Slashdot Mirror


Fox CEO Says Tech & Media Should Work Together

An anonymous reader writes "An article running on cnn.com talks about how Peter Chernin, CEO of Fox and COO of News Corp., says media and tech companies should work together in the best interests of both industries. It's an interesting new angle for them anyway, with the point exentuated by George Lucas (of American Graffiti fame!) showing up to say 'there is no free lunch'."

263 comments

  1. "Let's work together.." by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    "..as long as it keeps making my industry billions on overpriced plastic."

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:"Let's work together.." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so software companies like Oracle and Microsoft don't?

    2. Re:"Let's work together.." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One hand washes the other - capite?
      Just like Fascist warcriminals and my network work together!

    3. Re:"Let's work together.." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From an online chat, this is my new favourite quote:
      twisted_nee says, 'I'll bet you that you're listening to music right now.

      Carlisle says, 'I'll bet you I didn't pay for it.'
  2. DRM by rhost89 · · Score: 1

    So what fox is trying to do is get chummy with the tech community. Can anyone say DRM. Fox is nothing but slow kids and fast cars anyhow.

    --
    I will bend your mind with my spoon
    1. Re:DRM by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2

      Another greedy businessman encouraging businesses to collude. So much for anti-trust laws.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    2. Re:DRM by joib · · Score: 2

      Read as "We're too incopetent to implement a working DRM system ourselves, so we're asking the tech industry to join us in our crusade against our customers. I mean, they're all stealing, file-sharing criminals! They should be flushed out from their basements, full of computers with gigabytes of illegal high quality content like, uh, Britney Spears, with napalm! Your hear me!? NAPALM!!!! *spit flying* You know the smell of napalm and burned flesh? It's the smell of victory! And if they survive the napalm, they should be executed on the spot! *more ranting while drooling heavily*".

  3. Uh. by viper21 · · Score: 2

    Tech companies should develop blazing fast technologies complete with super-high quality delivery of content.

    Media companies should distribute their media in a format that can be thoroughly raped by users. Er, I mean a completely open format so that we may take advantage of the quality of the media format....

    Right.

    -S

  4. There is no free lunch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Star Wars Juice Box: $.70

    Star Wars Fruit Snacks: $.62

    Star Wars Images on Various Sandwich Ingrediens: $.90

    Star Wars Lunch Pail: $15.99

    There are some things that money can't buy. Imagery from a franchise isn't one of them.

    1. Re:There is no free lunch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AUTONOMY
      42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary for every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true when decisions are made on a collective bases if the group making the collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is insignificant [5]

      43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be satisfied with a purely physical sense of power(the good combat soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).

      44. But for most people it is through the power process-having a goal, making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining t the goal-that self-esteem, self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not have adequate opportunity to go throughout the power process the consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders, etc.

    2. Re:There is no free lunch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who da man?
      Yoda man!

      That is fucking priceless!!!

  5. George Lucas? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Has George Lucas done anything else other than American Graffiti? The name sounds familiar but I can't place my finger on it. Did he do ET or Indiana Jones or am I thinking of another person? Damn, so close.. right on the tip of my mind. Spider-man?

    1. Re:George Lucas? by $rtbl_this · · Score: 2

      Honestly! How could you forget THX1138?

      --
      "Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
    2. Re:George Lucas? by swfranklin · · Score: 1
      Has George Lucas done anything else other than American Graffiti?

      How can you forget the legendary Emmy-award winning Ewoks: the Battle for Endor!

    3. Re:George Lucas? by Cap'n+Canuck · · Score: 1

      I thought it was Ron Howard that starred in and directed American Graffiti. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

      Speaking of which - what does Opie have to say about media/entertainment relations? /. readers want to know...

    4. Re:George Lucas? by WEFUNK · · Score: 2

      He's also known for cheesy made-for-TV christmas specials.

      (Funny, I envision an archeologist or historian from the future recovering archives of Slashdot and figuring out that, although they did some interesting side projects that were watched well into the future, people like George Lucas and William Shatner were actually best known during their time for Saturday morning cartoons and T.J. Hooker.)

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
    5. Re:George Lucas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about inventing words, like "extentuate"?

    6. Re:George Lucas? by biglig2 · · Score: 2

      A future historian basing his knowledge of the early 21st century solely on what he finds on Slashdot has a whole load of worse problems than that.... ;-)

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    7. Re:George Lucas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd never know it from his present attitude, but "THX1138" is his baby.

      Sorta like RIAA bagging on people ripping RATM CD's, or the MPAA goofing on pirated "The Matrix" DVD's. The hypocrisy is enough to choke you.

      --rgb

    8. Re:George Lucas? by rnturn · · Score: 2
      ``How could you forget THX1138?''

      I'm glad someone finally mentioned the best of his movies. (Donning asbestos longjohns) Even though I bought both of the recent prequels, I think they basically stunk as stories (nice special effects, though).

      When I hear about some media exec trotting out George Lucas to plead for DRM, why do I get a mental image of Jerry Lewis rolling out some poor kid during his telethon to tug at our heartstrings? Was a violin section playing in the background during Lucas's plea? Did cameras cut to emotional shots of Jack Valenti weeping off-stage?

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  6. Wrong approach by tigress · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Piracy in all its forms is not a technical problem, but a social problem.

    Technical solutions to social problems will never succeed. Build a better lock? Someone will build a better lockpick. Unless the social problem is dealt with, the technical solutions will continue to fail.

    1. Re:Wrong approach by Gizzmonic · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Argument by slogan is not a social problem, but rather a rhetorical one.

      Slogan-based arguments of complex issues will never succeed. Create intelligent discourse? Someone will respond with "information wants to be free." Unless the poster gains rhetorical skill, the issue at hand will never be discussed fairly.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    2. Re:Wrong approach by redfiche · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Absolutely right. If people don't want to pay for the product, improve the product. Any solution to the perceived problem of IP theft that involves denial of fair use will go over about as well as the Stamp Act. Provide easily accessible low-quality copies for free or near-free, and then charge for the high-quality, extra bells and whistles version. If it's a really good movie, chances are most of us are going to want to see it on a big screen, and we'll be willing to pay for the priviledge. IMO.

      --

      Brevity is the soul of wit

      -- Polonius

    3. Re:Wrong approach by drudd · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can see the bumper sticker now...

      Down with argument by slogan!

      Doug

      --
      Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
    4. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous+MadCoe · · Score: 1

      True, but to me a thief is still a thief, no matter how bad the lock, or how high the price of the product.

      As long as it's not bread or some other life necesity, you either pay the price or don't buy the product...

    5. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about locks that keep the honest people honest.

    6. Re:Wrong approach by laigle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just remember, it's infringement, not theft. Theft is a violation of property, which our legal system views as a natural right. Infringement is a violation of copyright protection, which is the result of Congressional legislation and thus subject to change or annulment. In the US legal system, if everybody thought it was okay to steal it would still be theft. But if enough people think copyright is out the window, it's out the window, bribed Congressmen not withstanding.

      That said, I agree with you. I used to use P2P and other file trading systems, but I've stopped that and bought the CDs of stuff i actaully listen to (a surprisingly small amount of what I downloaded really). The only thing I still download is unlicensed anime (ie no English translation available for sale to begin with) and I buy the ones I like when/if they get around to licensing it here.

    7. Re:Wrong approach by pmz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Technical solutions to social problems will never succeed.

      Legal solutions aren't necessarily the solution either. Think about zero-tolerance policies at schools (absurdly naive), drug laws (who do they protect, really), personal and corporate welfare by tax credit/deduction (misguided and unnecessarily complex), RIAA royalty per blank media (make the innocent pay), and so on.

      DRM laws will simply be some combination of zero-tolerance policies, gun laws, and drug laws, in effect. The outcome is certainly not to our benefit, and a whole generation of really cool stuff will be wiped out to make paranoid media companies more comfy in their money-stuffed chairs. It really makes me cringe when I think about it.

    8. Re:Wrong approach by vbweenie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Piracy is both a social and a technical problem. It is tractable, up to a point, by both social and technical means, but ultimately intractable: in other words, neither social engineering nor software engineering will ever make it go away completely.

      Locks on doors are a technical measure to reduce the attractiveness of the contents of your home to people who might otherwise be tempted to steal them. The problem of rampant housebreaking and theft in the area where you live may also have social factors, and may prove susceptible to a degree of social management, but that doesn't mean that the police are wrong to distribute leaflets advising tenants to tighten up their household security.

      Media piracy is rampant at the moment because it's easy, and because no-one very much feels bad about doing it. If it were significantly harder, then a significant number of people would stop doing it, irrespective of their moral sentiments. If the moral sentiments of would-be pirates were engaged on behalf of the grievous sufferings of the music industry, then perhaps even fewer would succumb to temptation...

      --
      Experience is a hard school, but fools will learn no other.
    9. Re:Wrong approach by esanbock · · Score: 1

      I would actually reason that it's neither a social nor a technical problem - it's an economic problem. People wouldn't pirate if the price of a song was reasonable and offered as a convenient download. Most people buy new music for 1 or 2 songs. It doesn't make sense to force them to pay extra for what they don't want and force them to receive it in an autdated medium.

    10. Re:Wrong approach by Archie+Steel · · Score: 2

      There is an easy solution, which we must hammer to the studio execs:

      "Give away the virtual, sell the physical and charge for public performance."

      I.e., the actual music or movie is free to download, but if you buy the album or the DVD, you get HIGH-QUALITY packaging and extra non-virtual material (glossy booklet, posters, sweepstakes tickets, Fan Club unique ID, rebate on concerts, etc.). And of course concerts/big screen projections you have to pay for.

      This is already happening. I, for example, have (illegally) downloaded LOTR from the net (please, SUE ME, so that I can use the courtroom as a pulpit to spread the good word). The fact is, I also have seen the movie twice in the theater, because nothing compares to a big-screen viewing, and I have bought the Extended DVD, because of the nice packaging which I want to put on my shelf with all my other DVDs. So, despite being a "pirate", I have also paid good money (around 65 canadian dollars) to add to the huge profits already made by NewLine and Mr. Jackson (whom I respect but will nonetheless criticize for his unimaginative stand on the issue).

      Again, this is the only FAIR and VIABLE solution for the content industry. We have to INSIST that they take this course, by any means possible (writing to your representatives, posting on the net, calling in on hotlines, writing directly to Movie producers, directors, etc.)

      --

      Reminder: find a new sig
    11. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I hope you are not posting at work using work equipment and bandwidth. It would be theft too.

    12. Re:Wrong approach by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      And apparently, not a thief is still a thief, too, if you call piracy theft.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    13. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Piracy in all its forms is not a technical problem, but a social problem. Technical solutions to social problems will never succeed. Build a better lock? Someone will build a better lockpick. Unless the social problem is dealt with, the technical solutions will continue to fail.

      Your argument may be correct in principle, but in practice there are plenty of technical solutions to social problems, including the problem of piracy. You may be able to "prove" that they don't work, but really all you're showing is that they are not 100% effective. But perhaps the entertainment industry has more modest goals, such as simply cutting piracy in half. There are 3 main reasons why technical solutions can work:

      1. Inconvenience
      2. Risk vs. Reward
      3. Guilt

      Not everyone has the time or the inclination to scour the net for warez. Technical obstacles can make piracy inconvenient and therefore less attractive. P2P apologists often cite the low signal to noise ratio on Gnutella as proof that P2P will not affect sales. (Of course these are often the same people who are clamouring for new and better P2P networks -- hypocrites.)

      Similarly, the risk of getting caught is a deterent for many people. If you are earning 50k+ per year, it is silly to risk all that by engaging in petty theft. Visiting warez sites and participating in P2P networks entail risks, and that will dissuade many people from engaging in piracy.

      Finally, the issue of guilt plays a big role in affecting a person's willingness to steal. Most people don't see right and wrong in terms of black and white. (contrary to the popular view on /.) The same person who would steal a stapler from work probably wouldn't steal one from a department store. Aside from the fact that it is difficult to get caught stealing from work, it's also easier to rationalize, just as it's easier to rationalize the theft of information than the theft of a tangible product.

      -a
      Does anyone know of a free Windows app to read large PST files? I'd like to start logging in again.

    14. Re:Wrong approach by geekee · · Score: 1

      A lock may not be perfect, but it's better than no lock if you can't trust your neighbors.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    15. Re:Wrong approach by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      "Technical solutions to social problems with never succeed."

      What a crock of shit. This one-liner seems to be the mantra of folks who can't figure out how to program their VCRs.

      We use technology to solve problems, social or otherwise, all the time. Chanting some idiotic Boomer adage to the contrary doesn't change this one whit.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  7. I thought they did already? by natron+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Wait doesn't tech and media work together already? For instance, TechTV, Downloadable movie trailers, and sites like abc.com. Perhaps he wants more services like MS Ultimate TV?

  8. What ever you may think of George Lucas' smelly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    hairy ass. He did offer this gem:

    Still, Lucas said that entertainers themselves, not the big media companies, stand to lose the most if more content is available for free on the Internet. "Corporations are like cockroaches. They'll survive everything," Lucas said.

    How true.

    1. Re:What ever you may think of George Lucas' smelly by grub · · Score: 3, Funny


      "Corporations are like cockroaches. They'll survive everything," Lucas said.

      Tell that to the companies with the dubious honour of appearing on fuckedcompany.com. :)

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:What ever you may think of George Lucas' smelly by futuresheep · · Score: 2

      How funny he should say that, since George is nothing more than a big corporation himself.

    3. Re:What ever you may think of George Lucas' smelly by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      "Corporations are like cockroaches. They'll survive everything,"

      Says the man who has grown extraordinarily wealthy through nothing but marketing hype. From releasing a slightly different Star Wars Special Edition every christmas to designing the new trilogy from scratch for the maximum possible merchandising opportunities, George Lucas is the epitome of what corporations do to exploit the public. He is hardly in a position to criticize anyone. Sure, he once had some artistic integrity, but he sold out the moment that he realized he could put Star Wars on hamburgers, lunchboxes, pencils, toys, you name it.

    4. Re:What ever you may think of George Lucas' smelly by JWW · · Score: 2

      So you're saying he sold out in 1977 then?

  9. George Lucas by bberg · · Score: 1

    George Lucas (of American Graffiti fame!)


    George Lucas, yes I think I've heard of him. Didn't he do a movie called SpaceBalls? or am I thinking of someone else?

    1. Re:George Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that was Mel Brooks. The movie was a parody of the Star Tours ride at Disneyworld.

    2. Re:George Lucas by bberg · · Score: 1

      No, that was Mel Brooks. The movie was a parody of the Star Tours ride at Disneyworld.

      oh yeah, now I remember. How can I forget Disneyworld, with all the characters from the "Peanuts "comics!

    3. Re:George Lucas by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > George Lucas, yes I think I've heard of him. Didn't he do a movie called SpaceBalls [yahoo.com]? or am I thinking of someone else?

      No, SpaceBalls was that great Mel Brooks movie from a few years back. A great movie by a talented director.

      Lucas did that lame parody of SpaceBalls, you know, that kids' movie with the stupid floppy-eared CGI character. There was a big line of knockoff sequels that ended with a movie about furry little teddy bears or some shit.

  10. Sorry, try again.... by imadork · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm all for the Entertainment industry cooperating with the Technology industry to combat piracy and make the world safer for Spiderman III. I'd love to see the Entertainment industry take advantage of Technology to reduce distribution costs and give people better quality stuff for less money, like the Technology industry has been doing for years.

    But I fear that the Entertainment Industry's idea of "cooperation" is saying that Technology needs to be crippled to prevent the Entertainment industry from becoming irrelevant. No compromise.

    As I've said here several times, (paraphrased from Steven P. Jobs himself), Piracy is a social problem, not a technological one. If content can be seen and heard, it can be copied, no matter what technological measures are put in place. If banning people from ever making any copies will never work, why not concentrate more on convincing people that they shouldn't make illegal copies, and making them want to buy legitimate versions even in the face of easy piracy?

    1. Re:Sorry, try again.... by laigle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Very true. I'm all for fighting piracy. But the media outlets don't really seem interested in fighting piracy. They support a wide range of DRM measures, which will have no effect on pirates who will just download hacks. But they will prevent, or at least make it a huge and possibly felonious pain for me to watch DVDs I've paid for without buying a new protection-schemed disc and player every couple years, listen to CDs I bought on my computer, remix those CDs I bought as I'm legally entitled to do, record TV shows I'm going to miss, convert media formats for portability between locations/devices even when I own the underlying media, download songs that local artists have put out on the web for free, or use my computer to edit home movies because I don't have some MPAA-licensed watermarking system.

