Slashdot Mirror
Doctorow on the Demise of the Digital Hub
natpoor writes "Cory Doctorow writes an excellent piece in this week's TidBITS about how Hollywood is out to destroy the digital hub and what it means for citizens and open source. "In Hollywood's paranoid fantasy, digital television plus Internet equals total and immediate 'Napsterization' of every movie shown on TV." Slashdotters will know some of it, but this is the best write-up I've seen, and it is well-linked. Far more important than AOL on OSX!"
The paranoid delusions of some coked up producers and show bitzy laywers are way more important than the very real stuff thats going on in "Reality land"
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
Of course Hollywood is out to destroy the digital hub. We know that, we see that, we hear that and we read that. Every day. The question is, what are we going to do about it?
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
Looks like the site is overload already. Anyone care to cut and paste?
...it's already slashdotted before 5 comments!
So far today, LNUX (VA Software) (eg. Slashdot, etc) rose nearly 50%! This is ontop of rising from 0.60 to 0.8 in about a week. Good job and thanks!
We will Napsterize everything given the chance, its just our nature.
Can the Digital Hub Survive Hollywood?
by Cory Doctorow
This article refers back to:
Video Details of Apple iTiVo Revealed
Also in TidBITS 642:
iPod 1.2 Supports iTunes 3, Jaguar
CMS ABSplus Adds Mac OS X Restores
AOL for Mac OS X
The Branding of Apple: Brands Embody Values
The Most Important Rule: Build Products People Want.
iMovie, iPod, iPhoto, iTunes, television tuner-cards, composite video out, CD burners on laptops, flat-screen iMacs, Cinema displays, and QuickTime... seemingly every quarter, Apple ships another drool-worthy technology that further erodes the tenuous division between "entertainment devices" and computers.
Since 1979, Apple has broken every rule in business. It shipped a personal computer at a time when computers were million-dollar playthings of universities, insurance companies, and defense contractors. It introduced a commercial graphical interface to a market filled with power-nerds who sneered at the ridiculous idea of "friendly" computers. It brought video to the desktop, wireless to the home, and the biggest, sexiest titanium notebook ever made to laps everywhere. It put freaking open-source Unix underneath its legendarily easy-to-use operating system!
Apple has broken every rule except the most important one: build what your customers want to buy. Since 1979, Apple has achieved its every success by selling the stuff that people like you and I want to buy. Since 1979, Apple's failures (Remember the Apple III? The Newton? The Cube?) have been products that simply didn't sell well enough.
Today, Apple - and every other technology company - is in danger of losing its right to make any device that it thinks it can sell. Hollywood, panicked at the thought of unauthorized distribution of movies captured from digital television sets, is calling for a new law that would give it ultimate control over the design of every device capable of handling digital television signals.
This is bad news for any company that wants to collapse the distinction between entertainment devices and computers. Digital hub projects are exciting, but they're also squarely in Hollywood's cross-hairs. The more your Mac acts like a television device (think of TidBITS's April Fools spoof iTiVo coming true, or El Gato's new EyeTV) the more your Mac will be subject to regulations that are meant to control "only" digital television (DTV) devices.
We've seen some coarse attempts to reign in technical innovation from the likes of Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC), whose Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA) is also known as the "Consume, But Don't Try Programming Anything" bill. There's a far more insidious threat to your rights to buy a Mac that does what you want it to do: regulations intended to speed the adoption of digital television are in the offing, regulations that will have a disastrous effect on Apple and every other computer manufacturer.
Digital Television and Hollywood -- Here comes digital television. Digital television uses a lot less radio spectrum than the analog TV system we use today. If all broadcasters were to switch to digital, the U.S. government could auction off the freed-up spectrum for billions of dollars. Understandably, the FCC is big on getting America switched over to digital, so much so that they've ordered all analog broadcasts to cease in 2006, provided that 85 percent of Americans have bought digital sets.
Hollywood says that digital television will make it too easy to make digital copies of its broadcast movies and redistribute them over the Internet. Never mind that digital TV signals eat up to a whopping 19.4 megabits of data per second, well beyond the ability of any current Internet user to redistribute without compressing the video to the point where it's indistinguishable from analog shows captured with a TV card. Never mind that you can always hook up a capture card to the analog output of a digital set and make a near-perfect copy.
Never mind reality. In Hollywood's paranoid fantasy, digital television plus Internet equals total and immediate "Napsterization" of every movie shown on TV. So the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has threatened to withhold its movies from digital television unless Something Is Done.
This has given the feds The Fear. If there aren't any movies on digital television (the argument goes), no one will buy a digital TV set, and if no one buys a digital TV, the feds won't be able to sell off all that freed-up spectrum and turn into budget-time heroes. So Something Will Be Done.
Perfect Control Makes Imperfect Devices -- In November of 2001, at the request of Representative Billy Tauzin (R-LA), the MPAA's Copy Protection Technical Working Group spun off a sub-group, called the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG). It's an inter-industry group with representatives from the movie studios, consumer electronics companies, computer companies, broadcasters, and cable and satellite operators. The BPDG's job was to consult with all these industries and draft a proposal that would set out what kinds of technologies would be legal for use in conjunction with digital television.
The BPDG started off by ratifying two principles:
1.
All digital TV technologies must be "tamper resistant." That means that they need to be engineered to frustrate end-users' attempts to modify them. Under this rule, open-source digital television components will be illegal, since open-source software (like Darwin, the system that underpins Mac OS X) is designed to be modified by end-users.
2.
To be legal, a digital television device must incorporate only approved recording and output technologies. Some system will be devised to green-light technologies that won't "compromise" the programming that they interact with, and if you want to build a digital TV device, you'll need to draw its recording and output components exclusively from the list of approved technologies.
Hollywood Never Gets Technology -- The entertainment industry has a rotten track record when it comes to assessing the impact of new technologies on its bottom line. Every new media technology that's come down the pipe has been the subject of entertainment industry lawsuits over its right to exist: from player pianos to the radio to the VCR to the MP3 format and the digital video recorder, the industry has attempted to convince the courts to ban or neuter every new entertainment technology.
In 1984, Hollywood lost its suit to keep Sony's Betamax VCR off the market. The Betamax, Hollywood argued, would kill the movie industry. In the words of MPAA president Jack Valenti, the VCR was to the American film industry "as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone." The most important thing to emerge from that case was the "Betamax doctrine," the legal principle that a media technology is legal, even if it can be used to infringe copyright, provided that it has substantial non-infringing uses.
That means that even though a VCR can be used to duplicate and resell commercial video cassettes illegally, it's still legal to manufacture VCRs, because you can also use them to time-shift your favorite programs, a use that is legal. That's why the iPod exists: You can create MP3s legally by ripping your lawfully acquired CDs with iTunes. That you can also illegally download MP3s from file-sharing networks is irrelevant: the iPod has a substantial, non-infringing use.
The BPDG proposal compromises the Betamax Doctrine. Under Betamax, Apple can make any device it wants to, without having to design it so that it can never be used to infringe - it is enough that some of the uses for the device are non-infringing. Crowbar manufacturers aren't required to design their tools so that they can never be used to break into houses - it's enough that crowbars have some lawful uses. It's impossible to make really good, general-purpose tools that can't ever be used illegally - Betamax lets manufacturers off that impossible hook.
A Veto Over New Technology -- Consumer electronics and IT companies were willing to go along with the idea that devices should be tamper-resistant, and that there should be some criteria for deciding which outputs and recording methods would be permitted. Each company had its own reasons for participating.
Two groups now have proprietary copy-prevention technology they want to build a market for: Hitachi, Intel, Matsushita, Sony, and Toshiba are members of the "5C" group, and Intel, IBM, Matsushita (Panasonic), and Toshiba are members of the "4C" group. Since the 4C and 5C technologies have been blessed by Hollywood's representatives to the BPDG, a mandated BPDG standard will make it illegal to sell less-restrictive competing products, and so by participating in BPDG, the 4C and 5C companies could shut out the competition, guaranteeing a royalty on every DTV device sold.
