BusinessWeek on Open Source and Copy Protection

prostoalex writes "An article starting with the words "Forget about Bill Gates, folks. The biggest enemy of free software may be Senator Ernest F. Hollings" historically had a little chance of being published in a recognized business publication. In this case, though, Business Week (no registration) runs a detailed but straightforward explanation of how the new copyright bills could threaten free software and open source movements."

Comments

Excuse me but

[Anonymous Coward]

there is software development and usage outside of the USA; the USA isn't the whole world. Free software won't just die out because corporatelisimo senators ban it in the USA. Besides, what geek is going to stop using Linux on his home boxen because of some dumb law?

Re:Excuse me but

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Haha. So much ignorance packed into such a small paragraph. Where do I even start?

The USA may not be the whole world, but it is a decent sized chunk of open source development. Sure you won't miss us?

The law won't keep a geek from running linux. The tiny little DRM chip soldered to the motherboard will do that job.

And, most importantly, the EU is full of copynazi's too. Generally, they adopt laws about 5 years after we do. So you'll get about half a decade more freedom than we do, use it well.

Re:Excuse me but

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a proud owner of a Mensa membership card.

Who's card is it?

Hollywood needs to change their business model

[galaga79]

Hollywood needs to learn that in order to survive it needs to change their business model so that it adapts to changes in technology, rather than change/control technology to suit aging business models. A perfect example of this is the following paragraph taken from the article in regards to VCRs.

THE VCR SCARE. In 1982, Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, famously proclaimed that the videocassette recorder was as threatening to the movies as the Boston Strangler was to a woman walking alone. Twenty years later, video rentals account for 46% of studio revenues, vs. the 24% collected at the box office.

Sounds like history is repeating itself and the MPAA hasn't learnt anything from the past. The MPAA needs to stop being stubburn about changing their business model and start adopting new technologies rather than fighting them off. People like George Lucas have the right idea, as I hear he makes most of his profits off the merchandise.

An interesting perspective coming from BusinessWee

[dinotrac]

This article may be the best answer yet for why Linux and Free Software community members should care about adaptation by the community at large.
Two things struck me:
1. Linux has enough mind share and has been adapted by enough businesses to solve real business problems that a threat to Linux is a threat to many businesses, which is why a mag like BusinessWeek is interested.

2. Did you notice the way they referred to Hollywood? Hollywood will this, Hollywood wants that. Sounds very much like a dark force and I think that's the effect it will have on readers, especially those who wonder what in hell Hollywood is doing in the middle of what ought to be governmental functions.

B Week still does not get it.

[twitter]

It's nice to see them try, but they just can't see past the $. Jane Black misses the point of free software entirely, and so fails to see many important things. While it's true that the Senator from Disney would outlaw all free software if he could, the social harm is not a lack of consumer choice in how to watch movies. Jane's write up confuses and trivializes the basic freedoms that are being threatened.

The first clue that Black has none is her assertion that "consumer groups, plus makers of PCs and electronics gear" were the first to sound the alarm. That may have been her first notice, but others have been thinking about such things and publishing it for much longer, like this man, back in 1983. The whole free software movement is a reaction to OTHER PEOPLE REMOVING YOUR CONTROL OF YOUR COMPUTER AND MEANS OF PUBLICATION, the reasons for it and the evil things required to accomplish that goal.

Jane then goes right back to things that must be nearer and dearer to her heart, Hollywood profits. She's swallowed the lie, hook and sinker, that this is about entertainment and a eighty billion dollar consumer electronics market.

Though confused and rambling, Jane manages to be smug and insulting. Check this out:

Embedding copyright-protection mechanisms into new PCs and other digital devices would mean inserting pieces of software code that are hidden, or locked down, and couldn't be altered. That would amount to nothing less than an assault on the open-source religion, which advocates sharing, collaboration, and free access to code.

That's all I can stand folks, let me set this ninny straight.

It's about freedom, stupid. I don't care if I can watch a movie on my computer. I don't care that a set top box runs propriatory software. What I do care about is some idiot telling me that I have to have a program installed on all of my computers that effectivly makes OTHER PEOPLE ROOT. THAT GIVES OTHER PEOPLE CONTROL OF MY COMPUTER AND MEANS OF PUBLICATION.

Don't get confused. Telecomunications companies, entertianment companies and your federal government are afraid of freedom. That's why someone else controls the wires that go into your house. It's why a 69 channel TV tunner will only pick up 4 or five stations owned by three or four companies. Hollings stuff, however, has the potential to control ALL forms of publication and must be stopped.

A supposed friend that trivializes your issue and get's it all screwed up is not a good advocate. Thanks for looking into it Jane, but keep digging. There's truth at the end of your quest, but you will have to stay away from entertainment pimps, their attorneys and other people only interested in extracting money from you.

note...

[kevin lyda]

before the libertarians mouth off, please not that this is private industry pushing hollings for this law. bad gov't typically gets bought by "free enterprise" when people don't pay any fucking attention to their gov't.

too many people in america complain that their gov't doesn't work right, maybe they should get off their ass and vote a better one in.

ah, rant done, feel better.

hey, go visit fairvote.org

Do They?

[wirefarm]

Hollywood is doing just fine the way they are.

The thing is, Valenti's rantings aside, they have a killer business model - no matter how nazi-ish their percieved business practices are, people still flock to the theatre to see whatever crap they decide to spoon down our throats.

(think Matrix, LOTR, Crouching Tiger et alia, Star Wars, and so on...)

I mean, COME ON!?!? This is perhaps the one place on earth where people actually are aware of what is happening with this industry and yet every other story lately seems to be about how we should all flock to the next MPAA/Time-Warner-AOL-Disney-CocaCola/Scientology/R IAA/DVD-Association-endorsed reel of advertisement-laden "entertainment".

If you don't support what they are doing, Don't Go:
Don't go to the theater. Don't rent the DVD. Don't buy the Harry Potter Happy Meal. Don't buy the T-Shirt...

If you can't do that much, then you are showing that this tiny minority has absolutely no hope of making the slightest impact on how Hollywood operates.

Why don't we all just officially give up on this topic?

We're the only ones who claim to care and we don't seem to care enough to change our habits.

Whatever...
Jim in Tokyo