Slashdot Mirror
MPAA CEO Dan Glickman on the Broadcast Flag
Thomas Hawk writes "Motion Picture Association of America head Dan Glickman has an opinion piece up at CNET explaining why, even after they and the FCC lost the legal case to force the Broadcast Flag on us, we should still as consumers be advocates for it. The gist of Glickman's argument boils down to the old 'we're taking our ball and going home' game as he tries to convince us that without this incentive good TV and movies won't get shown on broadcast television. 'Our companies want to continue to show their movies and television shows to viewers who don't or can't subscribe to cable or satellite systems. But without the broadcast flag, that option will look less and less appealing. In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era.'"
but that's just me
A federal appeals court earlier this month killed FCC rules that would have forced TV gear to use copy protection technology known as a "broadcast flag." For Hollywood's studios, which have sought to limit unauthorized Internet redistribution of over-the-air TV broadcasts, the ruling was a big setback. But it also was a reprieve for makers of HDTV sets, PC tuner cards, and USB and Firewire tuners. CNET News.com invited Motion Picture Association of America head Dan Glickman and media attorney Jim Burger to debate the broadcast flag issue and explain how they think the decision will affect consumers.
Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission did not have the statutory authority to issue a regulation requiring the implementation of the so-called broadcast flag in digital television devices by July 1, 2005.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did not rule against the idea of a broadcast flag. It only ruled that the FCC does not have authority from Congress to issue such a regulation.
In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era.
As CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, my principal concern is protecting the magic of the movies. So why should I care about a so-called broadcast flag regulation?
The answer is simple. I want to make certain that the American people will continue to have the opportunity to see our movies and television shows on free television in the digital age.
The digital era presents great opportunities and great challenges. The opportunities come with the high-quality, high-resolution pictures that greatly enhance the viewing pleasure of the consumer. The challenges lie in protecting that content so that it is not stolen and resold or rebroadcast by video pirates.
Without proper protections, it will be increasingly difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television.
Broadcast flag technology protects the content of our shows from redistribution over the Internet. The sole purpose and effect of
Related perspective
Counterpoint
Read media attorney Jim Burger on why a broadcast flag won't work.
the broadcast flag is to assure a continued supply of high-value programming to off-air digital television consumers. Failure to implement the broadcast flag on the July 1 date will be a significant step backward in the transition to digital television. It would also lead to unnecessary confusion in the marketplace, since most television manufacturers have already changed their production to incorporate broadcast flag technology.
Some say that this regulation would take away TiVo, but in fact, the FCC has certified a TiVo implementation of the broadcast flag. The broadcast flag does not inhibit copying, nor does it prevent redistribution of programming over a personal home network; it only restricts unauthorized redistribution of programming over the Internet and other digital networks.
The basic outline of the broadcast flag was approved in principle by a large and diverse group of consumer electronics, computer technology and video content companies. This consensus was reached after a thorough process involving all affected parties.
The irony, of course, is that modern cable and satellite delivery systems already have imbedded technical means that maintain the value of digital programming by preventing its redistribution over digital networks. The broadcast flag extends that same protection in the estimated 15 percent of American households that do not subscribe to cable or satellite services but rely instead on over-the-air broadcast television.
Our companies want to continue to show their movies and television shows to viewers who don't or can't subscribe to cable or satellite systems. But without the broadcast flag, that option will look less and less appealing. In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era.
...how they stopped showing movies on TV after the VHS threatened to rape and strangle all of the women in Boston?
Lots of people seem to get up in arms about groups like the MPAA trying to control the way people view their content without remembering that it's their content and nobody has any right to it. Yes, your fair use is being compromised because you can't watch the show the way you want to, but they don't owe you anything, if you don't like it don't buy it. The thing that people should be upset with is things like the DMCA that mean that you're not allowed to exercise your fair use rights even if you technically can because you're not allowed to break the encrypted transmission. Thank goodness i like in the UK and there's not DMCA here (yet).
Perhaps he is right, and perhaps I'll grow a third hand. Then I'll be able to type with two.