      The problem with the DRM campaign is that it isn't about piracy at all, it's about the **AA mobs getting their hands a bit deeper into our pockets by charging us for things we have the legal right to do for free, based on the idea that our legitimate property rights are the reason people are stealing things. The new TVs and stereos and computers and portable audio systems they're going to have legally mandated will cost the public billions, and will do no good since the same mandate won't be in place in Canada or Mexico or many a country served by FedEx. DRM is a debacle, and it needs to be stopped now. Set up licit systems that give people access to the things they want, make money off it legitimately rather than by influence peddling with our public officials, break up the illegal trusts and drop the price of CDs and DVDs to what they'd be without criminal inflation, bring in IRS auditors to get all the taxes these jerks aren't paying and find all the profits they're stealing from artists, then go after the holdouts who still want everything for free.

  11. No credibility! by mini+me · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look at who we are talking about here! That's right, FOX! The network that cancels every show that the majority of technical people enjoy, to play yet another show that no one cares about.

    I say that we should not even consider working together with them until they get their act together! This means bringing back Family Guy and Futurama and moving them to a decent time slot. It also means no pre-empting of them for any reason including football: There are sports channels for that! And movies: There are movie channels for that.

    Once they have complied we will talk. Of course the best for both industries would be streaming on-demand video over the internet, but that will never happen...

  12. " major impact on the quality of movies " by guybarr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lucas went on to say that [cprt violations => less money =>] wind up having a major impact on the quality of movies

    less money => major impact on quality of movies ... why, yes, I agree. Only disagree on the sign of \Delta_Q .

    since Lucas said that the success of summer popcorn movies enable studios to finance more artsy films.

    and "design by commity" them to death.

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
  13. Eh? by Anixamander · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's an interesting new angle for them anyway, with the point exentuated by George Lucas

    The closest I can find is exenterate:
    To remove surgically all the organs and other contents of a body cavity, usually to minimize the spread of cancer

    Seems like an extreme way of making a point, but you know George Lucas, never one for subtlety.

    --
    Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
    1. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, I know it's only 9:30 but I guarantee that's the funniest thing I'll have read all day.

    2. Re:Eh? by macrom · · Score: 1

      Totally offtopic, but I think the word the poster was attempting to spell was accentuate

    3. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you could also say that George then enjoyed his non free lunch with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

    4. Re:Eh? by Fourier · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about? Exentuated is a perfectly cromulent term.

    5. Re:Eh? by mccalli · · Score: 1
      Love the post, but in the interests of grim reality the word being tried was extenuate. It's just a typing transposition.

    6. Re:Eh? by randyest · · Score: 1

      wrong. 'extentuate' is almost the exact opposite of what Lucas-san was trying to do to the point in question. extenuate (ik-stenyoo-at) tr.v. extenuated, extenuating, extenuates To lessen or attempt to lessen the magnitude or seriousness of, especially by providing partial excuses. See Synonyms at palliate. 2.Archaic. . a.To make thin or emaciated. b.To reduce the strength of. 3.Obsolete. To belittle; disparage You think maybe he was trying to reduce, belittle, or disparage an argument that, if bought wholesale, would increase his paycheck? Bzzt. As the previous poster correctly inferred, the attempted word was 'accentuate' accentuate P tr.v. accentuated, accentuating, accentuates 1.To stress or emphasize; intensify: "enacted sweeping land-reform plans that accentuated the already chaotic pattern of landholding" (James Fallows). 2.To pronounce with a stress or accent. 3.To mark with an accent. thank you for playing; please try again (move closer to the stairs -- I want to protect you!)

      --
      everything in moderation
  14. The De-Anonymizing of "Evil Media Congloms" by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The smartest thing Chernin did was to get geek faves like Lucas and Jackson to speak on his cause's behalf. The second smartest thing was to play up the fact that the entertainment industry is more than just the "misguided artists" and the "evil fat cat suits," but includes all the blue collar workers found in any "normal" industry.

    So many times I read about the evil **AA's, as if people don't realize these trade industry groups exist to do the bidding, and often the dirty work, of the creative entities like Lucas. Valenti and Rosen are paid to be targets for the heat-seekers so that the creative brands aren't tarnished by politics.

    Chernin wisely realized -- and I've no doubt others in the entertainment industry who will be speaking publicly on this topic will realize also -- that Joe Sixpack doesn't give a rat's ass about some distribution exec in an expensive suit, but let the creator of Boba Fett get up there in a black turtleneck, and the crowd melt likes butter.

    Now that the gloves are really off in the fight for public opinion, this gets interesting...

    1. Re:The De-Anonymizing of "Evil Media Congloms" by swankypimp · · Score: 2

      OMG! Do to a lack of sleep/coffee, I read the end of the third paragraph as "Let Boba Fett get up there in a black turtleneck and coat himself in butter." Random, disturbing images abound. Sci-fi geek porno, alt.sex.fetish.boba-fett. And the random artsy black turtleneck sweater!!! As if Boba sits on Slave One all day sipping cappuccino and reading The Collected Works of Franz Kafka while smoking little clove cigarettes and musing on how supreme executive power comes from a mandate from the workers, not by being the best at shooting Force Lightning from your fingertips.

      --

      --All your stolen base are belong to Rickey Henderson
    2. Re:The De-Anonymizing of "Evil Media Congloms" by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      So many times I read about the evil **AA's, as if people don't realize these trade industry groups exist to do the bidding, and often the dirty work, of the creative entities like Lucas. Valenti and Rosen are paid to be targets for the heat-seekers so that the creative brands aren't tarnished by politics.

      Yet there is something really right about the MPAA and really wrong about the RIAA.

      The RIAA is shooting itself in the foot by essentially forcing the pricing of album-length audio CD's to around US$18. This is definitely NOT good value for the money, and now that CD recorder drives and CD recorder media are quite inexpensive and "ripping" CD's are quite easy to do, no wonder why there is great economic incentive to pirate music.

      On the other hand, the MPAA is actually vastly less a villain in this whole mess. The reason: the enormous success of reasonable sell-through pricing of movies on home video. The movie studios have seen how the Walt Disney Company made loads of money doing this, and this model of video pricing was chosen for the DVD format. By keeping the cost of DVD's reasonable, sales of movies on DVD have literally gone through the roof; it is the success of the DVD format that has actually turned many money-losing movies into profitable movies. Because MPAA President Jack Valenti doesn't oppose sell-through pricing of movies on home video, the result is an all-around win for everyone: movie studios makes loads of money beyond theatrical release, and customers are more than willing to buy these movies on DVD at the price point of US$20 per movie for new releases and often under US$10 per movie for older releases. At this price point, the incentive to pirate a movie is very low indeed.

  15. to many quotes by edmo · · Score: 1

    "Chernin said it was time for media conglomerates and tech companies to work together, and that doing so could be beneficial for both industries."

    so, what the tech industries get to spend a large sum of money trying to stop us...I mean those evil pirates...just so Hollywood can make an extra 00.5% profit

    another thing
    "Lucas went on to say that the proliferation of free and illegal downloading of content on the Internet could eventually lead studios to shy away from spending as much as they do on blockbuster movies since it won't be nearly as profitable for them to do so. This could also wind up having a major impact on the quality of movies since Lucas said that the success of summer popcorn movies enable studios to finance more artsy films."

    right, maybe with less money Hollywood will copy it's foreign counterparts and substitute plot and characters for expensive special effects
    as I recall the original Star Wars had no budget and was both good and vary profitable...

    --
    Don't save your orgasms for Heaven; Heaven knows we need them here.
  16. Exentuated? by GeckoX · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And just what does that mean?
    Not trying to be a spelling nazi, but oh my god.
    That's not even close to a word, and it was submitted as such and then posted as such without being fixed?
    Ever heard of a fricking spell checker?

    Accentuated is the word.

    --
    No Comment.
    1. Re:Exentuated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Accentuated is the word.

      Extenuated is the word. It's a typing transposition.

    2. Re:Exentuated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also called spellcheck and (theoretically) editors.

      The original article submitter made a mistake. The Slashdot editors were (again) negligent.

  17. artsy films by mallfouf · · Score: 1

    Quote from the article:

    Lucas went on to say that the proliferation of free and illegal downloading of content on the Internet could eventually lead studios to shy away from spending as much as they do on blockbuster movies since it won't be nearly as profitable for them to do so. This could also wind up having a major impact on the quality of movies since Lucas said that the success of summer popcorn movies enable studios to finance more artsy films.

    After watching the last 2 Star Wars, and reading this comment, I still dont understand what He means by "artsy films"

    1. Re:artsy films by darth300z · · Score: 1

      Then go watch TXH1138. Not saying its good or bad, but it was considered "arty" when I went to film school.

      Everyone seems to be forgetting that Lucas is as far outside and independent as anyone CAN be from Hollywood. EP4 assured that (and American Grafitti before that). He's making what HE wants to make, and just because he might be out of touch with his "consumers" doesn't mean he's a hollywood lapdog.

      --
      By law, anyone who has been drinking is "sober" until he or she "cannot hold onto the ground." Actual lexington, KY law
  18. Artsy films? by Jippy_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This could also wind up having a major impact on the quality of movies since Lucas said that the success of summer popcorn movies enable studios to finance more artsy films.

    Yeah, and Michelangelo threw buckets of dirt and paint at an easel just so he could have enough money to make real art.

    Saying that there won't be film of merit or quality without there first being movies of flashy repetitive garbage sounds like a pathetic attempt to make people believe the shit he's shoveling.

    1. Re:Artsy films? by jaoswald · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a bit unfair. Michaelangelo got funded by popes/princes who had independent sources of wealth. Who the heck is going to pay for artsy films, if not for studios who want to prove that they have some taste, after all?

      Remember the rule: 99% of everything is crap. I found Independence Day and Episode I, for instance, to be unbearably execrable, and couldn't imagine *anyone* enjoying either, but many other people seem to have done so. I have to congratulate the producers for having a better sense of the movie-going public than I do. From that, I conclude that my tastes are a minority of the market, and I actually should be pleasantly surprised that films get made that I actually enjoy, instead of outraged that crowd-pleasing junk gets made.

      (None of my money went to reward Episode II being made, so Lucas is getting his just reward in the end. I'm sure he is broken-hearted.)

    2. Re:Artsy films? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      Why should I care who pays for "artsy" films? Especially since most of the "classic" movies that I can think of were financial successes. Michaelangelo is an excellent example of art that could be appreciated by the masses. Michaelangelo didn't simply coat the Vatican with feces and call it art.

      When film producers start talking about "artsy" films they aren't talking about "Gone With The Wind," which was both exceptionally well done and wildly popular, they are talking about something like "The Last Temptation of Christ" whose only artistic merit is the fact that it is both amazingly unpopular and wildly controversial.

      If you want to pay for "artsy" films, then go see them twice, but don't expect me to get excited about paying for it.

      Personally I thought Episode II was worth the price of admission just to see Yoda in a light saber duel. That is one bad-ass puppet.

      Just as an aside, what is an example of a movie that you like. I can see how someone might not like both "Independence Day" and "Episode I." I bet a lot didn't like those movies. In my opinion that's the difference between a good film and a truly great one. The truly great films are so well done that even their detractors admit that the movie had some redeemingly qualities.

    3. Re:Artsy films? by Jippy_ · · Score: 2

      From that, I conclude that my tastes are a minority of the market, and I actually should be pleasantly surprised that films get made that I actually enjoy, instead of outraged that crowd-pleasing junk gets made.

      Quite well said.

      However, what outrages me is when the people who make the crowd-pleasing junk start making vague threats of doom (IE: If you don't watch our crap, we won't make any more good stuff!)

      It just gives me an image of a child having a temper tantrum because they don't get their way.

    4. Re:Artsy films? by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      Who the heck is going to pay for artsy films, if not for studios who want to prove that they have some taste, after all?

      The hard, cold truth is that if the market can't or won't support them being made, then they shouldn't be made at all. Either the fans are willing to pay a ticket price that reflects the smaller audience, or they aren't. Either way, it is ridiculous to suggest that fans of mainstream films should subsidise productions that they will gain no enjoyment from themselves.

    5. Re:Artsy films? by Theatetus · · Score: 1

      Michaelangelo got funded by popes/princes who had independent sources of wealth.

      *BUZZ*. Popes and princes got money through taxes. Michelangelo and the other TMNTs were all funded by public money (though, admittedly, public money that was rarely administered in the public interest). Maybe if we want better art we should go back to funding great works of art publicly.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    6. Re:Artsy films? by Bongo · · Score: 1
      This could also wind up having a major impact on the quality of movies since Lucas said that the success of summer popcorn movies enable studios to finance more artsy films.

      Yeah, and Michelangelo threw buckets of dirt and paint at an easel just so he could have enough money to make real art.

      I heard from an art guide that Michelangelo went round smashing many of his statues at the end of his life because he finally became so disgusted with the Church and it's abusive power (the Church had commissioned his work).

      (I think there's a parallel in there somewhere.)

    7. Re:Artsy films? by Jippy_ · · Score: 2

      (I think there's a parallel in there somewhere.)

      Wow, that's something. Too bad we can't smash the 'statues' of the RIAA. However, I think they're doing a pretty good job of smashing themselves.

    8. Re:Artsy films? by jaoswald · · Score: 2

      My point was that the popes/princes were not relying on Michelangelo to generate income from ticket sales to a broad public. The Sistine chapel, for example, was essentially for private use, and did not have to turn a profit.

    9. Re:Artsy films? by jaoswald · · Score: 2

      The problem with your model is that the studios really can't be sure whether a movie will make a killing until it is released. There is a huge element of risk in what are one-time artistic efforts. Consumers can't pay in advance for a movie to be made.

      Something like English Patient, for instance, could very easily have vanished without a trace.
      Or The Matrix.

      There are all sorts of reasons for inexpensive, yet ultimately unprofitable films to be made. One of them is the chance that one out of fifty of these might become a wild success. Another is that directors/actors want to work on more creative, challenging projects, and the studios pay for it, in order to keep them around for the less creative but more marketable stuff they churn out to make a profit. These are reasonable choices made by rational profit-seeking companies.

  19. Yes, work together by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Media is holding the legislative gun to the head of Tech, and now suggesting that we "work together". They've already got a protection racket going over artists, now they're moving into extortion.

    I for one would prefer a world without blockbuster movies or obnoxious pop bands, so long as they keep their filthy coke-dusted hands out of my computer Tell those bastards to solve their own problems!

  20. A conflict by Datoyminaytah · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Hmm...

    Media companies want to deliver more movies etc. online, which will foster the growth of broadband.

    Broadband ISP's want to cap downloads or charge more for "bandwidth hogs".

    I don't think this is going to work out. ;)

    --
    assert(birth_date<time-86400)
  21. What is this guy getting paid??? by mustangdavis · · Score: 2
    how Peter Chernin, CEO of Fox and COO of News Corp., says media and tech companies should work together in the best interests of both industries.


    First, how can Mr. Chernin have time to be the CEO of Fox AND the COO of News Corp.??? He is doing an injustice to both of those organizations since there is NO WAY he can give his all to either of those organizations will doing (and probably not doing it well) the duties of both of those positions.

    Second, HOW MUCH MONEY IS THIS GUY MAKING?? He is probably making a fortune to state the obvious!!! Millions of dollars have already been spent (and are being spent right now) on trying to stop pirating and theft of digital material. Theft prevention is a business that has been going on since the days of Kings ... and will be a problem in society as long as there are greedy people (basically, forever). He obviously has some good points, but this is just recycled material. Instead of stating in general terms what needs to be done, why doesn't he outline a method of doing what he is saying???

    Oh, I get it ... its kinda like the commercial where the high paid executive takes credit for shopping at Staples (what the young guy sitting right next to him just said), but uses a different "hand motion" to deliever the information ... but doesn't do anymore than anyone else sitting around the table. He sure is good at stating the obvious, but doesn't have "the answer" ...


    Hmmmm .... maybe this guy needs one more title at the end of his name .... Captian Obvious!.
    1. Re:What is this guy getting paid??? by Christianfreak · · Score: 2

      , how can Mr. Chernin have time to be the CEO of Fox AND the COO of News Corp.??? He is doing an injustice to both of those organizations since there is NO WAY he can give his all to either of those organizations will doing (and probably not doing it well) the duties of both of those positions.

      Probably because Fox is owned by News corporation, for most intents and purposes Fox is News corporation. Its just a title, its really the same job.

    2. Re:What is this guy getting paid??? by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      Probably because Fox is owned by News corporation, for most intents and purposes Fox is News corporation. Its just a title, its really the same job

      Yes, that's why they have that show, Fox News :-)

  22. Well, for most non-uber-rich folk... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    George Lucas (of American Graffiti fame!) showing up to say 'there is no free lunch'.

    Although, with an estimated wealth of $2.5 billion, it's easy to forget that a "movie lunch" costs regular people at least $10 each these days, before the popcorn.

    Lucas went on to say that the proliferation of free and illegal downloading of content on the Internet could eventually lead studios to shy away from spending as much as they do on blockbuster movies since it won't be nearly as profitable for them to do so. This could also wind up having a major impact on the quality of movies since Lucas said that the success of summer popcorn movies enable studios to finance more artsy films.

    Excuse me while I shed a few tears for the poor movie industry. Waterworld spent hundreds of millions and it was just an OK (not to mention unprofitable) movie. Actors and puppets are much more realistic and engaging and inexpensive than computer animation, and make for a better movie, but that doesn't stop Lucas from overspending on CG. And since when do artsy movies require any sort of high budget, compared to the summer blockbusters? Oh well, we only made $300 million on this blockbuster, instead of $305 million on the last one, so we can't afford to make the $5 million "Painting for Harold" sequel.

    1. Re:Well, for most non-uber-rich folk... by matrix29 · · Score: 2

      Actors and puppets are much more realistic and engaging and inexpensive than computer animation, and make for a better movie, but that doesn't stop Lucas from overspending on CG.

      (Rubs hands greedily)
      Aha, now to pitch my idea of a all-Muppet remake of David Lynch's DUNE movie. The time is ripe.
      (Starts evil cackling)

      --
      "Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
    2. Re:Well, for most non-uber-rich folk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      puppets make for better movies? wow, Dark Crystal must have been the greatest movie ever made

    3. Re:Well, for most non-uber-rich folk... by decefett · · Score: 2

      Waterworld spent hundreds of millions and it was just an OK (not to mention unprofitable) movie.

      Actually after going through the rental, pay-tv, and free to air tv treadmill, Waterworld did make a small ammount of money.

      --
      Australian? Join EFA
    4. Re:Well, for most non-uber-rich folk... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2

      puppets make for better movies? wow, Dark Crystal must have been the greatest movie ever made

      Actually, it's pretty high up on the list. (My list, anyway. I don't care about other people's lists)

  23. And in a related story... by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

    Lawyers for Winona Ryder have filed a lawsuit against Peter Chernin, Fox, and News Corp., citing Chernin's slanderous and defamatory remarks made during the recent Comdex conference in Las Vegas.

    Chernin is quoted as saying:

    "If hundreds of thousands of dresses were stolen from Wal-Mart, the police would assemble a task force that would have Winona Ryder shaking in her boots,"

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  24. Post a sign on your window "Do Not Break!" by Mantrid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, try posting a sign on your window that says, "Do Not Break This Window". Is this going to A) Give the Window a Longer life or B) Catch the Attention of those that like breaking windows. I'm sure we've all heard this little theory before.

    On to the point (in relation to this story):

    I rent and buy DVDs, I don't even think about it. I play them on my PC, my laptop, my PS2, my DVD player. It's great, I like it and DVDs are quite reasonably priced.

    Now comes DRM - in whatever form they are planning. Will I have to call in and register my DVD? Will I need to have a phone or network cable attached to the player of the future? Are restrictions going to be inserted on to my PC? Is my old non-DRM box going to find itself instantly outdated and unable to play the latest movie or whatever?

    All of a sudden I'm not a happy-go-lucky watcher of TV, and consumer of media. I'm feeling a little under appreciated, plus all of a sudden all of these restrictions are in my face. I can't just scoot out and pick up a DVD or record a TV program for viewing later.

    So now I have to figure out, "How can my PC or media unit view these new movies?" or "How can I make my PVR record this show?" I didn't care before, but now I'm going to have to go and take a look. While I'm figuring this out illegal content may also be discovered (boot legged movies side by side with info on getting around DRM). Next thing you know I have the latest warez for viewing moviez on my PC. All because you wanted to make sure you've squeezed every last dime from everyone's pockets. The people who were copying before are still copying now. Formerly loyal customers are now pissed off pirates.

    I'd been ignoring the window, happily walking by it - then you had to go and put a damn sign up and eventually it became time to break it!

    1. Re:Post a sign on your window "Do Not Break!" by ebuck · · Score: 2

      Brings to mind those annoying "Please Move Away from the Car" talking car alarms. While attending college some years back, they were first coming into the market.

      Now I've never had the inclination to mess with somebody elses car before, but after hearing that on a particularly stressful day, I couldn't resist kicking it's tire.

      Funny thing was a number of my classmates saw me, and later told me in class that the alarm was annoying enough that they were thinking of doing something to the car themselves.

  25. Excellent point by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Piracy in all its forms is not a technical problem, but a social problem.

    Absolutely right.

    Technical solutions to social problems will never succeed. Build a better lock? Someone will build a better lockpick. Unless the social problem is dealt with, the technical solutions will continue to fail.

    People have had, to their perceptions at least, the ability to make "perfect" copies of music and video for a very long time ... in excess of 20 years.

    Yes, the audio and videophile will quickly point out the problems with generational loss on both cassette tape and VHS/Hi8, but to the average person who wants to build up a video library of Seinfeld and Friends episodes, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation videos are perfectly fine (and no, sorry, macrovision is no barrier even for the unititiated. Thank you for playing).

    Yet Hollywood makes millions on VHS tapes, and millions more on DVDs that are, I must admit despite my boycott, reasonably priced. Why? Because the hassle factor of burning a copied DVD outweights the pricetag ... most people's time is more valuable to them than the money saved infringing on the copyright and burning a copy of the DVD ... despite the existence of tools that make doing so easy, even trivial, on just about every platform.

    Music, on the other hand, is a different story. The CDs cost as much or more than the DVDs, with vastly less value and content. The hassle factor of copying a good CD is such that a good CD is more likely to be purchased than copied, at least by those who can reasonably afford the purchase, but so much of the mindless dreck being sold by the RIAA is sold on shiny discs with one or two decent tunes, and the remaining tracks utter crap (even by their low standards). The result ... most people find the hassle of ripping, copying, and downloading the one or two good songs off an otherwise crappy CD, and the time spent doing so, well offset by the savings and satisfaction of not being suckered into paying full price for a disc full of crap, merely for the privelege of listening to one or two decent songs they'll soon grow tired of anyway.

    Hollywood, for all of its evil and stupidity on the DRM front, at least understands that offering their customers added value gets them to go out and buy DVDs in droves (much as I wish it were otherwise ... a boycott alone is a lonely thing indeed).

    All of which underscores that, not only will Palladium and DRM wreck the home tech market, much as copy protection killed consumer DAT and cost the home electronics industry a big boom they would have otherwise seen, but, in the end, it won't work anyway.

    The problem is a social problem, but that social problem includes not just copyright infringers who are doing something they shouldn't, but also the purveyors of shoddy product that don't want to be forced to give their customers better value or better product, who have already been convicted of price fixing, payola, and other cartel behaviors more than once, producers who are arguably more responsible for the current p2p file trading phenominon than anyone else.

    There will always be someone who wants to get the new movie release beforehand, who doesn't mind spending the hours online downloading the latest spiderman cam or LOTR dvd rip, but these people have always existed, will always exist, and don't impact anyone's bottom line appreciably. It is the rest of us, who are used to buying and copying our own stuff (for backup, for ease of use, to listen to in the car, on the boat, in the plane, etc.) who will stop buying this crap if it means ubuiquitous surveillance of our listening habits, and cripping our favorite, expensive toys, that they should worry about. We're the ones who are going to stop buying this stuff if Hollywood and the RIAA get their way, and that's a market downturn they aren't likely to recover from.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Excellent point by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      Yet Hollywood makes millions on VHS tapes, and millions more on DVDs that are, I must admit despite my boycott, reasonably priced. Why? Because the hassle factor of burning a copied DVD outweights the pricetag ... most people's time is more valuable to them than the money saved infringing on the copyright and burning a copy of the DVD ... despite the existence of tools that make doing so easy, even trivial, on just about every platform.

      The problem with attempting DVD "rips" is that 1) the original disk is so reasonably priced that there is very little incentive to pirate the movie, 2) DVD Recorder drives and the recording media are still quite expensive and 3) nobody has figured out how to do a home-made dual-layer DVD recordable disc.

      When you can get the four-disc Extended Edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring for under US$30 why bother with the hassle of getting a pirated copy off the Internet? Besides, DiVX "rips" of DVD's are so huge in size that it's a daunting task to download it even if you have a broadband connection.

    2. Re:Excellent point by subgeek · · Score: 2

      and i think here you have hit on exactly why the movie industry continues to make more and more money (despite its whining about piracy) and the music industry keeps heading further into the crapper. it's not that movies are better entertainment, it's that cds are overpriced.

      --
      you probably shouldn't have read this.
    3. Re:Excellent point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand the argument that CDs have vastly less value and content than DVDs. This seems to be an argument that everyone points to when arguing that file trading is OK. Personally I listen to CDs over and over, and at most I watch DVDs twice (sometimes more if Kevin Smith is involved). I'd say I get as much if not more enjoyment out of a CD than a DVD.

      The increase in complaints about the cost of CDs has been directly proportional to the popularity of downloading music for free. Why does everyone feel like the record companies owe them anything? It's not like it's a necessity to have rockin' tunes in order to live.

      If you like the songs, buy the CD; if not don't buy it. But if you're going to download the music for free, at least admit that you're just a cheap bastard that wants the music without paying for it. How do I know you're a cheap bastard? Because I download music, and I am.

    4. Re:Excellent point by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. And this is the way the industry SHOULD be handling piracy. Deliver sufficient value for the money to make piracy impracticle. I'm quite certain that the profit margins are still sufficiently obscene to make the hollywood suits happy. Of course they would be happier if they could somehow squeeze $60 out of the same purchase...

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    5. Re:Excellent point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DVDs are not reasonably priced. Go to the movies and see the film earlier, on a bigger screen, with better sound and for about half the price. Factor in the price of your home cinema system and it gets even worse. Live people are working for you at the cinema, not just a machine which churns out millions of pieces of plastic. If DVDs are reasonably priced, how much should a movie ticket reasonably cost?

    6. Re:Excellent point by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      CDs are WAY overpriced. A new release DVD (single disc) is generally about what, $20? A new release CD is around $15. I think a movie takes longer and costs more to make -- but why is the DVD priced so closely to the CD? Only reasons I can think of I can debunk myself.

      CDs cost as much to make as movies. False. It would seem really unusual for an artist to spend $20M recording a CD. Many movies cost $40-50M to make.

      Movies pay off their costs at theaters. False. Most movies don't even break even, they rely on rental and sales to break even or profit.

    7. Re:Excellent point by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of people here understand that piracy is a social problem - that's good, maybe the movie industry can learn from that simple statement. They need to understand that it's not effective to try to control society through technology. Besides, that's the government's job ;)

      Honestly, I think napster is the source of a lot of these problems... if the average idiot hadn't learned that they could pirate rather than buy media, then the big companies never would have taken notice. I remember hearing, back in the day, "I'd love to download mp3's but I just can't stomach all the porn pop-ups". Essentially the average joe found out about pirating and went apeshit. This will pass, but technology isn't the solution.

      That's a great point about price - I do buy DVDs and some of them really make it worth it with 16 hours of extra material (and if you're only going to watch it once, renting it does just fine. Any "customer" with enough time to pirate hundreds of DVD's probably doesn't make enough money to buy them anyway...). Some CD makers even figured it out and have bonus material on the cd's and a link to a members-only website with more stuff. The rest of them haven't figured out that a cd is a product, not a license to listen to a song. If you're not buying a product then why would you shell out cash? Since it doesn't cost as much to make an album as it does to make a $100M movie, AND CDs are cheaper than DVDs to press, why aren't CDs cheaper?

    8. Re:Excellent point by EllisDees · · Score: 2

      You can always do what I do: rent your movies from the local video rental place and copy it to your hard drive if you like it. Your average Divx takes up about 700m of space, so you can fit more than 100 on an 80g hard drive.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    9. Re:Excellent point by Rick_T · · Score: 2

      > DVDs are not reasonably priced. Go to the
      > movies and see the film earlier, on a bigger
      > screen, with better sound and for about
      > half the price.

      Whoah, there. Your argument's not very good. How much does it cost to take a family of four out to see a movie? Even if you don't eat or drink anything, it's going to be over $20.

      Even if you only take out your significant other, your cost will be at least $16 (most people don't get student discount tickets, you know) and more than likely over $20. In other words, more than the price of the DVD of the same film.

      As for the picture and sound - you might get decent picture and sound at a new / big city theater, but in my town for instance, you pay $8 to see a movie on a stained (did someone spill beer on it?) screen with mono sound.

      I'll take my Superflat TV with DTS surround sound any day over that ... :)

      > Factor in the price of your home cinema
      > system and it gets even worse.

      Ahh, but my home theater system isn't used for just home theater. It's also used for normal TV watching, gaming, and music.

      --
      -- Rick
    10. Re:Excellent point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're looking at it the wrong way. In a monopoly situation (copyrights are little monopolies), the price is dictated only by what the buyer will pay. Cost of production doesn't factor in, except that a monopoly will product nothing if it can't make a profit.

    11. Re:Excellent point by subgeek · · Score: 2

      the music industry makes the mistake of thinking that just because some people will pay a certain price, that everyone else should be forced to pay that price. some people are not willing to pay the big price for a song they'll only listen to a few times before they get sick of it. so people only pay the high price for music they really want a lot. there would be more sales over all if the prices came down.

      if there is no way to get cheap music, people won't flock to the local cd store to pay too much for music they only want a little bit. those people with harddrives full of downloaded mp3s are not going to rush to the store to buy an equivelant amount of music on cd. they'll look elsewhere for something cheap that will be good enough for them.

      as one of many counter-esamples, alfa-matrix sells cds for what looks like the standard prices, until you consider that the price includes shipping from belgium to anywhere in the world.

      --
      you probably shouldn't have read this.
    12. Re:Excellent point by MtViewGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      By keeping the price of DVD's reasonable (thanks to the fact they're following the sell-through model of video sales more or less pioneered by the Buena Vista Home Entertainment division of the Walt Disney Company), they've sent DVD sales literally through the roof.

      DVD's could have been quite expensive initially due to the high cost of mastering the movie onto DVD disc, but now that you can master a professional-quality DVD movie on a dual-CPU Power Macintosh machine, it's small wonder why costs are relatively low.

      I think the MPAA's Jack Valenti--unlike the RIAA folks--seems to a have clue about the economics of media piracy, and by pricing DVD movies at a low cost the economic incentive to do piracy is very low. If the RIAA understood the economics of media piracy they should price album-length audio CD's at US$11 per disc, which would cut down the incentive to pirate music quite dramatically.

    13. Re:Excellent point by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      Rick,

      The price of going out to the movies is getting out of hand! Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, an evening admission for a family of four (two adults, two children under 13 or so) runs about US$32! (glyph of dollar bills sprouting wings and flying away)

      With the price of home theater systems being really cheap nowadays, no wonder why DVD sales have gone through the roof. We've gone past the point that a five-speaker home theater system with DVD player and a good TV that accepts component video input will pay for itself in well under a year when that same family with the home theater system buys some DVD's and rents others. Yes, you'll miss out on the "big screen" experience but you'll also miss out on overpriced tickets, overpriced concessions, poor sightlines, uncomfortable seating, poor sound and projection quality, and annoying fellow moviegoers who talk too much, bring crying babies along and bring noisy and annoying pagers and cellphones along.

    14. Re:Excellent point by Rick_T · · Score: 2

      > We've gone past the point that a five-speaker
      > home theater system with DVD player and a
      > good TV that accepts component video input
      > will pay for itself in well under a year
      > when that same family with the home theater
      > system buys some DVD's and rents others.

      I'd forgotten about rentals in my post - thanks for reminding me. :) To tell the truth, I don't do DVD rentals as much as I probably should. Used DVDs are often priced at $10 or less, so I usually pay the extra couple of bucks and keep the DVD as opposed to renting.

      But adding DVD rentals to the mix at, say, $6 a rental tips the balance even more in favor of home theater. You don't have to pay up for each family member / friend to watch!

      Not that I'm entirely opposed to the "big screen" experience, but as the nearest really good theater is located some 70 miles (one way) away, I'll take my cheap DVDs for most of my movie watching.

      --
      -- Rick
    15. Re:Excellent point by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      Movies pay off their costs at theaters. False. Most movies don't even break even, they rely on rental and sales to break even or profit.

      Not true. They rely on BOTH to break even. It's just that the two forms of revenue come in in distinct phases such that the theatre revenue all occurs first and the rental revenue all occurs second. So even if, say, 70% of the money came from the theatre run and only 30% from rental, as long as the profit margin is less than 30% it will still look as if the rental is solely responsible for the profit if you bookkeep week by week and don't look at the whole movie run in summary.

      (I'm just objecting to the use of the phrase "rely on" - yes I know the break even point doesn't happen until after the theatre run, but that doesn't automatically mean rental sales are more of a contributor to the total profit than the theatre sales. It's more a question of WHEN the money comes in, not how much of it each contribues.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    16. Re:Excellent point by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      A theatre ticket buys you:

      ONE person viewing the movie ONE time
      A big screen, with big sound to boot.

      A home copy (DVD *or* VHS) buys you:
      As many people as you want to invite over,
      viewing the movie, on multiple occasions if
      you wish.

      That factor alone makes the price difference make sense. Then you tack on that the DVD typically lets you pick subtitle options (very handy for foreign films where you want to hear the real actors' voices and not some out of work low paid actor in a sound stage dubbing badly. (The dubbed version of Run Lola Run is very painful to watch, because the voiceover for Franka Potente sounds like some valley girl floozy.).)

      BOTH the RIAA and the MPAA piss me off with their raping of the copyright laws, but at least the MPAA isn't doing it to prop up an unrealistcly overpriced product like the RIAA is. (Both annoy me, but I feel the RIAA's motives are more evil.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    17. Re:Excellent point by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      The record companies are a monopoly.

      The individual record companies have formed a cartel.

      To a certain degree, there is no replaceability. If you want a particular musician's work, you can only go through one supplier. Works of other musicians aren't strictly comparable. Even if they were, the other 5 members of the music cartel all engage in similar practices.

      I don't want the money I spend supporting my favorite band to bankroll the latest Britney Spears marketing blitz or 12 wasted months of studio time or to buy genuinely *ssinine legislation.

      We're upset because we all know how much it takes to produce these things. You're forgetting that these growth of these complaints also corespond to the proliferation of cheap CD Recorders and CD media.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    18. Re:Excellent point by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      A really good sound system can actually make up quite a bit for the size of the screen. Also, keep in mind that many theatres these days are actually quite mediocre. Many "real" theatres have poorly configured sound equipment and relatively small screens.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    19. Re:Excellent point by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Speaking for the "former trailer trash" contingent on behalf of current trailer trash: Your assumptions are faulty. Those of us "in the park" were pirating away in the mid 70's. The average idiot is quite capable of ripping a CD to tape and passing it among friends. HELL, that's how I originally got turned onto Selloutica. People will merely use copying methods that provide less fidelity.

      As others have said, the average slob is more than willing to put up with 4th generation copies of VIDEO. Most people simply aren't sensitive enough to the defects in 4th generation audio recordings or just plain don't care about the defects.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    20. Re:Excellent point by geekee · · Score: 1

      The RIAA and MPAA cases are different. A cd burner is much cheaper than a dvd burner and a song takes little time to download, while few dvd quality movies can be found on p2p networks and take hours to download. As technology improves, the MPAA will face the problems currently faced by the RIAA. It will become worse for both as a pc becomes an integral component of a home entertainment system. $0 is cheaper than $20, so when the technology is cheap enough, there's no more incentive to buy. Maybe you don't care, but the average teenager has a lot of time on his hands and only the money he earns at minimum wage plus an allowance if he's lucky.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  26. Lucas, Lucas, Lucas... by Galvatron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Seriously, is this guy a nutcase, or what? First of all, he says "there's no such thing as a free lunch," and then talks about how important it is that digital content be secured. Hey, that saying works both ways, buddy. The entertainment industry doesn't get a free lunch by switching to digital, either. If you want the advantages of the digital form, you need to take some disadvantages too. If you don't think the two balance out, you can go back to VHS (looks like Lucas's approach, since the original trilogy's still not out on DVD), but don't cripple computers to give your industry a digital "free lunch."

    Second point: we're getting this from a guy whose career is based on an idea ripped from Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress?" For those who have seen it, but don't see the Star Wars resemblance, I invite you to read Lucas's original 13 page treatment. The names have been changed to protect the innocent, but the events are Kurosawa's. I don't begrudge the man making a successful adaptation of someone else's material. Furthermore, he's admitted the influence, and even funded some of Kurosawa's later projects. Still, you'd think this would be a guy who would champion fair use. Instead, we get this lecture? Feh.

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    1. Re:Lucas, Lucas, Lucas... by ebuck · · Score: 2

      I saw "The Hidden Fortress" and thought it was great.

      The Criterion Collection has cleaned up the film with a better transfer than currently exists on most reel films of that age.

      The REALLY sad thing was that the special fetaures included an interview with George Lucas. I mean, I had just watched the film, and was still reeling from how much of it was ripped into "Star Wars", and although George starts out acknowledging the influence, soon there's George backpedaling and claiming that the films are not really the same film.

      If I made one of the most successful films of our generation based on the work of Kurosawa, one of the best directors ever, I would at least be a bit more respectful. Nobody claims that their modern Shakespeare adaption isn't really the same thing as "Much Ado About Nothing" or is a different film altogether.

    2. Re:Lucas, Lucas, Lucas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, "there's no such thing as a free lunch and if there were we'd make it illegal in order to protect the sandwich industry".

  27. yeah right... by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So far, large enough portions of the public have wanted things like VCRs, PVRs, mp3 players, and CD copiers that I don't see why the technology industry has any reason to 'work together' with media. In fact, because of how media is distributed, through technologically savvy means, the media should, in theory, be more inclined to kiss ass to the tech people.

    Tech leads to the development of more tech, while media seems to actively work against such. This is not a good deal.

    --

    IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
    And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
  28. Hitting the nail on the head! by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >> Lucas went on to say that the proliferation of free and illegal downloading of content on the Internet could eventually lead studios to shy away from spending as much as they do on blockbuster movies since it won't be nearly as profitable for them to do so.

    Yeah!! Look what the internet did to the porn industry!

    Seriously.. You'd think Hollywood could learn a thing or two from the XXX industry. Look how mainstream it became via the internet. Hard to understand why they don't see it as the powerful distrobution vehicle it could be.

    I mean if you distributed 100% more copies of , why fight so hard because 5% of them are pirated? Mo money, mo money mo money. You don't see vivid video fighting to shut down distribution of their films.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  29. Mabye I didn't get it. by ebuck · · Score: 2

    So media has been promoting and distributing it's goods without the use of technology?

    I'm not saying that media is "cutting-edge" but it's not like media has shunned technology.

    Look at DVDs, CDs, Television, Ditigal Television, Radio, Internet Radio (Simulcast), Alternative Sound Channels (big in bi-lingual areas), Flat-screen televisions, Portable CD players, Portable Cassette players, MIDI, Eight-Track Cassettes, Vinly Records, Motion picture cameras, 8mm Movie Cameras, 35mm Camera, Photography, Solid-state radios, Vacuum-tube radios, E-books, Online News Centers, API-wire, and Prinitng presses. (I know I've missed many)

    Mabye I have a bit broader definition of technology and media, but you can argue that media didn't exist without technology, unless you consider hand-copied manuscripts and books to be the central core of all media.

    1. Re:Mabye I didn't get it. by mrkurt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right: the entertainment/media industry runs on technology,and it wouldn't exist without it. What has them worked up in such a froth is that they don't control the technology like they did when media was all analog. They could charge for each copy or for monthly service.

      Now that they don't control the digital technology,they are on the backs of everyone in the tech world to save their ass, um, business model. They want to continue the top-down content delivery methods that the mass media has used for the past 100 years. And, they wanna make a killing in doing so, too.

      It seems that they should get to work and improve their watermarking/copy protection/whatever technologies, and buy themselves a brigade of whores (um, I meant programmers and security experts).

      Seriously, though, more expansive horizons await us, when high-speed 'net access is commonplace: it will be possible for people to choose what content they want. When it becomes possible for artists to use the 'net to distribute and sell their works with a street performer business model (give some stuff away, play some more songs for dough), the entertainment companies might be out of business.

      (Pardon my shouting) IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL

      --
      Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
  30. DVD media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This does have its pluses. DVD media is one such example that can possibly benefit from this. Currently there are 4 major formats that industry leaders split their concentration on. The entertainment industry is the main reason why a standard has yet to be set on DVD media.

    Recording formats will be under scrutiny for a long time if the tech industry and the entertainment industry fight against each other.

  31. DRM = Dirty Residual Monopoly by aphor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    DRM only helps the middlemen monopoly

    I work. I get paid. I stop working; I stop getting paid. Some people have set up systems with "residual" income. They want to work, get paid, stop working, and keep getting paid. That's the Metallica plan, and the Hillary Rosen plan (she gets paid for help running the residual income racket for Metallica).

    Without DRM, you make recordings/films, and give them away. Even if you charge for them and some people pay lots of people are going to see/hear it without you getting a dime from them. Then people (might, if your stuff doesn't SUCK) want to go see a live show or a big-screen showing of your work. You can charge admission to the closed event. You can show stuff in the event that you haven't given away. You stop working; you stop getting paid; you'd better have a savings plan!

    Residual income is not economic production. It is pure monopoly rent. Either you believe in competition and the marketplace or you don't. Art is better off without the strong controls of a "sponsorship" system where you need a rich person to give your work the thumbs-up before you are "let in" to the closed distribution system.

    The people pushing for DRM are the "golden handcuffs" vendors who offer the age-old devil's sell out contract. They would like to remove the option of not selling your soul. They almost have. This is not about making sure people pay for the art they see/hear. This is about media companies making sure there is no art without getting the biggest cut of the action.

    They want to throttle our art to decrease supply and advertise to bolster demand so they can raise prices and fatten up the margin. It is all about setting up a monopoly and price controls and other stuff that slips past the Sherman Act.

    They want to prevent artists from reaching people except through them. IT IS A RACKET!

    --
    --- Nothing clever here: move along now...
  32. Or the ever famous quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I hate quotations"
    -- Emmerson

    1. Re:Or the ever famous quote: by Puk · · Score: 1

      "The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit."
      --Maugham

  33. Why? by j4pjeff · · Score: 1

    Isn't the media getting tired of complaining about it's own well being? Maybe you should do another report on the fact we still have not captured Osama.

  34. Exentuated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an interesting new angle for them anyway, with the point exentuated by George Lucas (of American Graffiti fame!) showing up to say 'there is no free lunch'."

    Perhaps you mean 'accentuated'?

  35. Idiots strike again: "Extenuated"? What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't you droolers achieve even a dull child's mastery of your own native language? "Extenuated" doesn't mean what that cretin thinks it does.

    This is sickening.

  36. they should wor together? by BroadbandBradley · · Score: 2

    hell no, they should fight it out!!!!

    Too bad it didn't go something like this: ...Hi I'm a media distribution company who relies on the good grace of the media creation companies. I'd like to go on record as saying I think the media creation people are lame and a pain in our ass, screw those guys.....

    well it's good to know that they'll be working together from now on...they musty be good guys right? .. god this spin makes me dizzy.

  37. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD PARENT UP! Tech interests != media interests. Copyright laws are biased

  38. Public domain, copyright, etc. by ka9dgx · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What the Hollywood types want to do is to take over the creative commons. They got fat and rich taking ideas from others, processing them, and spitting out "Intellectual Property". They don't like paying anyone else for ideas, and have no problem with taking them without attribution (as long as they think they can get away with it), but if we happen to want to do something based on Steamboat Willie, oh... that's Theft!

    Forcing me to re-buy The White Album, 4 more times, in 4 new formats, isn't why we have copyrights and patents. It was constructed as a careful use of a necessary evil (state granted monopoly) for a limited time (17 years), in order to make sure the authors had sufficient incentive to put works into the public domain. (Happened at the end of the time period).

    Now the slackers in Congress have perverted the original design to provide for Government enforced monopolies on ideas. This can not stand, in the long run.

    DRM is evil, there is no practical purpose for it.

    --Mike--

    1. Re:Public domain, copyright, etc. by richieb · · Score: 2
      but if we happen to want to do something based on Steamboat Willie,

      The real funny part is that "Steamboat Willie" was a parody of then current Buster Keaton movie.

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    2. Re:Public domain, copyright, etc. by zwoelfk · · Score: 1
      IMO the appropriate counter to DRM is fairness (as in fair-use and fair-mindedness). Not hot-headed, knee-jerk emotionalism.

      They got fat and rich taking ideas from others, processing them, and spitting out "Intellectual Property"
      This isn't really a fair assesment. To say that the entertainment industry, in general, does not make a significant creative contribution on top of the borrowed ideas is just plain wrong. Remember underneath the RIAA and the MPAA are artists (fairly treated or not, they are still there).

      They don't like paying anyone else for ideas,
      This is obviously untrue. Entertainment is an industry, they are more than happy to pay for ideas that will make money. Licensed material is extremely common. Movie/Game cross-overs. Move/Comic cross-overs. Movie/Book cross-overs. Geez. A huge percentage of the entertainment industry is built on licensed material.

      but if we happen to want to do something based on Steamboat Willie, oh... that's Theft!
      True enough. But hardly universal. Disney is a huge company and as much as they'd like to speak with one voice, assuming there isn't dissent on this issue, within the company, is pretty naive.

      Forcing me to re-buy The White Album
      Please. No one forced you to buy anything. Also, formats changing over time has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. I can still play my LPs, casettes, etc. I buy into new formats because they add value for me. You're saying you buy into new formats because someone puts a gun to your head? I'm sorry.

      ... in order to make sure the authors had sufficient incentive to put works into the public domain
      How is this on-topic? There is no argument on the table for unlimited-length copyrights here. Yes, limited copyrights are good. Yes, the idea that the public should have access to material eventually is good too. So?

      Now the slackers in Congress have perverted the original design to provide for Government enforced monopolies on ideas.
      And? You're saying that congress is corrupt, right? I hope you have some other point, because that's obvious and expected. Hell, that's the reason the US constitution was designed the way it is, it assumes branches will be corrupt and attempts to limit it. What we should be looking at is the failure of the checks and balances, not the failure of congress. They fail. They do really dumb-ass things. It's in their blood, or they wouldn't be in congress. It's also not on the topic of entertainment and tech industries working together.

      This can not stand, in the long run.
      The long-run? Nothing stands in the long-run. The sun will fail eventually and this won't be an issue. If we're talking about DRM this is a very immediate issue.

      DRM is evil, there is no practical purpose for it.
      I'm no fan of DRM. It is the wrong approach. It will not accomplish its goals. It will irritate people. However, to say it's evil is just silly. Let's reserve that for things that truly are.

      Sorry for the rant.

  39. No free lunch by dpilot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They can say that, and at the same time stiff the artists like Stan Lee by claiming that they make no profit.

    Or they lobby for copyright extension after extension so they can continue selling goods with no further IP investment.

    Sounds to me like they're saying that consumers can't have a free lunch, only corporate media.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  40. No, tech, media and. . . by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the *consumer* need to "work together." One of the ways this can be accomplished is through a free market. It's not the best imaginable system. It's adversariale to an extent and definately a bit on the tempestuous side now and again. . . like now.

    But. . .there's no such thing as a free lunch. I'll accept that statement for the sake of argument. It cuts *both ways* Georgie boy. You have to earn your lunch. Your costomer buys it for you, in exchange for goods and services.

    The "consumer's" money belongs to the consumer. It isn't yours. You don't "deserve" it. You have to earn it under true contractual terms wherein both sides of the contract receive fair and equitable exchange for freely voluntary participation in the deal.

    This means that to get the consumer's money you have to offer them what they want, when they want it, how they want it and at a *price* they are fully, freely and happily willing to pay.

