Valenti's "Boston Strangler" Testimony

Seth Schoen writes "'I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.' Jack Valenti said this in 1982 in testimony to the House of Representatives on why the VCR should be illegal. He also called the VCR an "avalanche" and a "tidal wave", and said it would make the film industry "bleed and bleed and hemorrhage". This speech is an important part of history, yet until today it had never been published on-line in its entirety. Valenti's testimony was published today by Cryptome. It's essential background reading if you want to see just how little the MPAA's arguments have changed in two decades." Compare to the Analog Hole document and they're virtually identical (except Valenti was playing on anti-Japanese sentiment then, and today it's anti-pirate sentiment). Of course, the MPAA was unsuccessful in plugging the "VCR Hole" - insufficient lobbying and clueful judges stopped them. The MPAA successfully adapted to the changing times and today sells about 70 million cassettes for rentals and 600 million cassettes for home viewing every year (both numbers are on the decline due to the rise of DVD).

Comments

Valenti is an admitted pirate!

[TrumpetPower!]

I found this exchange fascinating:

The average number of cassettes per household -- this is fascinating -- Mrs. Schroeder, was 27.7, 28 cassettes. Now, if you are just time shifting, all you are doing is you are away from home and you are taping something and you come back and you watch the commercial, then you time shift, you don't need 28 cassettes. You need one cassette or at the most two. Why do you have 28? Why? Because of the next line. Seventy-five percent have a permanent collection. My own home, we do it in our on home. I know about that. Anybody that has a VCR, talk to them, and I ask you to use your own commonsense, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Railsback, just think of you as human beings. If you had the power to sit on a playback of a recording and you could wipe out the commercials or not wipe out the commercials, what would you do? You would do exactly what you said, sir. That is terrific. Of course. We all do it.

But when you do it, you strip away the reason for free television. Now, let me --

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Jack, let me ask you. Do you consider yourself and your family infringers when you engage in that practice?

Mr. VALENTI. I consider myself and my family believing what the plaintiffs in this lawsuit said and they said publicly, they have said it to the press, they have said it to the lawyers, they have said it to the courts. They do not intend to file any actions against homeowners now or in the future. I mean, that is obvious and they have said that publicly, Mr. Chairman, so I believe them. As far as I am concerned, I am going to continue taping because the plaintiffs have said they aren't going to do anything to me. I am not committing any crime. They know that.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. That wasn't my question.

Mr. VALENTI. Do I consider myself an infringer?

Mr. KASTENMEIER. When you engage in such practice.

Mr. VALENTI. Yes, sir, I do. I am taking somebody else's copyrighted material without their consent and I know damn well I am infringing. But as far as court action or anything else, I am safe. First, it is not a criminal act. Again, the opposition would tell you video, police, and criminals. They show an astonishing lack of the copyright law. They know good and well that that is not a criminal infringement unless you do it for profit. But on the other hand the plaintiffs have said they are moving against anybody in the homes. There is no problem, but 1 know and everybody else knows they are infringing.

I'm not one who participates in copyright infringment, even with the strict standards imposed by recent changes to the law. Mr. Valenti's testimony, however, has completely changed my opinion on whether or not it is right for me (y'all are welcome to do as you wish, I'm talking about me) to engage in such practices. What's good for the goose, and all.

I think I'll go download something right now....

b&

Terms, Terms, Terms

[Bouncings]

First of all, I think we need to make something clear. One thing that often decides debates is language. Any side of a debate adopts a language all its own. "Pro-life" vs "pro-choice"; "illegal immigrants" vs "undocumented immigrants," etc. The similarity between the Analog Hole article, this testomony, and the wording in the rest of the Hollywood argument is establishing a general-purpose set of words for the MPAA to use.

The time has come for advocates of general purpose tools to adopt some words. "General purpose" I like, but it could be better. Suggestions? Some more ideas, but please, come up with more, everyone:

• 'Piracy' -- Copyright infringement is called just that, 'copyright infringement.' I suggest you stop someone when they use the word 'piracy' and ask them what boats on what ocean they are talking about. "Piracy" has no legal meaning and it only exists because 'copyright infringement' doesn't sound as bad. It's hard to argue with this fact.
• Spyware is an excellent word to use for DivX and Kazaa kind of cases. It's not directly related to this debate as much, but it's an excellent example of choosing your own vocabulary.
• I think we should call programs that play DVD's but don't copy them 'crippleware' or 'defective' -- the MPAA calls them 'secure' -- I call them 'defective.' Even better, let's call anything related to copy restriction 'defective.'
• When speaking specifically, don't use the word 'protection', use the word 'restricted.' Everyone wants a 'protected' computer, no one wants a 'restricted' computer.
• 'Circumvention devices' is OK. But how about 'repair' devices that fix things like defective CDs. Or maybe 'full use' -- the DeCSS is a 'full use' device, in that it gives you full use of your computer.

Think of some good terms, everyone.