Isn't this the same group of companies that have been producing shows since the advent of the VHS recorder? I have a feeling that just the absence of new restrictive anti copying laws wont stop them from producing shows. This argument doesn't really have the ring of truth to me, TV is what they do what are they going to do stop producing shows and convert their companies over to real estate or something?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
'Our companies want to continue to show their movies and television shows to viewers who don't or can't subscribe to cable or satellite systems. But without the broadcast flag, that option will look less and less appealing. In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era.'
Yes, the consumers will be the ones to suffer. Oh, and of course the makers of TV shows and movies who decide to stop selling to their biggest market in a fit of temper. Could be a downer for them too.
It'll be the big movie producers who lose, after the minors are able to start showing their movies on TV and reap the big-bucks.
"This is totally insecure, but very convenient."
An opposing piece by tech attorney Jim Burger.
The irony, of course, is that modern cable and satellite delivery systems already have imbedded technical means that maintain the value of digital programming by preventing its redistribution over digital networks. The broadcast flag extends that same protection in the estimated 15 percent of American households that do not subscribe to cable or satellite services but rely instead on over-the-air broadcast television.
So let me get this straight. They're paranoid that a big pirating ring is going to be started by the 15 percent of homes that don't even have cable? Movies are old once they hit broadcast, the television shows are usually ripped by people with HDTV, and sports games become pretty useless to watch immediately after they've been played. But yet they're in an uproar over not being able to show "movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television". I doubt the movie makers are even rushing to get these movies on broadcast TV, once they do that, the value of the DVD sales goes down. I'm tired of this chicken little act. The sky is not falling, and that 15% is not your worry when it comes to protecting broadcast television.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
As CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, my principal concern is protecting the magic of the movies.
Most "magic" has more utility than filling your pockets with gobs of money.
Nothing will stop them from making money. If they can make 37 cents from showing their 10 year old movies on TV, they will do that. On the other hand, if they can make 40 cents by not showing them on broadcast TV and just re-release them on DVD every few years, they will do that.
I'm a big tall mofo.
This is such BS. Forget the idea of the movies for a second. I want to talk about the sports side of it. My job is 24/7, and I have to work work weekends. I've spent thousands setting up a HD Home Theater.
No I'm a huge San Diego Chargers fan. Should ESPN have the right to tell me that after I've spend all this money and because I had to work, that when I come home to watch the game I must watch it in low-def? Why, because they want control?
I just don't think it's right
In the UK, there is no broadcast flag, and they still show nearly all movies on TV (within 3-4 years of release anyway). This poor man has produced precisely the kind of twisted reasoning that only serves to discredit the greedy corporate movie industry completely, and proves beyond any doubt that consumer rights need to be secured in law to prevent these companies from bribing corrupt politicians to promote crooked laws to benefit their greedy shareholders.
Nah, what he is really saying is that his organization is incapable of managing this change in a simple and profitable way.
No problem! There are a million other companies that can probably handle this transition, please take your ball and go home so the next player can enter the arena.
Next!
IIRC network television is all supplemented with advertising funds to make the particular network money, whereas the premium channels take a cut from the cableco for their income.
Network television has essentially been worthless for years due to the fact that advertising based income is a somewhat broken model, where HBO / Cinemax can afford to make quality programming due to their business model.
If america folds over and accepts this, we'll simply be rewarded by more subquality programming and potentially higher premium prices.
Unfortunately, I'd have to say that this "proposal" is most certainly not dead - as the article clearly stated, the ruling was against the FCC's authority to impose this measure, rather than against the measure itself.
Possibly it shouldn't worry me all that much, living in Australia. However with the FTA in force - and one of the provisions in the FTA relating to the respect of copyright protection, maybe it should. In the end though, I keep thinking of the quote I used to see when opening up MythWeb every now and again - consumers just won't buy devices that won't let them do what they want to.
Some say that this regulation would take away TiVo, but in fact, the FCC has certified a TiVo implementation of the broadcast flag.
Yeah right. Sounds to me like only "approved" setups will be allowed. That is, any company that doesn't play by their rules (paying fees, restricting the technology of course) won't be allowed to make a TiVo-like device. So it will be absolutely impossible for a do-it-yourself-er or even a small company to offer a competing product. MythTV would not work in this setup. I won't be able to build my own TiVo-like device from spare parts at a reasonable cost. The broadcast flag thereby mandates and controls activities in other sectors of the economy. This is not a good thing. Of course, the mythTV-style people who build their own from scratch will probably find a workaround, but this still means that advancement and innovation in TiVo-like technology (and other novel distribution schemes) will be slowed if not completely stopped. I know I'm preaching to the converted here, but this broadcast flag steps way out of bounds.