    If it is not done this way then in the multi-hundred year history of contract the deal *isn't legitimately valid.*

    The "cooperation of media and tech" is nothing more and nothing less than a cabal formed against the ultimate source of "lunch" and business power. . . your customers ( do you remember that word? Have you looked it up in a dictionary lately? It's a very important word Georgie boy).

    As a "consumer" all I can say to this is " Stick it up your Star Wars whoring butt George."

    I play musical instruments, as do many of my friends. I can write my own songs. I can download Dumas ( where you ripped off all your "ideas" anyway. Can you say "Three Musketeers in Space"? I KNEW you could Georgie boy, in fact, you already did, didn't you?) from Project Guttenburg and get hundreds of hours of superior entertainment for free in a format you can't control. . .words.

    The "media industry" isn't the only source of "content" in the world.

    Watch yourselves carefully or you just might end up at the soup kitchen begging for a "free lunch."

    KFG

  41. Logical fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. such things abound and always have, and there is even some question if logic itself is a joke.. but really, as long as people keep taking their flouride (it helps their teeth healthy you know), and other happy treats, surely everything will be OK - give me another plastic card baby, i'm paintin' the town, n' burnin' down the trailer park.. oops, changes in personal bankruptcy legislation?

    i hope douglas adams is sitting at a table, drinking an ale and telling jokes with our founding fathers.. those were men of courage, wisdom and a sense of justice... not like the cowards who think they are running the show these days

    got bonds? sorry to hear that

  42. Random Geek in the Street says.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go fuck yourself buddy!"

  43. Quotes and my rebuttal by techstar25 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "If hundreds of thousands of dresses were stolen from Wal-Mart, the police would assemble a task force that would have Winona Ryder shaking in her boots," Chernin said. "

    These are NOT dresses we are stealing. They are ugly, torn and patched pieces of fabric that hardly resemble the original dress. Think Attack of the Clones on the big screen vs. Attack of the Clones recorded by some dope with a camcorder on his shoulder, and then uploaded to Kazaa. Who are they trying to kid? And at least the RIAA is actually losing money(although they are wrong about why it continues to happen). Motion picture studios continue to make more and more money, even though it is obvious that these crappy cam movies are easily downloaded.

    1. Re:Quotes and my rebuttal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction:

      "If hundreds of thousands of grainy photographs of dresses were taken at Wal-Mart, the police would assemble a task force that would have Winona Ryder shaking in her boots," Chernin said."

      Go Winona!

    2. Re:Quotes and my rebuttal by Pii · · Score: 2
      Point of Order...

      The RIAA is nowhere close to losing money. They are making it hand over fist.

      Their complaint is that they are not making as much as they did last year (or two years ago).

      The RIAA's revenues are down... That's not the same thing as "losing money." (To them, yeah, it's the same thing, but objectively, there's a big difference.)

      --
      For those that would die defending it, Freedom
      has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
  44. Happy Anniversary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Happy Anniversary to our Mexican friends!

  45. Free lunch anyone.. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Free lunch products for the movie industry.

    It is ok to support Linux if its for the media industry.. otherwise its just anoying to have these consumers demanding viewers for DVDs..

  46. No more blockbusters? by watchful.babbler · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Lucas went on to say that the proliferation of free and illegal downloading of content on the Internet could eventually lead studios to shy away from spending as much as they do on blockbuster movies since it won't be nearly as profitable for them to do so.

    Oh, dear God, I can only hope so. The brief heyday of director-centric blockbusters in the 1960s and '70s -- Jaws, Apocalypse Now, Kubrick's best works, and, yes, even Star Wars -- has simply given way to overhyped, overextended special effects larded with committee-designed dialogue and focus-tested credit crawls. Am I supposed to believe that companies choosing to spend billions of dollars less on overplotted tripe like Clone Wars is a bad thing? Perhaps, if the financial stakes weren't so high for the studios and directors, they'd be willing to try riskier experiments in film.

    --
    "Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."
  47. Fix Courts so Existing Laws Work by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The real problem is the Federal Court System
    is far too slow, expensive, and overpowered
    for suing an individual pirate. What good is
    it to sue "WzDood345" for pirating $500 worth
    of music, if it costs $500,000 in legal fees
    and he/she just files for bankruptcy anyway?

    This isn't just a problem for the big media
    companies: it makes it impossible for indie
    content creators to sue pirates. Sony could
    in theory afford to waste $500,000 to make
    an example of a pirate. A garage band can't.

    Instead of draconian laws or orwellian DRM
    hardware, I suggest we need a simplified
    Federal Small-Claims Copyright Court, where
    copyright infringents less than (insert $$)
    could be handled pro-se (without lawyers).
    Then you, or Lars Ulrich, or anyone else
    could fill out some paperwork, explain the
    case to the judge in plain english, and
    collect $500 from WzDood345 for pirating
    your stuff.

    --
    >;k
    1. Re:Fix Courts so Existing Laws Work by infolib · · Score: 1

      What good is it to sue "WzDood345" for pirating $500 worth of music, if it costs $500,000 in legal fees and he/she just files for bankruptcy anyway?

      It would probably make other people think twice before sharing stuff on Gnutella (though not on Freenet). That, in turn, would make the few remaining non-leeches stand out even more, making them likely targets of court action etc.

      If it costs you $500,000 to sue one person, and that makes 50,000 people stop filesharing, it comes at a cost of $10 per filesharer. Besides, once p2p networks lose sharers they rapidly lose attractiveness, leading to "disaster".

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
    2. Re:Fix Courts so Existing Laws Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sony could
      in theory afford to waste $500,000 to make
      an example of a pirate. A garage band can't.

      if you're in it for the money... then stop...

      real artists want to make music for people to enjoy... not to become rich idiots.

    3. Re:Fix Courts so Existing Laws Work by mcpkaaos · · Score: 3, Funny

      I agree with much of what you said, except the part about Lars Ulrich being able to fill out paperwork or speak in plain English. If that's what it would take for Metallica to protect themselves, well, the future looks bright for pirates. ;)

      --
      [McP]KAAOS

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    4. Re:Fix Courts so Existing Laws Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real artists like to be able to eat too, you fucking idiot.

    5. Re:Fix Courts so Existing Laws Work by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      I agree with much of what you said, except the part about Lars Ulrich being able to fill out paperwork or speak in plain English. If that's what it would take for Metallica to protect themselves, well, the future looks bright for pirates. ;)

      Mod that up as funny and insightful!

    6. Re:Fix Courts so Existing Laws Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst idea ever.
      Pretty good troll.

    7. Re:Fix Courts so Existing Laws Work by geekee · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it will cost more than $500 to figure out who WzDood345 even is, by the time you get a court order for an ISP to tell you the info you need. It'll take more than a guy making minimum wage too to deal with all the legal entanglements. It's just not practical, which is the reasoning behind the DoS of pirates legislation.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  48. George, go back to your galaxy and stay.... by Genjurosan · · Score: 1

    Can someone please explain why Lucas's comments matter? George Lucas is involved in a small niche of film genre that a majority of people do not like. Mr. Lucas is so reclusive to his own staff that most people I spoke with when at Skywalker Ranch simply scratched their heads and commented, "that's George." George makes a few billion dollars by chance and people claim he is god. George has no idea what the consumer is, or how the consumer thinks. He simply knows how to sqeeze every last dollar out of the smallest amount of product. Anyone that makes his annual take has no idea what it means to be part of society, and these two fellows are way out of touch. George will have none of my respect, as he is too concerned about the lining in his pockets. Now if this were Tom Hanks, I would respect his comments 1000x more; however, Tom is busy educating, filming, and pushing his political ideas out there. While I don't agree with a lot of Tom's views, he has done more to educate the general public about the space program than NASA itself, IMHO. George on the other hand is spreading misinformation about the physics of space with his ridiculous, yet fun, movies (except for Ep. 1, which just sucked ass). This argument made by the entertainment conglomerates is baseless. Media made on the backs of poorly paid writers, film crews, and secondary staff has no right to make such claims. $10 million to "The Rock" for a movie, and claims of going broke make so much sense to me. Anyoen agree?

    No matter what they try to force down on us, it will fail. In the end the China factor takes the cake. They seem to forget that China is a country of a few billion people that don't give a rats ass about US copyright law.

    Also, don't go with broadband based content delivery.. a /. article yesterday talked about 5gb caps on broadband. 2-3 movies and your done for the month.

    A quick search on IMDB proves why George doesn't get my respect when it comes to preaching to the public:

    George Lucas credits... mostly story (in one genre) and tv

    Now Tom Hanks... balanced and across multiple genres.

  49. What he means is... by mouthbeef · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Fox Studios' President of Engineering, Andy Setos, wrote the "Broadcast Flag" Proposal that was brought to the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group. Then he, Intel and Mitsubishi gathered the biggest IT and CE companies in the world and asked them to agree to its provisions:
    • All open source digital TV and Software Defined Radio applications will be illegal
    • No digital output technology may be incorporated into DTV devices (including commodity general-purpose PCs) without Hollywood's permission
    • No digital removable media technology may be incorporated into DTV devices (including commodity general-purpose PCs) without Hollywood's permission
    Setos described this as a "well-mannered marketplace." This is the kind of co-operation that Fox wants from technology: roll over, bare your belly, and build only those devices that Hollywood grants permission for.
  50. Would someone please clarify the PROBLEM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as they can persuade people to get off their lazy asses and drive to movie theatres, and as long as people keep buying each other DVDs for and as long as the average citizen continues to watch advertising-funded television every night just because it's there, the film and television industries have absolutely nothing to complain about.

    The music industry on the other hand is screwed. But that's because they derive too much of their revenue from selling crappy CDs to teenagers. And how much sympathy can we be expected to have for that?

  51. Let's work together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That way we can really screw out crimi.. customers.

  52. No Free Lunch? by dusanv · · Score: 1

    He can make sure that the content is protected easily enough. He can release it in a locked down format/media that only *AA approved players can play (read: no PC/Macs). But who would want it? Everything is fine for us as it is. Instead he's gonna get *us* to willingly (or by the force of law) pay for DRM in out PCs/other gadgets to protect his contect (and generally restrict otherwise prefectly versative and capable machinery). No free lunch? BS! Georgie, you me to pay for your nect one.

    And since when do you need tones of money to produce good art. Best stuff was produced for miniscule amounts comapred to latest Hollywood stuff.

  53. if by 'working together' you mean... by avi33 · · Score: 1

    George: "I'm not releasing the star wars box set until you tech guys figure out how to produce media that can only be viewed by one person, one time, with a media system that I can remotely disable when I re-release them all in the theater."

    Technology: "hmm...disposable digital glasses with embedded media that has to be unlocked in real time by a satellite-based validation system? Coming right up..."

  54. Learn how to post first.. your location is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Reply to This" actually means, "Reply to THIS" and not "To lessen or attempt to lessen the magnitude or seriousness of, especially by providing partial excuses."

  55. That damned 'theft' argument again! by Interrobang · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm getting really tired of people equating copying information with 'theft.' Copyright breach it may be (an entirely different kettle of fish, as anyone who understand copyright knows), but theft it is not. The two circumstances are not even remotely similar enough to warrant such a comparison, and anyone who argues otherwise is committing a False Analogy fallacy. (Going into a store and "five-finger discounting" the actual CD is both theft and copyright breach, just to be sure we're clear on that.)

    Nothing has been "taken," nothing is "missing," and certainly nothing is "gone" when someone makes a digital copy of something -- unlike Chernin's False Analogy argument about dresses from Wal-Mart.

    That's not to say that copyright breach isn't some kind of crime, or that it's not wrong -- but, again, it's not "theft." And it's certainly more defensible (under certain circumstances -- notably our vanishing "Fair Use" and "Public Domain" provisions) than theft.

    As a final, waspish parting shot to the point that "all this theft is destroying the industry," Chernin should talk to "Frisky Dick" Richards, who plays "Violent J" in the Insane Clown Posse, which actively encourages people to download, copy, share, and, yes, even steal their work. (He might also try talking to Ron "Hitler" Barrassi of TISM about the same subject, if he thinks he can stand it. I want to sell tickets to that event!) Weirdly enough, ICP has two platinum records and a few gold records to their credit -- with NO airplay or video play -- and seem to be living proof that Chernin and all who sail with them are also committing a Slothful Induction fallacy. (In short, the evidence says Chernin et al's argument isn't true, but they believe it anyway.)

    1. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 2

      "Nothing has been 'taken,' nothing is 'missing,'"

      The media companies would argue that part of the value of their product is "missing." The argument's a little convoluted but I wouldn't disagree with it completely. Even more convoluted would be the argument that the "thief" has somehow not just stolen the merchandise but has usurped the ability of the manufacturer to determine how much product is manufactured, which itself affects the value of his product. Ask any physician if he'd like alternate educational systems cranking out thousands of doctors that would compete directly with him and you would get the same reaction. Nobody likes competition. Whether it's actually stealing, I'm not sure it really matters.

      This is not to say I like the bastards telling me I can't make a copy of something I bought for my own use.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    2. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 2

      The media companies would argue that part of the value of their product is "missing."

      The media companies would argue that part of their huge profits are missing, and that the few extra cents they would have paid the artists are also missing.

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    3. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Interrobang · · Score: 2

      The media companies would argue that part of the value of their product is "missing."

      Which argument is covered completely under "copyright violation" since 'value' is an abstract and "theft" deals in tangibles. No, really. Please go read my article on copyright, revealingly called "Some Things Copyright Is Good For," and which doesn't simply consist of the word "nothing."

      I mean, if you don't think the 'value' of being the assignee and exerciser of a bundle of specific rights or grants is worth anything, ask anybody who has ever entered into a one-sided agreement with a content producer where they said, "We'll publish your X, but only if you sell us your copyright." Siegel and Schuster, creators of Superman, got caught in that one, as did numerous authors working in SF in the 40's and 50's.

      The argument falls on its face for the same reason many "specific offenses" laws don't get passed -- we already have legislation in general that deals with like problems, and we don't really need a new one which specifically targets that offense. (Copyright and how it works is also a lot more complicated than it sounds, or seems.) We already have copyright; that ought to be enough.

      Another hole in their argument concerns the folk tale about the woman who wanted the former beggar executed because he "stole" all those potential chickens she would have had from the dozen eggs she gave him ten years before, whereupon the case was thrown out because she'd hard-boiled the eggs? It's especially hard to prove "theft" against "potential money" which is exactly what they're trying to do...but in many cases, they're counting chickens from hard-boiled eggs.

    4. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And sometimes it's true.

      And sometimes it's not.

      For example. I like Buffy. I can download Buffy season 7 from the Internet. I can't watch it on TV.

      No matter HOW MUCH I PAY, I cannot get them to sell me Buffy (effectively, I mean, obviously, a couple of million and it all changes).

      Now, if Buffy was on Sky now, then they might have a point with all this crap about not taping stuff. But otherwise they just annoy me. I'm not going to pirate episodes of Buffy season 5, as I can legally buy them - they've deigned it acceptable to sell them to me, but I see absolutely nothing morally or socially wrong with me getting episodes that haven't been shown here yet or that I cannot, with reasonable effort, obtain.

    5. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      Ask any physician if he'd like alternate educational systems cranking out thousands of doctors that would compete directly with him and you would get the same reaction. Nobody likes competition. </quote>

      Now ask the same physician if he'd like an alternate drug system that produces exact copies of name-brand drugs at almost no cost, and exact copies of the latest medical devices, again at almost zero cost, so that he can treat more people w/o having to see if their HMO covers it?

    6. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      I'm getting really tired of people equating copying information with 'theft.' Copyright breach it may be (an entirely different kettle of fish, as anyone who understand copyright knows [slashdot.org]), but theft it is not. The two circumstances are not even remotely similar enough to warrant such a comparison, and anyone who argues otherwise is committing a False Analogy [datanation.com] fallacy. (Going into a store and "five-finger discounting" the actual CD is both theft and copyright breach, just to be sure we're clear on that.)

      If you come up with a brilliant novel, and I take your manuscript and publish it as my own, I haven't committted "copyright infringement" in the vernacular--I've stolen your manuscript.

      "Taking something that doesn't belong to you" is theft, and anyone who tells you otherwise is getting hung up on the details. Or, rather, they're arguing over a word to try and get moral high ground.

      Oh, and if you're just stealing the CD, you haven't committeed copyright infringement unless you copy it--you've just stolen a copy.

