Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood's DRM Agenda Moving Forward
risingphoenix writes "The New York Times has a story about the progress Hollywood has made putting Digtal Rights Management in the marketplace. The story focuses on what technology is currently in place; what the next moves, technically and legally, are for the industry and how consumers are being affected by Hollywoods power grab."
The only address I could find is letters@nytimes.com which will be directed to the letters editor (duh) but perhaps one could try amy.harmon@nytimes.com or a.harmon@nytimes.com or some other variation.
If anyone *does* find her direct address, pls post.
I wish the evil ones would just hurry up and bring all of this out. Put the DRM tech in whatever they want. Then try to sell it. The sooner they just do it the sooner I can go on and not buy a damn bit of it. They can stack all of that crap right there with all those copy protected CD's I'm not buying any longer. Or as Clint Eastwood might say, "Go ahead, make my Millenium."
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
While the economy and stock markets struggled, 2002 was a golden year for the silver screen. Thanks to blockbuster hits such as Spider-Man, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings, ticket sales hit $9.3 billion worldwide, a remarkable 13% rise over 2001's then-record receipts. So much for claims that piracy threatens Hollywood's livelihood.
decently done article, not toooooo long
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Is it possible that the MPAA is intentionally pushing the home theater as the Theater of the Future(tm)?
I think so. The filmmakers get rid of an entire distribution system and it's costs, and replace it with equipment that the customer has to buy. The shifting of cost to the customer results in increased profits.
If they get away with the first step, the next thing I'd expect is movie rental prices that vary depending on the playback equipment. IE, you pay one price for playback on plain TV's with up to 30 inch sceens, and higher prices for bigger screens, HTDV and/or better audio. They'll justify this by claiming that you use a bigger screen because you're playing back to a bigger audience. Eventually, they'll demand that the playback equipment be able to count the number of viewers and refuse to play if you didn't pay a suffucent rental fee.
While the MPAA has a "piracy" problem, I would like to know how much of that is due to commercial efforts especially in the developing areas of the world. Personally, I think that the "solution" is to aggressively pursue those making profits off their efforts and ignore the people who trade the grainy previews. Instead of DRM, why not commit to a common digital signature format. Player software would detect the signature, and _WARN_ if it is not present. Have a bounty for reporting illegally applied signatures, and a clearing house which allows the measuring of actual profits for any signature. The presumption is that in general, people do recognize that they should pay for entertainment, as long as they can do WHAT they want with their copies. The existence of unlabelled, hard to transfer content should be a competitor to the otherwise monopolistic scenario. Is the price and terms so onerous that your customers spend the time to get it elsewhere? And the ones that will copy, will copy. But maybe when they grow up, they'll want the "platinum memorial edition" of the titles they used to watch.
It's simple really the content industries will take as much of your rights as you are willing to allow them. If we the consumers do not fight for the right to do with what we purchase what we want to then I will be the first to welcome you to a world where pay per view is your only option. We must smack the hand of the congress people and the bank accounts of the movie and recording companies as they grab for more of the few rights we have left to us. Let them scream it is online file sharing reducing their profits we must simply scream louder that it's their attempted theft of our rights causing us not to buy the products they produce. Boycott for your rights, boycott for a future where you can legally own content instead of renting it, Boycott for your children's future.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
Why? Because digital video production is getting pretty cheap these days. Music production is even cheaper. The more Hollywood cracks down, the more opportunities there will be for grassroots art produced for love instead of money, or for tipping and Street Performer systems.
If Hollywood wants to abandon the most effective marketing system ever invented, I say let them!
WTF dude. Not only are you giving them money to use to take away from computers, you're parroting that tired old line that "I wouldn't have bought/seen them anyway" to justify stealing. If you want to stop this, then stop giving them money so they can't implement these things, and also don't copy things illegally since you're just giving them reasons to take away computers. This isn't really about piracy anyway. It's about control. They're no different than the scribes who got the government to restrict the printing press a few hundred years ago (look up "Stationers Guild" and "printing press") and was the reason why freedom of speech and of the press are in the Bill of Rights. You're doing exactly what they want: giving them money and an excuse to fuck you and everyone else.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Congratulations. Unlike the greedy little so-and-sos in Hollywood, you are thinking clearly, and have identified the core problem. However, to get to the beginnings of a solution, you need to throw out a few more assumptions.
Consider the reality of computers and digital media. Computers are machines that, among other things, make perfect copies of digital information. Indeed, computers as we understand them would not be able to function without this ability. Because of this, every computer is like a completely independent factory, fully capable of churning out artifacts identical in quality and characteristics to that of a "manufacturer." Thus, everyone who owns a computer possesses their very own fully-operational factory, which may be turned to whatever purpose its owner wishes. The distinction between a "user" and a "manufacturer", therefore, ceases to exist; all users are likewise manufacturers.
These characteristics have always been true of computers, nor have they ever been secret. Now, given this cold, hard reality, what kind of cretin would create a business model fundamentally based on their company being the sole source of manufactured artifacts, given that all their "customers" are also manufacturers?
