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."

Comments

Funny stuff

[MxTxL]

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.

Go Silicon Valley

[brendanoconnor]

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.

This isn't about stealing.

[Lonath]

It's about control and competition. They aren't scared of copying, they're scared of people making their own stuff and not paying the industry taxes to get it made and distributed. They are trying to hinder the progress of the arts by artificially restricting what gets made while keeping themselves as the "gatekeepers to culture". You might not believe this, but most artists would accept a modest lifestyle if they could make the art that they want without being controlled by others. Those kinds of people are the ones who make the really good stuff. The idea that those people would be able to make a living without being controlled scares the shit out of the copyright industry.

Also, besides hindering the progress of art, they will also hinder the progress of science since most scientific advancements of today depend heavily on the use of computers. If computers are taken away (which they will have to be in order to get this level of control), then the copyright industry will be using copyright to hinder the progress of the useful arts and sciences.

However, since the ONLY reason that copyright exists is to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences,what they're doing is blatantly unconstitutional. It's just that they can't come out and say that they want to control culture and prevent people from cmpeting with them by creating their own art, since they would get destroyed in the backlash. Maybe someday their internal notes and memos will come out and people will realize that this is about control and doing blatantly unconstitutional things to make money, not about stealing.

So what does this mean? This means:

1. Stop talking about this in terms of piracy. If you believe this is about piracy and not about control of culture, then you're still a part of the problem since you believe the copyright industrys' lies.
   
2. Stop buying anything from the copyright industry forever. Fuck em. Giving money to the copyright industry is giving weapons to people who want to destroy freedom to help sustain their bankrupt "-ism". So, stop seeing, renting, buying movies and music. Forever, since that's how long they would want copyright to last if they got their way.
   

Re:This isn't about stealing.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree, this is about control, it IS also about copying. They see copies around and feel that every copy is a copy someone might have paid for. Their region is money. They hate the idea that they might have lost one single sale.

Look at the VCR and how the industry felt about that.

Their "control" obsession has been around for years, and no-one's managed to break it... sadly, with the masses - sheep, cattle, whatever - I don't see it happening now...

Maybe one day though...

*sigh*

Outlawing The Right to Read

[Anonymous Coward]

CBDTPA & other such future laws will outlaw information sharing. They will forbid the fundamental right to share. It is very important to understand this process.

(1) "The Right to Read" by Richard M. Stallman.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

(The important thing about this story is that it was written before the DMCA was even proposed!)

(2) "What's Wrong With Copy Protection" by John Gilmore.

http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm

(3) "Re-evaluating Copyright: The Public Must Prevail" by Richard M. Stallman.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyrig ht.html

What is copyright, and what is it meant to accomplish? How can we tell whether it is meeting its goals?

This was also written before the DMCA; Stallman argued that copyright law had _already_ gone too far.

(4) Sold Out, By James Boyle

http://www.wcl.american.edu/pub/faculty/boyle/sold _out.htm

Observations

[OverCode@work]

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

Re:Observations

[Steve B]

We could stop infringing copyrights, and convince the industry that the problem has been solved.

The industry's problem is not that some people infringe copyrights. The industry's problem is that technology has made it practical for artists to produce and distribute their works independently. Don't use language that supports their scam of suppressing the latter under the guise of suppressing the former.

DaveNET plan

[perfessor multigeek]

Check out scripting.com, where Dave Winer and his friends have figured out a good response to this. Don't sit around bitching, learn how to game the legislative process and get good people elected.
They've started backing the Libertarian candidate to replace one of the Congress critters backing this nonsense and now she's getting real media coverage and is given a chance to win.
We don't need to put up with these yahoos in DC. God knows they need us more than we need them, so let's get moving on replacing their bought and paid for asses.
I'm certainly doing my partto spread the word.
Rustin

History repeating itself

[GreyWolf3000]

Even the broadcast-flag technology failed to address an infinitely harder problem: how to stop people from using the Internet to spread movies from sources other than digital television. Disney used that limitation as an opportunity to reframe the debate.

I'm sure this point has been made before on some other similar article somewhere else, but I enjoy ranting and most posts do this too, so I'll speak my mind anyway :)

If one looks back in history 50 years, one will recall the 50's as a decade where Hollywood studios were in trouble, feared the television media for similar reasons as they fear the 'net today, and were reluctant to enter the new technology. The studios faced monopolistic charges (I'm recalling a John Lithgow PBS segment) and almost went bankrupt. They bit the bullet, embraced television, and Hollywood fared quite well.

Now, movie making and television have virtually merged thanks to Time Warner, Turner, etc (well for our purposes they have). They are not starving for cash these days, but they certainly are not embracing this new technology. They are rather attempting to control it and resist it, like in the 50's. What they must realize is that more people "pirating" means more people viewing their content. These then could be customers if the RIAA would embrace (I'm sick of that word too; homonyms?) the 'net, they could provide content from third party sites that they could control just like television. They would need some ad system which I am not going to try and pull out of my arse to gain the sites revenue, but I think it could work. Either that or a pay system, but because of who we're dealing with, it would have to be good.

