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.'"

75 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Control by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ban TiVo in favor of their own proprietary PVR technologies

    How would something like this be enforced? House inspections?

    1. Re:Control by IvyMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the cable companies and the government made it illegal for TiVo to carry schedules for their cable programming, for example.

      Yeah, I know it sounds ridiculous, but these things always do.

  2. Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >According to one expert, the bills
    >are 'tremendously open-ended and create
    >theoretical and potential criminal liabilities
    >for just about anybody on the planet.'"

    What planet? Planet America? US laws sure don't reach us in Europe.

    1. Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. by MrBoombasticfantasti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except for the fact that the EU only seems to lag behind a couple of years in passing these same sort of laws. You name 'm: DMCA has its equal in EUCD. Don't believe that Europe is a safe haven, it's just that passing these kind of laws take some more time because of the internal turmoil in the council. This really is the end of an era. (Book soon to follow: "The rise and fall of Western civilisation".)

      --
      !ERR: Signature not found.
    2. Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. by neurostar · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... or your country gets occupied?

      Ahem... you must have missed the memo...
      Countries are no longer 'occupied'. The correct (newspeak) term is 'liberated'.
      Thank you for your compliance^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hunderstanding
      ;)

      neurostar
    3. Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. by videodriverguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Try explaining that to DVD Jon in Norway - I'm fairly certain he would disagree with you.

      For the rest of us out here in the rest of the world (outside the USA), the reach of American corporate interests is pretty amazing.

    4. Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. by aarondyck · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. by novakreo · · Score: 3, Funny

      (which, unlike the Bush administration was elected)

      Dubya is currently enjoying his second term as U.S. President, after being re-elected in the 2002 presidential election. While the legality of the 2000 election is dubious, I haven't heard anyone seriously question the 2002 one.

      --
      O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
    6. Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. by SDF-7 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmm... I'm hoping you're not a US citizen, because if you are -- you really slept through civics, didn't you?

      2002 did not feature a presidential election. The presidential election cycle is 4 years, so the next one is in 2004. Bush is still in his first term.

      The House has elections every two years, and the Senators have a six year election cycle (but are 'staggered' so that 1/3 of the Senate is in an election cycle every two years). Perhaps you meant that the reasonably strong Republican showing in the 2002 elections was a good sign for Bush... I doubt it, but that's the most generous interpretation I could give you.

  3. Good for the MPAA by phr2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Good for the MPAA by silentbozo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That will be the end of them, and good riddance.

      The end of the MPAA or the end of the Tivo? There are only 650,000 Tivo subscribers. Cutting off part of their market could easily kill the company (especially if a cable monopoly decides to standardize on the lowest common denominator, and bans Tivos even in states where Tivos are still legal, just because a big chunk of their cable network is in a Tivo-illegal state.) You don't want them to be hogtied until someone overturns the law in court - they might be bankrupt by then. Best thing to do is preemptively fight (for example, the SonicBlue subscribers preemptively sued the studios for the right to use ReplayTV units to timeshift and share shows.)

      Don't let the enemy define where and when you fight - you must be the one to control the battlefield.

  4. Diversity of the **AAs by Snover · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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]
  5. You are missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having a system where everybody is a criminal and anybody can be arrested whenever the government want to is scary beyond imagination.

    1. Re:You are missing the point. by youaredan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can you say tyranny? Look mommy! The great country of America allows us to enjoy that flower over there! Can I have $5 to pay the associated tax?

      --
      -Digital Extremist // digitale
    2. Re:You are missing the point. by Kinetix303 · · Score: 2

      *sigh* No no no. You've got it all wrong. The Bush government *cuts* taxes.

      They just impose levies and tariffs. ;)

    3. Re:You are missing the point. by youaredan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thats remeniscent of classifying a bug as an "undocumented feature"

      --
      -Digital Extremist // digitale
    4. Re:You are missing the point. by setmajer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Having a system where everybody is a criminal and anybody can be arrested whenever the government want to is scary beyond imagination.
      You mean we don't have that already?

      --

    5. Re:You are missing the point. by Malicious · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What's worse than that is the fact that you no longer need to be a citizen of the United States to be charged under these laws.


      It would appear that every human on the planet is set to suffer, because the average American doesn't *really* care about their freedom

      --
      01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    6. Re:You are missing the point. by Thing+1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Having a system where everybody is a criminal and anybody can be arrested whenever the government want to is scary beyond imagination.