It's a mug's game from the word, "Go," and anyone who tells you different has designs on your wallet.
The "solutions" proposed by Hollywood attempt, from a technological point of view, to establish themselves as a sole source -- the only operating factory. To do so, they would need to eliminate all the other factories that aren't theirs, and they propose to do this through Digital Restrictions Mechanisms, eliminating their customers manufacturing capabilities. But to eliminate that capability would be to destroy computers as we know them today. This is why computer scientists and professionals have been laughing in Hollywood's face every time they've raised this issue:
Computers and digital media -- by definition -- come with manufacturing (copying) abilities. You can't eliminate copying without destroying the very computer you're trying to harness.
(Hollywood seems to think that Silicon Valley's inastringency on this issue is born out of politics or petty personality conflicts (since that's the sort of game Hollywood plays all the time). It's not. What they want was proved impossible by Turing decades ago, but they don't get that. It's difficult to explain to someone illiterate in math that 2 + 2 does not and never can equal 5. "Just change the value of 2," they say. Well, then it wouldn't be 2 anymore, would it? ...I digress)
So. If we accept that eliminating all the competing factories out there is Just Not Going To Happen -- that you can never realistically be the sole source of any artifact -- what can you control? What scarce resources do you still control that can't (easily) be taken from you or diluted?
I don't have a complete answer yet. ("WHAT!? I read that whole rant for nothing!?") However, I am firmly convinced that a lasting, workable solution will be founded on giving you control of your time and your reputation. The core idea is that you will build a reputation for yourself -- say, by releasing little code trinkets on the net -- that will draw people to you seeking your expertise. Once done, you charge them for your time, which is still a scarce resource that can't be copied by computers.
The reason I feel this will be important is because I foresee that, one day, physical objects will become as easy to duplicate as digital objects. When that day comes, if we haven't worked out a new socio-economic model that acknowledges and permits free copying to exist, we are fscked. Think Global Civil War-level fscked. You think BMW's just going to let you make copies of their cars? Dream on, loser. It's not gonna happen -- unless they've been slowly weaned into the idea through the socio-economic model built around computers and digital media.
I do not have the Jeffersonian measure of wisdom required to design this new framework entirely on my own, which is why I encourage further discussion on the issue. But the bottom line is, computers have changed the rules. There is now a factory in every home, and scarcity is now a completely artificial construct. Every day we refuse to acknowledge this is another day that we've needlessly screwed ourselves.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Please don't say "lower prices" because that's just a rationalization that they're somehow forcing pirates to do it.
Making a moral argument that "Folks who create intangibles are as entitled to compensation as people who build bridges." doesn't remove the problem. I think it creates problems because people will try and hammer reality to fit their beliefs.
Information costs almost ZERO to duplicate. This will always be the case. It costs something to create, but not to duplicate. To me, that suggests that the price of copies should very low, and the price of originals (concerts, let's say) should be higher.
Now, you don't want anyone to say "lower prices", how about "higher value"? I have no idea what that would be, but maybe they should just stop selling "CDs" and start selling something collectible that happens to have music in it, I have no idea. I buy all my CDs out of principle (NO major labels though) so I personally don't need this incentive.
Which brings me to another point, will people stop buying music completely if both legit and non-legit copies are available? I don't think so. I think there will always be people who PAY for their copies, for various reasons. But the music corps have to lower their expectations.
Another point: Why do we even HAVE a global music industry? Why isn't music a local thing: you go to a concert, you talk to the band, you buy their CD out of loyalty and excitement. Why are there superstars at all?
If you're against intellectual property in general, just skip this, because the industry is never going to work for free, nor accept your suggestion, nor IMHO should they.
Well, I'm not against trademarks or (most) patents, but I definitely think the concept of copyright is completely broken. It should last 20-30 years, and it should not be a crime to copy without profit. To my mind, this is an capitalistic puzzle: why do you punish people who create a more efficient market? (Yes I understand the argument about giving incentive but there's a balance between giving incentives and forcing people to find their own incentives).
Maybe we should just let things alone, and let people who grew up in this environment figure out a way to benefit from it. Let the principles of capitalism find a way. I believe that forcing people to TRY to make money will be much better than creating a market through government regulation. And we shouldn't be afraid to say "what if it's NOT POSSIBLE to have a music industry any more? what if the music industry has to come back down to earth? what if people can only reliably be paid for creating, not for copying (commissioning a song for a TV commercial, for instance)? What if there IS NO BUSINESS MODEL for albums?".
But, ranting aside, you and I both know that the music industry will regulate and legislate. And their legislation will not strike any balances, and it won't create any new opportunities, and it won't give incentives to anyone unless they use the old business models. Too bad.
I agree - In fact, in my opinion, a company using copy restriction devices is effectively taking the law into their own hands and should lose any protection afforded them by law.
That is:
Company A releases a regular music CD. It is protected by copyright law.
Company B releases a copy-restricted music CD. Because Company B has taken the law into their own hands, the album would not be elegible for copyright protection under the law.
This idea surely would not be popular with IP companies, but is interesting from a pro-consumer standpoint..