My point (ah yes, there it is) is that if the big guns spent some of their budget for fighting the 'scourge' that is 'piracy,' they could at the very least have a better argument in court, if not a peaceable solution for everyone. All of you out there downloading m0vI3Z will have to give it up if anything but more rights being lost is to be acheived. They will win if you don't, and honest hackers and their rights will get screwed.

Re:History repeating itself

[puppet10]

The early history of Hollywood is even more interesting.

The first motion picture studios were in New York City, but they moved out to California to avoid paying licensing fees to Edison for his patents. They then avoided his lawsuits by going to
Mexico until the heat was off. (1)

Then in the late thirties antitrust lawsuits were attempted against the big eight leading to a consent decree between the studios and the justice dept. (we all know how effective those are ;>) promising to limit some monopolistic practices. The independants (at that time) used their name recognition (Charlie Chaplin, Walt Disney, Samuel Goldwyn, Mary Pickford, Orson Welles) to take their case to the people recruiting other well known names to promote their cause - Howard Hughes, Hal Roach, Leo McCarey, Sol Lesser, James Cagney, Bing Crosby, John Huston, Preston Sturges, Sam Spiegel, and Stanley Kramer.

In 1948 a supreme court decision against the big eight for conspiracy forced them to sell their theater holdings and stop certain monopolistic practices such as block booking (requiring a theater to buy all the films they needed in a single package, hmm sounds a little like bundling).

The studio system and its opposition which forced the dissolution then both faded away leading to the rise of new monopoly structure.

(2)

My personal code

[Apreche]

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.

Re:Copyright: if you dont like it don't buy it

[Raul654]

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.

If they don't want to distribute it, then don't

[powerset]

I think this logic applies to Hollywood too. If they are uncomfortable distributing movies digitally, then don't do it! If they don't want to sell videos, don't! Just distribute to theaters. If they want to distribute in some super-secure format of their own design, go for it.

The whole problem is that they are seeking legislation to restrict the rights of the public and force technology industries to cripple their products and stop innovating. They think they have a problem, but rather than change their own businesses, they want another industry to solve it and have the whole country pay for the solution.

The whole copyright "problem" is a sham to strengthen the control the major players have and stifle competition and innovation.

Re:Copyright: if you dont like it don't buy it

[Waffle Iron]

The people who make movies and such have the right to sell the product in any way they please

This is true. Now, after they've sold me a copy, it's my property. The law says I can do whatever I please with my new property, except for one thing: I am not generally allowed to make new copies of the content encoded in my physical copy, other than copies allowed under the statute of "fair use".

yet people for some reason feel they are 'entitled' to use it any way they want

I should be, as long as I don't make copies of the content that aren't protected by fair use.

There is nothing wrong with companies trying to peddle information that is saddled with any kind of onerous encrpytion/copy protectsion/annoyances/whatever..

However, by the same token, there should be nothing wrong with me doing whatever I want with my property, including decrypting it, hacking it, burning it, or gluing it to my forehead. (As long as I don't make copies of the content on it that aren't protected by fair use.)

The problem is that the media industry has bought legislation that gives these technical tricks the force of law. That is a huge change in the nature of the copyright landscape, and it effectively eliminates many of the tair use rights people used to hold over their own bought-and-paid-for property.

It used to be, you bought a CD, and you owned it; the record company only owned a lein that prevented you from redistributing additional copies of the CD. Now, through technical measures backed by new laws, the record company removes most of your ownership rights in your CD and retains them for itself. You are effectively renting the CD and are only allowed to play it on record-company approved equipment.

Scariest part?

[Mekanix]

It's a battle between Hollywood and the tech-industry... who is missing from this picture? The consumers... the people... It isn't untill the end of the article consumersgroups are mentioned... and rightly so... they hardly play a role...

Isn't it scary to live in a nation, where the voice of the voting people are ignored?

When did democracy die?

Re:Scariest part?

[thales]

" Democracy in America never existed. America's capitalistic democracy is just another form of Feudalism, where the majority of the wealth, freedom, and voice, will pass from the privelidged to their children. so let us dream of the future and not on the fallacies of the past."

ROFLMAO
Feudalism is a system where wealth and power are based on a limited comodity, land. Capitalism is a system where new wealth is created. If you bothered to look at the differences instead of parroting stale old leftist slogans you would find that Capitalism replaced Feudalism with a dynamic system where the "Wealthy" are an ever changing group. If your premise was true the wealthiest people in America would have names like Washington and Adams. Instead you find a constant pattern where the Wealthiest people are those who created thier own wealth, and most often rose out of the lower classes.

Why the need to protect broadcasts?

[Greger47]

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.

Jesus Christ

[for(;;);]

(If the following post seems like an overreaction, keep in mind that messages to anti-abortion web sites began with statements like this and elevated to hit lists that murderers actually followed.)

Sweet fucking Jesus! This is incredibly stupid, counter-productive, and dangerous. Things wrong with your post:

1) Terrorism inevitably results in strong conservatism on the part of the terrorized. Killing members of the media cartel (without the backing of a full-out revolution) would horrify the public and lend gravitas to whatever the media execs say. ("We should outlaw piracy -- it's a gateway for murder.")

