 20 years or more off of one b-side on a bad album. So to say that someone is not making a dollar off of the movies that I have heard of or seen in the national media, then they're lying or tricking for the tax man. After all, these are the same people who told you that Forrest Gump lost money.
- Riiiiiiight.
I don't care what your spreadsheet or your accountant said, Forrest Gump did not lose money. Whoever said that needs to be slapped vigorously.They (the MPAA) are getting desperate. They know what is coming. They're dead in ten years, unless they set up a state controlled monopoly.
Guess what? It ain't going to happen.
If the students weren't able to download movies, they would still spend their money on beer and getting laid, and just not watch movies, or make VHS copies.
I don't see where the studios are losing money.
Only people with jobs can afford to buy a movie on VHS and then again on DVD.
What I've been thinking lately is that this actually needs to happen. A reasonably secure, widely implemented SOFTWARE spec for DRM needs to happen. And it's in our best interest not to fight it.
Hardware security, if it happens, will be draconian and will limit any kind of open development platform. And it's what Media industry biggies will push for -- are pushing for -- because they can't see a succesful software alternative.
Of course, there can't be a totally secure software solution. There can't be totally secure solution of any kind. But assuming we stopped fighting soft security -- or at least didn't distribute tools for doing it -- we'd soon see media biggies start to release their holdings. Slowly. Expensively. And a total rip off. And 90% of folks would be herded through the DRM scheme.
And I think, over time, in that market, it would fail. Eventually, someone would release suffeciently compelling media at a competetive price and they'd win.
I think the media biggies know this, and so they're pushing for a platform that not only allows copy protection but also utter control. They do it under the auspices of copy protection. If we give them copy protection, they lose their weapon.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
People are pissed about stifling innovation not because you don't want them to pirate movies, but because Alen Cox and others won't give lectures in the US because they are afraid of being arrested for violating the DMCA, the worst piece of corporate interest legislation in recent history.
The people that don't want the government to influence business are the same ones trying to use business to influence government.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Perhaps you could pound some sense into them. If they offer people a good product at a fair price, they don't have to worry about "piracy." It just won't be worth it to people to go to the effort of obtaining a copy if they can get the real thing for a decent price. Same goes for the RIAA. But they don't want to listen to such thinking because it means they would have to stop gouging their customers and saddling them with ridiculous restrictions.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'm suprised no one's commented on the phrasing near the bottom: "computers and video devices must be prepared to react to instructions embedded in the film." To me that sound like the ability to add scripting and such like to films: one little security hole and bam, movie viruses.
With broadband in the sorry state is in today, there's no need for copy protection. How many VIDEOS do you see on gnutella and the like? The bandwidth just isn't there!
Uh, quite a few, actually. In my experience, if I get it into my head that i'd like to see some particular TV show or something of that sort that isn't otherwise available, i'll hop on to a filesharing network. So far, i've had a rather high rate of success in finding what i was looking for.
Even if the bandwidth isn't here today, that is similarly moot - as the bandwidth will very probably be here eventually, if not soon. That's why Valenti wants to put all of these ass-butt notions into play now, before it gets completely out of control.
It really does no service to anyone to argue based on the notion that no one's infringing - because they are. It is far better for everyone involved to base your argument on why these control mechanisms are worse than the infringement.
Another damned comic
+++ NO CARRIER
Umm ok. I don't mind video on demand because I'm paying for a one time use of viewing, like I would for renting. The added benefit is that I don't have to be responsible for physical media in the process. Buying a DVD and renting a movie (at Blockbuster or with VoD) is not the same thing. For starters, the price is very different. If I pay $20 for a DVD, I'm paying for the rights to take it home and watch it whenever I want. As part of those rights, I should have the right to fair use of it.
Most of the DVD purchases I made were for the explicit purpose of getting inspiration. I didn't buy Lost in Space because it has a steller plot (ha!) but it does have a totally bitchin style to it that I love to examine. If the MPAA says "you cannot take screengrabs", for example, then the DVD's no longer have value to me. Even moreso, I lose some of my toolset for improving my skills.
Your comment about VoD is incongruent, and pretty lame really. I support the MPAA in producing movies using talents I hope to develop some day. But if they start to shift towards restricting it, then they can forget about me willingly going along for it.
I do intent do speak with my wallet. I will not buy a computer with copy restrictions on it. As a side effect, I won't be able to speak with my skills. If they stall my ability to grow by limiting what I can do with content, then they also stall my ability to work for them.
If you're challenging to not by a copy restricted computer, you're going to lose.
"Derp de derp."
Computer and video-device companies need to sit at the table with the movie industry.
This costs more money than various lawsuits, so Jacky our little gangster won't see this happen.
Together, in good-faith talks, they must agree on the ingredients for creating strong protection for copyrighted films...
see above
and then swiftly implement that agreement to make it an Internet reality.
Swiftly implement? I will swiftly implement my foot in your ass to make you come down from your trip... Jack, did you forget to take your pills again?
damn this guy is a dreamer...
Just a few comments...