This is wonderful news! All the shows and movies these people make suck terribly anyway. They've got a government license to beam this crap through our bodies, but we're not allowed to copy it. Fine! They should just stop producing content. Perhaps the 15% will read instead. This comment's lame - sorry bout that. I'm just sick to death of television. Of course, I'm sitting in a master control suite in a tv station right now. Alone. Reaching out to the nameless masses of geeks. Well, at least the wine store will be open when I get off work.
you don't want to do thing our way... so we're going to cut our nose off to spite our face.
here guys, i've a great idea, lets stop priates by alienating an entire section of our customers!
'Our companies want to continue to show their movies and television shows to viewers who don't or can't subscribe to cable or satellite systems. But without the broadcast flag, that option will look less and less appealing. In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era.'
What Glickman doesn't understand, or more likely wishes weren't true, is that his argument holds no water in a free market system. All it takes is a very simple thought experiment to make it clear:
If no studios allow "their" content to be broadcast in high-def because there is no broadcast flag, then there will be an unmet market demand. Sooner or later at least one company -- be it an established studio or a new upstart -- will decide that they don't need a broadcast flag in order to license their movies for high-def broadcast. At that point they will have the entire market to themselves and it will be easy money to fullfill that previously unmet market demand.
Once one company is seen to be making easy money, others will decide they would like some of that easy money themselves and will enter the market too. Eventually either all the old studios will be in the market just as they are for standard-def broadcasts, or they will have isolated themselves, becoming niche players in the over all "content" market.
The key to the free market system here is that the studios need the audience way more than the audience needs them. Without an audience they will starve and die, without high-def movies, we'll just watch DVDs, read a book or do something else like go skiing.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
These people will stop at nothing and they are a bunch of liars. Just like the organized criminals they resort now to blackmailing their customers. "If there is no mandated broadcast flag we are going to pull all our programs from broadcast TV" Hey MPAA Go ahead and pull 'em that will leave plenty of space for the more talented players to fill your void you morons.
Stop showing your stuff. We'll see who suffers more.
So if MY washing machine (in scotland) were to connect to a server in the US then they would want to know if I was washing and TV related items of clothing? As long as they can stand the smell of my flatmates underware they can go ahead :P
All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest
Do we really need their movies more than they need us to pay for them ?.
Bring it on, the broadcast prime time that was traditionally given to movies will be filled by new content. There are a lot of people who to be on TV and TV programs, not all of them are talented but this kind of subjective anyway.
Ultimately its the viewers that are in control, if they want big movie style television in the wake of the MPAA revoking its product, then someone else will make television programs to satisfy the audience.
It obvious to everyone on slashdot but the biggest mistake that the RIAA and MPAA made was to start attacking their customers. The truth is they are not really worried about being forced out of business, they worried about being undercut and having their dominant business model taken away.
They are powerful and the whole argument about digital media will take a long time to play out. But I am confident that even in the lobby controlled political climate of washington the customer will end up being right.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt! #:-)
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Cory Doctorow gave an interesting talk on the Broadcast Flag, touching on some of the differences in the European vs US histories and approaches, urging Europeans to reject the idea.
a st_flag.html
MPGs and MP3s here...worth a listen:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/26/corys_broadc
Oh yes, they're doing all this for the consumers!
What a load of rubbish. They must think I'm stoopid or sumpthin.
The broadcast flag is just another tool devised by the MPAA to help insure that if people want to watch something beyond the original air-date, they'll have to go out and buy it.
The broadcast flag isn't about bringing media to the masses, it's about bringing media to the masses, grabbing them by the grapes and squeezing every penny they possibly can from the public.
Fact is, by the time a production makes it to broadcast television, it's made all the money it's going to make. Companies purchase advertising time, the production houses make some more money. At this time, it doesn't make one bit of difference whether someone tapes or doesn't tape a movie from the television, and the funny thing is, that the taping of movies from broadcast or cable television is protected under fair-use.