Other companies, like Philips and Microsoft, have their own copy-prevention technologies and were anxious that if they didn't play ball with the BPDG, it would be illegal for them to sell DTV devices that incorporate their technology.
Finally, the computer companies became involved because they saw the BPDG as a way of setting out an objective standard that they could follow, and in so doing, be sure that they wouldn't be sued into bankruptcy if their customers figured out how to use their technology in ways that Hollywood disapproved of. But then Hollywood dropped its bomb. When it came time to setting out the actual criteria for DTV technology, Hollywood announced that it would consider only one proposal: new DTV technology would be legal only if three major movie studios approved it.
The tech companies at the BPDG had been there with the understanding that the BPDG's job was to establish a set of objective criteria for new technology. Those criteria might be restrictive, but at the very least, tech companies would know where they stood when they were planning new gizmos.
Hollywood suckered the tech companies in with this promise and then sprang the trap. No, you won't get a set of objective criteria out of us. From now on, every technology company with a new product will have to come to us on its knees and beg for our approval. We can't tell you what technology we're looking for, but we'll know it when we see it. That's the "standard" we're writing here: we'll know it when we see it.
The Endgame -- The BPDG co-chairs submitted their final report to Rep. Tauzin, the Congressman who had asked for the BPDG to be formed at the beginning. The report was short and sweet, but attached to it was a half-inch thick collection of dissenting opinions from the likes of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, and Digital Consumer, as well as commercial interests like Philips, Sharp, Zenith, Thomson, and Microsoft.
Missing from the report were objections from any computer manufacturer. The information technology industry took its lead from Intel, which has an interest in the 5C and 4C technologies, and is quite pleased at the idea of a BPDG mandate becoming law. Apple, which has previously been outspoken on the subject of a free technology market, was silent, as were IBM, HP, Dell, Gateway, and all the other general-purpose computing companies who have the most to lose from a BPDG mandate.
The Future -- It's bleak. On 08-Aug-02, FCC Chairman Michael Powell announced that the FCC would open proceedings to mandate the BPDG proposal, turning this "standard" into the law of the land. Without any computer companies willing to carry the banner for the freedom to innovate, to make Betamax-legal technology without oversight from the film industry, the BPDG mandate will almost certainly come to pass.
The BPDG world will be extremely hostile to the digital hub concept. Think about a high-definition digital video suite of iMovie tools. These tools will exist to capture, store, and manipulate high-definition video streams - streams from camcorders, TV sources, and removable media like DVDs. They might support cable-in or a DTV antenna so that your digital hub doesn't require a stand-alone TV. And they'll need a DVD burner/reader and drivers.
Incorporating a tuner and a DVD player/burner into a Mac is just the kind of thing that scares the daylights out of the BPDG. If you expect to be able to play your existing DVDs on your Mac, let alone record shows that you get off cable or an antenna and play them on your TV set, think again.
Hollywood wants to be sure that you can't do anything with video from TV or cable without the film studios' permission. So while you may want to be able to stick a DVD full of home movies into your Mac and edit a five minute short for your distant relatives to download from your iDisk, Hollywood wants to be sure you won't be able to do the same with that episode of Buffy you recorded from the TV. When your distant relatives download your home movies to their computers and burn them to DVD, Hollywood wants to be sure that what they're burning is really a home movie and not a Law & Order episode that slipped through the cracks and made it onto a Web site.
How can this be accomplished? Once the video is on a DVD, a Web site, or your hard disk, neither your Mac nor your TV can tell the difference between Buffy and your holiday videos. There's no easy answer, and lucky for us, the Betamax doctrine says that just because someone might do something illegal with El Gato's EyeTV or a real iTiVo, it doesn't mean you can't have one. It's enough that there are legal things that can be done with the technology.
But absent any way to achieve Hollywood-grade perfect control over the technology's use, the BPDG simply won't let it come into being. It will be illegal to manufacture this device.
Hollywood's approval of an iTiVo will be contingent on its "tamper resistance" (so long, Mac OS X, hello again, Mac OS 9!) and its operating system will have to include a facility for marking files that can't be streamed over an AirPort card or Ethernet port (forget sitting in your bedroom watching video stored on a server in your living room!). The entire operating system and box will have to be redesigned to prevent unauthorized copying of Hollywood movies, even if that means your own digital video data can't be backed up, sent to a friend, or accessed remotely.
If the entertainment industry had gotten its way, we wouldn't have radios, TVs, VCRs, MP3s, or DVRs. Business Week called Hollywood "some of the most change-resistant companies in the world." No one should be in charge of what innovation is permitted, especially not the technophobes of the silver screen.
A Glimmer of Hope -- For all the likelihood of a BPDG mandate becoming law, it's by no means inevitable.
One technology company - Apple, IBM, AMD, Gateway, Dell, HP - could stall the process. All it would take is a public statement of opposition to the BPDG, a breaking of ranks with Intel and the other companies who are seeking to secure a market for their copy-prevention technologies, and the FCC would be confronted with infinitely more uncertainty about a BPDG mandate than it currently faces.
There are already a couple million DTV devices in the market that will be nearly impossible to accommodate under the BPDG mandate; another 12 months and there will be 10 million or more, and it will be too late to try to lock down DTV without permanently alienating DTV's most important customers.
Apple has been a strong champion of its customers' right to buy and use innovative technologies in innovative ways. If any company has the rule-breaking courage to stand up to Hollywood's bullying, it's Apple. If we're very lucky, Apple will agree. One press conference where Steve Jobs gives the MPAA what-for would likely derail the FCC's consideration of the BPDG process - maybe forever.
Mac users are fiercely loyal to the Macintosh, and Apple has always responded with new Macs with innovative features. Let's hope that they won't forget us now that there's pending legislation that could hamstring both Apple's entire digital hub strategy and the ways we already use our Macs with tools like iMovie, iDVD, and the SuperDrive.
(For further reading, I encourage you to read the following Web sites and articles: the EFF's BPDG weblog, "Consensus at Lawyerpoint"; Rep. Tauzin's memo to the BPDG representatives; the EFF's letter to Rep. Tauzin; the New York Times on the BPDG's final report; the EFF's comments on the BPDG's final report; a summary of the EFF's comments on the BPDG's final report; and the BPDG final report.)
[Cory Doctorow is Outreach Coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He's been using Apple computers since 1979 and has a 27-pixel-by-27-pixel tattoo of a Sad Mac on his right bicep. He won the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Science Fiction Writer at the 2000 Hugo Awards, and his first novel, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, will be published by Tor Books next Christmas. He is the co-editor of the weblogs Boing Boing and Forwarding Address: OS X and is a frequent contributor to Wired.]
TidBITS hub in particular.
.. *router in peace*
RIP
For years the industry has promised video on demand, but not delivered. They want to have a good firm grasp on it and be able to charge per search/view.
Now that people can already do that, their vaporware is no longer profitable.
The computer is going to replace the TV/Stereo/DVD/VCR in living rooms.
Whether 'Hollywood' is ready for it or not.
Reminds me of the dialogue between the American and Viet Namese General. The American turned to the Viet Namese and said, "You know, you never beat us on an open field of battle."
The Viet Namese General replied, "That is true. It is also irrelevant."
It seems like 'Hollywood' will win in court, but what that means, I don't know.
The opposite of progress is congress
and
Digital Hubub: Companies vie to create a single device to handle all your home entertainment needs
The Largest Players rule the Media Playground (which shows the spaghetti like relationship between all the big players and the current crop of set top contenders).
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
Have you seen what's on TV? I've got better uses for the hardware.
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
Link here - already submitted this as a story, but have to wait 2.3 more minutes before pressing submit
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
It would be interesting to see a battle between Hollywood and some major hardware producer (the article speaks about Apple, but also other will be affected by such restrictions).
...
billions dollars companies will maybe be more indigestible.
Til now it was too easy for intellectual propertiy holders to ban hardware made by some obscure taiwanese producer or harass norwegian teenagers
I'm so confused... who's right?