2) If anyone who (rightfully) hated the media execs actually killed anyone, they'd become a greater tyranny than the media execs themselves.

Your rights are being trampled on. Affect political change by lobbying your elected officials. If that doesn't work, elect new representatives. If that doesn't work, start a revolution to get a true democracy in power. Media execs should be prevented from stomping on free speech by law; the problem is with the laws, not that Jack Valenti draws breath.

I'm sure you meant this as a joke, but good god! This is how these things get out of hand.

A letter to Congress

[captaineo]

I recently faxed the following letter to my Congressional representatives. Feel free to quote it in your own correspondence, with proper attribution of course. (apologies for the formatting; this is copied from LaTeX source)

I am proud to be both your constituent and the owner of a small but
successful digital video studio. I have become very alarmed by recent
changes to U.S. copyright law, and the direction in which it seems to
be heading. The tremendous powers the law has granted to copyright
owners, particularly large film and music studios, are having a
deleterious effect on independent producers (such as myself) as well
as consumers of these media.

Under the pretense of combating music and film piracy, the major
U.S. recording companies and film studios have recently obtained legal
powers that extend far beyond the reasonable, limited monopoly
conferred by traditional copyright law. For example, the 1998 Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) outlawed the creation of tools that
circumvent the copy-prevention systems now present in commercial VHS
tapes, newer audio CDs, DVDs, and other digital media. This provision
has hardly diminished the operations of music and film
pirates. Instead, the primary effect of the DMCA's anti-circumvention
provision has been to trample on ``fair use'' rights --- legal
allowances to duplicate copyrighted material for personal or
educational use. It is illegal to produce a device that circumvents
the copy-prevention system on VHS tapes or DVD discs, even if the
intended use is simply creating a personal back-up copy, excerpting
for academic purposes, or converting the media into an alternative
format (e.g. close-captioning for a hearing-impaired audience).

More significantly, small, independent producers are excluded from the
DMCA's protection, since most copy-prevention systems are only
available to the largest media studios (either due to high costs or
exclusive licensing arrangements). As an independent studio, we have
not seen any benefit from the DMCA. In fact, on several occasions we
have been forced to abandon projects because copy-prevention systems
barred us from duplicating materials, rights to which we had
properly and legally obtained!

I have learned of upcoming copyright initiatives that would further
worsen the situation. The Security Systems Standards and Certification
Act (SSSCA), introduced by Sen. Ernest Hollings at the behest of the
Disney Company and other large studios, would outlaw all digital audio
and video equipment that does not contain an integrated, tamper-proof
copy-prevention system. This measure would make life extremely
difficult for independent digital studios like my own, which have
thrived on the availability of cheap, flexible digital equipment for
editing (and thus necessarily duplicating) audio and video. Large
media companies will escape through an exception in the law for
``professional'' recording devices --- which will likely be priced
beyond the budget of a small studio. This is already the present
situation with VHS players: cheap ``consumer'' players by law must
incorporate the Macrovision copy-prevention system, while expensive
``professional'' players are excepted!

Thankfully the SSSCA was withdrawn, but mandatory copy-prevention
equipment appears in several other upcoming proposals. One such
measure is the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act
(CBDTPA), also to be introduced by Sen. Hollings. The Act's
supporters, all major media companies, claim that having
copy-prevention hardware in all digital TV equipment is necessary for
the widespread adoption of digital TV. I see no reason for this. Many
other media, like analog TV, radio, and the audio CD, have thrived
despite the absence of copy-prevention systems. My own studio has no
qualms about digital distribution channels that do not mandate
copy-prevention. One effect of mandatory copy-prevention equipment is
clear though: it will completely lock out independent artists and
studios who do not have the ability to encode their work with the
proper copy-prevention signals. I strongly suspect that this is
the true effect the established industry intends to create with the
CBDTPA.

In light of these facts, I urge you to take the following actions:

Oppose the further expansion of copyright powers. Pre-DMCA
copyright law was already strong enough to encourage the creation of
vast numbers of film, music, and literary works.

Do not support mandatory copy-prevention or ``content
protection'' systems, as embodied in such measures as the CBDTPA and
SSSCA. Media pirates will inevitably find ways around these
systems. Mandatory copy-prevention will only have the effect of
strengthening the established media monopolies at the expense of
independent studios, artists, and consumers.

Support the efforts of legislators such as Rep. Rick Boucher
(D-VA), who is working to scale back the Draconian provisions of the
DMCA and write ``fair use'' into law as a guaranteed right.

Support H.R. 5285 - the Internet Radio Fairness Act - which will
lower the unreasonably high music royalty rates imposed on independent
internet music broadcasters.

I can think of no better way to erode America's world leadership in
film, music, and digital media than to destroy the abilities of
creative artists to produce works, and of consumers to enjoy
them. Expanding the control of existing large media companies may lead
to higher short-term profits for them, but will surely cause severe
long-term hardship for all of us.