      Ayn Rand said it far better than I could, here:

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    7. Re:You are missing the point. by merlyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd say we do.

  6. Laws are a disease by Snover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As unfortunate as it is, many laws that stem from the United States DO carry over to other countries. That's just how things work with the US being such a great superpower in the world. One can only hope that other countries will have more sense than Bush and his cronies.

    --

    [insert witty comment here]
    1. Re:Laws are a disease by aarondyck · · Score: 5, Informative

      many laws that stem from the United States DO carry over to other countries

      I would choose to politely disagree. Look at Canada as an example: We are right next to the US, but do we see any effect from these laws? The DMCA certainly doesn't apply here, and when was the last time you heard of a Canadian being prosecuted for copyright violations?

      This is not limited to technical issues either. If one were to look at the current issues (I was just reading about this on MSN last night, in fact, although I don't believe it was carried on the US msn site): The US has stated that they will impose sanctions against Canada if we decriminalise marijuana...of course, those sanctions would be in violation of NAFTA and the US would have to repeal them shortly after they were put in place. In short, US law simply does not apply in Canada. In fact, not even US moral standards apply in Canada. Should these laws be passed, I doubt that Rogers, Shaw or Cogeco (the three largest cable providers in Canada) would even consider adopting these stances. Canada is a much more liberal country and does not fall into the jurisdiction of US law.

    2. Re:Laws are a disease by aarondyck · · Score: 2, Informative

      The softwood lumber tariff had 100% to do with the fact that the Canadian Government was (and still is) subsidizing the lumber industry. That is entirely different. Good point, though!

    3. Re:Laws are a disease by inaeldi · · Score: 2, Informative
      Just like European steel is subsidized?

      (If you don't know the background story, the US put tariffs on European steel, saying that it's subsidized and whatnot. The WTO found that it wasn't, the US was wrong, and European countries are now allowed to sue the US for billions. One story is here.)

      The idea of the forestry being subsidized is just the US government's excuse.

    4. Re:Laws are a disease by zmooc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?!
    5. Re:Laws are a disease by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would choose to politely disagree. Look at Canada as an example: We are right next to the US, but do we see any effect from these laws?

      While it does seem that the DMCA hasn't polluted Canada's legal system yet, it is far from a closed issue. Canada has a stiff media levy, and is considering upping the rate. Moreover, this levy is specifically intended as a levy for making private copies of the music a consumer has already purchased, trampling the notion of archival copies (not to mention fining people for backing up their own data on CDR).

      Here's the proposed "Private Copying" legislation.

      The CCFDA is working with Industry and Heritage Canada to stop the newly purposed levy that would see the cost of a pack of 100 blank CD soar 181 per cent. Currently, a pack of 100 blank CDs includes a levy of $21 on a retail price that averages $50. If the Canadian Private Copying Collective's (CPCC) proposal is approved, this levy could average $59 per pack at an average retail price of $88 plus tax, said Diane Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada.

    6. Re:Laws are a disease by archen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Strange how everyone cites Bush as being a bad guy, but funny thing is that he wasn't in office when stuff like the DMCA started getting passed (around the world I might add). Realize that it's not BUSH and HIS cronies. Does Hillary strike you as being one of Bush's cronies as well?

    7. Re:Laws are a disease by Snover · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As we have seen, unfortunately, the US has no problem breaking international law. Just look at what we did in Iraq -- went in without support of the United Nations, violated the Geneva Convention by showing and holding prisoners of war in sensory deprivation, all for the sake of finding these mysterious weapons "of mass destruction" --of which, I might add, a whole 0 have been found.

      It doesn't even stop there. The United States government uses propaganda tactics to make what they're doing look legal to the US public, when, most obviously, it is not.

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
  7. Hats off to them... by neksys · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. DVD's schemes SUCK by westyvw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Have you joined EFF yet? by Ms.G_Austin · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    ~ Ms.G {at} NoitacudE [dot]com "Turn it around..."
  10. Read about the legislation by Piquan · · Score: 5, Informative

    While I like the article, it doesn't link to anything for the reader to make their own comparison.

    The EFF has a Super-DMCA archive, with analyses, the templates the MPAA gives to state legislatures, and info on the individual states.

    The MPAA has an anti-piracy statement, and press releases relating to legislation , but I was unable to find anything specifically discussing these particular laws after a brief search.

  11. On Demand House Inspections by mindpixel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:On Demand House Inspections by mindpixel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The law is unenforceable without on demand inspections. Any packaged string can always be resampled from analog and move out into the wild.