Why doesn't Hollywood just buy up all the companies that make things it fears?
They got the cash thanks to brain dead Americans who wouldn't know a good movie if it hit them in the head.
Could someone please send me a scale small enough to measure the American attention span, please.
thanks
If you read the article, he mentions that the FCC is apparently preparing to mandate the BPDG recommendations. This removes the pesky Congress from the picture entirely. I have a couple questions about this: 1) Can they do this constitutinally? 2) who do I bitch-slap at the FCC for this insanity?
anyone know?
You are a $.
"When the leaders become oppressive, it means their time is drawing to a close"
This holds true for governments as well as corporations.
It's only a matter of time.
....than the responses.
/. authors and their stories.
Far more important than AOL on OSX!
Maybe the mods should be able to mod down the
Movies dont even come to TV until after they've been out on VHS/DVD for quite some time, which (of course) doesnt happen till after it has been in the theater for quite some time.
So my question is, after audiences have had a chance to see (and potentially record) the film at the theater, then see (and more-than-potentially copy) from blockbuster video (or any rental place) or even buy the film, what else is there for hollywood to worry about? pay-per-view? honestly, who orders something from pay-per-view and doesnt record it already? is the fact that its not a *digital* copy keeping hollywood in business?
Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
-Dr. Weird
Greed they say is good, it makes us strive for more than what we have. In this case excessive greed is disgusting, this has more to do with control than money, how long untill you are force fed the "good fact" instead of the truth? *sorry off topic* *on Topic* Witht he advent of sony's new plan to report the number of times any given media is played or recorded this seems like the next step in the process. The real problem is by the time that nay show/movie has reached television it has earned 97% of it's revenue. What more can they hope to gain. Anything i record off of television has already been paid for by my subscription to Cable or network tv I either pay for one or put up with advertisement for another they have my money already. THIS MY FRIENDS IS IMPERIALISM RUN RAMPANT!!!! We must do something, I don't know what but something. Any suggestions? Che
-For it is the very essence of imperialism to turn information systems into wild, bloodthirsty animals-
What are we to expect from one of two major Monopolistic Industries. They want to run and control everything in order to charge as exhorberent a price as they can. The industry has lost the one true point that you sell to the consumer what s/he wants and not tell the consumer what s/he wants.
I am Lord Snowbeam. Heed my call!
If America outlaws devices that can be used to distribute copyrighted TV signals, what will happen? They'll just be developed in other countries. You'll be able to import them, somehow. There will be a decent trade for hardware and software that can handle TV images. There's no way that any amount of legislation can protect American "interests".
It's not going to help anyone introducing these laws. But what you have to remember is that they're only at preliminary stages now - whether or not they get introduced is another matter entirely. But when you have the "big fight" between large corporations and the public, large corporations seem to forget that they can't exist without the public.
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
Far more important than AOL on OSX!"
Yes, but will it be as important when it's accidentally reposted to slashdot in about 6-9 months?
Is the poster DESPERATE to get his story posted or what? Obviously he/she is clueless...that story was about the adoption of a Gecko browser by the world's largest ISP. That's great news for the open source movement and the Mozilla project. Don't get me wrong, this story is important and well done, too...but that little bit at the end just screamed "Look at me! Look at me!". Have a little class...
There is no gravity...the earth just sucks.
I know quite a few of you are thinking, f*ck OSX, we'll use Linux and pirate all we want. Well, you're the kind of people who kill Linux. Anyway, if that bill comes to pass, no one will make drivers for Linux because it will be illegal. All digital TV technologies must be "tamper resistant." That means that they need to be engineered to frustrate end-users' attempts to modify them. Under this rule, open-source digital television components will be illegal, since open-source software (like Darwin, the system that underpins Mac OS X) is designed to be modified by end-users. So no perhiperals or graphics cards with DTV input can have Linux drives legally. And if their are no drivers, their is no Linux.
http://www.mistersampo.com
Okay, the FCC filing (here: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ FCC-02-231A1.pdf ) isn't a preperation to enact the rules. It's a request for comment from the public on whether or not they should implement the rules.
So, what we have here is yet another person to flood with negative responses to industry insanity.
To quote the pdf file:
To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body
of the message, "get form <your e-mail address>."
From this side of the pond, it seems ordinary Americans are more aware of the close CCTV surveillance of their British friends rather than the bigger "invasion of privacy" that is going on under their noses right now in the name of piracy prevention.
If ordinary Americans aren't made aware of the restrictions are being imposed, by the time they do realise it will be too late.
In my own home, I am unable to take a CD that I purchased, make a copy of it on my own computer and transfer it to my own MP3 player unless I resort to marker pens or real time transfer from my CD player.
I realise that piracy is a bad thing even though I am a freeloading student :-) But surely someone must be able to come up with methods that prevent piracy but allow fair use?
Hollywood's fears are based on "Napsterization" of exact, perfect copies of digital content... they've seen digital music turn into easily copied MP3s. However, they do not realize that if the industry didn't push CDs, and were still selling tapes and vinyl to the masses, people would take that content and compress it and pirate it instead.
At least immediately, digital content probably will not be the first choice for video pirates. Video capture cards and RCA jacks makes napstering "The Simpsons" and VCR tapes easy. There's no encoding hoops too jump through, and no reason to bother with maintaining integrity of digital content.
In my view, digital video-based content and piracy of digitally-compressed video are two completely different subjects.
How about we just stop watching their shit...analog or digital?
Jack Valenti: Here's a deal for ya! If I agree to stop watching your shit will you leave me and my computer alone? Think before you answer that one! I didn't think so you bastard...
You're using her as bait, Master!
See, this is why it's such a bloody good thing that Apple moved over to Open Source. Instead of being a bunch of weirdos with proprietary everything, the fortunes of a large constituency are now tied in with the fortunes of free software. Unlike the masses of clueless Windows users, the masses of clueless Mac users will be affected, will be restricted.
*poof*, we have a lobby! Declan what's-his-face was wrong, there are plenty of people directly affected by this who aren't coders, aren't geeks.
Someone wrote about creating a library of canonical "this is why the DMCA-etc is bad" examples, so that Joe Average can understand the issue. That's exactly what this columnist is doing---reaching out to the average Mac user and explaining that usage restrictions are evil.
Mmm, I've got a warm fuzzy now.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
They'll just be developed in other countries. You'll be able to import them, somehow.
Only terrorists would do that. You're not a terrorist are you? Then why are you advocating a crminal enterprise that can only aid and abet terrorists? I've got my eye on you, boy.
From now on, if you ever go talk to your terrorist friends, I'm going to know. Then we're going to hold a nice secret military tribunal for you and the rest of your terrorist organization. Don't try to complain about being mistreated; Only the guilty complain about "civil liberties" being "violated." Don't you get it, boy? We're at war with the terrorists and you're either on our side or their side. And it looks more and more like you're on the side of the terrorists.
Now, so far, we still have to have such outdated notions like "evidence" when it comes to putting terrorists like you away. For now. You and your terrorist buddies won't be able to hide being the Constitution for much longer.
...it's the MST2K-ization. Imagine user-created commentary spin-offs appearing the morning after TV shows run. The mocking of Hollywood's lousy dialog would quickly get under their all too thin skin.
Of course, that's probably the only way that you could get me to watch "Friends"...
That would stop the "Napsterization" of the home entertainment industry as well as any other proposal I've heard.
I wonder which one people would choose? I wonder if the MPAA would be willing to support such a law? Probably not. But then I guess they know what's good for them.
This is just like the Cola Wars after NewCoke was introduced; they don't care how much bad publicity they get so long as they're getting publicity.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
i dont see why they are so paranoid i mean as of right now i can download just about any movie released on dvd, so they should be worried but its already come to perfect copys of movies. Just get a vidseo card that has video out and plug your computer into your stereo and no need tro buy or rent another dvd
Mod this down -- Offtopic.
According to the article : If any company has the rule-breaking courage to stand up to Hollywood's bullying, it's Apple. If we're very lucky, Apple will agree. One press conference where Steve Jobs gives the MPAA what-for would likely derail the FCC's consideration of the BPDG process - maybe forever.