They're satisfied with 56Kbps because that's all they can get. BTW, who did this survey and where were the results published?
Way to go. When I get my DSL line will my name be enshrined in a manilla folder at the MPAA as a potential copyright infringer?
Two solutions, in my mind: Don't make the other eight if they're money losers. Or, perhaps, make decent movies without all the multi-million dollar special effects. If you're looking for reasons why noone's going to the movies, it's because most of them assume that their audience has the intelligence of a cabbage. We're looking for a good plot, believable characters, and other things that, frankly, you'll never be able to get by adding more and more expensive CGI. Not everyone is distracted by the fancy computer generated effects to the point that they can't tell that the movie, as a whole, stinks.
But you'll probably push for a prohibition of the consumer's ability to store this purchased movie onto anything more permanent than a hard disk. When that dies then I'll have to buy another copy won't I? Ah... I see the plan for the studios' future revenue stream.
I, personally, suspect that it's difficult to explain briefly because it'll take a new 200-page law which will trample the rights of most every computer user. And you don't really want the general public actually knowing what's being planned until it's too late anyway.
Nice try. Lessig doesn't (in anything that I've read anyway; I'm still reading his latest book) say that ``copyrighted movies are destroying digital innovation''. It's the new copyright extensions that you and the rest of the MPAA have lobbied for and gotten enacted into law that threaten to kill off innovation. Particularly when they're being applied to things other than your precious movies.
Just my opinion, mind you, but anything that obsoletes existing computer equipment will never be considered ``consumer-friendly''.
Here's a clue (free of charge): The internet does not exist to provide the movie industry with a convenient conduit to pipe their crummy movies to the public. And, since the vast majority of the people using the Internet seem to be happy with slow, slow, 56Kbps connections (your assertion), they're not going to be lining up to replace their modems with DSL routers any time soon. Besides, if you haven't noticed, most of the U.S. cannot even get broadband. Consider those who have cable access: why haven't more signed up in large numbers to receive pay-per-view movies? It's a dud. If it were popular, wouldn't you think more people would have demanded that their cable providers include it (or more of it)? BTW, most of the people that I have heard of even having a PPV service cancel it after a short time. Are you and your cohorts banking on the public paying for movies that they'll watch at home because it'll be more convenient to see a bad movie at home as opposed to having to get in the car and drive to see the same bad movie? I'm pretty sure that the movie-going public isn't that gullible.
You need to get over this fantasy that we're all clamoring for Hollywood's product and that the MPAA members are performing some sort of noble service by churning out the drek that passes for a Hollywood movie.
Have a nice day!
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Real World example; Supermarkets used to try and think of things to make our lives easier. Complimentary trollies. Heavy use of barcodes to make checkout faster. Choice. But the last "feature" added to a local supermarket chain was to add those anti-shoplifting alarm things and now they're considering making you pay a deposit to use a trolley. They've been stedily making the isles narrower to fit in more crap, reducing choice for no apparent reason. A local department store has it's most popular sections (CDs, Videos, games, toys, computers, HiFi) all furthest away from the entrances on the top floor. Don't get me started on the way Ikea is laid out.
So, just when did companies stop adding features that their customers wanted and just focussed on screwing us over?
Take two (or more) copies. Compare. Remove (or distort to unrecognizability) watermark. Spread.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
For the last two years, OpenCores has been designing a PC (among other things) from raw gates. The design is covered by a GNU license.
Blocks underway include a CPU (already running Linux), a video card, serial ports, ethernet, bluetooth, USB, wlan, PS/2 mouse interface and firewire. The rest of the modules are waiting for a developer to volunteer.
This design can be used, in conjunction with an FPGA, to build a working PC. With enough interest (and money), the same design files can be used to build custom chips.
New developers are welcome.
Repetition while logged in doesn't make flase things true. Consumer-grade hardware is physically incapable of producing large enough number of copies to affect anything -- only either large professional bootleg setups (that definitely can copy the disks bit for bit, re-encode decrypted movie at the CRT, etc.) or copying over the network. First ones don't depend on any software or licenses, second gives a good idea what a "fair" price of the thing is -- no one is going to waste hours downloading things that can be bought cheap in the store. So really it all comes to the same thing -- movie industry jacking up the prices.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Too bad Congress wants to enforce it with the SSSCA. It will be ILLEGAL to sell non-crippled (non-DRM) PCs.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Linux could very well be made ILLEGAL. If it has the DRM code, it is patent infringement, if it does not it would violate the SSSCA. The standards that would be mandated under the SSSCA could be constantly updated so that the current standard would always be subject to patent restrictions. They could easily say a technology is too easy to break due to it being obsolete WELL before the patent expires.
In fact, MS could have a 100% monopoly, if all their competition was made illegal.
And the gov't could absolve all blame - they could say they didn't outlaw Linux, it was just that MS used its "right" to not share the DRM technology developed by the "industry" (i.e. MS) which is used to "protect" content and ensure its availability to the consumer. Thus Linux would be not in compliance with the SSSCA and thus illegal - if you don't like that, beg MS for permission to add the code to Linux - also, that version must be closed source - else it could be circumvented.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Because the majority says so.