      It will be up to individuals in the future to decide the value of and reward the creators of binary strings.

    2. Re:On Demand House Inspections by AndyS · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Both of you seem to be very black and white on this.

      I download a fair few things - Macgyver, old eighties cartoons that are impossible to find, Buffy and Angel episodes and Futurama. Why? Because I can't watch most of them.

      I own Buffy seasons 1-4 on DVD, I want Angel as soon as I can afford it, and Buffy season 5. I'm waiting for some bright soul to realise that releasing the Mysterious Cities of Gold on DVD with English audio would be really smart, I'll still buy stuff. However, if I can't find something or watch it, then I will obtain it through other means.

      I see the future as containing significantly more DRM, but also not a complete absolutism. People will cheat - they will always have friends who can obtain something, but it will be so much easier to obtain something legally, rather than trying to find an obscure film on Kazaa - you'll be able to select it in the same way that the iTunes library works, possibly even better. And when these systems fall down, piracy will fill in the cracks. Much like today.

      The only really massive downsides is that this might really limit the difference between the theatrical release of a film and when it appears on DVD/Interest stores. But I think that all of the industries will adapt - they've done it before.

    3. Re:On Demand House Inspections by droleary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any packaged string can always be resampled from analog and move out into the wild.

      This sort of thing is of great interest to me. The issues here are actually twofold. First is that some generic idea of "content" can be represented by multiple bit streams. Never mind resampling; how many different ways are there to encode a specific song? The combinations of different bit rates, different encoders, and different formats is staggering. Somehow, all those series of ones and zeros are going to be assigned (in theory) to the copyright holder? Maybe, but consider . . .

      The second part of the problem is that a series of ones and zeros is meaningless without context. The decoding algorithm comes into play. What do you do if your nice new piece of software just happens to tar+gzip (or in some other way get encoded) into something that can be decoded, in whole or in part, by some music software to an mp3 of the latest manufactured band? It's like the illegal prime. Any laws that get passed regarding digital content without a lot of insight are going to leave things a real mess in the future.

    4. Re:On Demand House Inspections by Piquan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not weighing in an opinion on whether illegal copying is right or wrong, but your argument has problems.

      However, if the seller doesn't want to sell me a copy, I'll just steal it instead.

      The MPAA/RIAA justify their losses due to piracy by implying that each copy represents a lost sale. In your widget scenario, you have lost a widget. If the widget were data (and was not secret), then you have lost nothing at all from somebody copying. You can't even use the MPAA's argument of losing a sale, because you have already refused the sale at any price.

      If you have refused the sale, then how can you claim a loss was incurred from somebody making a copy? If there is something that caused him to gain, and nobody to lose-- even the loss of a potential sale-- then how can this be considered wrong?

    5. Re:On Demand House Inspections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is that some modern unifying variation of newspeak? We have different words for theft and copyright infringement because they are fundamentally different. There's still theft, but copyright infringement is different, so it's called by a different name. Come to think about it, theft and rape are unnecessary distinctions too. Let's call 'em all "bad". That should simplify the legislative process a lot: "Don't do bad deeds" should wrap it up nicely.

    6. Re:On Demand House Inspections by shepd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >or the culture is going to shift and people are going to start paying for things again instead of stealing them (net result: good for everybody).

      The culture isn't going to shift until people such as yourself stop referring to simple copyright violation as such a heinous crime as theft.

      In society, when a law is ignored en masse, it shows a flaw in the system. For exmaple, take speed limits. They never prevented a fast driver from causing an accident (don't believe me? Check your newspaper for the next high-speed deadly street racing collision -- only a driver's judgement prevents accidents), and it would take draconian measures to the point of absurdity for the law to be successful.

      Or, for example, take the fact that time shifting was illegal in the US prior to the BetaMax ruling. The fact it was illegal made no difference to anyone commiting the crime.

      Some would suggest increasing punishments will stop people from commiting the crimes. Current drug laws prove this is a fallacy. The fact that downloading an MP3 makes you vulnerable to 5 years of pound-me-in-the-ass penetentiary rather than the few days it really should be (if jail is needed) hasn't made any difference. Does a night in the slammer stop a drunk from drinking? Does losing a job stop a barfight? Do satellite raids and cease and desist letters keep pirated TV off the streets? Does risking your marriage keep people from visiting whores?

      No.