...
Well, Steve Job is also Chairman & CEO of Pixar Animation Studios, which has an exclusive Feature Film Agreement and Co-Production Agreement with Disney for at least its next three motion pictures. And Disney is a major member of the MPAA. So
If you're not being serious, I'd have modded you up if I could.
If you were being serious, try re-reading what you wrote. Also, try seeing the world from the perspective of the suppressed. First America suppresses the ways of other countries, then it suppresses the ways of its own citizens. This isn't the way you want to be going.
I'd like to know how importing technology to play back TV signals (fair use) is terrorism, too - who the hell are you terrorising?
Does anyone have the link to the article (or the text of the article) by Jaron Lanier where he said eventually every entertainment device would have to pass a certificate to every other one before you could hear anything? "Keep your analog speakers," he said, or something like that. I know his website is at http://people.advanced.org/~jaron/ but I can't find the article on it.
How many people do you know that have multi-region DVD players? And how many don't?
is that George W. Bush is NOT the president of
the United States.
Sure, its Off topic, but shouldnt the story have made the front page? Or at least a sidebar?
I explained that the brand new technology of compact disk was a far more flexible medium than we knew, that it could hold any kind of information whatsoever, not only music, but computer data, movies, etc.
I spent a very long lunch trying to get this concept across. It was simply impossible for this vice president to wrap his mind around the notion that a CD could do a lot more than just deliver music.
The article is absolutely correct but doesn't go far enough. Entertainment execs not only just don't get it. They are not capable of getting it.
Not that they're dumb. They just are not capable of thinking about technology in terms of abstract possibilities. They think of gadgets only in terms of already available functions.
Therefore, in order to prevent the demise of the digital hub (because, after all, senators/congressmen have much the same skill set as entertainment execs,which includes an excessive will to power), no argument except a financial one will work.
I would suggest the following:
1. Hold a No CD Buying Day. The day after,
2. Hold a No Movies/Video Day. Next, of course
3. No TV Day >P> Use the time to hug a tree, talk to your loved one, surf the net, read a book, listen to your iPod, etc.
Repeat steps 1 to 3 every month with enough people and anti-Hub legislation will stop cold.
Nothing else will work.
Yes, I know that even under pre-DMCA law this wasn't true. I read all the fine print. But I think this is the rallying cry under which the public can be engaged. Most people BELIEVE that it is true in some very fundamental sense--and that if the laws say it's not true, the laws are wrong.
Most people think that it IS "theft" if you fiddle with the wires and cable box and watch programs that you've haven't paid for.
But most people think that once you PAY for that television signal, you have a perfect right to invite friends to watch it with you, or watch it on two TV's at the same time, or record it on your VCR.
Property rights go deep into human history, society, and psyche. Congress can pass all the laws they like, and the RIAA can hire all the lawyers they like, and they can get people put in jail and so forth. And they can conduct all the "educational" campaigns they like. People are STILL going to believe:
"I bought it. I own it. It's MINE, and I'll use it as I darn well please."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
All I want is on demand television. I want to sit down when I want, and watch what ever I want on my TV without restrictions. I want to pay a small fee per show, but I do not want to pay more that I would for cable today[1]. I want freedom of entertainment.
I know this is possible, and not to much to ask. So why can't I have it?
[1] A monthly cap, much like Bell Canada has on my long distance charges would be great.
These people rely for a big chunk of their income on ad revenue that they incorporate in programming they then GIVE AWAY (broadcast). Why not offer a service, either for PVR users, or all computer users with a fast connection, a download by subscription service?
/month I'd happily pay for a service like this. I'd prefer to obey the rules if they make sense.
Let's say I miss program "A." Right now my choices are 1) Remember to tape ahead of time (yeah, that might happen), 2) Find someone I know that might have taped it themselves, 3) If it has a following on usenet or on the net, watch for a post of the ep I missed (great for scifi, not so much for, say, Good Eats!), 4) Wait for rerun (soon if its cable, maybe 3 months if it's network).
Those choices mostly suck.
Why shouldn't the networks take their content and encode it themselves, commercials and all (or new, different commercials!), and let me download it to my pvr or pc and watch it when I want? Use reasonable DRM if you must. Be cross-platform compatible (DivX or raw MPEGs), turn off my commercial skipper if you must (if I'm watching network TV, I can't skip anyway -- and you can add the numbers to the ad figures). But for $15
Why would I want a copy of a movie that has been "formatted to fit your screen and censored to be as bland as a mormon's bachelor party"?
I mean, so what if we can make perfect digital copies of pan-and-scan movies with half an hour of stuff cut out for commercials, stripped of all strippers and with all the good fights punched out of it?
Sometimes I think there's a lot of lead in hollywood's drinking water.
You can't take the sky from me...
The point I was trying to make is that Hollywood, like the U.S. in Viet Nam, has every advantage. Better lawyers. Bigger corporations. More money. And what will it get them? .sig.)
You can right laws all you want, that will never cause people to follow the law. Has the WOD caused drug use to decline? No.
I think a lot of this will be aimed at mainstream, but will not stem the tide.
I really wasn't trying to inject politics, just pointing out that even with all of the big guns, it doesn't mean they'll win the war.
In America, that's as it should be.
Dumb laws may be passed that will take years to overturn, but that's Congress for you. Passing dumb laws sing 1789!!!
(Hey, that might be a good
The opposite of progress is congress
Of course they are different subjects! But that's not what Hollywood really wants.
The "perfect copy" argument is only a way of trying to win the same battle that they *already lost* in the 80's in the Betamax case. They know that this precident will shoot down any attempts to legislate anti-copying measures of analog recordings, but they're trying again with digital files on this perfect copy BS. They never mention that most illegal MP3s probably sound about the same whether ripped from CD or input from cassette, because that would lessen their case for a need for new laws. Wow, can you imaging the space required for a "perfect copy" of a digitally-broadcast movie?
The arguments being put forward by Hollywood for this legislation are hogwash, they know it and so do we. However, they sound a lot better to their argument than "we need new laws because technology is making it too easy for consumers to avoid our attempts at controlling what they see and hear."
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
In the past these information sellers were protected by three things: the expense of producing a copy of their information, the fact that the information was not easily transferrable from one media to another, and by (to use a term from Star Trek) replicative fading (A copy is never as good as the master). Sure, people could photocopy books, but that is more expensive than buying the book in the first place. Sure, people can plug the output of their turntable into the input of their tape deck and record songs off of an LP, but the quality will drop. And if you copy that copy, the quality drops even more.
Enter the digital age. The media is unimportant. Audio, video, software, text are all just bits of information. They can be burned onto a CD. They can be sent over the internet. They can even be written to floppy disks. It no longer expensive to copy something. There is no longer any degradation. A seventeenth generation copy is as crisp and clear as the master. The three pillars holding up this scam are gone.
The software industry has tried various things to stem the flood. Activation codes, dongles, special floppy formats, read only distribution media. All have failed, and for the most part software companies have given up trying to copy protect stuff. They have decided to sell their software for a fair price, trusting that enough people will be honest and buy their product rather than obtaining a copy from somewhere else. Open source software vendors have realized that the write once sell many model is dead. They don't sell the software. They sell ready to use installation media. They sell professionally printed manuals. They sell help desk service and support. In short, they sell convenience.
The entertainment industry is slowly realizing that their create once, sell many business model is mortally wounded. They are trying to keep it alive with the DMCA, with various broadcast bits, etc. They will try with encryption, and other copy-proofing systems. They are even trying to control everything digital. Eventually, they will realize that it is too expensive, and too much of a hassle. People will crack any technology they try to implement. They need to reach the same solution that the software vendors reached: Either they sell the entertainment at its true market value, or they will go under. Either sell convenience, or sell nothing. The cash cow is dead.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
I see three main areas of use for computers nowadays:
/.-ers use their comps for all three. However
/etc.
