Slashdot Mirror
The MPAA's Lobbying-Fu is Stronger Than Yours
georgelazenby writes "The Frisco Chronicle reports: While the music industry has been clumsily bullying its way through the federal government, the movie industry has taken a more subtle -- and more effective -- approach. The MPAA has been lobbying individual state legislatures to pass laws reaching far beyond the original DMCA. The proposed laws would permit cable TV companies to 'limit subscribers to using only certain brands of VCRs and could ban TiVo in favor of their own proprietary PVR technologies.' According to one expert, the bills are 'tremendously open-ended and create theoretical and potential criminal liabilities for just about anybody on the planet.'"
Let's encourage them. I'd love to see the MPAA convince some state to ban Tivo's. That will be the end of them, and good riddance.
Interesting dynamic that these two groups are taking.
The RIAA is doing a loud, "hey, look, we're gonna erase files and crash your computer" thing, whereas the MPAA is going around quietly passing bills without any press releases or announcements. Wonder which one will be more successful... from the sounds of it, the MPAA has already had a fair amount of success, having their "super-DMCA" laws passed in 6 states and pending in five more. It certainly seems a more proactive approach than the RIAA, but I don't think either will end up working in the end, since MPAA's plans are basically monopolising (you can ONLY use THESE) and the RIAA's plans are basically hacking (you aren't allowed to have these files! DELETE DELETE DELETE)
[insert witty comment here]
Without sounding like I'm supporting the MPAA on this (which I most certainly not), one has to at least appreciate the MPAA's awareness of the future of piracy. The fact of the matter is that widespread piracy of DVDs and movies on the scale of MP3s -- that is, copies of the movies that are of such quality as to be almost indistinguishable from the original, as with MP3s -- just isn't here yet. The average user simply does not have the capacity or ability to simply hop on some p2p network and download and burn DVD-quality full length feature films -- yet. A few years down the road, it might not be such an issue to download say, a 1 gig movie, burn it to DVD-R, and watch it in your DVD player with no appreciable loss of quality. The MPAA isn't so much concerned about the (relatively) low quality movies floating around Kazaa today -- they're concerned about tomorrow. And one at least has to respect, however grudgingly, their foresight and awareness of the future -- contrasted with the "catch-up" that the RIAA is playing right now.
First a quote from Dinsdale "DVDs are protected to the hilt," he said "It plays by the rules and ends up being a great consumer experience."
My ass. It makes it a way for me to have to sit through a FBI warning, and as is the case from some of the newer DVD's to have to watch trailers, (read commercials). I dont want that in something I have bought, or rented.
So what can a legal owner or renter of a DVD do? Play it with Linux? Yeah, but then I break the law.
These folks gotta get with the program (pun intended) I want to watch the damn movie!
As an aside: I have not been to a movie theatre in 5 years and I am not about to go anytime soon. When all of them became tiny little multiplexes I just couldn't enjoy it anymore.
Screw you MPAA.
Actually, that's just what it will take if media corporations expect to survive.
There are two futures:
1) Corporate IP dies and we move to a gift economy.
2) We have to be able to prove ownership every binary string we control on demand.
I vote for a gift economy.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Given that many commercial PVRs call home, if the MPAA has it's way, they'll get all the subscriber lists and track down each and every unit.
They'll treat PVR owners like criminals (look at law-abiding gun owners for examples of how your basic rights can be abused), and unless you can come up with enough money to buy a law keeping them from sticking it to you, you're going to have to take it. Or else, become a criminal, and hide your PVR in your basement...
I find it ironic that there's a Ad Council spot with a bunch of parishoners holding church services in somebody's basement because they're afraid they'll be arrested, and then afterwards a little blurb about how we should be thankful for freedom of religion. At the rate our rights are getting bought out by the corporations (who although are legal entities, aren't even voting citizens, damnit) freedom of religion is probably all we'll have left - and that's if we're lucky.
As with everything in life there are exeptions but as far as the general impression I get from USA these days..I'm simply disgusted.. disgusted in that the american people let Bush steal the election (YEA HE DID!!).. disgusted in how the american government has abused the WTC catastrophy to get all sorts of severely abusive laws in place and how the public has let them.. disgusted at how fucked up the american so called justice system is, they call it justice but it does nothing but fulfill a lot of triggerhappy gunslinging angry revengeful peoples thirst for blood.. America has gone from admireable to just downright disgusting.. I pray and hope that the majority of the American population will see the light soon and DO something about the situation instead of just sitting idly by. I get blased with ppl telling me that the general american population does NOT agree with what the government is doing but until all those who claim to be part of that need to GET OFF THEIR ASSES and DO something about the situation and then you need to come join the rest of the world instead of seeing yourself as superior to everyone else, as history proves over and over and over again.. whenever someone think they're better than anyone else.. there will be revolution. I feat that WTC was just the start of that.