      Most of the time people follow their own rules in a free society, despite whatever the laws state, unless they feel sure to be caught (draconian society, usually) or that the consequences are so extreme the risk isn't worth it (I suppose a minimum death penalty for certain crimes without any option for parole fits in here, because most lifers never thought they'd be there for life). Fortunately, the vast majority of people are adverse to physical harming each other, and wouldn't dare steal anything much more than some pens from work (and does the possibility of losing your job and spending the night in jail make you want to stop?)

      Patch the flaw and regrow the economy. It's about time. Artists deserve so much more for their hard work than what today's failed laws give them.

      And, part of the patch is to note that people are much more likely to treat others nicely if they're treated well. It's a two way street, and laws like these proposals put 10 ft. sinkholes in that street.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    7. Re:On Demand House Inspections by fyonn · · Score: 2, Informative


      I'm waiting for some bright soul to realise that releasing the Mysterious Cities of Gold on DVD with English audio would be really smart

      not quite what you're after but close. I bought this for some friends, still haven't watched it yet though. I really should.

      http://www.medvale.demon.co.uk/gold.htm

      dave

    8. Re:On Demand House Inspections by Skjellifetti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Information has a time dimension. You may not want to buy a movie for $20 today, but might be willing to wait a year and buy it for $2 in the bargain bin. But if you make an illegal copy today, you won't buy it tomorrow for $2. Further, if you went to the trouble to illegally copy it, that does imply that it had some value to you. Otherwise why bother taking the time to locate it, download it, etc? The MPAA/RIAA have indeed lost something when a potential customer chooses to make an illegal copy today rather than purchase it for less tomorrow.

    9. Re:On Demand House Inspections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I sell Shareware on the 'net. I know my stuff is on zero-day warez sites. But you know what? People who go there to get my software wouldn't have purchased from me anyway. They have to live with their conscious, and sooner or later I believe they will either change or have it come back and bite their ass.

  12. I talked about this... by mraymer · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...in my first and only journal entry. I'm sure it pretty much sums up everything most Slashdotters have to say about DMCA, MPAA, RIAA, and any other pretentious acronyms that I've forgotten. ;)

    http://slashdot.org/~mraymer/journal/

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

  13. This is just another example... by freedomchild · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These lobbying groups have a way of creating the problems that they try to fight.

    For example: way back in 97 people were using IRC and Hotline and FTP to trade music, and it was under the radar to the mainstream. Then Napster comes along and the RIAA takes notice, and a staggering number of news stories announces to the public that it's possible to trade music online. The RIAA was the reason for the popularity of napster. And inderectly they are also responsible for the rise in popularity of trading movies on the net because of the migration to morpheus after napster's demise.

    Lobbying groups like the RIAA and the MPAA are doing a great service to the cause of piracy.

    I wonder why they don't see that.

    --
    We have caught the sniper like a duck in a noose. We understand that hearing us say this is important to you...
  14. In other news.... by zakezuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great! In other news, RIAA proposes a tax on candles stating that, "wax cylinders are are of the earliest recording technoligies, and we are in danger of loosing valuable dollars with this presently unrestricted technology". Also on record, "Candles can be used to create recordings with very low technology, and we can't allow this." This form of piracy has the record companies scared as they tend to burn well destroying all evidence.

    RIAA also plans to sue a little girl in Beaverton Oregon for recording, "Mary had a Little Lamb".

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    1. Re:In other news.... by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 2, Informative
      RIAA also plans to sue a little girl in Beaverton Oregon for recording, "Mary had a Little Lamb".

      This is closer to the truth than you think. ASCAP tried to sue scouting organizations for using campfire songs without permission of the copyright holder. No kidding.

      --
      --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
  15. the biggest problem with the new laws is... by jonwil · · Score: 2, Informative

    That they dont define what constitutes a "communications device" accuratly enough. This leaves a big loophole for the telcos, cable companies etc to exploit.

    For example, is the modem on my desk the "origin/destination of the communications"?
    Is it the port/motherboard/other hardware in the computer? Is it the drivers, network dll files & TCP/IP stack? Is it the internet clients (like Mozilla or Trillian for example)?

  16. Welcome... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...to the world's first IPocracy.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  17. Re:You can have my TiVo... by silentbozo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  18. *knock knock* by -Unholy-Infidel- · · Score: 2, Funny

    Next thing you know two people in suits will be knocking at your door demanding to know what you believe. "Hello. Do you use P2P? Here is the latest edition of Rolling Stone with a special article by Madonna on why you shouldn't share *.mp3's" And I thought that Jehovahs Witnesses were bad.