;) - ask yourself what exactly for.
a) old-style number crunching: weather, nuclear warheads and whatnot
b) work: shuffling documents around, making the odd powerPoint presentation
c) play: from iTunes to pac-man
Most
Number crunching -- considering that today's desktop is probably more powerful than a comp used for global weather forecast as of ten years ago, there's not much of this going on. Or if there is, 90% of the cycles are probably going into a pretty GUI with translucent whatsits.
Work -- companies are flexible towards legal mandates. There is no specific desire for a general-purpose comp in most work places - it just has to do what it is supposed to, and there has to be a vendor to blame when it doesn't.
Play -- this is where the general population is. Stuff like iTunes is really nice and easy to use, as are xboxes / PSs etc. right out of the box. Very few people look even at all the configuration possibilities, much less anything that has a hex number in it somewhere.
So actually very few "play around" with this stuff. This goes from replacing the sound card & feeling like a 1337 h4X0r about it, to cracking the encryption of the xbox bootup sequence (which I *do* consider to be pretty 1337). And these things are done for the same reason as mountain climbing: because they can be done, and it's fun. So it doesn't get the chicks & studs juiced up, because a byte is something *they* take out of a burger, but it does pass time (and/or get you a degree).
Now to my point: this isn't about the digital hub, but I see the issue as a broader one: it's about the demise of the general-purpose computer. So-called general-purpose comps nowadays are pretty closed-system anyway. How many have any clue what the schematics of their 3/5/7/~ layer moBo looks like? How many have actually de- and/or re-soldered an SMD? You're getting everything from some shop or other. The best you can do is to hack a board with a DSP / Z80 / HC11 whatever for some arcane highly specialised use. And the shops that build even those things are highly specialised in turn. The general-purpose comp of today is already an illusion. Even overclocking is just setting some jumpers and tweaking the BIOS - it's all within the parameters set by the manufacturers. The jobs computers are used for is cut out already. To recap:
- Crunching: use big iron. Not affected by CBDTPA / BPDG
- Office: don't care. Would use an "xbox office edition" if it increased productivity. Would even welcome P2P-inhibiting features
- Play: a large majority neither care, nor are capable of grasping the issues anyway
Which means that the 1337 are left with closed-shop systems which are likely about to become just a little more closed-shop. OGG will die, and no-one (who matters) will care.
If you read this and are thinking to yourself "but I want my general-purpose computer" (with only a smidgen of "this guy's full of shit" and "his rhetoric stinks" - both of which I am aware of and take pride in, not necessarily respectively
The most positive answer I can think of "I don't know - yet" (to which Hollywood's response will be "great, we're going to tell you").
Any other answer will evoke a response from Hollywood of either "you can still do that" or "that's exactly what we want to stop, because it is / is going to be illegal.". No big deal either way.
signed,
- the Devil's advocate
yes, we have no bananas
The IEEE Spectrum articles that you linked to are very informative.
a president in the pocket of the entertainment industry who once tried to push the Clipper chip!!
Talk about industry-friendly cronies being put into all sorts of places...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, mea culpa, I wrote the bit about the FCC before Aug 8, which meant that what the FCC ended up accouncing differed slightly from what I suggested there.
Chairman Powell is has opened rulemaking proceedings on a Broadcast Flag mandate, but he's said that he's not taking the BPDG proposal as his starting point. During the announcement, the FCC invited the BPDG co-chairs to submit their proposal for the record, but said that it wouldn't be considered ahead of any other comments or proposals.
You can read lots more about the Broadcast Flag on "Consensus at Lawyerpoint," the EFF's BPDG blog, http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org.
Likewise, you can sign up to get information on what you can do to submit *informed* objections (i.e., not "Hot Grits!") to the FCC by visiting action.eff.org.
Cory Doctorow
Wouldn't that be great?
--What, you ain't know about them country fried sessions?
As the article notes, amusement-makers, in times of trouble (more on this later) go to the government of the USA for favors through legislation. Whatever relief they are granted, the courts take away. Maybe there IS a god.
The recording and movie industries are in trouble for exactly the same reason they went bust in the late sixties and early seventies (RCA, RKO, Capitol, Columbia, CBS Records, Decca, Warner's) -- all gone because their executives had gotten too old or too rich and out-of-touch to know what the mass audience of young record-buyers and moviegoers wanted. New faces and companies filled that need: In the seventies, it seemed every movie and every recording artist had its own company. Eventually, these smaller units -- some fabulously profitible (NB Apple Records) coagulated. Now, the Jaggers, McCartneys and Harrisons are gone or going and the big record and music companies are in control again, stifling creativity with the same kind of `formulaic' offerings and corruption through deceptive promotion (heard the news? Payola's back) and attempted legislation that they used in the musically-bankrupt fifties. What's the difference between Maria Carey and Dinah Shore, anyway?
To blame the slump in sales of movies (last year, not this one, strangely) and records on the availability of digital copies is exactly like Michael Jackson `proving' his claim that Sony management is racist in its policies by showing his most recent record has sold less than his earlier (and better) ones.
Gil Scott-Heron achieved fifteen seconds of fame by noting `The Revolution Will Not be Televised.' That may be true.
But it's coming. And it will be on the internet.
_____
I have seen war. You will not like it.
Mmm, yes. I didn't know they had internet access in Bizarro World.
I am currently getting REALLY hooked on Farscape. Problem is, I can never catch it when it's on. I fireup KazaaLite and download each and every episode in order so that I can catch up on it.
/end rant.
So, while I'm helping the creators brand their show into my mind so that I can buy the video game and watch more episodes, I'm hurting them because I don't watch it through the distributed channels complete with commercials.
Sorry folks, I LIKE catching missed episodes cause I had to work late, I LIKE showing them to my brother so he can enjoy the show as well.
Illegal? Probably, but my mentality is the same as everyone else. It was aired, why can't I watch it on demand?
Family Guy realized this, and have their eposides downloadable off their website. BRAVO I say. Wait here's a money making opportunity, SELL the episodes for a couple of bucks each off your site, LET ME have the episodes I missed, but charge me a convenience fee. Like everything else, I'd pay a little a lot of times, rather than a lot once.
So wake up **AA, give us what we want, when we want, charge us a small amount for it and make a lot.
- Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering.
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
I realised the other day that I am almost there already. I flipped through the TV guide for a few minutes and found that there was not a single thing on TV that I wanted to watch. It is not that I have unusual tastes. It was just all a complete and utter waste of my time.
Now, I carefully browse the guide, select a show - if possible, and watch only that. Then I get up and leave so that I can do something else.
I came to the shocking realisation that there is not a single movie that I would even be willing to search for on the internet right now as a free download. They simply are not making that many movies worth watching anymore.
--
Employing incompetence: $35/h
Fixing the resulting mistakes: $1000's
Employing me: Priceless
I remember seeing some time ago the text of a graduation address made by Guy Kawasaki that (in part) addressed this very issue. (Karma whore solicitation: go find this speech -- I'm feeling too lazy at the moment to hit Google myself.)
In his speech, he analyzed the home refrigeration industry, going back to ice harvesting for ice boxes. Some bright person invented ice makers, but instead of adopting ice makers, the ice harvesters struggled to compete with the manufacturers of ice makers. Down they went. Then someone invented the refrigerator, and the same thing happened to the ice maker manufacturers. They saw themselves as purveyors of ice, not of food preservation systems.
And that's what we've got today with the entertainment industry. The MPAA/RIAA are so fixated on selling CDs and DVDs and movie tickets that they've completely lost sight of the fact that what they're selling is entertainment (if you can call it that), not the distribution media.
We can believe in you for 3 minutes, but beyond that, even the King of All Cosmos can't be expected to wait.
When they outlaw computers, only outlaws will have computers.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Hollywood has huge muscle and political leverage in the US, but not in Asia. Guess where a lot of these devices are coming from? If the US gets in the way of it's corporations ability to produce devices the consumer wants, too bad for the US. They will still be invented in places like Japan, and eventually they'll find their way back into the US, making the law a joke.
The US can't hold back the tide, the worst they can do is slow it a bit while shooting themselves in the foot.