    7. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by symbolic · · Score: 2

      Which argument is covered completely under "copyright violation" since 'value' is an abstract and "theft" deals in tangibles.

      Theft deals with whatever the law says it deals with. In its most abstract sense, theft is the unlawful acquisition of something of value belonging to another without permission and/or compensation. Consider theft of service - nothing tangible, but the "service" does have value, and is being paid for by someone else who is entitled to its use. If you acquire the benefit of said service without permission or compensation, it is theft.

    8. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by siskbc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm getting really tired of people equating copying information with 'theft.' Copyright breach it may be (an entirely different kettle of fish, as anyone who understand copyright knows [slashdot.org]), but theft it is not.

      Unfortunately, you seem to have no legal leg to stand on, though you might find a lot of like-minded geeks here. You are confusing the difference between legality and morality. Is it morally wrong to copy a CD? That's pretty much for you to decide. Is it illegal? Yes, it is. And "theft" is the legal definition to describe the situation.

      The confusion people have is theft of service vs. theft of property. Let's say that instead of ripping off a copy of a CD, you go to supercuts, get a haircut, and run out without paying. Are you guilty of theft? Yes. Have you taken anything? No. Have you removed the hair-stylist's ability to cut hair? No. So you have not technically stolen anything tangiable. However, it is "theft of service," and that is a crime. Look at it that way and it is easier to see copyright infringement as theft.

      --

      -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    9. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by jjoyce · · Score: 2
      Equating copyright violations with theft stems from the side effect that the copyright violation has in the mind of the big-business copyright owner: copyrights are property rights and it is theft because copyright entitles the owner to sales. The side effect is that those sales do not occur when people clone copyrighted things and freely distribute them, whether they were intending to buy them or not.

      I do not agree with this thinking because I think most people use MP3s as a way of sampling and that they purchase what they want, but I do believe that it is this thinking that rationalizes "copyright violation equals theft."

      The unfortunate thing is that the decline in music sales coincided with the proliferation of online file trading, so obviously it is an uphill battle for people who don't like the big media companies. What other conclusion were they going to come to?

    10. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Is it morally wrong to copy a CD? That's pretty much for you to decide. Is it illegal? Yes, it is.

      Was Fair Use outlawed when I was sleeping or something? If I've bought a CD, I'll make as many damn copies of it as I like. The RIAA/MPAA wants me to buy a new copy for every place I listen to something or lug the one copy around with me exposing it to damage and/or real theft. The sames goes for kids that like to watch the same videos over and over until the tape wears out. They're just greedy and want everything to follow the pay per view model. If the artists are so damned worried about their works being copied, then they shouldn't allow it to be distributed on media that can be read by an electronic device. If you want to see a particular movie or musician, get your ass in the theater/venue. They made money before VCRs, CD players, tape decks, etc. so there isn't any reason they can't continue to make money. They just have to produce quality entertainment. That's the problem. The current model allows them produce crap and still be able to make money.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    11. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should READ the actual legal definition before starting claiming legally false statements like "theft is the legal definition to describe the situation".

      It is LEGALLY called Copyright INFRINGEMENT, not THEFT. You can shout till your face is blue, it still won't turn infrigement into theft, sorry.

      To equate loss of possible service to theft is just ridiculous. Let's take a look at Supercuts scenario. What happens if I am a regular Supercuts customer, but just for this month, I cut my own hair. Supercuts just lost their "potential" sale. Is that theft? HELL NO!!!

      Infringement is not THEFT, not legally and not morally equivalent.

    12. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by LtOcelot · · Score: 1

      If you come up with a brilliant novel, and I take your manuscript and publish it as my own, I haven't committted "copyright infringement" in the vernacular--I've stolen your manuscript.

      Correct -- because you've deprived him of the ability to publish the manuscript as his, along with all the profits. If you copied the manuscript without ever releasing it, you would not, in the vernacular, "stolen" it.

    13. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      And "theft" is the legal definition to describe the situation.

      No matter what you think of his argument, "theft" isn't a legal description of anything. The laws are more specific than that. You have "burgulary," "shoplitfing," and generally a different name for "theft" depending on what you steal. If you "steal" music by distributing it over the internet, the original poster is very correct in saying that the crime you would be charged for is "copyright infringement." Wether you call that "theft" or not is entirely subjective and unrelated to the law.

      If you go by Websters 1913, however, it's not theft unless you are "taking and removing ... [property], with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same." Since you're copying, it's more like forgery than theft.

    14. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Pius+II. · · Score: 1

      Yes, he has a legal leg to stand on. The point is that theft is already defined; a short search on google for "definition theft" reveals that. Because I rather don't trust some random web pages, I looked the definition up in my political dictionary. Theft is there defined as "unlawfully taking away a movable object to take possession of it". Another definition (this time from http://www.umkc.edu/police/info/STEALING.htm) is "The unlawful taking, carrying, leading or riding away of property from the possession of another person". Note the use of "away" in both definitions: to be subject of theft, an object must be physical, and it must be physically removed from the possession of its owner.
      So, it may be immoral to copy a CD. It may be, depending on where you live, illegal to copy a CD (it certainly isn't in Germany, where e.g. giving a copy to your gf is considered fair use). But even if it is illegal, the crime commited is never "theft".

    15. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like watching Buffy. It's one of the best written shows on TV, and I'll be sad to see them stop making new episodes. Hopefully, they'll leave openings for the show to be restarted again someday, most likely in some witty and intelligent way.

    16. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      The key difference is that the word "theft" carries with it TWO different reasons why it's bad. If you steal a radio from a car, you are essentially screwing over two different people at the same time. Not only are you taking the radio away from the car owner and thereby depriving that owner of the use of it, you are also getting the use of the radio without paying the radio manufacturer for it.

      Piracy only has the second kind of screwing someone over, not the first. And that's why it's NOT theft. Theft is when you deprive the owner of the item. Making a copy does not do that.

      Does that make piracy right? No. But it does make it something DIFFERENT from theft, and it should not be treated under the law as the same thing. The software companies call it theft in the media because they like the false association the public makes between piracy and things like someone stealing their car radio.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    17. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      Theft also carries the implication that you DEPRIVE the original owner of the item or service in question. Piracy doesn't do that. It is not the same thing as, say, stealing someone's car stareo.
      The reason the definition isn't clear on the distinction is that until the digital age it wasn't possible to make a perfect copy of something with ease, and so there was never a need to distinguish specificly what it was about an act that made it theft - was it the obtaining of goods without permission or payment, or was it the depreivation of those goods from the current owner? Originally, one always implied the other. Not true anymore today - but the English language hasn't caught up to reality yet, and if the media campaign to label piracy as theft succeeds, it never will.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    18. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      Getting a haircut without paying is theft of someone's TIME. It takes none of your time for me to copy a program from you.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    19. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Just because I sample something doesn't mean I would have bought it otherwise. For me it's just the online equivilent of the "listen before you buy" booth at the music store. If record execs insist that the only legal way to buy music is to buy albums blindly at random without knowing how they sound first, I'm not going to end up buying very many albums. The stuff played on the radio is usually not a very good indicator of what the rest of the album sounds like.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    20. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The offense you describe is plagarism, a concept that's independent of copyright infringement.

      Copying is not inherently an offense; as Thomas Jefferson made clear, ideas (and by extension, expressions) cannot in nature be a subject of property. That some types of copying are against the law is a consequence of choices the Congress has made -- choices that are supposed to be made pursuant to the public interest, and that could be made differently.

    21. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're the one that has no clue. Laws regarding theft have ALWAYS been distinct from the laws regarding copyright infringement. HELL, until just a couple of years ago: NO AMOUNT OF PERSONAL PIRACY WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED A CRIMINAL ACT, PERIOD. There is no concept in laws regarding theft, or larcency, or robbery, or burlary that require a threshold of damage in order for the act to be criminal.

      They are two completely different beasts.

      It is you that has no "legal leg" to stand on.

      It is only the armchair busybodies (and Media Moguls) that equate copyright infringement to theft.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    22. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Going into a store and "five-finger discounting" the actual CD is boththeft and copyright breach, just to be sure we're clear on that.)

      No it isn't, it's not copyright infringement at all. Has the criminal made a copy of something? No, they've stolen a physical product. Until they make a duplicate of it (for themselves, for sales, whatever) they haven't infringed copyright.

    23. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by geekee · · Score: 1

      If someone creates something, and someone makes a copy of it without compensating him for it, that is theft. It's no different than if you hack into someone's machine and steal their data, based on US law. Economics is not even a factor. It's a moral principle at stake. It takes work to create IP as well as a physical commodity, and that work needs to be protected if we are to respect the rights of individuals to free trade under mutually agreed upon terms.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    24. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by symbolic · · Score: 2

      Theft: unlawful acquisition of something of value belonging to another

      It has nothing to do with depriving anyone of anything. It has to do with whether or not you have it (or use it), and (with respect to your argument) whether or not you've paid for it according to the terms set by its owner.

    25. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you got that definition, but in English Law at least it's the the unlawful acquisition to deprive someone of their property , permanently; thus if you had every intention of returning it, despite that person's temporary deprivation, it's still not theft.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    26. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by symbolic · · Score: 2


      If I offer you the opportunity to enjoy something I've created for a certain price, it is incumbent upon you to decide if you're going to accept or refuse my offer. If you accept it, you provide the requested compensation, and enjoy what I'm offering with my blessing. If you refuse the offer, you have no further claim, and most certainly, you have no right to acquire it. What is it then, if you decide to acquire it anyway, and deprive me of due compensation?

    27. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you found somewthing to wine about apart from the point...

      We're talking about doing something you're not supposed to.
      You're talking about not paying for something you would normally have to pay the copyright owner for.

      You're still breaking the law, and you're still A cheap-ass

    28. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      If someone leaves a jacket behind on a bench, and there is no way of finding out who's it is, and I try for several days to find the owner before giving up and taking the jacket myself, have I "stolen" it?
      Is this theft? Common sense would say no. Your definition would say yes because I never succeeded in contacting the owner to arrange terms of payment or to obtain permission to have it for free.

      As I said, the definition is behind the times because it was only recently in the history of the language that it became easy to obtain something of worth by making a quick copy instead of taking the thing away from it's owner. The only reason the definition doesn't mention the distinction is that there WAS NO SUCH DISTINCTION until recently. One always assumed the other.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    29. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by symbolic · · Score: 2

      Please help me understand how this relates my comments.

      I'm sure there is no end to the number of exceptions and unusual situations people can dream up (mostly absurdity that supposes a lack of common sense) to help them rationalize bad behavior.

      I'm sorry to say, but keeping a jacket after engaging in a good faith effort to find its rightful owner has nothing to do with the willful acquisition of copyrighted material with no intent to seek permission or provide compensation in accordance with the owner's offer.

      To reiterate: I advertise something of value at a given price. If you decide you want it, you pay for it. If you reject my offer but TAKE my goods anyway (medium notwithstanding), how is that NOT theft?

    30. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by guybarr · · Score: 2

      Not only are you taking the radio away from the car owner and thereby depriving that owner of the use of it, you are also getting the use of the radio without paying the radio manufacturer for it.

      no no no, the manufacturer has NO claim on the product once it is sold, the theft is from the owner, and ownership has been transferred (through act of "buying"). the fact you don't pay the manufacturer is not a legal offence against him, or a legal offence at all (to the woo of all salesmen whereever they are). the only offence is against the owner.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    31. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry to say, but keeping a jacket after engaging in a good faith effort to find its rightful owner has nothing to do with the willful acquisition of copyrighted material with no intent to seek permission or provide compensation in accordance with the owner's offer.

      I agree fully. Which is why your definition of theft is faulty. I was pointing out that under YOUR definition the jacket example would have been theft. I was trying to point out why your definition doesn't match what people are really thinking when they say the word "theft". People don't think of the jacket example as theft. Your definition does, even if you didn't realise this when you wrote it.

      To reiterate: I advertise something of value at a given price. If you decide you want it, you pay for it. If you reject my offer but TAKE my goods anyway (medium notwithstanding), how is that NOT theft?

      "TAKE" != "COPY". I shouldn't have to explain any further than that.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    32. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      What is it then, if you decide to acquire it anyway, and deprive me of due compensation?

      In the case of illegal copying, what is it you need compensation for? You still have your copy. It didn't stop working just because someone copied it, so exactly what is it you are being compensated for? I know perfectly well what it was, by the way. I'm just trying to get you to admit it: If the thing in question was something you were going to make money from, you want compensation for the money you (and this is the key part) WOULD HAVE made had the work not been copied. I leave it as an excercise for the reader to note how taking an item that is definately worth something today is a different thing entirely from short-circuiting someone's potential to make money in the future from a hypothetical sale that might have happened. I'm not apologising for software piracy. I'm just saying prosecuting it as if it was theft is like prosecuting an assult and battery case as if it was a full blown murder.
      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    33. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jumped the shark when Buffy died.

    34. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by symbolic · · Score: 2

      "TAKE" != "COPY". I shouldn't have to explain any further than that.

      You're suggesting that you can only "take" something that manifests itself in a physical sense. This can't be right, since theft of service (a non-physical entity) is a very legitimate concept within existing law. When you copy something(as in the case of copyrighted material), you are acquiring something of value without either permission or intent to compensate its owner. You don't have a physical object, but you do receive benefit from what it is that you've acquired. If this isn't theft, then what would you call it? Whether you call it taking or copying is just a matter of semantics.

    35. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      You're suggesting that you can only "take" something that manifests itself in a physical sense

      No I'm not. I'm suggesting you can only "take" something if you don't create any new instances of it and instead you remove an existing instance from someone and keep it for yourself. That is also true for services. If you're an automobile expert and I pay you to tell me how to fix a problem in my car, and it takes you an hour to explain it, I have "taken" an hour of your time, and you no longer have it for yourself, so that still counts as "taking" your service, thus the pay your arranged for ahead of time. If I fail to give you the pay, then I've stolen the service from you, yes. What doesn't count as taking is if you were explaining it to someone else who was paying you for it and I just happened to be listening in on the conversation at the door without your knowlege. I didn't take your service, in that case, in a way it's like I copied it. Is that still ethically wrong? Yes. Is it *equally wrong* to taking the service? No.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    36. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by symbolic · · Score: 2


      So how does this apply the willful and knowing acquisition of copyrighted material without the owners' permission? It's not like you just happened to be sitting next to someone the bus playing your favorite song on an iPod. The way it happens in most circumstances is that someone engages in a directed effort to specifically acquire the material in question, knowing full well that they have no intention of paying for it. Is *this* theft? If not, what is it?

    37. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

      So how does this apply the willful and knowing acquisition of copyrighted material without the owners' permission?

      That's already been explained in previous posts. I ahve no reason to belive saying the same thing twice4 would convince you more than saying it once, so I'm done.
      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    38. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation of: "I ahve no reason to belive saying the same thing twice4 would convince you more than saying it once, so I'm done." to "I don't know and can't tpye w4ell4.4"

  56. This just in.... by orthogonal · · Score: 2

    Fox addresses henhouse: "If we cooperate, we can process many more chicken-nuggets much more efficiently."

  57. DRM= Digital Reach for Money by mrkurt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Correct, they do want to prevent artists from reaching the people, except through them. And think of it this way: how many musicians, writers, and film makers' works haven't made it to the public, because of the enormous amount of control the studios have over the content that actually makes it out through the normal distribution channels? The 'net is not a channel for "content distribution"; its best and highest purpose is for finding one's voice. The musician, the writer, and perhaps the film maker have a chance to use the 'net to do this. If their stuff is good, people will be interested in purchasing it. I'd much rather obtain it directly from the artist than to go through the media giants. I wonder how much we as a culture are losing from the continued dominance of the mass media?

    --
    Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
  58. Re:Yeah by l33t+j03 · · Score: 0

    Well, he accomplished lifting and smooching me this morning pretty well, but I think I'll let him keep that crown.

  59. You still watch MOVIES?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consumer sheep!

  60. When he says "work together" by tkrotchko · · Score: 2

    What he means is "Lets find a way to cram DRM into every consumer device we can. That will lead to more profits for both High Tech and Entertainment".

    Where's the consumer advocate saying "Why should I spend more money to get less?" Where is the consumer advocate saying "what is the future of the PC if PC's are encumbered by DRM hardware and software? What is the future of Linux and future generations of software if it is illegal to have software without DRM restrictions in it.