  19. AMERICA THE DISGUSTING by temporarily anon cowie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  20. Mainstream attention is an unfortunate necessity by philipsblows · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is unfortunate that things have to go this way, but until this silliness is brought home-- literally-- the masses can't get behind any effort to put a stop to it.

    Does the DMCA make life difficult or inconvenient for your family or non-technical friends? Probably not. Not in a way that they notice or associate with anything in particular. Not being able to rip music CDs may impact a reasonable chunk of the voting public, but no critical mass there.

    Wait until your parents want to Tivo their favorite TV show or a movie on a premium station that they pay extra for, but they find out that not only can they not record that show or movie, but in fact the Tivo is not really functional at all anymore... and maybe their VCR doesn't record everything they want, either.

    When voters are effected by this stuff, and when they are effected enough so that they get angry, matters like this will suddenly get the attention they deserve. So long as lobbyists and campaign contributors are the only ones making noise, there won't be anything reasonable coming out of our politicians.

    At least FCC Chairman Michael Powell likes his Tivo, so maybe there will be some advocacy there. Maybe.

  21. The New Millineum same as the Old Millineum by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 :)

  22. US and the world by solanum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know I really couldn't care less what happens in the US, I never intend to visit the place and the more riduculous laws they subject themselves to to, well you 'voted' the guys in, so you have to live with them.
    My problem is that now that the US has officially told the rest of the world you do what we say or else (not that it was much different previously, just a bit more hidden), we find that our governments are doing whatever the US wants. Now I didn't vote for the US government so why do they get jurisdiction over me? Perhaps the whole world should vote for the US government and perhaps the world would be a better place.

    --
    Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
  23. Damnit... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "theoretical and potential criminal liabilities for just about anybody on the planet"

    I was going to say that as someone in the EU, it wouldn't criminilise me....but then I rememebered how all those bad laws are slowly trickling down to the rest of the world. DCMA->EUCD etc.

    Just goes to show what kind of influence you can excert when you spend 40-50% of your national budget on defence^H^H^Hoffense, even when most of your policies aren't well thought out or even just plain wrong.

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  24. Well if VA and other states can do this ... then.. by adzoox · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Virginia and a few other states I know of ban radar detectors. To me, that is an invasion of privacy. A radar detector isn't necessarily used to "break the law" but everyone is guilty of exceeding the speed limit on a daily basis- same as a download of an MP3 isn't ALWAYS breaking the law and lots of people do it on a daily basis.

    One thing I really wish the RIAA and MPAA would SERIOUSLY crack down on and even make REWARD laws to police departments is Flea Markets. My local flea markets are FULL of people selling knockoffs and CDRs of both movies and say 50 cent/Eminem. And yes these people ARE different than file sharers because they are PURPOSELY trying to make money off of someone else's work. They are NOT sharing it without financial gain as "napster/kazaa users do".

    Rather than privacy intrusive laws like the article mentions and really even as DMCA is, I wish states would consider the battle more local and leave the organizations out of it. Instead, be more concerned for the taxable commerce in their state.

    I have always been concerned when the corporate world feels like they have the right to justice on their own without the law. Cable companies, Music companies, Movie companies (most are all 3) are beginning to be able to carry out vigilante justice on the public.

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  25. New MPAA-RIAA-Microsoft intiative. by Martigan80 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Welcome to the land of the free, and the freedom to choose anything you want-just as long as it is our choice, and just as long as you buy it from our "preferred" retailers. Oh did I forget to mention that if you do anything remotely related to copying, fixing, or modifying this thing you will be sued until your whole family is bankrupt and your first-born child is in foster care. Now just sing here-here, and here. Leave one drop of blood for DNA logging ehhm verification. So what is that you would like to buy? Oh did I forget that if you take this out of the country the federal marshals have the right to shoot you? Sorry I forgot that little part.

    --
    This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
  26. ebay to replace congress. by glsunder · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why don't we just skip the formalities and put the laws up on ebay. Yay or Nay, highest bid wins.

    1. Re:ebay to replace congress. by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That idea has been considered.

  27. Re:AMERICA THE DISGUSTING by temporarily anon cowi by DoorFrame · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The majority of the people in the United States support the current government. Look at the poll numbers (67 percent as of last week). Hell, even 71% of Americans were supporting the way in Iraq. To believe that the majority of Americans do not support the current administration is foolhardy.

    That doesn't, of course, mean that they're right about everything. They certainly aren't, but they're also not in the minority. Pretending that they've stolen the popular will, or unfairly snatched an election (the election was too close to call and within the margin of error, neither side would have been able to claim a clear victory, no matter what any court, or any liberal, might want to say) just isn't fair. If you've got a problem with policies, argue the policies. Calling the President names and implying that he's illegitimate isn't practical.

    I don't see any more problems in America then I do in the rest of the free world. I've seen enough "human rights" cases going before the EU Court to make me want to retch. I've seen Australians constantly having ridiculous laws passed by their parliament. And hell, don't get me started about the messes in Asia, Africa and South America. I don't think that my country is perfect, but it's damned better off than most countries and will continue to be so as long as we're able to maintain our national charachter.

    The MPAA is a red herring. Don't worry about silly DMCA laws quite so much. They're bad, but they're not the end of the world.

  28. Worst-case scenario by Tomster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Worst-case scenario by jafuser · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot to mention the winners: the laywers.

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
  29. TN law not from MPAA? Or is the rep duped? by rknop · · Score: 5, Informative

    After sending forward the EFF's letter, as well as one of my own through physical mail, I got an E-mail message from Rob Briley, the TN House rep supporting the TN law. He said that those who opposed the law hadn't read the amendment, and that terrible amounts of misinformation were being spread about it. (I wrote back telling him that even with his amendment, I really didn't want that law.) In particular, he said that he had never been contacted by the MPAA, and wondered why people thought that.

    Given that this TN law is like the others and coming at the same time, I'm suspicious. It's possible that this just happened to come up on its own and be similar. More likely, though, Briley was contacted by somebody trying to get him to push this law. It's possible Briley is just lying to me, but it's also entirely plausible that Briely doesn't even know he's being used as a pawn of the MPAA.

    Gotta love this country.

    tndigitalfreedom.org has an account of several people showing up at a senate commitee hearing on the law. It was clear that most of the sentaors simply didn't understand the implication of the law... and they were relying on a cable industry guy to interpret it for them. When they learned that perhaps there were other things to worry about, they delayed passing the law out of committee. The alarming thing about this is that even though the senators showed a desire to do the right thing once they learned of worries, it does mean that it would have just rubber stamped through if the tndigitialfreedom people hadn't showed up. In other words, our state legislatures are probably passing laws they don't understand all the time, just because whatever industry lobbyist is interpreting it for them makes them feel all warm and fuzzy about it.

    Great, huh?

    -Rob

  30. Is our democracy is falling apart? by release7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think more scary than the movie industry thwarting technological and artistic advance for their own financial gain, is the fact that powerful interests can literally sneak bills into law with absolutely zero debate. Not good.

    --

    <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

  31. Is it always going to be necessary? by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    --an even further analysis shows that at some point "IP" as property is going to be fairly silly. What would a geek really want in his kitchen? A star trek replicator? How would the farmers pay their bills then, once their job and work is outdistanced by available technology?

    What this is is an example of the age old rift between protectionism and advances in technology and more open markets. The paradigm of the IP creator being a full time "worker" who garners all his wage with producing those works has always changed over time. At one point only the royals were rich enough to "own" a painting, or to keep a court musician on the payroll, or to have "theater on demand". Only a few owned books, because of the monopoly of the royal religious scribes, who hand copied bibles etc.

    Right now we are at a major crossroads again, as the technology already exists to make a large part of "IP" business obsolete. That's why they are pulling out all the stops, they right now can be replaced. So you then have to ask, which parts still require "protectionism".

    I find this sort of amusing, moving in political circles where up into about two years ago, white collar workers were sneering at blue collar workers as their jobs got "outsourced" and "made redundant" by advances in technology and the markets. Myself being a blue collar worker noted that is was few and far between that I could see much support (on the web in forums) from much higher paid people than I, working in "still vibrant" economies such as IT/IP. I got laughed at, put down, told to STFU, that my "work" was buggy whip work that modernization and automation and the "free market" made obsolete, so tough luck. Now that THEIR paycheck is threatened, by outsourcing and automation,by improvements in technology, by the skills required to produce this sort of "product" becoming lower and easier, etc, they are crying foul, FOUL they say,they are "wondering how they will feed their families and pay their mortgage".