This law seems to have the impact of killing the entire digital video industry. If I record a video of my family, this law will prevent me from LEGALLY making as many backup copies of that movie as I feel like and hosting it on my own website or even e-mailing it to other family mambers. Quite scary - amateur filmmakers and regular people all over will be impacted. What do some of the companies that sell digital cameras, digital video editing equipment and software, etc. think about this. Canon, Sony, Panasonic, RCA, I know are very big in this area. We should start talking to these companies to convince them to support the fight against this bill.
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business /2002/db0809/FCC-02-231A1.pdf
I strongly suggest reading it beforehand. It outlines acceptable file formats, among other things.
Documents can be sent to:
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html
-------------------------
As easy as herding cats!
Someone mod the parent up as a truely insightfull statement about the US governments view on other countries not doing what it wants.
Why does that matter? Because it limits the ability of independent voices to be heard. I make software for streaming audio and video and there's nothing better than seeing independent music coming from independent sites, but because bandwidth is typically lousy upstream, those sorts of sites are much less common than they should be.
We've got all this great tech (audio software, digital video, a common network, etc.) but without decent upstream you can't effectivly get your work out.
It seems like we're never going to have reasonably priced upstream bandwidth, and that pisses me off.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
No matter what laws get passed, copying programs will always be arround. DeCSS workes on the first DVD ever made, and it works on every one in BlockBuster(TM) you can find. No matter what they try and stop, we will always be allowed to download our South Park(TM) episoes and watch it when WE want, not just on Wed's at 10:00pm EST. We will always have control.
IF THEY CAN'T GET CRACK OFF THE STREET, DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY WILL GET THE RECORD BUTTON OUT OF YOUR LIVING ROOM! SLEEP EASY! :)
It is not a scam to write once, charge many times. Just like any product, the buyer and seller have to agree upon a reasonable prifce for the product. It is up to the buyer to estimate the value. The actual cost of developing said product is irrelevant. When selling goods, you charge so that you not only make up for the production of the goods, but also for the development thereof.
If you are a doctor, you charge your patients not only for the costs associated with having a clinic, but also for the costs of acquiring a M.D. degree. No different if you manufacture cars, music, software or knowledge.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
We do cache all frequently accessed content out of our database, but the database server is behind a 128K ISDN line (long and ugly story related to DSL firms self-destructing), so the turnaround time was just too long even on the article file.
:-)
Now we have the article cached on our main server, so all the database server has to do is redirect hits to the main server. That's working fine - even the 128K ISDN line can do that. Our main server is handling 75 simultaneous connections at the moment - I had it up to 100, but brought it back down after a crash. That will remain the bottleneck - digital.forest has an OC-12.
Keep in mind, folks, that our hardware, software, and bandwidth solutions have arisen in a situation where we're trying to do things in a way that's as cheap, appropriate to our primary audience (savvy Mac users), and simple as possible. As such, all this was put together over the last four or five years and is changed only when necessary, not just because there's newer hardware or software available.
So the database server is a Performa 6400 running WebSTAR 3.1 and serving data out of a FileMaker database (don't get me started) via Lasso; our main server is a Power Mac 7600 running WebSTAR 3.0 and serving static files.
And yes, we'd like to move everything to a coherent Mac OS X solution running on an Xserve, but when you've built a huge amount of infrastructure using strings, twigs, and baling wire, it's not an easy thing to do while still trying to put out a weekly publication.
cheers... -Adam
This brings up an interesting question, that actually makes me somewhta ashamed to ask...as an american. But anyway...can anyone introduce a Bill in congress or just or legistators....If I wanted to write and introduce a bill which would act to put into law the concept that "Hollywood" can't ask for laws mandating the control they want...how would I have to go about it...? can i write such a thing, and then request an audience per se with Congress and say hey I had this idea that the land of the free, should stay free....or do I need to get a congressman in my pocket, to make such a thing happen....?
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
In a not-too-surprising joint move today, industry technology giants Microsoft, Apple, IBM and Dell all announced they will be moving their main operations to Canada. "It's simply a matter of economics. Canada is cheaper to live, the culture is similar, and the market for our products is much larger than it is now in the U.S." said CEO of IBM Jim Jameson. "We're really looking forward to being able to enjoy the rights and freedoms that Canadians enjoy today." In a related announcement, Canadian startup Digital Home Entertainment Inc. announced that they have sold over 150 million of their highly praised Home Entertainment Distributor, a system which allows digital entertainment media to be distributed throughout a house or to friends. A company insider was quoted as saying "We're ecstatic that we've been able to sell 5 of our HED units to each man, woman and child here at home in Canada. It shows how much people want our product that such an incredible repeat-sales market can be built." Company president Ted Kerwin had this to add: "We're looking forward to really starting to move this product in Europe. With US companies out of the running in this marketplace, we really have no competitors. You can't ask for a better situation than that!" In other news, cross-border smuggling has increased over 800 percent in the time since the start of the Electronic Lockdown here in the US. Border officials are baffled at the increase...
(From an actual conversation with my mother.)
Mom: "I don't understand why this is bad. Copying this stuff is bad, right?"
Me: "OK. What they want to do is lock this into a specific player."
Mom: "Okay..."
Me: "So, you have all your Abba and Barry Manilow CDs that you listen to while driving in the car."
Mom: "Okay...."
Me: "They want to make it so that when you sell the car, you have to buy all new CDs."
Mom understood it right away.
We need to make it SIMPLE for people to understand. The phrase, "If this happens, you'll need to buy a copy of everything for every player you own, ever" explains it.
Brazil has decided you're cute.
I have been pirating music digitally since 1992.
The first thing I ever did with my Thunderboard 8 bit mono sound card was buy a stereo to mono step down cable and rip a Weird Al song to VOC format. It took up roughly a quarter of my hard drive. The card was $100.
In 1997, when the first mp3s hit IRC, I pulled them down to my Cyrix-based win95 box with its 1.1 gig hard drive as fast as I could -- 19.2kbit. The line cost me $15 per month and the new and huge 3.5 gig drive around $300.
And when napster came out, I bought new headphones (Sennheisers, $170) so I wouldn't wake up my roommate trading Jiker tracks with Germans.
When I bought my burner ($240, plus the SCSI card), I turned it into a $30 per month CD habit. Mp3s, porno, whatever. Movie clips.
Then, suddenly, whole episodes. Vivo, then RM, then MPG when I got DSL ($50 per month). I got a new video disc array to rip my own hong kong films from the chinese place down the road( 2 40 gig drives, $500, raid card $170, videos $1 each plus $3.99 late fees).
Eventually, I started burning everything as VCD. To reencode I needed more ram and a dual processor machine ($800 plus cooling devices when I o/cd). VCDs played like shit on my player so i bought a new comb filter ($75) and a pioneer elite series dvd player ($500 plus 4 year service contract) to go with my AV setup (mostly McIntosh and Sherwood tube stuff, around $5000 in all).
Did I mention that I also bought everything I burnt to VCD the minute it came out on DVD? That I burn songs to CDs, then like the albums so much I head to borders and buy the originals (I call it "voting for good music")? That I have budgetted over $700 per month for CDs, books, movies, new hardware and internet lines?
If computer hardware companies think they're going to make MORE money when piracy dries up, they're fools. They should be fighting the CBDTPA tooth and nail.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
"So the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has threatened to withhold its movies from digital television unless Something Is Done."
Boo Hoo. I'll take my toys and go home.....
Didn't your mother tell you to share????
I propose the (DFCA)Digital Freedom Continuence Act.
"1. Congress Shall Pass no law restricting your ability to do anything digitally that you can do through handwritten, and or other Analog means.
2. Congress shall not allow the granting of a patent for any device that would knowingly impinge upon your ability to do anything digitally that you could do via handwritten or Analog means.
3. It shall be unlawful to distribute technology which would knowingly violate the Free Speech and Fair use intentions of the Constitution of the United states of America.
