Shocker: Despicable Conduct From Disney

An Anonymous Coward writes: "Phil Lelyveld, (email) a Vice President for Disney, has written to the FCC to tell them to ignore Digital Consumer's comments on the Broadcast Flag issue. The Broadcast Flag is an inter-industry conspiracy to turn over the keys to general-purpose computing to Hollywood studio execs -- under this proposal, no one will be able to ship digital television technology (like DVD recorders and FireWire) without Hollywood's permission. Lelyveld wrote to the FCC -- who are taking comments on the proposal -- without mentioning his day-job, to tell them that Digital Consumer, a civil liberties groups with more than 40,000 members, is nothing more than a "two dot.com millionaires" working to create a world "where we are all artist/waiters." Joined the EFF Yet? (or is it time to renew?) Update: 12/06 14:55 GMT by M : Lelyveld is not a lawyer. Here's a summary of his background.

Comments

Legal virgins?

[MacAndrew]

If you think this is despicable conduct from a lawyer ... you've never been to court!

Ah, the stories I could tell...

Anyway, not revealing the bias (I wouldn't elevate it to "conflict of interest") is marginal. But the FCC should evaluate the comment on its own merits, which is garden-variety badmouthing ... nothing new. OK, "should."

I second the endorsement of the EFF ... but shouldn't we be above throwing money at a problem? ;-)

Applicable Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.

I'm not sure who said it. But it sure does apply.

Also,

Q: Just a small detail....How do you propose artists, producers and promoters be remunerated for their efforts?

A: I don't claim to know the answers. But one can at least say, however the market chooses to remunerate them. Look, technology was what enabled musicians to reproduce cheaply and for a mass market in a way that enabled them to make millions in the first place. Now, technology has made it so easy to reproduce stuff that there's no reasonable law that can be made to halt it being distributed freely. To me there's no normative conclusion to be drawn. It just is what it is. And I think it's not so bad.

Same deal. I don't know who wrote it but it sure does apply :)

Where, oh where, is this substantiated?

[drom]

Where exactly is proof that this really happened? All I see is a bunch of links to digitalconsumer.org, some government sites, and nothing substantiating any email from anyone.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike the MPAA as much as the next guy, but still, this is pretty unjournalistic. Even submitted by an AC? With email on the frontpage of /.? Looks like someone has a bone to pick with this guy.

--

View from the other trench

[USC-MBA]

For those of you wondering what the "enemy's" take on all this is, the MPAA's site has their description of Broadcast Flag here. My favorite part:

"It is unfortunate that some people may attempt to illegally hack or break into this security system. However, even if a few are successful, the flag will not be worthless. Most people are honest and will not attempt to circumvent the flag. We are hopeful that the broadcast flag will enable content providers to release more of their programming in HDTV format and drive the market forward providing new options for consumers. Consumers should not lose out just because there is threat against the technology"

As if Broadcast Flag existed to benefit consumers instead of purely protecting the interests of media corporations.

The problem faced by the EFF and like organizations will be convincing the public that they are not a bunch of .mp3-trading IP thieves. They are up against the deep, deep pockets of the entertainment industry, and faced with a credulous public which, as a rule, follows blindly along with the flashiest commercials (or most effective marketing campaign, as we were taught in b-school). I sincerely hope the EFF will be able to put a responsible face on digital copying and fair use issues, and will not end up looking like amoral war3z kidd33z

Email I sent to phil

[Nept]

Hey Phil,

In reference to your email archived here
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?na tive_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513391182
regarding your remarks about DigitalConsumer:

[quote] They represent nothing more than a free website.[/quote]
vast majority of websites are free. CNN is a free website for example. So is NY Times and BBC. Heck, even the FCC is a free website. If by free you mean non-profit, I can't see what there is too demean about that. Of course, I see the point you're trying to get at. You'd like everything to be corporate/controlled by big business and nuts to the little guy, or in your words "sustainable". If all REAL PEOPLE wanted what you want, why does Disney et al have to fight so hard (and underhandedly) to get their legislation passed?

[quote] We do not want to live in the world DigitalConsumer.dot is trying to create for us, where we are all artist/waiters [/quote]
so...the site is run by 2 .com millionaires but they want everyone to become artists/waiters? Can you explain this bit of logic to me? The difference between a waiter and a millionaire .... seems vast. Almost as vast as the difference bewteen an artist with soul and a lawyer without.

DON'T SELL OUT TO LAWYERS WHO NEGLECT TO MENTION THEY REPRESENT VAST CORPORATE INTERESTS!

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes yes, of course. Lawyers working for a mega-corp to decimate the existing usage rights of 300 million people are the Rosa Parks of IP. It's perfectly clear now: freedom, servitude, just two sides of the same coin, all one really.
Ethics aside indeed.

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[mpe]

I just noted in the article headline, in focus on the "despicable conduct" of a Disney lawyer. Why is this any different that most other lawyers? Admittedly, the lawyers working for the EFF and ACLU are attempting to further human and consumer rights, but the lawyers of the companies are merely working to increase the power of the companies.

The difference is that those working for the EFF and ACLU are up front with who they represent.
This lawyers is "astroturfing", with the added twist of calling any contrary opinion "astroturf".