By insisting that there be a broadcast flag, the MPAA is basically saying, "We don't care about your right to fair-use, we want your money and we'll get it, one way or another."
Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!
It may be their content, but it's my TV they are trying to mandate something on. I have no intention of buying their content, why should they have a right to have a say on what kind of TV I'm allowed to use?
a fork. Noting the road signs, 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' Buddha took pause, and headed off cross country.
If they don't sell it to broadcasters... won't they make less money?
And if everyone refuses to watch it over this issue, they would only be forcing themselves out of the market. The moment people start wising up to this, that the consumers have the power, not the big companies, they will be backing down in a big way!
Their entire empire isn't worth losing over a tiny percentage of people who decide to break some copyright rules.
The head of the MPAA, which chooses to drag users over the coals and shut down more and more options for them to receive broadcast content, now illicits their assistance in further curtailing their viewing rights, or at least providing a mechanism to?
I've never heard machinations so Machiavellian. Trying to convince us the quality of TV shows and movies will go down..... from what point? It is pretty bad as it stands.
The most insulting line of it all:
"Our companies want to continue to show their movies and television shows to viewers who don't or can't subscribe to cable or satellite systems. But without the broadcast flag, that option will look less and less appealing. In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era."
If your companies want to continue to show their programming to broadcast viewers, stop suing them and making them sell their televisions. Better yet, this is an admission that an antiquated business model will attempt self-repair through unscrupulous service cuts which harm the end-user.
The MPAA has done enough to harm the rights of viewers who can't give $23412523 dollars to the major cable and sattelite players.
We need new solutions, folks.... we just do. At this rate, who knows where we are headed in this field.
The Crimson Dragon
Just pull your content off broadcast TV already!
If you can make more money elsewhere, please do.
The broadcast networks are charging top dollar for advertising.
Somebody's making money on TV. They will continue to make money, despite my fair use right to make a copy for my private use.
MPAA turned the VCR into a tremendous revenue stream. For them to demand the broadcast flag without one shred of evidence that they're being hurt by my fair use rights is unmitigated gall. Show me some damages and I'll think about it.
I want to keep that set carpenter hippie that met his wife on the set of the Big Chill employed, I really do, but I don't see how if I burn episodes of "the Wire" to DVD so I can watch them later harms him. Glickman is going to have to come up with some big brib.. er... donations to get my Congressman to agree.
My father is a blogger.
I'm amused by their veiled threat to "take their ball and go home," as the submitter put it. This is such an empty threat. If they take their ball and go home, they make no money, and the industry they're supposedly protecting will hemorrhage when consumers will figure out something else to watch or do. That, of course, would pretty much take away their tiny little kingdom.
In other words, what they're really scared of is that we will take our ball and go home. When the RIAA pulled this crap, a large number of people basically said, "to hell with you and your stupid laws, I'm going to download and share these files anyway." Their little temper tantrum lawsuits have done very little to make a dent in that, and in fact, has mainly served the opposite effect as a publicity tool for peer-to-peer networks.
Right now, not many people share or download movies. Right now, studios and organizations like the MPAA are trying to stifle people's ability to do so. Right now, it is still happening (witness all of the hoopla over Revenge of the Sith). The more they fight it, the more they publicize it and the more people will do it.
If a television or DVD player won't play a movie or television show I want to watch for whatever reason, I'll simply get my television or DVD player from somewhere else. I hope that most consumers aren't foolish enough to buy into the sales pitch that a valuable feature is, "Hey, this device protects the industry by keeping you from watching stuff you want to!"
If these organizations were truly interested in helping studios and consumers, instead of trying to figure out how to put proverbial genies back into their respective bottles, they would be helping to figure out innovative ways to make people WANT to use non-illegal means to view their content. What they're doing now is only hurting the industry and will continue to do so until someone makes them stop.
So my response to Mr. Glickman: Go ahead, take your ball and go home. Will it hurt the consumer? A little bit, you bet. But after a little while when people like you are finally out of the equation because your own stupid beliefs and decisions and caused the industry and consumers to openly rebel against you, maybe we'll finally have an industry that can make everyone happy. You seem to keep forgetting that it's our game, not yours, to play.