    Nowhere because clowns like this guy don't care about anything but more profit for themselves and their shareholders. That's okay. But why does the FBI have to be the enforcement arm of the media conglomerates?

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  61. exentuated? by roofingfelt · · Score: 1
    exentuated

    Good grief!

  62. Copying != Stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:

    • "If hundreds of thousands of dresses were stolen from Wal-Mart (WMT: Research, Estimates), the police would assemble a task force that would have Winona Ryder shaking in her boots," Chernin said.


    If I were to go into Wal-Mart, take digital photos of the dress and then make the dress myself, would that be considered stealing?

    Taking a physical instance of something is stealing because no one else can use it. If I steal a loaf of bread from the grocery store, it's not longer available for anyone else to purchase and consume.

    Same as if I went into EB and stole a copy of Unreal. I'm causing the company to lose money because they can no longer make money from what I just stole to counter the cost of making the product. But if I make a copy of my friends legit CD, they've still made money from his purchase and they can still make money off all the copies left in the store. They haven't lost any money, they simply haven't gotten any more. All that's happened is there is now an extra copy (at no cost to them) floating around in the world.

  63. Re:IT's All About Control by ebuck · · Score: 2

    Oh, so we are supposed to feel pity that a giant media conglomerate which has pushed independant artist so far off the scope that they are now considered "fringe elements" has lost their artifical means of sustaning a monopoly by producing other people's content in a form that is not easily distributed, copied, or transfered without degradation in quality.

    Damn those pesky technology people. If only they would cooperate with media we could have a world safe from pirating. A world where all content was digitally watermarked by it's coporate owner, where strong encryption hampered any means to use or distribute it without royalty, where media that was not guarded would be automatically destroyed if it slightly resembled copyrighted material (like media containing text, graphics, or video).

  64. No conflict by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

    Get blockbuster movie off the net (or episode 19 of Freaks & Geeks):

    Pay 2.99 to the media company for the self-desturcts in 24 hours file that will only play on the DRM enabled player. It will come complete with commercials and tie-in offers that you are forced to watch, and a restrictive EULA that has real teeth. (enforced by Admiral Poindexter and his good buddies over at the Bureau of Total Information Awareness)

    The download will take at least six hours, or you can switch to a "priority download" for an extra .75 which goes to your ISP.

    See? There is no conflict. All that yummy high quality digital content will drive the adoption of broadband. Everyone is happy. (well, everyone except those anti-government techno-terrorists who live in their parents basements)

    --

    You either believe in rational thought or you don't
  65. No Thanks by bogie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First of all, it will be a cold day in hell before I take any advice from that Right Wing propaganda maker. Second George Lucas jumped the shark a long time ago and I could care less about what he thinks. This is a guy who would literally replace every actor in his film with CG actors if he could. Again no thanks.

    Here's my advice to Big Media. Adapt or Die. Stop trying to crush my rights for fair use. Stop using your monopoly power to keep prices of CD's artificially high. And lastly stop trying to push new formats which make using media on my existing electronics worthless.

    Work with the consumer not against them, and stop acting like your at war by pressuring congress to pass laws which enable you to become rogue vigilantes.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  66. Didn't anyone else notice? by sbwoodside · · Score: 1

    ... the connection between this story and another recent story ?????

    Tech companies aren't "cooperating" because they /know/ that it's pointless. DRM tech doens't work, won't work, will never work.

    The only way DRM will ever work is as legislation, not technology.

    Simon

  67. In related news. . . . by jafac · · Score: 2

    Mafia Don Anthony Geletto said that Local and Federal Police Authorities should work more closely with the Mob.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  68. George Lucas's "no free lunch" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man's got some fucking nerve.

    Geez, the people who own the media, and their creative lackeys like Mr. Lucas, always seem to think they own the moral high ground, too, by definition. Even when they demonstrably don't. Understandable. Human nature, even. How come nobody ever consistently calls them on it, though? Wonder how it is the molders and shapers are now so damned interested in owning the tech they wanted to shove under the rug for so fucking long? (30+ years) Could it be they're twisting in the wind now, and know it, and worse, see that everyone else now knows it?

    Fuck. Let 'em. Tech industries just need to sit back and let the dinosaurs flounder in the tar pit until they succumb, not jump in with them.

    You know, if I were Chairman of Microsoft, HP, etc, I'd be facing criminal charges from the SEC, and lawsuits from stockholders and the Justice Dept. for wanting to throw good money after bad the way some people are getting paid millions and millions of $$$ to do. I'm lucky that way. So keep it up, dumbasses; you're going to make Enron and the S&L boondoggle look like sound fiscal policy.

    Whole thing stinks, and it strikes me that there's something more sinister than just Jack Valenti's bogus flag-waving going on here.

    --rgb

  69. give me a break by arthomas73 · · Score: 1

    i hate it when people threaten that movie quality will suffer, and we won't have any more blockbuster movies. as long as teen agers want to get away from their parents theaters will stay in business. besides what does this really mean? we may never see twister 2? please.

  70. Interests of customers by Rai · · Score: 2

    "media and tech companies should work together in the best interests of both industries."

    Meaning "we should work together AGAINST the interests of customers."

  71. He's right... by Capt_Troy · · Score: 2

    But they should use the technology that is already available to them to hedge the piracy of movies and TV shows.

    For example, why doesn't FOX/CBS/(Insert network here) provide their shows online after the first airing on TV? Put some commercials in there to cover the costs and let people stream them. Or you can just let them download them and share them, who cares, you made money by leaving the commercials in, or providing internet-only commercials to your customers. And same goes for movies, say let people download them after the video is released with extra commercials in there or something.

    I know that I would love to go to fox.com and download the Futurama I missed rather than lurking around on IRC for a week trying to download it, and especially in the case of movies... Commercials? Hey, if they can provide me with that content, I can deal with the commercials, and if I like the movie, I'll go buy the DVD anyway.

    Just a thought, although this would piss off the Blockbusters of the world, but it's all about dealing with the changes, not about preventing them...

    Troy

  72. A compromise proposal by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 2

    Peter Chernin, CEO of Fox and COO of News Corp., says media and tech companies should work together in the best interests of both industries.

    Okay, then I'd like to offer a compromise proposal.

    Instead of Tech putting in DRM for Media, how about Tech including little stickers that say "Don't steal the music."

    (these stickers can be conveniently affixed to the inside of the device so that they are easily seen by anyone who takes the device apart.)

    --

    Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
  73. CN has Futurama by cryptochrome · · Score: 3, Informative

    Cartoon Network has Futurama now. No doubt it will become the anchor of Adult Swim, which is expanding into M-Th as well. So, get some basic cable.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    1. Re:CN has Futurama by EricWright · · Score: 2

      When? I just looked at their site, and they do not list Futurama as one of their shows, nor is it scheduled for the next week... I have heard these rumors, just not a) a substantiation, nor b) a network schedule listing Futurama.

      Until then, abm.futurama is my friend.

    2. Re:CN has Futurama by EricWright · · Score: 2

      To answer my own question, this site has the details. It looks like Futurama will be on M-Th at 11pm starting 1/12/03. Teach me to post without doing a FULL google search again...

  74. Gift horse, mouth, look. by Performer+Guy · · Score: 2

    The tech industry has handed these people the biggest market opportunity in decates and all they do is bitch & moan and worry about theft. Talk about an obsession. They have abused technology to stop legitimately purchased DVDs bought in one area from playing in another, for no reason other than exercising a control over consumers that they have no natural right to exercise. I don't know anyone who downloads movies online, I know plenty of meople who have collections of hundreds of DVDs.

    If a store owner worried about shoplifting tried to get a law passed where everyone must carry scanners around and wear manacles that would lock and prevent us moving whenever the scanners think there is a problem with stolen goods(and we have to foot the bill). We'd think they were crazy, but this is exactly what the entertainment industry wants to do with our computers.

    When are we going to start ignoring these windbags in the entertainment industry bleating about their stolen movies? They have record box office sales and are reaping the rich rewards of technical innovation, now they want to kill the goose that produced their golden egg.

    Movies & music and the systems used to distribute and sell them are not natural systems, they are artificial systems WE choose to live by. A performer used to have to perform live for his pay, there was no recording. An artist used to have to stand on stage every night and work to collect his cash. Now thanks to technology they can perform once and release a product, but it's an artificial system enabled by technology. That technology risks undermining this system is not a reason to undermine technical innovation. The people who create entertainment products must adapt to the new environment. They have no natural right to sell their products produced once and mass produced forever for very little cost. It is an ARTIFICIAL right thet we grant them in law. It's time this was made clear. These rights they claim are artificial rights in an unnatural technical environment granted to them by the people they increasingly try to control.

  75. Whose best interest again? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...says media and tech companies should work together in the best interests of both industries.

    Too bad it doesn't say "in the best interests of consumers"

  76. Piracy is a reaction to over-priced garbage by iiioxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lucas went on to say that the proliferation of free and illegal downloading of content on the Internet could eventually lead studios to shy away from spending as much as they do on blockbuster movies since it won't be nearly as profitable for them to do so.

    Great! Why don't you cut the $50M special effects budget in half and use some of the savings on a decent script and a good director?

    This could also wind up having a major impact on the quality of movies since Lucas said that the success of summer popcorn movies enable studios to finance more artsy films.

    Studiotalk translation:

    "popcorn movies" == Mindless garbage with no story, poor acting, and lots of big explosions.

    "artsy films" == Anything with a plot.

    Too bad that 95% of the films to come out of Hollywood fall into the "popcorn movies" category.

    Here's a clue for the studios and the MPAA: make some decent material that I would be willing to spend $20 on to buy the DVD.

    I doubt very much that LoTR DVD sales will be disappointing, and I bet that there will be a lot of piracy of "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" DivX copies on P2P. Simple reason: people don't like to pay good money for garbage. Either make movies worth the sticker price, or lower the sticker price.

  77. Freedom is Slavery by Convergence · · Score: 2

    Why do we listen to these cultural squatters, who sit on our culture and claim they have a right to take it?

    Who listens to these speculators, who hoard cultural creations hoping that someday they might win it big?

    Who pays attention to these meglomaniacs, who try to perpetually hold our heritage hostage and control every use and access.

    Who set up the modern intellectual feudalism, where you have kings, dukes, and other nobility fighting over fiefdoms of our intellectual and cultural landscape. Nobility who rape the peasants who are subject to their idiosyncratic and meglomaniac wills

    Who are these people who claim that every work that is not created by them is a 'shallow reinterpreation' that should be burned, yet the nobility's creations are invariably unique and special.

    If they shall call me a thief, pirate, and shoplifter.. Well, what shall these men and women be called?

  78. Let me hear an AMEN! by iSwitched · · Score: 1

    Wow! I hadn't thought about it like that before...

    This may be unbelievable, but I've never downloaded an illegal copy of any music, movie or TV show. But I do purchase CDs, which I then copy and remix for my own personal use; and I purchase DVDs, which I play on any player, including my PC, and which I may copy to my disk for my own personal viewing.

    Any DRM that would keep me from performing these basic fair-use actions would immediately be circumvented (if possible) in any way possible including the downloading of various cracks and hacks from various nefarious sources.

    So.. The whole DRM thing has turned a law-abiding media-consumer like myself into a media pirate and tacit supporter of the very hackers the Media conglomerates want to fight!

    I say bring it on, I've already picked out my black hat...

    --
    "That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
  79. And totally dense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize it was a joke, right?

  80. Uh-huh by sulli · · Score: 2
    So they'll "work together" on user-hostile pay-per-use schemes for CDs like what Sony Music is planning to offer in Japan?

    I'll take rivalry, thanks.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  81. Ruh Roh by limekiller4 · · Score: 1

    ...and so then the Fox says to the farmer, "you know, you shold relax a little. Go ahead, take a nap. I'll watch the chickens. We should Work Together."

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
  82. My favorite Aquinas quote by Theatetus · · Score: 1

    "But proof by authority is the weakest sort, according to Boethius."

    --Sum. Theolog., Names of God, Art. 7
    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  83. Star Wars and Digital by sulli · · Score: 2

    sucked. If I want to watch a DVD on a big LCD projector I can do that in the office, thanks.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  84. We shouldn't be this bad at spelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "exentuated"?

    Next time try "accentuated".

  85. Cockroaches? - not quite that way by infolib · · Score: 1

    "Corporations are like cockroaches. They'll survive everything," Lucas said

    Certain companies are more like cockroaches in that the instant you turn on the light, they take to the nearest hole...

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
  86. You missed a line: by then,+it+was+nigh · · Score: 1

    Star Wars Juice Box: $.70
    Star Wars Fruit Snacks: $.62
    Star Wars Images on Various Sandwich Ingrediens: $.90
    Star Wars Lunch Pail: $15.99

    Biting Jar Jar's head off: Priceless

    --
    sed 's/In Soviet Russia/In NSA America/g' < yakov-smirnoff-jokes.txt
  87. Mixing up the means and the end by Stickster · · Score: 1

    So, did he have more artistic integrity when he was making movies on someone else's dime, or when he built his own facilities in order to create movies the way he envisioned without being beholden to someone else's bottom line? Putting Star Wars marks on other goods was not an end, but a means -- in this case, to help build the facilities of Lucasfilm (ILM, Skywalker Sound, et al.) into something that would advance the science of motion pictures. Did he really exploit anyone? No one forced anybody to buy tickets; it was the public's choice to turn the Star Wars movies into a blockbuster phenomenon. They have made both better and worse decisions, and will continue to do so.

    Without his facilities and the work he put his own money behind as an entrepreneur and as someone with a vision, you'd have no Donnie Darko, no English Patient, no Being John Malkovich, at least not in the splendid forms in which they now exist. Technology that appeared in all these movies was originally developed at Lucasfilm facilities. Would someone else have done it? Almost certainly. Would the technology be as far along today? History and experience tell us probably not.

    And let's not forget all the young filmmakers who cite "Star Wars" films as one of their earliest and most potent influences. That doesn't necessarily make the films great (or even good), but imagine a film world without their work and suddenly George Lucas' artistic integrity seems a lot more secure even in the face of lunchboxes and board games.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't idolize Lucas, but I do consider him a pioneer in the tech end of making film. As a director, I would prefer a ripe canteloupe, but Lucas' directorial skills are the least factor in his resume. There's a reason that AMPAS is the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Film is both the science of medium and the art of message. Lucas' legacy lies mainly not in his films, but in the technologies he has developed which are used in so many other films today, including those whose artistic impact is far superior to anything he has created himself.

  88. New Headline by szquirrel · · Score: 1

    George Lucas to Tech Industry: Join Me, and We Will Rule the Galaxy As Father and Son!

    --
    Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
  89. Yeah right by Ogerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So now Hollywood thinks it can "win people over" to their side by evoking pity for them?! Pathetic.. truly pathetic. People will not stop boycotting / making unauthorized copies until Hollywood and the music industry learn some ethics themselves. Until then, Joe Public perceives that he is just stealing from a thief. Or phrased another way: Hollywood has no moral ground to stand on when they make these statements against so-called "piracy" by ordinary consumers.

    Some reasons to boycott Hollywood and Big Music:

    1.) They are solely responsible for the hideously unconstitutional DMCA, which tramples on some pretty basic rights--free speech and expression anyone?

    2.) They'd like to ruin all useful consumer electronics and computer technology with crap like SSSCA / CBDTPA, this time taking away basic rights of property ownership ("well, you can own it.. BUT we can legally say how you're allowed to use it")

    3.) They repeatedly screw over the true artists if there's a way to increase their profits. (Go look up your own examples.. there are plently out there.)

    4.) They are the single largest driving force in brainwashing youth with "alternative morals." And no, this has nothing to do with the mere existence of sex and violence in film. It's about the attitudes behind the way that sex and violence are portrayed. It's about the underlying message delivered. (Example: American Pie - "you're a loser if you're still a virgin at the end of high school")

    5.) They are an enormous tool of consumer whore-ism and shame-based marketing that promotes conformity. "You're no good unless you look this way / act this way / have these things / etc."

    6.) They have destroyed the original institution of limited copyright for the purpose of making gargantuan amounts of money with minimal efforts.

    7.) They seem to believe that they are "owed" enormous wealth because they are so special, as compared to most businesses which are subject to the Free Market and actually have to work hard to operate efficiently and turn a profit. Even bad movies tend to yield a profit margin unheard of in any other industry.