Please dont ruin the world and freedom for the rest of us.
Back in the day, the commoners were only allowed to read the bible. People were persecuted for writing books with "subversive" or "heretical" thoughts and others for reading them. Scientists and scholars alike lived under the yoke of the church.
:)
Fast forward back to today.
We are on the precipace of a technological dark age.
Basic freedoms are being summarily dismissed when it comes to anything "technological" under the guise of "Intellectual Property and Copywrite Protection" as well as "Security Considerations"
Think I'm paranoid?
Maybe, but here's a couple quick comparisons:
1600AD: All one has to do is cry " Witch!!" and the accused was immediately persecuted.
2003AD: All one has to say is "MP3 Pirate!!!" And that person is immediately subject to persecution.
1632AD: Galileo's The Dialogue Concerning the Chief World Systems was printed -- The ideas in this book leads to his arrest/trail/imprisonment
2001AD: Dmitry Sklyarov arrested for writing software that was alleged to violate the DMCA
Ironic ain't it
Now that presupposes that the decriminalisation of cannabis will lead to increased drug exporting. On the contrary, I personally expect that it will increase tourism. Why would someone risk getting arrested for transporting pot across the border when they could simply smoke it in Canada?
Walters said a flood of Canadian pot moving south becomes an American problem, meaning increased border patrols.
Increased border patrols? Moreso than they already are, what with the terrorist attacks and general threats that the US always seems to be coming up with, I don't see how they could increase border patrols, or even security at border crossings!
If we were sending toxic substances to your young people, you would be and should be upset.
Now this begs the point be made of what a toxic substance is. THC bonds naturally to receptors found in the brain--a perfect fit. Other drugs (the more 'serious' drugs) do not fit perfectly with the genetic structure of the human body, but pot does.
If the American government wants to, they can certainly exert pressure on other governments into changing their laws
Again, this is untrue. When was the last time that Canada changed their laws, simply because the US wanted them to? Canada is a free country and our Government (which, unlike the Bush administration was elected) is fully able to hold their own in any battle with the US government. Right now International sentiment is against the US, particularly the Bush administration, and I don't think that the US gov't has any effect on Canadian laws, be it either digital media laws or drug laws.
In order to be immortal you must be organize
True. Europe is working on this. But our juridical (is that english?:)) system has more ways to protect individuals than in the USA. We don't have tons of blackmail agreements ("You pledge guilty and get 5 years or you go to court and possibly get 20 years") to handle a case outside of court or a point-system - a case without a trial is considered not done in Europe. Furhermore in our system a case against a large company won't leave you bankrupt even before trial. So I'd say Europe is suited a lot better than the USA to protect individuals against such ridiculous legislature.
0x or or snor perron?!
You put the latest James Bond movie in your player, and your player (by law) automatically connects with your bank and credit card accounts. It sees you have made several purchases of Pepsi products in the past year, but no Coca Cola products. Unfortunately, as Coca Cola is a major advertiser^Wsponsor of the movie, you are barred from watching it -- it's required by law that you purchase products associated with "sponsors" in order to "protect the artists" who are making films. A pleasant voiceover says you must make a purchase of at least $45.83 in Coca Cola products to be qualified for the film.
Joking aside, the disrespect these organizations (and their backers) show for their consumers is astounding. This bunker mentality is resulting in an unnecessary war which both the recording/movie industries and consumers will lose. The industries will lose because people will stop buying their products. The consumers will lose due to the laws restricting their legal rights.
Move over government, this is the century of the mega-corp.
-Thomas
The following scenarios are why the MPAA and this corporate IP nonsense needs to be stopped.
... transmit, [or] re-transmit" any communication service without the "express authorization" of the communication service provider."[1] The benevolent provider when pushed to find a reason to terminate the user's connectivity - can easily find one. And then the MPAA and RIAA can do as they wish with you.
Your cable provider sends a notice to all of its customers. It says that due to recent changes in local legislation that only Dell GX150 Desktop machines can be used with their cable internet service. All other equipment is no longer authorized to connect to the internet via the cable service. This then qualifies all non Dell GX150 devices that are communicating with the cable network as "unauthorized"[1]. Depending on how the courts interpret the law - this could make all "unauthorized communications devices"[1] (non-GX150), "unlawful access devices"[1]. A user in possession of an unlawful access device could then be prosecuted under this law for using a system that is not a Dell GX150.