</sarcasm> for those who need the hint.
Remember what happened with the original Circuit City DivX? The MPAA told CC the same thing: without strong hardware encryption, there was no way they would allow their movies to go to market on DVD. Contrary to /. legend, DivX didn't die from consumer rebellion, it died from lack of content because all the movies were on plain DVD, not DivX.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
If the tv companies dont want to show them either perhaps these shareholders should withdraw their stakeholding in these firms.
Imagine for a moment that you are George Lucas - and nobody born after 1977 (ish) knew the story of his blockbuster. TV can also drive sales of dvd, video, and cinema tickets For big profits you need a lot of people to see your product what this chap is saying I don't care about revenue.
I do hope somebody goes and tells the shareholders of the these mega media companies.
Being flippant I think the mpaa should emply hypnosis artists so when you go the cinema - you always ENJOY the film before you see it, and forget that you saw it when you leave because of mr/mrs.miss hypnosis. Now their would be queue arround every cinema for the next 30 years.
Send Peter Clifford Francis Macrae comdoms to 23 Bedford St, St.Neots, PE19 1AX, England
The basic outline of the broadcast flag was approved in principle by a large and diverse group of consumer electronics, computer technology and video content companies. This consensus was reached after a thorough process involving all affected parties.
"Oh... except what is arguably the most important component, the consumer who we need to view or buy our content. But we're pretty sure they're sheep, with no input on the matter, and little ability to see through my rich euphamisms such as 'protect the magic of the movies'."
"And that is why you, the consumer, must support the broadcast flag. Hurry up and do it, you stupid consumer."
Promote civility: mod down any post starting with 'ummm'.
It is not Congress's job to produce legislation with the express aim of protecting the MPAA member companies' business models. It is their job to produce legislation that protects their copyrights.
Personally, I think prevention is not the way to go here, because it presumes that all consumers are thieves. It would be far better from a "YRO" point of view to equip law enforcement with better tools to find those who are violating copyrights. They're choosing the easier way out, because it's easier to try to block distribution than it is to police it.
Kill your TV!
.. what .. exactly? Generations and Generations of people sitting around on their asses, enslaved by the God Box.
..
Seriously! All this hoop-lah about
Turn it off. Take it outside. Smash it.
Talk to your neighbor instead. Learn a new board game. Do something you've never done before. Go somewhere new. Take walks. Learn a new hobby.
The end result of Television is: Wasted Minds.
Let the "Entertainment Cultists" cry their woe. All you TV-bots are wasting valuable resources. You know how much OIL it takes to make a TV show? You know how much OIL it takes for 10 million people to watch the same show, every day, over and over, all over the country?
Seriously. You are Not Being Entertained, your Mind is being Controlled by Remote
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Why has the goverment not gagged this guy and put him in a nice tiny cage yet? oh, and that jacket that you get to hug yourself with... yeah, he needs that to, he must have been unloved as a child. He is clearly a nutcase.
"without this incentive good TV and movies won't get shown on broadcast television."
Come again? The greatest irony of all is that the high-tech home cinema with surround sound and high definition arrives when there is less and less to justify it. I'll worry when they start "flagging" books.
DAN: Come on, do it for the children.
public: naaa..we like to not have to sit through 15 minutes of commercials per hour of tv.
DAN: But the studios will suffer because of our outdated business model
public: crybaby, go talk to the RIAA about outdated business models. Times change. You didn't hear the radio trying to legislate themselves jobs when TV came out and got popular in the late 50s. And look, 50 years later, there's still radio, and now, even DIGITAL radio and you don't see the RIAA griping about it (too much).
When the public goes digital, everyone wins except those that rely on poor quality broadcasts and low technology to make money.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
This moment of black helicopter zen brought to you by Slashdot.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
If Hollywood decided that it did not want to make movies for broadcast TV, then, someone else will. Even if broadcast meant the instant distribution of your work, you could still walk away with millions of dollars in advertising revenue from the initial airing of the show.
This is my sig.
So what would change? They already hardly show any good shows over the air, and when they do, they usually cancel it after one or two seasons, tops... hell, it's hard enough to find good programming on cable.
