Slashdot Mirror
Jack Valenti: The Exit Interview
thecounterfeit writes "Engadget has an interview with Jack Valenti, the outgoing president of the MPAA and the object of hatred for many hacker after he took he on DVD Jon, who is retiring tomorrow after more than three decades on the job. Engadget could have been a little harder on him when he says stuff like, "When you go to your department store and you buy 10 Cognac glasses and two weeks later you break two of them, the store doesn't give you two backup copies," but it is at least slightly encouraging to hear that he owns a TiVo."
Engadget could have been a little harder on him when he says stuff like, "When you go to your department store and you buy 10 Cognac glasses and two weeks later you break two of them, the store doesn't give you two backup copies,"
If there was a way to duplicate a cognac glass for 10 cents each, it'd be a different story.
"When you go to your department store and you buy 10 Cognac glasses and two weeks later you break two of them, the store doesn't give you two backup copies"
Since CDs can stop working with a small scratch, unlike Cognac glasses, and the studios prevent back ups then they are the ones to replace it. Give us the ability to back up our software, Jack, and we won't need to bother you about replacements.
...but the cognac glass maker should not prevent me from making my own cognac glasses in case the ones I purchased from them break.
...and buy 10 cognac glasses, you'd be pretty pissed if you weren't allowed to get a handful of sand and have a go yourself, or let your friends borrow them.
If you RTFA he says: When you go to your department store and you buy 10 Cognac glasses and two weeks later you break two of them, the store doesn't give you two backup copies. Where did this backup copy thing come from? A digital thing lasts forever. The last sentence is key here. If he really means this, then a backup copy is quite natural as the DVD is merely an imperfect way (easy to scratch) to hold what is actually bought, the digital content which is meant to last forever.
"There is no substitute for thinking" - Bjarne Stroustrup
>can spend the time and effort to try to plumb through those 1,000 algorithms to try to find a way to beat it.
Yes, 1000 algorithms is the way to go..? ...how about just using one that works..
After all, if you wait until a crooked cop retires before you blow his head off with a 12 guage shotgun it's not the same as murdering a cop.
Hmmmmmm...
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Did Slashdot really receive only one submission for this story? It's really a horrible selection to put on the front page, given its horrible grammar.
Engadget has an interview with Jack Valenti, the outgoing president of the MPAA and the object of hatred for many hacker after he took he on DVD Jon, who is retiring tomorrow after more than three decades on the job.
He took he? On DVD Jon, who is retiring tomorrow?
when he says stuff like
Yeah, shame on Engadget, and stuff.
but it is at least slightly encouraging to hear that he owns a TiVo.
This is similar to the MS Security Manager running Firefox news bit. Because Jack Valenti owns and enjoys a TiVo, means he condones all aspects of the technology? No, it's more likely Jack Valenti likes to use a TiVo as a new-fangled VCR.
Let's see what Google turned up:
"The MPAA, NFL and other sports leagues attempted to convince the agency that the devices pose a threat to copyrighted works and could be used to broadcast games where they are blacked out. FCC commissioners disagreed, finding that the fears were unfounded. MPAA chief Jack Valenti, who will step down next month, personally lobbied all five commissioners, FCC sources said."
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
-If- I bought a license to the music, it is not "destroyed" by scratching the disk. -If- I bought the media, I can do with its fysical properties what I like. Like copying.
Make up your mind Jack.
"/Dread"
Do they really believe that security though obscurity is going to help them. For every "genius" they employ to obfusticate their format their will be 100 geniuses out there ready to write software to get round it.
The fact that the media is in the physically possession of the users means that given enough time all security measures can be defeated.
----
It seems the obvious answer is to provide a guarantee. If my guaranteed DVD goes bad, I could return the original for a replacement. Isn't that how most consumer products work? If my Cognac glasses were sold as unbreakable with a guarantee of replacement, it would be the same case.
When you buy a DVD you are buying the media AND the right to watch it. When the DVD is damaged, you still have the right to watch, although now it's unwatchable. Your money bought you both a tangible and an intangible product. You make a backup you are only protecting your right to the intangible product that you paid for. If jack valenti or anyone else wants to deprive you of that right they are stealing from you. I don't know when the systems of the world shifted to the point where consumers stealing from companies are criminal but companies stealing from consumers is just plain good business, but I for one don't like it. But who knows, maybe my opinion would change if I was on the other end of all this stealing. :/
LIE: "Where did this backup copy thing come from? A digital thing lasts forever."
No it doesn't. CDs rust because of manufacturing defects. DVDs scratch so easily you'd think they were designed to need replacing if the kids get hold of them! Jack's comment is like saying that insurance is unnecessary because houses don't burn down. Software manufacturers will replaced damaged media for a nominal fee. The DVD manufacturers could make the "you don't need a backup" line a reality if they offered $1 replacements for damaged DVDs and $0.50 replacements for CDs that get damaged, and indeed, there should be a legal mandate for them to do so upon production of a scratched original. They could handle it through the record stores - bring in your old CD or DVD, hand over your dollar, and get a bright new shining one. That would make consumers happy about buying such fragile media. At that point, however, they would not be able to say - sorry, run out of copies. They would have to make more copies rapidly if more people come back. This should also last as long as the copyright lasts upon the programme material + 50, just in case. Ofcourse, if you don't copyright it and give it to the public domain, you don't have to supply backups - now that's fair.
LIE "But I visited the labs at Caltech, and they're running an experiment called FAST where they can bring down a DVD-quality movie in 5 seconds. " what's that - about 1GB per second?? Anyone know a hard drive that fast and affordable for my edit suite??? Sure cache it in RAM first..... Seriously Jack...
LIE "There is no fair use to take something that doesn't belong to you. That's not fair use..... Now, fair use is not in the law." It's fair that we get screwed by the MPAA, but not fair when every TV advert for every movie I've ever seen says "own it on DVD" - for emphasis "OWN IT". If I own it, whatever I do with it is fair. If I own it I don't have a right to a free or very cheap replacement of the media. I know I don't own software as it's licenced. But I must own the DVD as you told me - it can't be licenced. Now which way do you want it Jack. If I own it, I'll do whatever the hell I like with it.
LIE "So there are no restrictions that Hollywood wants to place on what people can do with media on their computers?
Well, I can't tell you that. We have to see what the technology can provide." So what you're really saying Jack is that you want Linux and open source OSs illegal, everyone to buy Microsoft and have computers so restricted that they're practically games and entertainment consoles. Jack - you're such a hypocrite.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
The only reason a 'digital thing' lasts forever is because it is, by nature, an idea. It is data, it is not any material. The idea of the movie stays forever, the data of the movie does not change, but, of course, the medium it is placed on can easily be destroyed.
Valenti - You are an awesome figurehead to hate. Don't ever get a clue, and fix all the problems in the industry, because then I might have some moral qualms about downloading movies.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
I guess he is clearly missing the point with that cognac glasses example:
it's not the glas that matter but the contents of the glass!
I buy a glas of cognac because I want cognac, I get the glas with the cognac - not the other way round.
Now my glass breaks - this can happen. No big deal however, because I poured a bit of cognac into another glas beforehand so I can still taste it's fine taste.
(replace "glass" with CD/DVD and "cognac" with movie/music in case you didn't get it)
I guess those people really don't want to see the reality...
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Having read TFA, it's quite clear to me that the industry is dominated by crusty old men (COM). Whilst they are reasonably happy to tolerate Baby Boomers (let's face it, BBs have created lots of wealth for COMs), they are not particularly happy about the surly behaviour of Generations X & Y. And why is that ? Many of us have an inherent distrust of their abuse of intellectual property. There is exactly ONE solution to the "problem" of copyright circumvention. Namely, make *everything digital* so utterly accessible (i.e cheap & easy to download) so that it's just not worth the effort to pirate it. Most digital "content" falls into the category of luxury (i.e it's nices to have rather then essential). Standard economic theory stresses that luxuries have a very elastic demand curve. i.e. you lower the price and sales volumes increase massively. Result: low price (i.e. $1/CD or $2.50/DVD) = huge sales and bugger all piracy.
It's good luck to be superstitious
Ah, this is classic! An old man's uninformed belief that somehow we can protect people from thinking!
"I really do believe we can stuff enough algorithms in a movie that only the dedicated hackers can spend the time and effort to try to plumb through those 1,000 algorithms to try to find a way to beat it."
Re-he-he-heally. Don't you realize that once ONE person breaks it (out of, oh, maybe, 3 billion hackers worldwide), then you've got the raw data, which you can copy directly to whatever and whomever you want. This is some sort of religious belief in encryption and obfuscation that is not shared by anyone who knows anything about scientific computing. CSS was broken, AES, DES, RCA, VHS, MP3, GTFO, and WTF have all been broken. And guess what? The future ones will be too!
Find a new path.
-Dave
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
It's like he was just making the answers up as he went along. Most of the inaccuracies were already pointed out so I won't bring those back up.
The licensing issue (digital things last forever) really shocked me. Tech stuff sure, he's old and never had a clue. I'm not shocked he just said "use 1000 algorithims" and then followed up with "only the dedicated hackers will make copies". I'm sure those dedicated hackers won't bother making anyone else copies.
but really the "cognac glass" analogy was something he *should* be able to spell out for us and have it stay consistent with the party line. I don't license cognac glasses! Here's a better analogy jerk weed.
If a lease a car I am essentially licensing it and have to stay within a lot of restrictions. If I BUY the car I can do whatever the hell I like. OK cars may be a little too modern for Jack. I think he might understand a horse analogy but it's 7am and I really need sleep.
By the letter of the law, my using Bittorrent to download the latest Adam Sandler flick is stealing.
But I don't have equal representation in DC either. Democratic law is the result of agreed upon rules that the entire society has determined to be equitable. Bribeing legistators & judges is hardly inside the bounds of law, and it is exactly how this man creates the laws that make my action illegal. (not talking about morrality)
"10 congac glasses"
The glass maker doesn't tell me what brand of congac I can use in the glasses either. Nor do they stipulate what in country I may drink from those glasses.
If I think that congac glasses are too fragile, I can go out and by a mettal cup (gold electro plated PLEASE!!). I am not forced to drink my congac in one style of cup, that I find inferiour, and fragile.
The only reason these 'illegal softwares' exist is because consumers have demanded it, and his industry has failed to exploit that market. Excuse me while I cry a river of tears. Linux users demanded the ability to view DVDs, they ignored then sued (btw, how much money did they loose by linux users 'illegaly' renting and viewing DVDs on DCSS software?) Internationals demanded to be able to view their DVDs in America or Europe. (only legal DVDs are region encoded) Movie collectors asked that they be able to transport the format of a movie from one media to the next, and not be forced to repurchase their entire collection every 10 years. (or be forced to maintain old media players) Movie fans asked that they NOT be gouged at the theater. Music fans wondered why CD's cost so much, when most of the music on them they don't want.
The technology to solve all of these problems have been around for years. and iTunes long since demonstrated that content deliver online works, as long as you don't price gouge. But that would force the media industry to become competitive, and *shock* *horror* change with the market! Why they would find it so much harder to gauge customers.
Why else would I prefer a grainy lo-res DVD/Cam rip to a DVD with all the features? 'cause I won't spend $30 on a freeking movie.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
Was it just me, or did anyone else find the "interview" pathetic?
Where's the followup questions? Jack gives us his crackpot analogy of backup being the same as physical replacement and the interviewer doesn't query him on the differences.
This is a fawning and pathetic excuse of an interview that's only been done because the interviewer promised to play nice in exchange for the exposure his site would get interviewing Jack Valenti.
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
When you go to your department store and you buy 10 Cognac glasses and two weeks later you break two of them, the store doesn't give you two backup copies,"
Ouch, it sounds like he doesn't know the difference between intellectual property and physical property.
By extension: if I'm an artist and I sell a song to him, I guess I only sell that physical media with the song, and not the song itself.
Hmmm, or is he saying that intellectual property can only be owned by a corporation and not an individual? Great! Therefore, if I buy a Cognac glass, I can make a hundred exact (or modified) copies. Isn't that OK?
But then again, who runs down to the department store to by 10 Cognac glasses? Who is this guy?
A digital thing lasts forever.
Jack Valenti's almost right, yet missing the point entirely. A digital thing will last forever if it can leave the shackles of whatever physical medium it's stored on. If you have two copies, and only one of them is likely to get destroyed at any given time (say, you've copied a CD to a friend with the explicit orders that ey can't listen to it because that would be illegal, just to have an off-site backup), then you'll always have a perfect copy.
But being able to copy and manage the data better is the only advantage digital media have over their analogue counterparts. If you take away the rights to copy them, there is no point in using digital media in the first place.
You have been apparently indoctrinated with a great success, but the fact is that you don't need any special "right to watch" a movie, like you don't need any "right to read" a book, at least not yet. The only thing that the copyright law regulates is the right to publish and distribute, not any magical "right to see" which would somehow make illegal the very act of merely looking at publicly available things, which would be completely ridiculous. Please do not spread the FUD. The scums like Jack Valenti want us to think that way, but it does's make it true. Please try to keep that in mind. This is actually extremely important because if all of people think like yourself, then no one will protest when corporations finally put it into law, because everyone will think it has always been that way, which is simply not true. I wouldn't have even answered to this post but it was moderated as Score:5, Insightful so apparently there are more misinformed people here.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
It's not encouraging at all that he has and enjoys a TiVo. Most of the strongest anti-gun pundits have guns of their own, and many have concealed-weapon permits. You're failing to grasp the underlying concept: they want to have all the rights, and leave you with none. The same thing applies here. You can't oppress people if they're in the same caste as you.
>"When you go to your department store and you buy 10 Cognac glasses and
>two weeks later you break two of them, the store doesnt give you two backup
>copies,"
It's an interresting observation that "after more than three decades on the
job" he hasn't got a clue about what the businesses he was representing
is actually selling! --He, obviously thinks the record/movie industry is selling
silver discs! --That's not what they're selling. They're selling the _rights_
to watch/listen to a given artistical performance.
The comparison with cognac glasses is as absurd as the industry he was
representing.
- K
1) I can take one of the remaining glasses to a friend who is a hobbyist glass blower and see if he can make one for me free of charge (assuming the glass design is trademarked)
2) I can get my own Cognac glass blowing setup and make an myself a new matching glass once I've aquired the skills and materials.
3) After making one or two for myself, I can crank out a whole bunch for my friends free of charge as Christmas presents, anniversary gifts, or wedding presents.
4) I can take detailed measurements of the glasses, bring them to a glass factory, and have them turn out duplicates for me (legal or not, this happens ALL OF THE TIME in industry) so that I can avoid the high costs of buying from the original manufacturer.
5) I can throw a Cognac party for as many people I want, and allow those folks to view and use my legally purchased Cognac glasses without fear of reprocussion.
Now, which of these options are available to me to do legally with CDs or DVDs?
Happened to a friend of mine last week. She had her entire CD collection (yes, REAL store-bought CDs) in her car and it got broken into. Both the car (and of course, the CDs in the car) were stolen.
Now regardless of the fact that she probably shouldn't have left the CDs in the car, if she had made duplicates and used those in the car, she'd still have all her genuine CDs. I always have CDRs of my music in my car, because at $20-40/CD (imports), I would be royally choked if they got ripped-off.
But of course, the RIAA doesn't like that whole "backup" idea, after all the thief would then have a copy of the music as well as the legal owner, and that's just not right!
So they need to decide - if you're actually "licensing" the music, then you get the right to get replacement media AT COST as part of the license. If you're buying the media, then they can kiss their product goodbye after you've bought it.
Now, all that said, I could give a damn WHAT the RIAA or MPAA think because when I buy a CD or DVD or computer software, it's mine dammit, and I'm going to do whatever the hell I want to with it - and nothing they say or do will ever change that.
If I buy a set of cognac glasses and then move to Belgium, I don't have to buy a special set of Belgian cognac glasses.
When I buy a set of cognac glasses, they'll work with any brand of cognac, even cognac my friends and I made as part of a giant collaborative project.
If I buy cognac glasses and decide to drink milk out of them, the manufacturer won't accuse me of violating the licensing agreement.
If I build exact replicas of the cognac glasses using my own materials, and then give these replicas away, I won't get sued by the Glassblowing Industry Association of America.
If I sell the cognac glasses at a second-hand store, the aforementioned GIAA won't accuse me of stealing profits away from the original cognac-glass-makers, or claim that I probably made an illegal copy of them before I sold them.
I don't have to pay higher prices on glassblowing supplies on the assumption that I'll probably use them to make illegal copies of cognac glasses.
And the #1 difference between DVDs and cognac glasses:
The cognac glass actually contains something I might enjoy.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Technology has made music or film exchange easier than ever but in essence it is exactly the same as creating a tape and giving it to a friend. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act states that it is illegal to download mp3's for financial or other "gains". Then they go on to define that just having an mp3 of a song is a "gain" and therefore illegal. This is BS! I didn't see anybody complain back in the day when somebody gave you a tape. Record companies then try to make p2p users feel guilty saying that they are hurting artists. The ones that suffer the most from this are the companies themselves. Artists only receive a very small amount from each album sold, their main income is when they sign a deal with the company and they get a contract and get payed. But I do see a solution to this whole thing: lower album and movie prices. Basic economic theory clearly states that lowering the price of a good that has few substitutes (ie: any given artist's album) will increase the quantity demanded of that good and will increase total revenue for the firm. Just imagine cd's priced at 5-7 USD instead of your usual 15-20, movie tickets priced at 1-2. I would buy a lot more music and watch more films. One can't fight progress and technology. If the MPAA and RIAA keep trying to fight that battle they are sure gonna lose in the long run.
No one ever asked movie companies to give out free backup copies. What we want is to not get sued or put in jail if we copy a DVD, or rip it to an mp4 on our laptop to take on vacation, or do any number of things with the DVD we just bought.
Bascially, we'd like to be treated the same as when we buy a set of glasses: once, we've bought it, we can do anything we want with it. Glassmakers don't try to have people put in jail for post articles on how to blow glass.
Something simular happened to a friend of mine several years ago. His truck was parked in his driveway one night and some punk smashed in the window, stole his stereo, and all his CDs. Those CDs were all copies. He always burned his CDs for his car since he didn't trust what the Texas heat would do to the origionals.
The RIAA's (and Valenti's) idea of what is right is even more twisted than that. They have stated that making a copy of a CD for one's car is wrong. In their eyes, each and every stereo should have a seperate purchased copy.
This is the real Hippocratic issue:
If you "own it", as the adds say, then you can do what you please. Backup, copy, mix, etc. (minus making $ from copies)
If you actually "license it", then saying "Own it today" is false advertising. AND you should still be able to get replacement media.
The RIAA/MPAA/CRIA all want the same thing: The advantages from both and no disadvantages from either. Also, they want this to work on hardware that you paid for. This is just plain Greed and hypocrisy
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
spectrokid,
;^)
Anonymous claims: Learn to be more responsible with your stuff.
Haven't you already learned from it? E.g. make a backup and use that instead?
(Funny how you talk about your kids while your name contains the word kid itself
This stuff gets old after a while.
... yeah, I'll just download the stuff.
Jack Valenti has proven himself to be an ingorant jackass in just about anything that comes out of his mouth. As tons of others have pointed out already, his man's analogies are the stupidest fucking things I've ever heard.
Cognac glasses vs. downloading movies... yeah, those are the same things alright!
In any case, these people need to get lost. Nothing they say or do has any effect on anything. They can go out and sue movie/music sharers all they want, but they can't sue everybody and eventually they'll be called out on their bullying tactics by trying to coerce people into settling.
If anything, all this will do is create alternate methods of redistribution whether it's foreign hosts or anonymous P2P (I personally hope that anonymous P2P will emerge [and work] soon).
Their empty threats and purchased laws mean nothing to me and most people I know. Because of their aggressiveness and ignorance in trying to solve this manner (and in a totally unnecessary and incorrect way, I might add), it has actually caused a significant increase in the amount of media I download. I just simply don't have the desire to purchase anything from em anymore.. and most people will call a boycott, but
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
"When you go to your department store and you buy 10 Cognac glasses and two weeks later you break two of them, the store doesn't give you two backup copies" Correct but if the purchaser has the tools and the knowhow he can make his own copies of the glasses. They just dont 'get it'...
Just one copy per stereo? RIAA is leaving money on the table by forgetting that most car audio systems have more than two speakers and can carry more than one passenger!
Look, either you are selling content or you are selling physical goods -- you cannot have your cake and eat it too. When you buy a DVD you are buying content. The DVD is merely the delivery vehicle for the content. If I buy a tune from itunes and then burn it to my CD and it breaks, should I then also not be able to re burn it? It infuriates me that people like Jack Valenti have no problem gouging the public with expensive dvds and then when the medium is no longer useable try to compare it to a pair of cognac glasses. On Thursday night someone broke the window of my car at the West Oakland BART station and in addition to stealing the dvd player in the car stole all of my kids dvds -- about 20 of them which were hidden in the glove compartment. They stole the dvd player even though I had taken the face plate off and it is essentially worthless to them without it. Now Vallenti wants to tell me that I'm SOL and why don't I just go out and drop another $500 buying my content all over again -- and he has the audacity to speak about a "moral imperative."?! This guy is classic. How about this Jack. How about I just download everything I want for free and use any resource I have to avoid ever paying for another dvd for the rest of my life. How about I just copy everything to my PC and burn it to dvd for play in my car in the future and don't give you or your friends another god-damn dime. There is a reason that you are portrayed as a "villian" in cyberspace. And while you may have a modicum of power based on your previous position with the MPAA, the tide is turning and things like you opening your mouth and saying really stupid things will ony bring about both grass roots political change and technological pirating tools faster. You, my friend, are a hypocrite -- someone who talks about the value being the content one day and the form the very next.
The real cost of piracy is not higher prices as we are told by MPAA, RIAA etc. It is lower prices. I'm not advocating piracy here, but drawing a logical conclusion from experience. Several years ago PC games were all on floppy disks and could easily be copied. At that time the average price for a PC game was about $35.00. At the same time the average price for a game console cartridge (difficult to copy EPROM chips) was nearly $70.00. In a about a three month span of time almost all games for the PC were made available only on CD-ROM. At the same time the average price for a PC game jumped to $60.00 and more. Quite a coincidence there isn't it? But I'm not done yet. When this happened CD burning was expensive and error prone. I don't think there were any non-SCSI interface burners out there and burners were expensive to purchase and not very easy to use. Over the next year the total cost of aquiring and using a CD burner dropped like a rock. Once the burner prices dropped below four or five hundred dollars, the price for PC games began dropping as well. This is more than just a coincidence. This little sequence of events in the real world tells me that as soon as the producers of content think they have an impossible to copy medium(or nearly so), they will jack the price up through the roof. Kind of like the Laffer curve. The higher the financial burden, the more the consumer will seek a way to avoid paying it. You want to curb piracy, improve value by dropping prices and stop producing crap for content (especially the record industry).
piracy is a huge problem
...
no, healthcare is a huge problem, starvation is a huge problem, genocide is a huge problem, education is a huge problem, violence against women is a huge problem, violence in the middle east is a huge problem
piracy is, for the most part, the concern of a super rich few. There are better things to be concerned about than wether or not Jack Valenti will be able to afford another house because some college student downloaded a movie.
I don't pirate movies or songs either and I don't condone those actions, but Jack is just a rich guy trying to get richer by manipulating laws, plain and simple. If you drop the price to a reasonable level, the black market will disappear.
you're all figments of my deranged imagination