Slashdot Mirror
A History of the Digital Copyright Struggle
sconeu writes "The National Journal has an article detailing the battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. An interesting read, it discusses the tech industry's early miscues, and the efforts made to ensure that Hollywood isn't the only voice heard on the Hill."
With a cue from Walt Disney Chief Executive Michael Eisner, Senate Commerce panel staffers dimmed the lights for a packed February 28 hearing in the Russell Senate Office Building. A full house of lawmakers and lobbyists settled back to watch an ABC Nightline
How funny would it be if it came out that Eisner had downloaded the footage the night before off of LimeWire?
Which makes you wonder, did he actually have the rights to show the footage? Sure, Eisner OWNS abc, but i wonder if he went through the red tape to get something printed that said he had the rights.
The more I read about the entertainment industry trying to lobby its way into a stable business model the more I want it to fall on its face and never get up. For them to expect the computer industry to include DRM into all software to prevent piracy is insane. It is not the computer industry's nor the ISP's job to police copyright infringement. The software is made to do a certain thing, but that doesn't mean someone will find another use for it.
For example, the airplane was invented as a way to travel. As soon as the military saw this, they thought, we can drop bombs from this device. Now the plane is not just for travel, but also for war. I'm sure the Wright Brothers didn't expect the creation of Stealth Bombers now did they. The same applies for developers of CD/DVD burners. I'm sure the original plan for them was to provide a great way to back up large amounts of data. Then someone said, hey, we can put multimedia on this and get our car stero, home theater to play this also.
Through this whole mess I just hope that some silly law doesn't get pasted that requires software/hardware developers to add DRM to their products, because if it does happen, I know a whole bunch of people that will stick to the last latest and greatest hard/software that doesn't include DRM.
a) Many industry forces want to combat the rise in Internet copyright infringement through technological means.
b) These technological means would likely result in a considerable reduction in the flexibility of personal computers.
c) This "considerable reduction in flexibility" might preclude 100% open source operating systems, depending on the technology used. It stands to reason that open source and free software license compatibility is not the primary concern of the proponents of such legislation.
d) At the very least, this is likely to make it difficult to play movies and/or music with open source software, which will reduce the desirability of the software we've worked so hard to build.
e) This is unacceptable.
What are we going to do about it?
I can think of a few possibilities.
We could stop infringing copyrights, and convince the industry that the problem has been solved. Fat chance this'll happen.
We could implement a classic broad-based boycott, but history has shown that this only works until the next cool shiny DVD comes out.
We could convince our representatives to stop listening to the entertainment industry.
We could do nothing (or do things that amount to nothing, like sit around and gripe like I'm doing right now).
Something is going to happen, and it's probably going to suck unless we, a community of people who have a vested interest in preventing these things from happening, unite and implement an effective solution.
What'll it be?
-John
I wish people who made this "free market" appeal actually understood what they were talking about. A truly free market has more choices than "buy" or "don't buy." In a free market, I could also start my own business selling copies of movies. Oh, but that's illegal thanks to government-enforced monopolies called copyrights. Fair enough, "promote progress" and all that. Instead I'll manufacture my own playing devices that don't bother with silly use restrictions. May the one who gives the customer what he wants win. Oh wait, but that's what these new laws are designed to block, isn't it?
Show me this free market you speak of, 'cause I've never seen it.
The above quote says it all. If I buy something of course I am entitled to use it any way I want! What do you think ownership means? There are exceptions, obviously--I can't use a crowbar to break and enter--but those are just that, exceptions. They are set by the law, not by crowbar manufacturers. Things like the DMCA (unconstitutional) and EULAs (unenforceable) give manufactures the power of the legislative branch in crafting copyright law with no accountability, no checks and balances, and no recourse for ordinary citizens.
I have a personal moral code, as I'm sure most people do. My code amounts to the fact that I will not do anything that hurts someone else or myself. If you aren't hurting anybody, then its not wrong to do.
Laws are neither good nor bad. Some apply to moral situations and some do not. For me, if a law is not enforced, it does not exist. For example if there is a stop sign in the middle of nowhere at night and there is no cop, then I can run the stop sign. As long as nobody is hurt. I broke the law, but I didn't hurt anyone and I didn't get hurt.
Here's where copyright gets in. I could care less what laws the government tries to pass. They can't enforce them on me. As we all do I'm sure, I have a rather large collection of mp3s. It's technically illegal, yes. But nobody is ever going to come and take me to jail for it. It's an unenforced law, so I refuse to obey it, since nobody is hurt.
As for unjust/unconstitutional laws I publicly disobey them on purpose, as we should all. The best way to fight an unconstitutional law is to break it. If you go to court, and the law is truly unconstitutional you can take your case up through the system until the power of judicial review is used to get the law off the books.
It is quite plain and obvious that new copyright laws are unconstitutional and unjust in many ways. And breaking these laws doesn't hurt anybody. Therefore I don't care what laws they make, I will not follow them. At the very worst I can become a martyr for the cause. (only I wont die).
I suggest we all stop moaning and groaning and repeating ourselves over and over again. When obviously innocent people start getting locked up then, and only then will there be a public outcry.
Remember we've taken advantage of every right the constitution gives us, except for the right of revolution. The fundamentals of our US government are sound and have lasted through time. We're going to have to have a revolution sometime, or technology will get ahead of the law and everything will fall apart.