--Ender
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
Again, I am not seeing any mention of the irony that the last Star Wars (one of the worst movies I've ever seen btw) broke all records in its debut... all this with piracy still "not under control" by Glickman's definition. I think a poster in the previous article on Glickman even suggested (and I agree) not only would totally free and available downloading not have hurt the opening of Star Wars, it may have enhanced its takings.
As for the broadcast flag.... the last thing I want my providers mucking around with is having to write code to accommodate the frigging broadcast flag. How many of you have the Comcast HD PVR box? In the last week it has "claimed" to record more than three shows that never showed up in the play list. It created an entry in the play list that had no title, claimed it was recorded in 1998, and was unplayable, and once I tried to play it, locked the machine up solid and only a power cycle recovered it.
I want my Comcast guys spending their time and effort fixing those bugs, not honoring a request by the MPAA to restrict even more my access to media.
The technology moves ever forward, and has the potential to really improve our lives, yet these guys who won't even expend the energy to pick up a ten dollar bill because they're too filthy rich making money off of other peoples' talent insist on leveraging the power of new technology to add a little more Hell to our lives.
I'll probably get modded troll..., but really, I am so close going "off grid", I am so frustrated with battling technology rather than reaping benefits from.
Let's be honest: You want to protect the content of your media from unauthorized duplication and distribution. I see no problem with trying to protect your content, but you have to remember that your consumers have certain fair use rights. While some form of protection may be invovled, many have disagreed with this particular implementation of protection.
Failure to implement the broadcast flag on the July 1 date will be a significant step backward in the transition to digital television. It would also lead to unnecessary confusion in the marketplace, since most television manufacturers have already changed their production to incorporate broadcast flag technology.
All of which is a problem of your own creation. If your industry was not so insistent that the FCC implement something that is beyond their powers, you would not be in this situation.
The basic outline of the broadcast flag was approved in principle by a large and diverse group of consumer electronics, computer technology and video content companies. This consensus was reached after a thorough process involving all affected parties.
The consensus that you speak ignores the most important group: Consumers like library associations disagreed with the FCC's decision so much that they sued. Also your revisionist history does not mention that most of the major TV manufacturers objected as well.
The irony, of course, is that modern cable and satellite delivery systems already have imbedded technical means that maintain the value of digital programming by preventing its redistribution over digital networks. The broadcast flag extends that same protection in the estimated 15 percent of American households that do not subscribe to cable or satellite services but rely instead on over-the-air broadcast television.
This proposal only places restrictions on broadcast content that does not exist today and grants controls to the MPAA that it does not have today. Indirectly, this clause gives the MPAA the power to control which equipment a consumer can use. Want to buy a new TV to watch the Superbowl in HD in 2007? You can only buy those TVs that have the broadcast flag even if you don't like any of the features.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The rough translation of what he's saying is "While we could simply ignore non-subscription viewers and stick our own broadcast flags on our own sat/cable set-top box equipment and let the market decide, we think that its better to make all TV's equal for the viewers own good." What gets me is that while the FCC is debating a mandatory broadcast flag, they've totally ignored this equipment update opportunity to mandate an 'adult' flag which would effectively solve _ALL_ censorship and 'indecency' issues on next-gen TV and let everyone have their cake and eat it, yet they prefer to stick to the old method of stupid parents groups pushing everyone else around - if you're offended by what you see, then you've obviously changed the setting on your TV from the default 'block adult flag scenes'. So basically they don't want you saying fuck or recording people not saying fuck, and that corresponds to what definition of freedom?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
broadcast TV can FOAD.
go ahead mr. glickman. take your ball and go home. quite frankly nothing would make me happier.
you can go take your "survivor", "american idol", "desperate housewives", and shove it. i don't give a shit about this inane drivel you try to ram down our throats, and I care even less to see this banality in "hi def".
the sooner you and the industry you represent burns in hell, the better off humanity will be.
If you can't get what you want by first having a government agency do your (illegal) dirty work for you then politely ask the public to stab themselves in the back with the knfe you provide. To assist in the process tell them that being stabbed is actually *good* for them - then wait and see how many sheep, er, consumers follow along.
Redefining the debate by trying to change the terms via brainwashing seems to be the misguided corporate way. Throughout history, Governments, Businesses and other Institutions have tried and failed to stop technology and ideas from changing things (read as a loss of power and control), from the printing press to the automobile to the internet.
