Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shocker: Despicable Conduct From Disney

Posted by chrisd on from the freedom-only-for-the-rich dept.

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.

6 of 428 comments (clear)

  1. Applicable Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 :)

  2. Where, oh where, is this substantiated? by drom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --

    --
    python -c "import string,re;print string.join(map(lambda x:chr(string.atoi(x,36)),re.findall('..','2z2t2x36
  3. View from the other trench by USC-MBA · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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

  4. DON'T SELL OUT TO MILLIONAIRES by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  5. Re:Lelyveld's comments by imadork · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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...)

  6. Another Applicable Quote by ginbot462 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion