Slashdot Mirror
Disney Suggests Mandating DRM On All Media
Ethan Butterfield writes "Cory Doctorow posted this on his blog this morning. Essentially, Disney wants the FCC to regulate all devices capable of recording from any audio broadcasting medium or from the Internet."
Tape recorders are a nono? How about wax cylinders? Punch cards?
Very, very vague.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Because, as we all know, once something falls into the public domain, no one will want to keep it around anymore and it will forever be lost.
If you don't think that disney can get the government to change something so important, google around for "Mickey Mouse copyright act"
Once the FCC mandates that all radio signals are digital, like they are with TV, you can make crystal radios all day long and listen to fuzz.... Doubt anyone will care..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
As highly as it would like to think its own influence is, I don't think Disney is capable of forcing the entire tech sector to follow their restrictive standards. I've personally written some of my own content to DVD; would I be mandated to include DRM because of Disney's bought-and-paid-for laws? Worse yet, I bet there would be either an explicit or hidden licensing cost to Disney or whoever for the DRM technology. Whatever happened to free speech? If I want to put something of my own creation, isn't that protected free speech? What can Disney possibly have to do with me, my content, my DVD burner, and the friends I give my content to?
And one more thing. DRM is a joke. With the state of current DRM anyone can crack DRM by downloading a simple program such as DVD Decrypter. You don't have to know anything at all about encryption. Assuming DRM gets better in the future, which is debatable, it may be harder for the individual to crack the protection, but there will always be the hardcore hackers who hack the video and upload it to a P2P network for all to share. Assuming DRM gets so restrictive that it cannot be cracked, what can you possibly do to stop people from pointing video cameras at a monitor or TV screen in their own home?
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
I believe the fact that we are able to rewatch recorded programs is a happy coincidence of the fact that DRM or self-destructing media have not been practical schemes to date. I suspect our legislators and courts would at least entertain the concept that if it's broadcast once you can timeshift it and consume it only once, as you're effectively getting the same service as you'd get by viewing it during broadcast (with the added feature of skipping commercials).
Disney's trying to get a bigger slice of the pie, of course, but there's nothing inherently wrong with what they're trying to do. If you have a problem I suggest contacting your representatives and electronics/software manufacturers.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Well, yes, but remember that copyright applies to anything that is created/creative; and the creator may license the creation as he or she sees fit. DRM had better respect that. As for me, I shall try and persuade my children to license anything they create (until they turn professional) under an open licence such as Creative Commons. I'm sure they will prefer the potential exposure their work will receive. Give it a few years, and the Disneys of this world will be snowed under by people whose work is equally good because of this newfound ability to share.
I applaud this move. The sooner all this nonsense becomes unbearable, the sooner (educated) consumers will tell the media companies to take their DRM and shove it.
All human perception is done through analog systems, and the brain itself is an analog instrument, so all media requires an analog component somewhere along the line simply to enable it to be perceived. If they ban analog, they eliminate the ability for human beings to perceive it. Analog cannot be banned.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Alas, the general sentiment of the article goes the other way. Evidently freedom holds more weight with slashbots than something not coming from Redmond.
Think of him as an annoying, chain smoking script kiddie. Yeah, the guy can write, but he is 100% knee jerk and a really unhappy guy. If he were famous enough, I'd add him to my death poll bets for 2005 because I've seen people like him burn out early. The one time I posted something to my blog which was critical (intellectually, not knee-jerk emotionally), he went totally off the handle in private e-mail. Don't they have manners in Canada?
The best thing to ask this guy is why we should listen to him if he didn't take the time to get a formal education like the rest of us smart people. Also ask him when he plans to stop beating his dog.
The Supreme Court isn't to blame for this. The judiciary only serves to interpret laws, and in the case of the Supreme Court, the Constitution. Even if they didn't agree with the law (I didn't read the justices' opinions on the case so I'm not sure), it's constitutional. Legislators are supposed to be the ones writing laws that represent their constituents. That's the weak link in the chain you should be focusing on.
Has anyone found a way to harness the energy of our founding fathers rolling in their graves? Whoever does, cut me in on the profits, will you?
> Buy prison stock now.
Isn't that voting with your dollars? Profiting from heinous acts is nearly as bad as commiting them.
d. Taylor Singletary,
reality technician techra.el
...and they're going to use their lobby to do incredibly stupid shit like this. They see the writing on the wall, and they know that they only way that can stave off the death of their industry is thru legislation.
This is yet another sign that the publishing industry is running scared, and grasping at straws. They are utterly afraid of the public discovering that publishers aren't really needed anymore, and that they are simply useless middlemen.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
What will they do? go after the people who made the plans? go after the sites harboring proposing said plans for download?
Yes, and yes. Effectively, it will drive the production of recording devices to countries where
they are not regulated. That's good for someone,
China perhaps. Eventually, the only product of the
US will be lawsuits. I expect to live long enough
to see that happen, but I won't be here when it does.
From Lessig's book Free Culture:
"Indeed, the catalog of Disney work drawing upon the work of others is astonishing when set together: Snow White (1937), Fantasia (1940), Pinocchio (1940), Dumbo (1941), Bambi (1942), /Song of the South (1946), Cinderella (1950), Alice in Wonderland (1951), /Robin Hood (1952), Peter Pan (1953), Lady and the Tramp (1955), Mulan (1998), Sleeping Beauty (1959), 101 Dalmatians (1961), The Sword in the Stone (1963), and The Jungle Book (1967)--not to mention a recent example that we should perhaps quickly forget, Treasure Planet (2003). In all of these cases, Disney (or Disney, Inc.) ripped creativity from the culture around him, mixed that creativity with his own extraordinary talent, and then burned that mix into the soul of his culture. Rip, mix, and burn."
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I think copywrite has a place and protection of art has a place also, but at some time the business model just has to change. Once the medium has become so ubiquitous it seems it is going to be hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It is SO easy for distribution of music, video, etc., and any attempt to shut that down will either: be too hard; be too confusing for the mass market consumer; or some mix.
Part of the ability for the artists, the people who create the artists, and the people who owned the artists, to own the marketplace relied heavily on the ability to control the media. With the explosion of media options, control is barely doable, and if doable is going to be way unreasonable.
So, the shift in the business model will be a sea change (a sea++ change?). And while the grubby money mungers at the top have always been able to be filthy rich with their controls and sleezy contracts now they will have to settle for less control, more flexible contracts with artists, and ultimately less wealth. They'll be dragged kicking and screaming, but eventually that's where I see the marketplace going.
(case in point: Grateful Dead completely bypassing the record industry, and basically cutting CD's live and in person at their concerts.... and encouraging fans to make copies....)
All these posts saying "If it can be heard, it can be copied" and the ilk are missing the point. The publishing industry's agenda for perpetuating their needless existance is something like:
It's not going to matter if it can be copied-- simply the act of having the capability to copy will be illegal. If you don't have all DRM-compliant devices, or if you tamper with your DRM-compliant devices, you'll be charged and trucked off to prison.
We need a revolution in "intellectual propery", and we need it quickly. Too many people already fail to understand that the system is a social contract, and the terms of that contract are negotiable by the people-- not dictated by the corporations.
It is no stretch to think that, if they could get it, the DRM helmet is their ultimate goal.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
It's a world of laughter
A world of tears
It's a world of hopes
And a world of fears
There's so much that we share
That it's time we're aware
It's a small world after all
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I don't think Piracy is the real concern here. It's all these irritating people who are avoiding the goal of the media oligarchs to control *all* media, all content, all music.
Once only the RIAA can manufacture music that can be played they can finally crush all those troublesome musicians, artists, actors and film directors because there will be nowhere else to go, there will be no alternative music available in the USA.
It is the same play that was made by threatening CD manufacturers with lawsuits for aiding and abetting that was used to make it harder for small businesses to get CD music manufactured, and which backfired only because the CD writer became cheap.
The media companies wish the printing press to be a monopoly granted by government (to them of course). It worked in the USSR why shouldn't it work in the USSA
No. A key element in capitalism is the free-market. Government regulation, such as mandating DRM in all devices, is counter to that element. The word you are looking for is "corporatism," the other side to socialism's coin.
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
... to show them you disagree, if, of course, you do.
Then Disney wouldn't have been able to steal also many movie plots from Rudyard Kipling and the Grimm Brothers and Hans Christian Anderson.
Infuriate left and right
You're talking about corporationism and ultimately fascism.
The only thing magic about Disney these days is their almost bottomless capacity for greed. Their products are unimaginative, formulaic and their theme parks are little better than entertainment sweat shops. Disney lawyers suing day care centers for having the audacity to paint one of their characters on a wall, DRM, the Bono Act. The list gets rather lengthy.
A greedy, ugly, disgusting company.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
that as copyright lengths have increased, the quality of Disney's products have dropped precipitously, to the point where they outsource most creativity and storytelling, certainly anything successful.
I would submit that this isn't just a correlation, but actually causative. Lord knows no one would shed any tears if that lame ass cow movie was lost to the ages.
That being said, I'm not surprised that it's Disney who made the official proposal. I give it 10 years before DRM violation arrests are second behind drug possession arrests.
How the fuck is this Funny? Prison populations for DRM-related and "intellectual property" related offenses aren't going to reach the proportions the poster indicates in 10 years, but they are going to be a serious component of the prison population. You're fucking deluding yourself if you think that, 10 years from now, you're going to be able to "circumvent" DRM technologies w/o consequences. The Copyright Police State is coming, fucktards.
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.
Back in the Soviet Union, they had extreme security for anything that could be used for duplication of information, lest it be used for spreading subversive information. Now Disney wants the same thing, except that the claimed reason is different. The ability to quickly and easily spread information as far and wide as possible is what has allowed our society to get as far as it has. Now they want DRM technologies so that information flow would be restricted. This is about as far from progress as a proposed law can get
Some people think it's wrong to cavalierly profit from the misery of others, even if you don't cause that misery.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
Actually, the poster isn't the one confusing cause and effect, you are.
If you build a prison, you have an interest in prisoners being produced to lock up.
If you pay someone else to build a prison, you have the same interest.
If you buy a prison, you have the same interest.
If you buy a portion of a prison, you have a (presumably diluted amount of) the same interest.
Divorcing ownership from management works well for liquidity, but do not pretend that somehow that divorce also provides absolution from the moral responsibility for the actions performed by the company of which you are buying ownership. If your dog bites someone, claiming that you co-own the dog, and anyway you don't and can't manage the dog's every move isn't a convincing argument for abdicating responsibility.
Unless you are willing to assert that prison builders would prefer to go out of business, and are simply acting from sad necessity thrust upon them, your logic does not hold. And if believe that is the case, I encourage you to post links to examples of the profits from prison-management going to any sort of effort, useful or not, to reduce the inmate population (other than clever new laws that lead to executions, which would technically fit the bill, but... you get the idea.)
Legally speaking, things are different, in terms of actionable responsibility (tort claims, etc.) following from ownership of public firms. As I don't believe there are many who will advance the notion that our current legal regime is the embodiment of perfect moral authority, I don't feel the need to defend the contrast. I'm referring to moral responsibility in this post.
I forget what 8 was for.
Its about controll.
:)
Big Media wants to make it such that devices that play non-DRM media are illegal.
This would mean that if you wanted to create content (music, movies, probobly also Software if companies like M$ get in on the act), you need to pay big $$$ to Big Media to do so (and since they have a monopoly, they can, if they dont like the content you want to create, refuse to licence to you period).
What I want to know is why the big Technology companies (who have the most to loose from this action) dont get together and fight back...
Companies like ATI, NVIDIA, Intel, AMD, IBM and others. Not to mention companies built around "free software" like RedHat. As well as organizations like the EFF and FSF. If these groups got together to fight Big Media... (remember, the technology industry is BIGGER than the media industry in terms of total $$$)
If needs be, use their own dirty tricks against them (back-door "secret" payments to congress etc)
Although on the other hand, I suspect that there is some reason I havent thought of as to why opposing this would actually be bad rather than good for the tech companies
Not true. Companies buy lobbyists and legislators. It is to the benefit of the prison industry to lobby for more criminal laws and longer sentences for all crimes. Don't think for a second they won't use a portion of their profits to pay lobbyists (and legislators) to get such laws passed. Doing so creates more demand for their product and they therefore make more money.
The problem is that it is clearly against public policy for private entities to own and operate prisons. This is one of the very, very few functions that should be left up entirely to the government.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Laws can be ignored. The RIAA may try to "educate" all they way, but they can not undo what is already an established fact: People accept minor violations of copyright law. Laws can nor change what is socially acceptable.
It has not one thing to do with what is socially acceptable. Smoking pot is socially acceptable-- go open a pot-based business. Relegating the changes that need to be made to "intellectual property" law to shady back-alley dealings eliminates legitimate business opportunities. Using illegal drugs as an example again, the violence that exists in the illegal drug "business" is due, in large part, to the "businesspeople" being unable to settle their differences in civil discourse because their business is fundamentally illegal.
This attitude of "Oh, well, everybody does it" doesn't help legitimate business and law-abiding citizens. The answer is to CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW to rebalance the scale of benefit for society and the content creators / "owners".
The Attitude Adjuster, I hate me, you can too.