Get over it.
Adapt.
Grow.
Change.
or Just Die and someone else will take your place
(Actually, I think this is already underway!).
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Also, War is peace, Freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. We HAD to destroy that village to save it.
MPAA has to be seen to be working for their
paid constituents. Otherwise, why do they
exist ?
And the employees all sign on in order to
receive a paycheck. If this can be extended
for years, and years, then baby gets a new pair
of shoes, or BMW.
Obviously, there's excess cash in the industry
or this type of corrosive corrupt political
activity wouldn't exist. SO !! What else is
new ?
W.........
They always talk about the customer and protect their customer. But we are their customer and if a lot of their customers are doing file sharing or whatever. It might be a clue that we are not satisfied with their way of doing business.
I am from Brazil and after the internet, I saw how many bands I never heard of because the record companies did not release them in Brazil. Now I don't have to expect them to release nothing now.
They are nothing in and of themselves. Their right to broadcast on any frequency at all is a bequest of the FCC, which is technically a publically mandated entity. So to simply accept their argument that we don't owe them anything... F^H^HK them. If these companies weren't stagnating dinosaurs that are starting to reek with their odiousness, maybe I could handle their argument (that something of quality would be missing from US cultural discourse) . But as Hollywood stands, they can chew on a piece of BSE jerky for all I give a crap. The networks are even worse. These old companies either can't or won't understand that p2p is the biggest, quickest, _cheapest_ way to distribute media, so they can enjoy their spot on the sidelines as someone does this sh*t for real out here. And if you would really miss your golden opportunity to miss the 6th season of American Idol when the FOX network pulls the plug, I personally would love to see their hypocritical jargon trash (which, coincidently, would argue these conglomerates point much how you did) removed from the scene of cable news. We owe them nothing but the boot we should've given them and some legislation that says they need to stop whining.
I got a single line to deflate their whole argument: Either get with the times or sleep with the roses.`Some kind of content-tagging could quite probably end up being useful, for keeping track of ratings if nothing else _Personally,_ I could see such a thing employed see it as a way of keeping good track of who created what content, which when enjoyed might be cause for some sort of individual reward you wish to give a content creator. But the idea that these companies, whose entire wealth can be attached either to our (US citizenship's) desire to purchase tickets to see movies or our grant to them of a set of frequencies to broadcast things in what is now a dismally inefficient way (it's important to keep in mind that most movie companies are subsidiaries of or own television stations). We can do without them, and we _should_ do without them, since we are supposed to be striving for efficiency here, under the beautiful capitalist system that it took a colonial era Brit to come up with. If these companies want to talk the capitalist talk, they should walk the walk... OFF THE PLANK!
Mr. Glickman, with respect, please refrain from misrepresenting the benefit and effect of the broadcast flag.
... Broadcast flag technology protects the content of our shows from redistribution over the Internet."
"The challenges lie in protecting that content so that it is not stolen and resold or rebroadcast by video pirates.
As we know, broadcast television shows movies after cinemas, pay per view, and video tape/DVD sell-through. Those present four opportunities to make and distribute copies of the works, two of which provide a digital picture stream identical to the broadcast stream. There is also the widely used pre-cimema opportunity, which results in distribution before first cinema showing even in the US. Please explain why you believe that those you seek to inhibit will choose to wait for broadcast television instead of doing what they currently do and using the earlier opportunities.
For two Of those earlier opportunities, cable and video tape, the studios or broadcasters have preveiously gone to the Supreme Court arguing that they would destroy their business. Please identify the businesses they destroyed after those cases were lost, since it appears that both are actually major revenue streams, and explain why you believe your arguments in this instance are of greater accuracy in predicting the future benefits to your members' businesses than those your predecessors made with their predictions of doom.
"The sole purpose and effect of broadcast flag is to assure a continued supply of high-value programming to off-air"
I have rejected the TiVo technology as insufficiently flexile. It limits me to a narrow range of playback devices and restricts my ability to do things like editing to remove offenive content before playing to others, such as children. Compatibility between different implementations by different vendors in fights to achieve market dominance is also a concern. Capturing a video stream and producing more tools, provided secrecy and restrictions on protocols is not required, is a very promising market. The controls of the broadcast flag regime appear to kill this market for intelligent filtering and editing tools developed by a very wide range of small producers, often single individuals with limited funds, like the college student who developed the well known Virtual Dub video editing program.