Feel free to call me a nut.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Simple. Because in the past, you could wait and honestly expect a work (movies, books, et al) to become public domain in a resonable (1 1/2 -3 decade) timespan, and which point it would be available for next to free. With current copyright laws, I'll be pushing 100 by the time today's new works become public domain, assuming no more extensions. There's something seriously wrong with that.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
In a broader way i see some similarities. The opensource community are working on a business model that challenges traditional economic models. A model that embraces new technologies. Hollywood may have to do the same, (adapt or die) bring themselves into this emergent mode of economics.
I don't get the obsession with protecting broadcasts.
Since they are transmitting to anyone with an antenna on their roof (while hoping that you will watch thier commercials), whats the big deal if teenager X records the latest episode of Buffy and shares it on the internet?
The only thing I can see is a lessening of the value of next day re-runs (with new commercials) since whoever missed it the first time it was broadcast can now get it of the internet at thier own leisure instead. And I don't think those constant re-runs of M.A.S.H are at danger, only the most hardcore Allan Alda fans will downlaod that.
I can see why HBO wants to protect their primetime movies, since they are a subscription based service. But according to the article, copy protection for cable has already been solved by that C5 group.
No, this is all about what the broadcasters have dreamed of since the invention of the VCR, regaining total control over the average Joe's television watching habits and killing those pesky Tivo devices that threat to kill their revenue model.
Also the point about noone ordering broadband because there's no high definition movies to download is just bull. The reason noone gets broadband today is because of bad service, crippled bandwith, download caps and monthly fees bordering to extortion.
Besides, downloading a DVD using a 2 mbit/s connection takes atleast 6 hours. Wow! Select a movie at breakfast, watch it for dinner. I don't think HBO needs to worry about competition from broadband anytime soon.
And in the side-scene we have the movie studios smiling with glee waiting for the broadcast industry to fix thier broken DVD standard with laws and regulations.
OK, say I invent a 100% effective copy protection scheme for protecting digital content, by spraying hairspray on a DVD, then pouring boiling water over it, (oh no, now I've blown it, I was going to patent that idea as well).
So, in 6 months time, the shop shelves are full of uncopyable DVDs, priced at twice the price they are at the moment, to make up for the cost of development, and the fact that if the consumer doesn't have a choice, he'll pay, right?
How much money does Mr Average spend on DVDs? Guess what, it's the same as it was before. Why? Because Mr Average still earns the same he did before, and decent copy protection doesn't fill his wallet with money. So, fewer DVDs are sold. Hollywood is happy, because at least they are making more on each DVD.
However, in a further 6 months, audiences at the cinemas start to drop - oh no! Why on earth is that? Oh, right, because nobody has seen advance copies of the film, so they don't care to go and watch it.
So, Hollywood increases it's advertising budget to ram their latest films down your throat. Need to make those losses up, so DVD prices rise. Fewer are sold.
By now, economics of scale are being to fall apart - we're only pressing 20% of the DVDs we used to, so it's costing us more! Oh dear, OK, well we're wasting money pressing two or three different versions of each disc for different regions, and 50% of people have multi-region players anyway, so we're wasting money. However, the shareholders won't believe that, so let's just raise DVD prices.
Ooooh, more people going to the cinema, wonder why that is, is it because they can't afford DVDs? Nahhh, it's our increased advertising budget. So, now that people are happily watching our films, and not pirating them, let's increase ticket prices, hahahaha!!! Oh, and why are we wasting money shooting on 35mm, the general public is so used to DVD, they won't care if we switch to 16mm instead, save money, and flog new projectors to all the cinemas.
Oh yeah, let's devise a new soundsystem for the new film format, with 10 speakers, instead of 6. Also, let's patent it, and make it incompatible with everything else.
6 months pass...
So, all the cinemas are on the virge of bankruptcy, but at least they have the 16mm projectors and new sound system, that sounds rubbish because the cinemas are too small for a 10 speaker setup. Nevermind.
Anyway, increased ticket prices mean smaller audiences. NO!!!!! Quick, add the new sound system to DVDs, and increase the price. Flog people new DVD players, with uncrackable region encoding.
Nobody buys them... Hmmm - increase advertising budget, that's it!
And so it goes on...
I believe that some technology company (was it MS?) already made a threat to Valenti to buy the MPAA companies. If you look at the wealth in the electronics/IT sector, they could probably do it. If Hollywood continues their attacks in Congress, the tech sector might just follow up on their threat...
Btw: has anyone ever thought about DRM? It's a weird system isn't it? A system designed to keep itself safe from its owner...
No. Why? Because Phillips is a $60 billion (last time I looked which was years ago) giant bigger than the entire lame entertainment industry.
They can manufacture dual-tray CD players with CD recorders built in, obviously for the purpose of copying a CD (albeit they would claim it's for creating "best of" CD's - yeah, right...) - and nobody dares sue them. Because if they stopped making CD players, the music labels would have no way to sell their product. And if DVDs and VCRs don't get made, movie studios won't get 40-60% of a movie's revenue coming from video rentals.
The movie studios and music labels need to be told to shut up and sit down by the people making their profits possible - the artists and the tech companies.
Without tech, there is no art - and that goes back to whoever mixed the first paints on the cave floor...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!