4. It shall hence forth be understood that once "content" is purchased, it is the purchaser's right to do what ever they choose with that content, and shall have the right to do as they have always been able to do via handwritten, or analog means.
5. Congress Shall repeal the DMCA it does not serve the people of United States in any fair way shape or form. It abridges the freedoms that are set forth in the constitution.
6. Congress shall pass no law which prevents fair use of media, nor shall it support any initive which would do the same.
6a. It shall be illegal to develop technology or any other means which would prevent fair use of media.
7. It shall be illegal to attempt by means of contracts take away the rights of the author of a work. That is, copyright can not be transferred, and the creative person or group thereof behind a work _always_ holds the copyright.
8. There shall be established reasonable copyright limits on created works, that are equivalent to a period not to exceed the reasonable financial lifetime of the work. 8a. Each major version of software (ie. v1 v2, etc) shall have a copyright period not to exceed 6 years past the time that version is not longer available for sale. In this time the software publisher will have most likely published a newer version, ceased to exist(how can a company which doesn't exist reasonablely hold a copyright anyway), or abandoned that line of software.
8b. Films and audio recordings shall hold a copyright for no more than 20 years from their original theater/video(for direct to video releases only) release date. New editions and releases of the film which change the content of the film through adding or deleting of material shall be covered by their own copyright period, and shall not extend the copyright period of the original work.
9. If there does not exist a method of using media for a particular harware/software platform, and the publisher of said media does not make a reasonable effort to provide a viewing or conversion method then I shall be legal for a third pary to create a method, by whatever means required to do so, and distribute/profit by it.
9a. In the case of new distrobution/storage/playback/viewing methods which become available in the market(hardware or software) the original publisher shall enjoy a 2 year grace period during which to make their works available via this medium."
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
One word: money.
TV content is not produced to provide you a happy experience. That is a bi-product. The real product is to produce a medium for ads. Period. Could this be done under PPV? Sure -- but the entire business will have to change and th *IAA's of the world absolutely fear change.
Now you're just being stupid. Regardless of what you think of President Bush or US policy, the US is not "waging war on the free world". The US is at war with the Taliban and Osama's people. (And probably Iraq soon). This is NOT the free world. The day the US bombs Europe, let me know. Until then, you're just a whiner with a penchant for dramatic nonsense.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Unfortunately, they know that they can produce crap like MIB 2 and people will drool all over themselves to pay $10 to see it, because people in this country have given up using their minds. But what they keep ignoring, what they try so hard not to see, is the fact that there are more of us than them, and we choose to think. And what we think, rightly, is that they are stifling innovation with their laws and their lobbiests. They are fighting against progress, the virtue that made our country great in the first place.
The fact they don't want to face is that they are evil, and that their success means the complete and utter conversion of this country to babbling zombies. They are fighting to destroy our minds with their meaningless explosions and crass commercialization.
What am I going to do about it? The same thing I've done for the past 10 years: not see their movies. Or buy their CDs. I refuse to let my hard-earned dollars purchase the downfall of America. My advice to you is to make up your own mind, and do what you feel is right. Be an individual, the one thing they don't want you to be. But if you are looking for a specific action you can take, here it is: don't ever accept employ within the entertainment industry. If you have a job there now, quit. Deny them the use of your mind. That is the worst damage you could inflict. Without talented people, their industry, ANY industry, is doomed.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
to not think like 99% of the U.S. population.
If you think he is president, you obviously
have never heard him speak or know about his
daddy, G. H. W. Bush - Not Much; G. W. Bush - Even Less.
Good Luck if you are drafted to Iraq.
Like everything else, I'd pay a little a lot of times, rather than a lot once.
Speak for yourself! That's exactly what they want you to do. They want you to pay LOTS of times! I don't want to pay lots of times, I want to pay once. I am not going to participate in anything that does not have a predictible bottom line. If traditional entertainment becomes Pay-per-use, then they will stop getting ANY of my money. I'll put in the extra effort to create my own entertainment.
I want to know how much something is going to cost up front. If I want to be entertained, I don't want to pay for the same passive entertainment multiple times. Put a price on your service/product/content/whatever, and let me decide wether I want to pay it or not. If there's no SINGLE price tag, then I'm not buying.
Having small prices per unit of entertainment that you don't get to keep is a way of jacking up the price without you noticing.
Every innovation over time becomes commoditised. The knowledge of how to exploit the innovation spreads wide and far and is no longer scarce. Prices come down.
Every company has limited window of opportunity to profit from the scarcity value of its product or service. Initially they will want to charge on the basis of the benefit to the user but ultimately they can only charge based on the cost of production.
Vendors of software that is effectively a commodity are trying to extend their window of control using dubious scamming techniques.
Vendors of software that is still a scarce item eg a fully integrated dynamic supply chain control system are having few problems.
Performance artists who are skilled and entertaining are in demand. How many good recordings are there of Wagner's Ring cycle? and how many fresh productions are there every year?
Y'know, if I were a content provider, I'd be a lot more worried about the lack of quality in my product than the likelyhood that someone will want to steal it.
Never mind that. The important thing is that you put this issue out there, on a site where many of the crowd who DON'T follow SlashDot may see it.
"Betamax doctrine" -- the legal principle that a media technology is legal, even if it can be used to infringe copyright, provided that it has substantial non-infringing uses.
That means that even though a VCR can be used to duplicate and resell commercial video cassettes illegally, it's still legal to manufacture VCRs, because you can also use them to time-shift your favorite programs, a use that is legal. That's why the iPod exists: You can create MP3s legally by ripping your lawfully acquired CDs with iTunes. That you can also illegally download MP3s from file-sharing networks is irrelevant: the iPod has a substantial, non-infringing use.
That's also why Napster should still exist. It had many non-infringing uses, such as all the musicians who released free MP3s of their performances and encouraged trading in order to gain exposure.
How did the courts get away with ignoring this legal precedent when they banned Napster? Is there anything that can be done to appeal and shore up the "Betamax doctrine"?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Always remember folks, Hollywood's goal is not to stop piracy - that's technologically impossible. They just want to ensure that every aspect of using their products is controlled and paid for.
Want to see Snow White once on your TV? That'll be $2.50. Want to watch the making-of documentary? $2.00 more. Listen to the soundtrack for up to one month? $3.50. Send a 30-second clip to five friends? $1.50. Download the movie for use in one portable player device? $5.75...
In economic terms, it's perfect price discrimination - by nickle-and-diming consumers on every use of media, the industry will reduce the consumer surplus to zero, transferring it to their producer surplus. In other words, be prepared to pay more for the media you're getting now, or plan on reducing your consumption...
And what about independent non-major studios? They'll sure have a hard time producing content when low-cost digital editing systems become illegal. And of course the encryption keys that make this whole system work will only be available to studio distributors...
In practice what he's doing is tearing up the free world. What we cannot afford at a time like this.
The problem from his viewpoint is that the rest of the world (including Europe) have a fine nose for bull. Like coloured people smelling racism. Like in: the stated reasons for attack not being the real ones. In fact as of now we don't have any stated reasons that are both coherent and plausible. That needs work.
If it is about oil or putting paid to what Saddam tried to pull on daddy, okay, say so!
And remember, starting a war of attack has been a hanging crime, lastly in Nuremberg IIRC. Ah, that's why W doesn't like those international courts?
Shall I send you a postcard when the bombs are dropping on The Hague [wish it were funny]?
I find it difficult to explain to family and friends why I don't have a DVD player or movies. They look at me like I am a wierd person for not buying into it. It isn't that I don't like DVDs - the tech is great. But I despise supporting what I feel is an unethical power structure built on top of unconstitutional law (the DMCA, and others).
I wonder if some day I will walk into a store and not be able to find blank video tapes (not because recordable DVD or whatever has replaced them, but because recording becomes illegal)...
The issue at hand isn't about the distribution of copyrighted IP - it is about the distribution of copyrighted IP that Hollywood doesn't control.
This is what has Hollywood running scared, it is what has caused them to buy the draconian and illegal laws they love so much.