    8.) Unchecked positioning in the market and monopolistic tactics that rival Microsoft's have led to disgusting price gouging of theater tickets, pay TV, music albums, and movies. All at the expense of consumers.

    9.) They repeatedly have taken all available measures to maintain gatekeepers of all media, making it very difficult for independent artists and producers to succeed. ..And then they turn around and put out propaganda like this, saying "don't attack the gatekeepers! you'll hurt the poor working-class folks in the entertainment industry!!"

    I don't know about the rest of you folk, but this kinda stuff is plenty to make me avoid the theaters and wait for the $0.99 DVD rental (on the handful of movies even *worth* seeing) Vote with your dollars, people!!

  90. Translation by Maul · · Score: 1

    Fox CEO says tech should do what the media wants, and consumers should suffer in the process!

    --

    "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  91. Microsoft school of business practice by theolein · · Score: 2

    It seems as if these criminals went there. Of course lots of people download bootleg stuff, but for crying out loud, it's the same people who were copying the CD's to tape before. You cannot stop it, only go with the flow. But they will try and try until it becomes worldwide law and we're all forced to buy fuckshit like Britney Spears because only empty headed souless creeps like that can work with the industry on a permanent basis.

    So in case you wankers from the big companies actually send your slaves to read this forum: I haven't bought a CD in about two years and will not do so in the future either. You can rot in hell you scum.

  92. SWEET CHRIST ALMIGHTY by a7244270 · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that people might have to *gasp* read books ?

    Or god forbid, go out and take a walk in a park, play some sort of sport, play a musical instrument, create some art, write a story, or do something to pass the time OTHER than sit on their fat asses and stare at a screen while shovelling popcorn, diet coke and gummi bears down their throats ?

    So you won't be able to go watch the latest blockbuster. Big fat hairy deal. You won't be missing anything.

    Lots of high quality entertainment (for now anyway) at your local library, park, gym, art store, musical instrument store.

    Who knows, you might improve yourself too.

    1. Re:SWEET CHRIST ALMIGHTY by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      Now, I'm not big fan of the MPAA, but it doesn't make you a bad person if your idea of high quality entertainment orginated AFTER the 19th century.

  93. this also from Fox "we're fair and balanced" News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually, New York Times: further showing Faux News is a propaganda outlet for the Bush regime:

    Fox News head sent a policy note to Bush

    Roger Ailes, the chairman of the Fox News Channel, confirmed yesterday that he sent a note to the White House last year suggesting policies for President Bush to follow in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

    The existence of the note was revealed in the new book by Bob Woodward, "Bush at War" (Simon & Schuster). Mr. Woodward characterized it "an important-looking confidential communication" in which Mr. Ailes was offering a "back-channel message" to the president: that the president needed to convince the American public that he was taking "the harshest measures possible" or else the public would not remain patient with the administration.

    In an interview yesterday, Mr. Ailes denied that the message was meant as political advice, saying that he was only responding "as a human being and a citizen" who was outraged by the terrorist attacks. He said he had "been up for nine days straight" after the attacks before writing the message, which he sent to Karl Rove, the chief political operative in the Bush White House. (...)


    Read the article

  94. What strikes me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hi all.

    Sitting here in Business School, who gets me are the following two quotes from the article:

    "The most powerful catalyst for growth is not piracy, but partnership"

    and

    "Both of our industries need to be seriously re-energized"

    What gets me is this:

    Given: any anti-copy measures can and will be circumvented.

    It seems the Media industries are using the tech industry's need for immediate gratification (turnaround of the tech slump) to spur growth of old assets (repurchase of old media on new distribution method), and in return, then tech industry gets to develop and sell new hardware/software purchases to help turnaround the 'tech slump'.

    When the copy-prevention technology is broken after the first week, the media companies don't lose much on their old catalogs (most of it has already been digitized anyhow, or is in a digitizable form). However, the tech companies lose their entire investment in the technology and implementation.

    The media industry says, "Come again, let's try this one more time..."

    Will the tech industry wake up and realize that they should be innovating themselves out of this slump, instead of partnering with the Media industry to create a lock-in to shove DRM down our throats?

    It strikes me the Media Industry is just refusing to adapt to market pressures and trying to use legal means to guarantee their monopoly. What will they do if people decide to consume less media? Force us to? *boggle*

    Just because the two industries stop growing doesn't mean it should be legal to pass laws to further the growth of certain industries at the expense of US citizens.

    My liang fen...

    M.

  95. Clueless media execs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if the tech sector helps the media conglomerates then both can pull themselves out of the slump they are in?

    I'm not really sure how I can be out of a job while people with no understanding of economics can pull down 6 figure salaries.

    Here's a clue, Mr. COO--contrary to the popular belief of the entertainment industry, those people "stealing" your content aren't sitting on a pile of cash that they saved by *not* buying your product.

    We're in an economic slump! Nobody is buying *anything*! The entertainment industry is *not* recession-proof! People won't give up eating and paying the mortgage to buy what you're selling! You're not selling crack!

    Consumers who didn't have the money to buy a computer and/or broadband when the content was available for them to "steal" aren't going to come up with the money now that you're content is secure!

  96. *grumble grumble* by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "media and tech companies should work together in the best interests of both industries."

    I've got this silly idea: Why don't they team up and work together in the best interests of their customers instead? Or am I being too capitalistic again?

  97. Of course it is profitable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of it is stolen from each other, or other places.

    Don't belive me check out those so called sites that use "Adult varification." 99% of their anime stuff they provide is stolen.

    1. Re:Of course it is profitable! by matrix29 · · Score: 2

      Yeah!! Look what the internet did to the porn industry!

      Seriously.. You'd think Hollywood could learn a thing or two from the XXX industry. Look how mainstream it became via the internet. Hard to understand why they don't see it as the powerful distrobution vehicle it could be.

      I mean if you distributed 100% more copies of , why fight so hard because 5% of them are pirated? Mo money, mo money mo money. You don't see vivid video fighting to shut down distribution of their films.


      Most of it is stolen from each other, or other places.

      Don't belive me check out those so called sites that use "Adult varification." 99% of their anime stuff they provide is stolen.


      Uh and the PROBLEM IS???

      Porn is profitable by ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY. There are laws requiring Adult Verification (the first piece of the profit margin which encourages production) and once inside the sites if you see something stolen (the second part of the profit margin - near free supply) from somebody else you still are getting your bucks worth.

      Hell, I could take naked pictures of myself and so long as it doesn't hurt my steady job, it becomes easy money. To quoth the comedian, "Just strap a web cam to your dildo and BANG! You're an international internet porn star." Very low cost of entry (joke intended) and a steady churn of new images available.

      Imagine the movie industry realizing that cable TV can bring in customers and they profit well to boot! NAPSTER (before it got RIAA-ASSRAPED) was the best thing to hit the CD industry. The RIAA IS CHOCK FULL OF ABSOLUTE MORONS! If I don't hear the songs I don't buy the songs. NAPSTER was akin to radio music broadcasts BUT the user gets to choose what they listen to.

      Since I've pretty much boycotted the RIAA (and CD buying) COMPLETELY BECAUSE OF THE RIAA's ACTIONS they haven't gotten more than $10 from me in the past 2 years. That's ALL THEIR FAULT. Piracy in this case was their best promotion method and it was FREE ADVERTISING. Now the RIAA wants to cram their idea of what I should buy down my throat and I vomit in their faces. Sure I still am buying things, DVDs & computer games & stuff for my home & car (about $8000 worth over the past year) but I refuse completely to fund the RIAA-ASSHOLES.

      As the saying goes, "Share the wealth smartly and it will come back to you twofold."

      --
      "Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
  98. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, he wants the technoids to come up with DRM schemes that will then be applied to us. Entertainment Industry mandated DRM (they can do that sort of thing since they control distribution and production) is great for Tech because it'll be Tech that comes up with it, patents it, and sells it. Entertainment buys the DRM, uses it, then charges consumers for it. Entertainment crushes competition, then shits on their customers for not buying everything they produce.

    From every angle, the Entertainment Industry are the ones that are the pirates. It's already all but impossible to distribute without paying the Entertainment industry in some way, and they're trying their best to make it totally impossible. They need to wise up.

    As for George Lucas ``warning'' us about companies not spending money to make movies, I sort of hope that would happen, because I don't care at all about anything that comes out of Hollywood. I bet prices wouldn't even go down.

    Repeating this has become tiresome. It's hard even to use nice sentences to string together the case against Hollywood. Tech really needs to watch out, because anything associated with Hollywood when they finally go out of business could catch some backlash.

  99. Orwellian Newspeak by alizard · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The CEO of Fox has redefined "work together" as "let Us inform you of the terms under which your industry will work under Our control".

    I've stated in earlier posts that despite the knowledge that the Hollywood content package basically means that all new electronic or software technology will require the approval of a bureaucracy controlled by Hollywood to make sure "proper" DRM is implemented, that technology companies would grab desperately at any hope that Hollywood is "being reasonable" and "willing to do business".

    This speech has one message. The CEO of Fox News is telling us that they bought, paid for, and 0wN Congress, and we will do what his cartel does or else.

    High technology of a sort that Hollywood disapproves of will happen whether or not USA high tech companies or individual software developers, engineers, h4xx0rs, or individual electronics experimenters get to play or not.

    If we want technological innovation to happen in the US instead of everywhere but the USA, somebody is going to have to organize to fight the Hollywood RIAA/MPAA cartel. Political Action Committees are the only way to do this. Neither the vendors nor anybody in the user community have stepped forward with the cash to get a mass action + lobbying organization capable of fighting this.

    I no longer expect any meaningful political action about this.

    Our alleged high-tech leadership is hypnotized by smoke and mirrors, believing the vague promises of the entertainment industry that if they build DRM-disabled technology, we will buy it.

    If anybody's going to fight this in time to affect the next election cycle, they have to start NOW. This isn't happening. High-tech industry doesn't have the will or the vision to fight. They are hypnotized by the kind of fantasies Hollywood is supposed to spin us for entertainment purposes, and making business decisions that affect us all based on them.

    Perhaps they'll understand they made a mistake when they discover that the new hot consumer gadgets are either being smuggled into the US or being built in dumbed down form for the US market by competitors working in high-tech friendly business environments and that they will either have to move their companies, close shop, or become distributors for foriegn products.

    1. Re:Orwellian Newspeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The public's and tech industry's appropriate reply to any such demand: Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute.

    2. Re:Orwellian Newspeak by alizard · · Score: 2
      It's really too bad that both are rolling over and playing dead for the Hollywood cartel.

      Those of us who want to stay in high tech will simply have to get out of Dodge and leave the sheeple to their fun

  100. I Like Star Wars, BUT... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    George Lucas is the guy who says that an artist should have the legal right to control FOREVER EVERY aspect of his art - for example (HIS example), a sculptor should have the right to prevent someone who bought his sculpture from having it painted blue.

    Fuck you, George... I can't wait to see Yoda in underground porn movies...

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  101. Don't Stock Up On Cabbage If You Don't Like It by reallocate · · Score: 2

    >> ...much of the mindless dreck being sold by the RIAA is sold on shiny discs with one or two decent tunes...songs they'll soon grow tired of anyway.

    Why do people continue to buy CD's by musicians they already know they don't like? If you buy a CD that's crap, why on Earth would you want to spend more money (or more time copying) the next CD by the same folks? Maybe there is just one track that will hold you interest for a day or so. So what? No one is forcing you to buy the thing? If you want it that bad, get it, but don't pretend you didn't know the other tracks were sewage.

    I mean, I already know I don't like boiled cabbage, so I don't keep stocking up on cabbage just in case it starts to taste good.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  102. Hollywood has declared victory by alizard · · Score: 2

    The Fox News CEO is being perfectly reasonable in making this speech. They paid the price in dollars to buy Congress, and as a result, they OwN it. They are going to get the laws they want.

    Nobody in either high-tech industry or the high-tech community is going to do anything about this in the only way possible, via PAC with a credible budget. Otherwise, we'd already be seeing action about this, in order to get the legal paperwork required to start a national level PAC raising money in the individual states, a PAC needs to be started NOW to have impact in the 2004 election cycle where our next President gets chosen as well as Congress.

    Nobody's interested in putting up the megabuck or two money up front to get the PAC started. It's the price of freedom, and nobody is willing to pay it while the price only needs to be paid in dollars.

    All this speech means is that the Hollywood cartel has declared victory and that high-tech innovation is simply moving out of America. It's the deer in the headlights thing, as was shown at a literal and physical level at the presentation described in the article at Comdex.

    That speech should have resulted in a near riot, followed by top-level industry suits passing the hat to get an high-tech vendor PAC together to buy Congress out from under the Hollywood cartel, not people sitting quietly hypnotized into believing that what they are hearing is good news.

    That speech isn't about working with us, it's telling us that they demand our OBEDIENCE.

    Obedient people don't make cool new technology, and the only people who will be legally allowed to make new technology in the US will be those willing to be obedient to Federal laws, regulations, and committee decisions Made In Hollywood by quasi-govermental committees whose appointees will represent the content industry. These people will be willing to wait for Hollywood to give permission to work on any new concepts they come up with.

    That's what the package of laws and regulations the Hollywood cartel has created translates to in plain English.

    Anybody willing to try being an "obedient" technology maker is going to get hammered by foriegn competition from places that don't have the RIAA/MPAA anchor chained to their collective necks. The price of disobedience will be jail, fines, or being willing to emigrate both as indivduals and as companies.

    The sheep will stick around for it and someday, will forget that there was a day when the USA was a technology leader. The cool new stuff from Apple and IBM will be coming from their facilities in Canada and the EU and Asia. I can imagine Apple HQ moving to Amsterdam quite easily for some reason. Those of us making cool new stuff will also be out of the country. Brain drain will be out of the US, not into it as it always has been. That's what being a technology client state means, and that's what Fox News is telling the high-tech leaders of America that the USA is going to become.

    George Lucas seems to have forgotten that he's a suit, not an entertainer now, and he's confusing his personal interests in the current business model with those of creative artists. The entertainer has least to lose from any new business models that leverage the Internet and broadband technology instead of suppresssing them in favor of the RIAA model.

  103. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again!-History. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If record execs insist that the only legal way to buy music is to buy albums blindly at random without knowing how they sound first, I'm not going to end up buying very many albums. "

    Yet history shows exactly that. From the days of vinyl to CDs now. Sustained an industry for decades.

  104. no free lunch by bugi · · Score: 1

    At least he has that part right. "Media" won't get any respect if it keeps escalating this conflict.

  105. Fair and Balanced? Who's missing here? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Alright FoxNews, I see actors and politicians on your station. Where are the Tech people and the Union people? Tech and Media have a long way to go to work together.

  106. No free lunch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes there is ... you can buy one movie and make 5 copies to chare with your friends and split the cost ... That's what I will keep doing until the cost of renting,buying,going to see a film becomes reasonable

    Sorry 24$ for popcorn and movie is not worth it to me ... No free lunch? how about no overpriced lunch.

  107. Nitpick by susano_otter · · Score: 2
    Theft also carries the implication that you DEPRIVE the original owner of the item or service in question. Piracy doesn't do that.

    "Piracy" does exactly that, in fact. Copyright violation has never been congruent with traditional definitions of piracy. Making the two terms synonymous is an egregious neologism.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  108. other peoples lunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lucas famously got starwars off the drawing board by assembling a cut with dogfights from british war movies to screen for his mates.
    I'm assuming he'd no permission to do this from the original creators of those movies, or the money to lease the rights, it was just fair use, a bit cheeky but no harm, right? and those vhs' were so easy to copy...
    Now he's just one more "vested interest" trying to pull the ladder up behind him

  109. Exentuated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, geeks spel plum gud.

  110. Re:That damned 'theft' argument again!-History. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2

    Historically, radio was the means by which you could hear most of the songs on a new album before buying it. Recently, only one or two songs off each album end up getting radio airplay and the rest are a blind crap-shoot as to what you're going to get. That's what changed.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  111. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    THE STORY OF CREATION
    or
    THE MYTH OF URK

    In the beginning there was data. The data was without form and null, and
    darkness was upon the face of the console; and the Spirit of IBM was moving
    over the face of the market. And DEC said, "Let there be registers;" and
    there were registers. And DEC saw that they carried; and DEC separated the
    data from the instructions. DEC called the data Stack, and the instructions
    they called Code. And there was evening and there was morning, one interrupt ...
    -- Rico Tudor

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...