Certainly that is an extreme example though not completely implausible under the current stipulations in the law. It would be useful though to examine a more realistic scenario:
The law is passed in your state legislature - but there are no apparent changes in policy with your service provider (the aforementioned cable provider). In the coming months and years after the law is passed, the MPAA and RIAA find out that there is a "malicious" user illegally "swapping" large amounts of "unlicensed" music in the form of MP3's over the cable provider's network. The RIAA and MPAA approach the cable provider about this user and threaten legal action against the cable company if it does not terminate the user's connectivity. The cable company, would have an easy time under this law finding "unauthorized" devices that are connected to their network,. There are provisions that make it a "crime to "receive
The real problem with this law is the broad terminology used and the fact that it can be so easily used to deny ANYONE communications services. The term "communications device" can mean anything. The dictionary definition of the term "device" could be argued to include network protocols as a "device for communicating", or even software that you have written that uses a network provided by someone else. The ambiguous terms defined in most of the versions of this law such as "communications devices" are dangerous for end users because they leave so much open for definition and interpretation. They are designed to target end users, so that the creators and proponents of this bill may engage users in direct or indirect legal action. An area where individuals are not well equipped to defend themselves.
These scenarios listed here are just the beginning - the implications of this facet of the law are not limited to just the Music industry or consumers. They apply to communications everywhere.
The simple matter of it is - this law is an "Exploit". The MPAA and RIAA are implementing the law and variations of it in the state legislatures because they are lower profile areas where legislators are less cognoscente of the implications of this bill. As a result this law will/has already grant the RIAA/MPAA the ability to influence those who do not have significant legal clout to do as they would see fit. Though, the MPAA and RIAA are only the most immediate concerns - the broad and general definitions laid out in this law can be used by any entity to deny communications services to an individual or organization. Fred von Lohmann speaks of transferring law enforcement from public to private hands, this is exactly that. Though, law enforcement is the exclusive domain of the Government. This law bypasses our legal system and allows other parties to prosecute under the guise of a "law". The only reason this can happen is that the state legislators have and insufficient understanding of the implications of s
Ayn Rand said it far better than I could, here:
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
WRONG. Shakespeare sold his plays to companies of players who performed them. The performances themselves netted Shakespeare nothing, but the sale of the play is where he made his living.
Really? I can't imagine why you don't let everyone else in on your thorough knowledge of his history. Is the deer poaching story true?
As far as the rest of the world knows, Shakespeare more or less appeared on the London scene suddenly sometime around 1592, with his popular Henry VI. Henslowe had been performing it. The theaters shut down on account of plague pretty much through the beginning of 1593 through spring of 1594; Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to support himself with the stage, so he worked on Venus and Adonis which was basically supported through patronage. He also probably was writing sonnets around this time.
The way that Shakespeare finally made his fortune though was that as the playing companies reassembled in London, he became a shareholder in the newly formed Lord Chamberlain's Men (so named because their patron was Lord Hunsdon, who was the Chamberlain of Queen Elizabeth). Though he was a minor shareholder (fitting, given that he hadn't invested as much as others), he got a cut of the profits made from EVERY performance. He still acted in the plays, and fortunately for him, the L.C.M. became very popular. But bear in mind that they were a repertoire company.
Due to various problems with their landlord and their neighbors, the L.C.M. found themselves needing a new playhouse. So they dismantled their favored one, The Theatre, hauled it across the river, and rebuilt it as The Globe. The Globe was owned by a group of investors: the Burbages, and five of the L.C.M. including Shakespeare. The Burbages paid half the lease and took a half share, and the actors paid the other half of the lease and took the other half share. Thus Shakespeare got 10% of the profits from ANYTHING performed there. This money was then invested in real estate back in his hometown of Stratford.
He _did_ sell the plays he wrote to the acting company, that's true. But his pay for that was, again, based on attendance. Playwrights got a share of the admissions paid. And that was payment basically for his labor. It could not be expected repeatedly, and why should it? There weren't any copyrights. And other actors would sit in the audience, memorize the lines, or get ahold of copies of the script, and put on their own performances without paying a penny.
Frankly, I'd imagine that Shakespeare made more money as an actor than he did as a playwright. And it's certain that he made more money as an investor than he did as a playwright either.
Creators have perpetual rights to their creations. Our society seizes works after a time "to promote science and the useful arts."
Well you're just the stupidest person alive.
Riddle me this: Where in the Constitution does it say that copyrights MUST be granted?
Never mind, I'll answer for you, since you're such a moron. It doesn't say that. It gives Congress the POWER to grant them, but doesn't require any action to be taken. It is like the power to declare war, or raise taxes, or establish a post office; it is something that may be done, or not, at Congress' whim.
The first act, of 1790, only granted copyrights to Americans. If they were alive. And applied for a copyright. And only if it was for a book or a map.
Everyone else -- foreigners, dead authors, people who created but didn't apply for a copyright, people who weren't authors or cartographers (e.g. painters, sculptors, musicians, architects, etc.) -- could kindly go to hell.
They had no rights to their creation. And they certainly had no perpetual rights; that's madness.
And nothing was ever seized. The author could, at best go from having NO rights, to having ONLY those rights granted to him by the government, to having no rights again on account of his artifical rights coming with an expiration date attached.
Think of it
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.