    Well, same thing I kept getting told and keep getting told, at a retirement (or close enough) age, "learn a new skill, perhaps the old one isn't as relevant any more, keep up with the times, pull yourself up with your boot straps" and etc.

    SUCKS to get told that doesn't it? Pretty easy to slam it out when it's someone else, isn't it, real easy? But it SUCKS to take it, doesn't it,. sucks to be honest, to actually SEE reality.

    "IP" busy-ness and it's related side "jobs" as a full time "job" is rapidly being replaced with automation and ease-of-accomplisment.

    GASP, OH NO!!! Geeks who type arcane symbols fall out of chairs all over, "artistes" swoon and get the economic vapors, middle man skimmers get red in the face, demand "laws, we say MORE,MORE, AND MORE LAWS!!! TO PROTECT....." Whatever. Whoops, you are demanding "protectioinism". wow.

    It is no different from ANY other industry, nothing special or magical about anyone's "job" there. You never got handed a lifelong job/profit guarantee. Joe Bubba in the factiory doesn't have it, and is losing bigtime, told to "get with the program". Joe Farmer at the family farm is going through it. Where is it carved in stone that programmers and entertainment "artistes" and middle man "trader-skimmers" are guaranteed a full time job that "pays all the bills"?

    Soon-perhaps- it will be possible for the end user-the consumer-to "program on demand" applications exactly like they want them. What then? Soon it will be possible to have huge amounts of "entertainments" created-not even copied but CREATED "on demand", cheaply and at the single consumer level. If anyone forgot, it was blacksmiths that "put themselves out of business". The metal workers did it to themselves. today, engineers are putting themselves out of business, as they concentrate on automation-even with their own jobs! When I was a kid, AUTOCAD did NOT exist.

    Where do you draw the line on advances in technology? Should we still be paying scribes to hand copy books? At one time it was

    1. Re:Is it always going to be necessary? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, it's not like Shakespeare made his living writing plays or anything.

      He didn't. He made his living charging admission to the theater where he and others performed the plays he wrote.

      Other people performed his plays; he didn't make a penny. He performed other people's plays (and ripped them off when writing his own) and didn't pay a penny.

      The money he made getting a percentage of the tickets he then invested into real estate, which is where he made more money, though he was never really rich.

      Lots of artists made their money by charging for their labor or their finished wares; not for the insubstantial work. Shakespeare pretty much always made his money through real property: even charging tickets was giving people permission to go onto the land owned by the theater company. Copyrights certainly didn't exist then.

      At any point the general premise that authors enjoy no permanent privilege was right on the money. If the whole world would be better off without copyrights tomorrow, and this is certainly possible, then why bother having them?

      --
      -- 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.
    2. Re:Is it always going to be necessary? by Jhan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My, you're pumped to the gills with pure gall...

      Still, I get your argument, and even agree with it. Reasonably soon, "engineer" type jobs could be automated. Soon after that (about 30 years from know if AI advances the way I think it will) science and leadership positions. In about 40-50 years, there will be NO JOBS AT ALL that can't be done better and cheaper by a machine. So, how do we respond as a society?

      • Keep the capitalistic way and allow the majority of people to starve and die in the street?
      • Institute Citizen Salary were any and all get a handsome weekly pay-check just for living?

      I vote Citizen Salary. It's communistic, granted, but communism is the best fit in a society with unlimited wealth.

      --

      I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

    3. Re:Is it always going to be necessary? by drdanny_orig · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Thanks....couldn't have said it better myself, and I'm a similarly marginalized ex-worker. I'm still looking for what to do instead, tho.

      Losing a job that way is much like a death, and as a survivor, I've got to do quite a bit of grieving until the acceptance phase arrives. I think I'm there now, but I _still_ need money to survive, and I've yet to find anyone willing to trade it to me for anything I'm willing to do.

      Once my unemployment benefits stop (which are barely minimum wage), I'll have to seriously consider a life of crime. Alas, that, too, is better done by younger, stupider men.

      --
      .nosig
    4. Re:Is it always going to be necessary? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
  32. Bad J00 J00 by Zebra_X · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The following scenarios are why the MPAA and this corporate IP nonsense needs to be stopped.

    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 ... 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.

    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

  33. Legal rights to own a radar detector & MP3's by adzoox · · Score: 2, Insightful
    1) To avoid petty police officers singling you out (especially if you are out of state) .. that is a legit legal reason

    2) You should be able to have it because the GOVERNMENT does NOT own the road (taxpayers do) and they certainly don't own your car. They also do not have the right without warrant (probable cause) to interfere with or search your car. (Just because a police officer isn't searching your car, rather an electronic "detector", it is STILL an illegal search.