Laissez Faire

[cheshiremackat]

Ok ... this could be Karma suicide (flinch) but I think /.ers need to examine the strategy everyone here seems to support. Everyone agrees that the MP/RIAA and the media co's are pushing IP law to the limits... I agree, but I think the strategy of stopping _every_ attempt as soon as it pops up is futile... Simply put, they have deeper pockets than we collectively do, and they certainly have better representation both legally and politically... I AM NOT ADVOCATING rolling over and playing dead, but I am advocating passive resistence... I think the mainstream computer user does not understand what the media companies are attempting to do...and I also think their efforts will be useless... Consider the advertisements that the computer field uses to attract new companies..."buy a new P4 to download music"... "use XP to edit video"... "get broadband to speed downloads of music and video"... I want to know what happens when Joe User tries to do any of the things that are advertised... buy a CD from bestbuy and you cannot play it on your computer? I bet the CD gets returned... rent a DVD and cannot play on computer?... complaint to Custserv @ blockbuster... download music and it won't play on another computer, AND you just paid full frieght? I WANT to see the media co's get what they want... their sales will tank... who will buy a CD they can only use in one device? Remember all the grumbling when CD's came out (now I have to buy all new CD to replace my cassettes), Atleast the sound was better... a DRM CD only benefits the media co's... nobody will buy it... I forsee two outcomes to passive resistence. Firstly, the media co's will go to far and the gov will react when Joe Consumer feels he is getting ripped off... the gov likes to act fast when ALOT of people are watching (not just a few thousand geeks)... Secondly, the harsh DRM/palladium regime will create oportunities for new players... everyone on /. seem to hate M$... so screw 'em... they get to close to the MP/RIAA then someone (linus/India/ Lik Sang) will step in to offer people what they want... Remember information wants to be free, and consumers always prefer the *easiest* solution... someone will step in to offer a better solution... To conclude, I am only suggesting the /.ers who understand what is going on, to inform as many 'average' computer users how to use the technology the media co's want to stop... hate the RIAA??? teach someone to use KAZAA or limewire... I would like to see the RIAA/MPAA ask users to pay in the U.S> like they did in Denmark... how many calls to congressmen would that generate? C'mon Hilary... I DARE YOU... Average users will be pissed when P2P gets shut down...don't buy DRM products... import the non DRM one (Gabriel in the EU for instance)... the more the average user gets used to certain technology the more they feel they are entitled to it... (flinches as he hits submit)

DON'T SELL OUT TO MILLIONAIRES

[StrawberryFrog]

The text says DON'T SELL OUT TO MILLIONAIRES CLAIMING TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE

That would also do well as an anti-Disney, RIAA, MPAA etc. slogan.

Vote with your dollars

[micro_SUXX]

I know this isn't the solution most people want, but if you don't like what the industry is doing then stop doing business with them. I know everyone likes their movies and music but if the industry feeding them to you is acting reprehensibly then don't give it your hard-earned dollars. If you must, build your back-catalog now and then when you can't stand their conduct anymore (the next time the government gets on their knees and gives them another stupid law to allow them to keep their antiquated business models) STOP GIVING THEM YOUR BUSINESS.

I know there will always be plenty of people who WILL continue to do business with them but we can lobby to our friends that might care and if enough of us stop buying the crap (and most of it is crap - it's the new opiate of the masses, designed to keep you from questioning what the terrorist regime in Washington, DC is up to) then maybe those new measures won't be worth the cost (lobbying, bribing, implementation costs, etc.) of putting them in place.

Only you can break the cycle.

Re:Lelyveld's comments

[imadork]

DigitalConsumer.com is two dot.com millionaires claiming to represent "the people." They represent nothing more than a free website.

Now everything makes sense! In our Capitalist society, everything that's Free is Devoid of Value. DigitalConsumer.com is "nothing more than a free website", after all. People who offer something for free can't possibly have an intelligent opinion, or else they'd be using their intelligence to make more money!

I hope we all appreciate the humor in criticizing a site which claims to represent "consumers" for being free (and not offering something overpriced for consumers to spend money on...)

Re:I guess this is a case where...

[Mahrin Skel]

Actually, it was him remembering history. Those stupid laws about having a man on horseback ride through town carrying a red lantern to warn everyone an automobile was about to come through? Buggy whip sharpeners, blacksmiths, livery stable operators, and coachmakers got those passed in an attempt to prevent the adoption of the automobile, because that would destroy their industry (which at the time employed a significant percentage of the population and provided service to nearly everyone).

Any parellels between that and the DMCA/Hollings bill are surely a coincidence, right?

--Dave

Another Applicable Quote

[ginbot462]

When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.

Re:Lost Government

[Sir Tristam]

We lost control when
1. Congress became a full time job and
2. When it started costing Millions of Dollars to run for office.

Close. We lost control when

1. the Interstate Commerece Clause of the Constitution stopped being interpreted as giving the Federal Government control over trade between States only during the actual conduct of that trade, and started being interpreted as giving the Federal Government creation to destruction control over anything that might ever be involved in trade between the States; and
2. the Supreme Court went along with it

This made the Federal Government hold a lot more power than it had been intended to have, and thus made it more attractive to have Congress as a career. It also increased competition for the seats, leading to the massive fund raising needed today.

Scale back the reach of the Interstate Commerece Clause to where it had been intended, and you'll scale down the centralized powers of the Federal Government (redistributing them back to the States where they were intended) and those two issues you mentioned will pretty much go away.

Chris Beckenbach

Re:(gets out notebook)

[Luckster7]

Iron Maiden also wrote a song about the old film The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner and named a CD after Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Those guys at Iron Maiden could have made a living being book critics, they have good taste. They have not written anything about my favorite author, Roger Zelazny, however. To the best of my knowledge only Hawkwind has done that.