Remember that somewhere around 98% (I'm pulling that number out of my ass, but it was definately in the high 90s) of the population, voted for either Bush or Gore in the last presidential election. Look around at almost ever person that you know, and probably yourself too: the probability is very close to 1, that you're part of the problem. (My apologies if you voted for one of the other parties.)
If you, your mom, your father's cousin's former roommate, the hot chick across the street, the supermarket checker who sells you your beer, and your boss all vote for candidates that just happen to have millions of dollars to spend on campaigning, then people that have millions to spend on campaigning are the kind of people that you're going to get. And if a person needs millions of dollars to get elected, then they're going to have to do something to get it.
It's not a cliche or a joke to talk about politicians being corrupt. It is something well-understood and it doesn't require any subtle insight. It's simple game theory. We actually pick corrupt people for office because they are corrupt.
The only way out is to somehow change the payoff table so that the system doesn't favor the corrupt. The details of how to do that... well, that's a big subject.
But you can start by never voting for a republican or democrat, and telling everyone who listens to you to do the same. Whether you vote libertarian at one extreme, or communist at the other, you'll be helping. (But long term, it will take more than that.)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
As you point out, movies are not *necessarily* expensive to produce. Here's a realworld example from back when I was doing bits and extras myself:
Robert Blake had this wild hair up his ass for years about a particular series concept. After a while the network (IIRC it was NBC) got tired of him being a pest and said fine, you can have your one season trial run, but YOU have to pay production costs out of your own pocket.
So Blake DID, and the result was the short-lived series "HELL TOWN". The per-episode budget was around $80,000 -- yet nothing was skimped and no one got cheated.
At the time, the *average* one-hour TV drama of similar type cost about half a million dollars to produce each episode.
What's wrong with this picture??
Er, well, I can tell you, at least for one aspect. A great deal of the typical production budget is cash, and its ultimate disposition need not be accounted for. Frex, the meal budget for extras is a cash item -- and is often skimmed -- right into some producer's pocket. Universal was so bad about this practice (which leads to miserable working conditions and shorted pay for the peons) that I would not knowingly hire onto a Universal production.
The entire system runs on being able to blithely screw whoever is below you, and bending over for whoever is above you. And the MPAA/RIAA view consumers as being at the very arse end of the food chain.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Jobs has refused to put any form of DRM in any Apple products. Witness iPod/iTunes, both of which are completely free of DRM. Apple is an ally in this.
Since when do the studios get a cut of blank VCR tapes The Supreme Court told them where they could go with the "we have a right to ban or tax technology" argument in the Betamax case.
As for the tax on blank "music" CD-Rs, MiniDiscs, and DAT tapes, that's real. But if the Congress and Sony had shown any sense when the record companies started making threatening noises about DAT, they would have told the record companies where to go, and we would suffer from neither the tax, nor SCMS, nor the DMCA.
Thanks for the clarification, AC. Hey, check it out...just by quoting your post, I have effectively given it a +2, Insightful. I am giddy with power
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
The Paypal links would be for people to contribute themselves. People already can find out where to send checks, there's a million websites that do that. What we do is keep track of a rep's tech voting record, and allow people to reward them directly. Keep in mind, I'm pretty sure you can't make out payments to a rep, only his/her "campaign fund".
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
That's the main thing about the Australian and New Zealand film industries, I believe - we're good at making quality stuff cheaply.
Which says a lot about Hollywood, I think, and why their output is generally so fucked up: the people actually making the movies are too busy demanding huge salaries to worry about the quality of what they're producing, and those salaries have no relation to the quality of the output . . .
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
A few machines making millions of copies, or millions of machines making a few copies still leads you to a situation in which millions of copies exist.
The difference is, on what market those copies will be. "Industrial" bootleggers sell to people who are likely to spend money on DVDs. Homemade copies are usually given to friends that would either get that, or borrow the disk but definitely won't rush to the store to buy a DVD even if there were no homemade copies.
Could you provide a link to something that backs up your claim that consumer drives can make bit-for-bit copies?
I have never claimed that. Consumer equipment however can do re-capture/re-encoding of video (re-encoding is necessary because consumer media isn't _large_ enough to store DVD's equivalent -- again, with or without DeCSS).
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Consumer equipment however can do re-capture/re-encoding of video (re-encoding is necessary because consumer media isn't _large_ enough to store DVD's equivalent -- again, with or without DeCSS).
How would they accomplish that? What piece of software allows you to do that? It would have to be able to decode the stream, thus it would need either a license or DeCSS. If it has a license, then it won't let you re-encode the stream (unless it's a special license, in which case it wouldn't be available to the general public). I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but I've never heard of any such thing.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It's hardware -- either use overlay-incapable VGA and capture image produced by a regulae DVD player, or use TV output and a capture card -- with good enough equipment the only loss would be reduced bit depth. All the decoding would be done by perfectly licensed decoder in a player.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.