    3)Most radar I know I of that are sold today also have the emergency alert - a legal reason to own a radar detector.

    This goes back to my original post - the recording industry and movie industry have YET to prove TO ME that I am breaking law and have probable cause to search and confiscate things on my computer or things that I own.

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  34. whatever, you're to blame Hollywood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The music and entertainment industry for years has overcharged consumers and exploited all but the most successful artists. I agree that in principle, the entertainment companies do have some rights, but they constantly seek to take away fair use rights of consumers. It is the consumers who have the power, not them. Just remember that just because something is a law, doesnt mean that it is morally right. We try in society to match laws to moral principles, but when the public sees the greed and avarice of the Industry, they figure, well when in Rome... Im not saying two wrongs make a right, but if the industry showed more respect throughout the years to the buying public, maybe we wouldnt be in this situation. Also consider too maybe the definition of Intellectual property itself is up for grabs? I agree that if no one bought anything, in principle, no one could sell such goods to make a profit. This same industry which glorifies violence, promiscuous sex, nihilism and the concept that there is no higher value than whetever one desires is now reaping the harvest of their own marketing disaster. Wanna know why kids think its ok to steal thousands of mp3's and laugh about it? Because they can easily imagine their favorite rap artist or movie star in a movie or music video doing the same thing, and laughing about it. I think Hollywood and the entire industry needs to step up and take responsibility for what THEY'VE done over the past 40 years. THEY are responsible for destroying the moral fabric of society and promoting lawlessness. The industry plays a huge role in the shaping of society. From the Roman Empire onwards, it was the Catholic Church that supplied this same moral guidance, now it is the entertainment industry that's become the new Church. Hollywood thinks they're only in it for the profit, and the art of making media, but they inherited a whole lot more than they realized.

    People ultimately become what the media tells them they should be. If we've become a society of petty thieves, then its the media industry's own damn fault! You reap what you sow, you reap what you sow. Just remember next time when you see someone on Kazaa downloading warez, they're only acting immoral, hedonistic and greedy like they've been taught to be so their entire lives.

  35. Well, then.... by MegaHamsterX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll just go back to books, if they make those hard to get in paper form, I'll write my own and put them under the gnu license.

    I could really care less if they make my tivo illegal, I haven't bought an hdtv due to hdcp, and likely won't ever, same with their "special" pvr or a series 2 tivo for that matter. I might go back to hardware hacking, I enjoyed that more than watching their programs anyhow.

    If they don't want me to record and store for future enjoyment don't send it to me! I haven't read too much on itunes, but that actually "seems" like a pretty decent deal.

  36. Re:Guess who won't vote Republican next election by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Throwing your vote away? Since when was this a popularity contest. I appreciate your efforts to learn about who it is you are actually voting for, but this diarhea of the mouth about 'throwing away your vote' is total garbage and just by using the phrase you show how little you are actually thinking about your ability to vote.

    Stop sounding like a whiney loser who expects their vote to not accomplish anything anyway, if you plan on carrying around that attitude please refrain from posting anymore. Theres already enough people on that bandwagon.

    If you think for 5 seconds that ANY other party who was in control would be any different, you have a severely warped view of what governments functions actually are. Perhaps you should dig out some of your old college books and re-read "The Republic" by plato, and all those thoughts about the 'perfect' republic being one of slave-owning, censoring, determinists might make a little more sense to you now.

    maybe independents can think for themselves

    Maybe, but it sure doesnt look like it now

    this will be no suprise to you...if your not turned onto politics, politics will turn on you.

  37. Re:Well if VA and other states can do this ... the by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Banning radar detectors is like saying, "You are not allowed to see this particular kind of light." It's just as stupid as if they were to do the same to UV, IR, or hyperintelligent shades of blue. "We're going to beam all kinds of radiation at you, but you have to pretend that you don't know it." Hell, current wireless radio frequencies aren't much 'further away' from police radar guns than red is from violet.

    In any event, you're falling for the old "you must justify this behavior" fallacy. In a free state, I shouldn't have to justify to a cop anything I do, it is up to The Powers That Be to convince me (or a jury of my peers) why I shouldn't be allowed to do it. Ignoring this wisdom has lead to such wonderful legislation as Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and anti-sodomy laws that end up telling married couples how they may have sex.

    --
    Dyolf Knip