The only thing that keeps me going is that some small part of me believes that they are too late - that the coin has been tossed, and it has landed in the public's favor. Consider:
1) A complete, open, end-to-end, digital distribution channel - the Internet/P2P - currently exists.
2) Digital creation tools - various software (some expensive, most cheap, some even Free!) to allow video editing and creation on the desktop exist.
3) The ability to create complete synthetic, scriptable "actors" using software, is a reality. Think machinema display/rendering systems, 3D editing tools, even synthetic voice rendering systems - much of this stuff is Free or cheap.
4) Digital cinema's coupled with independent distibution via #1 - also keep in mind digital distribution to players on the user's computer (and before you bring up the tired saw about watching video on a computer monitor, realise that there are other ways to view the output - hell, if the market is there, the products will be built for it).
In other words, quality desktop-produced video is what scares Hollywood. It is bound to happen. They are trying to stand in the way, but in the end, it won't matter. The internet is the distribution media, the computer will become (is?) the display engine.
The TV tuner and television? So what?
Unless they somehow get a (albeit unconstitutional, mind you) law passed that says only Hollywood can make, sell and distribute videos and movies...
I wouldn't put it past them to try - but such a law would be a blatent First Amendment violation - and it wouldn't stop those outside America from creating these digital movies.
I suppose they could try to close off the internet to the outside world - but I would hope the People would have woken up by then and realised just what kind of government/system they are under...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Imagine a poor person deprived of their constitutional right to have their intellect ground down by the generally mind-numbing crap on the tube!
No more Survivor, no more Dawson's Creek!!
Why, they might just have to do something radical...like read a book!
Assuming the publishing industry hasn't taken over the libraries by then.
"That's no moon"... Obi-Wan Kenobi
and the solution is the exact opposite of what they are worrying about. They think that using these PVRs and what not you will be able to make a perfect copy of the broadcast...which is of course absolutely true. But, as technology gets better and the quality of these shows/movies gets better, so too does their size. All they have to do is make the movies so perfect that it would be impractical not only to send it to someone over the internet but also to store it on a hard drive. The RIAA and MPAA are a bunch of morons.
Digital tv is already here in Europe (satellite
is digital already, the technology exists already). As for pvr, just get a satellite dvb card and you can record your favorite shows off the air. Then you convert them from MPEG2 into either DivX / XviD (prefer the latter), or some other Video CD format such as SVCD, KVCD (prefer this one as I
put more eps on one CD). It's better quality than your usual video recording and allows me to playback with the dvd player.
Life is great with digital. I've set up my own PC,
built it myself with such a system.
I even record songs from those (FREE TO AIR) music
channels. They are better than CD quality (48000, 320) and I downsample to 44000,160. Then I keep the video in XviD format and an mp3 encoded version of the song. Beats Napster and the local radio stations any time.
...those copy protection devices only work against copy protected bits. All it takes is someone with enough backbone to release media with reasonable settings, ala WB taking the lead in releasing DVDs, and those devices will be 8-tracks. Unless of course, we're all sheep and eat what's fed us, in which case we deserve what we get.
Hollywood's concern is hardly paranoia. It will be hard for Blockbuster to rent videos when internet bandwidth increases and it becomes easy rip a DVD and share it via Gnutella. We've already seen it with music.
Vote for Pedro
sure, right now it might be unrealistic. But for how long?
I ripped my first track from a CD to WAV files on my 486sx25. The resulting file was about 70 megs. My harddrive was only 120 Megs. (nostalgic nod to MediaVision who provided a great dos wave file recorder with all their soundcards)
My friends told me I was being an idiot to back up music on a computer. They said the same thing when I got my first video capture card.
I copy my dvd's to vcd's so I can play them in the car now. The resulting files are no longer an issue with the available hard drive space on just about any recent machine.
I emulate games for consoles which are sitting up in my attic.
at this point - I almost sound like I am a law abiding citizen who only backs up things that I own. I could say that I learned this with the intent of only backing up personally owned media.
But as just about everyone reading this knows, that is a half truth. I watch most movies with my friends weeks or sometimes months before they are officially released in theatres, I download music I have no intentions of paying for. I edit video using programs that I would never imagine paying for.
The MPAA is partially justified, they have a good reason to want to change the way things work. But the people who are involved usually lack the p.o.v. to understand why things are the way they are. They don't understand that if media can be played, someone will find a way to record it. If something is encrypted, someone will find a way to break it. Bootleggers have always been around, and arguably it can be said that they even create more buzz for products, and thus increase sales.
The problem from his viewpoint is that the rest of the world (including Europe) have a fine nose for bull.
The suprise is that so few people in the US notice when they are being fed shovelfull. Bush wants to bomb one country becuase the government ignores UN resolutions, allegedly has weapons of mass destruction and opresses various ethnic groups in the country. At the same time there is a country near the first which also ignores UN resolutions, most definitly has nuclear weapons (and a habit of getting into wars with its neighbours) and opresses an ethinc group in the country. But this latter country the US supports with money and weapons (including nuclear materials.)
Oh, yeah, we'll all be LINING UP to download crappy edited version of movies.
They didnt give us TV, they rode the wave of the Television Industry. They should just grow up and accept their position in the media.
Ban Digital Media ?
Is Hollywood really this uninsightful ?
It doesnt take a genius to work out that they are making alot more money by having a presense on TV. If they dont bring movies to computers (aka digital - duh) then they are missing at least one sale (me).
Pixels keep you awake!
Steve seems to have a decent grasp of what's going on, but if people don't buy Apple -> they have to do whatever they can to stay profitable.
He's already rocking the boat pretty hard behind closed doors it sounds like.
In a "ha ha, only serious" sort of way.
There seems to be a good ol' fashion gunfight in the works. Apple seems to be quiet now, because they intend to wield a big stick in the future.
While the AAAA goons are trying to make digital content reproduction illegal (and thus flying in the face of Apple's digital hub strategy), Apple is buying up lots of the digital video and audio production software (and still has $4B+ in their acquisition warchest).
Apple will control much of the production technology (and the patents related to lots of effects and editing tricks commonly used), and will refuse to embed this crap in that software because they are making it the digital media production software for "the rest of us."
Can the AAAA goons really find enough alternate technology? Today, yes. When Apple starts throwing around a bit more of that $4B? Maybe not so easily.
Looks like it's going to be interesting.
No, no, no, no, no.
Piracy is being used as a smoke-screen. For starters, since day one the **AA has complained that Napster/MP3/DivX/etc. are new and horrible type of piracy because they make perfect copies that are indistinguishable from originals.
Except they're not. MP3 and DivX are lossless, lo-fidelity media. The quality of the copies is closer to cassette tapes than CDs, and the videos are only marginally if not worse than the VHS tapes you can buy from some street vender. Nevertheless they continue to use this argument. The media companies don't like piracy, but they've adjusted their business plan to account for it.
The reason they continue to argue against piracy is to deflect the argument away from the real issue. What they are afraid of and what they are fighting so hard to prevent is not that the people who will make unauthorized copies of content that they own. But that people will be making content that the media companies DON'T own.
And that is what is so insiduous about the legislation being considered and passed. And that is why the public is being lied to by the media companies, using congress as their mouthpiece. And when the public does find out that they've been bamboozled, the fall-guys will be the congressmen while the Valenti and Rosen, who are accountable to nobody, walk off with the whole world in their pockets.
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
Ah, but that "central indexing service" also has many non-infringing uses; ergo, it should be legal.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
This isn't exactly what you were looking for, but I find this to be interesting, and I wonder if his current opinion is the same: [http://www.eetimes.com/docs/f95/lanier2.html]
Internet a nickel-and-dime affair
SAN FRANCISCO (September 1995) -- Commerce won't flourish on the Internet until businesses find a way to bill nickels and dimes for dribs and drabs of service. So says industry consultant Jaron Lanier, the co-inventor of the virtual reality data glove, who foresees consumer resistance to substantial charges for services delivered over the World Wide Web.
With my regards to EE Times; the full interview can be found starting at: [http://www.eetimes.com/docs/f95/lanier1.html]