Today I can time shift a video broadcast from homoe to my computer and then to an airplane or hotel room on a business or other trip. Using a single portable computer to do both this and the bunsiness activities. It appears that the restrictions of the broadcast flag will block this existing very useful capability or require the entirely impractical approach of taking the main family recording device with me.
"The basic outline of the broadcast flag was approved in principle by a large and diverse group of consumer electronics, computer technology and video content companies. This consensus was reached after a thorough process involving all affected parties."
That list of parties misses the most broadly affected group: end users of the video at home watching it on their home digital televisions with the great potential of ubiquitous home digital networks and home recording. It also appears to lack broadcast television stations. Perhaps consultation with the most affected parties would be of use - the ones who dislike this because they know it will fundamentally limit their opportunities for uninfringing use of the content?
Today, the threat of the broadcast flag is one of the factors which discourages me from purchasing or using digital television equipment. The sooner that threat is gone, the sooner it is that I'm likely to be interested in purchasing something which will no longer threaten to dramatically limit my legitimate uses of the content being broadcast. Congress acting today to prohibit the use of the broadcast flag or similar systems would be of significant help in encouraging my adoption of digital televisio
without this incentive good TV and movies won't get shown on broadcast television.
;-)
And I've been wondering for 40 years why movies and TV in particular have been so lousy... so apparently we've needed the broadcast flag long before the advent of home video recording.
From what I've seen the best way for the consumer to avoid suffering is to keep the MPAA members from showing their stuff. The best movie I have seen this year was Episode III, and I woudn't have paid for it if I knew...
Of course, it's doubtful that the MPAA would ever carry through on this. Broadcast TV is 1) a significant revenue stream, and 2) far enough behind every other stream in terms of time that it doesn't matter all the much if the movie is copied like crazy. By the time a big movie hits broadcast TV, most other revenue streams have been exhausted.
Have fun banging your ball against your bedroom wall, Dan -- in the meantime, I'll be over here in the DVD rental store...
The problem is that the broadcast television business model is under real attack on multipule fronts.
Firstly, and most importantly, cable television is fracturing the market and stealing share that the big (3,4,5) broadcasters have become reliant on for so long.
Second, people are just watching proportionally less tv than they used to as lives become busier and computers and video game consoles compete for the audience.
Thirdly, advertizers are becoming used to much better data on market size and demographic than television has ever been able to produce. Sweeps is a painful expensive joke in the industry and Nielson has had a rediculous amount of contravercy in their attempt at 'improving' their data.
Fourth, PVRs and in particular TiVO which allow for skipping ads.
Fifth, online availability of television shows online and without commercials. This is particularly troublesome because of the studios' new reliance on overpriced DVD sales to hardcore show fans.
The upshot of all of this (and other factors) is that broadcasters are being pressured to ensure that as many eyes as possible see the ads inserted between show breaks. This all means that broadcasters will now start insisting on ads inserted into the content of television shows even more than today. People aren't going to be able to get up and go to the bathroom when that Pepsi spot shows up right in the middle of a tense moment in your favorite police drama. It also means that broadcasters will want bigger audience, less expensive shows to produce. This means that we are likely to see another wave of gameshow mania running around on the tv whether we like it or not. Also, reality tv is here to stay because people don't watch enough ads so if you can turn a bunch of hungry, somewhat dirty people (with perfect hair) into Dorito eating maniacs for less than it would cost to hire a team of writers and actors, you just doubled your money.
My dog seems happy with this arrangement. Why does everyone seem so ungrateful about the broadcast flag? Do you all want to be put to sleep?
The root legal issue that has for a very long time needed to be raised and defended in the copyright argument is the right to remember. Recording devices are no more than memory enhancers. Because we don't yet have the ability to embed these devices within us, they are not yet seen that way, but that is very clearly the long term path. Eventually, we will be able to embed enough memory to be able to remember and playback whatever we see or hear. When that happens, once we've seen or heard something once, it will forever be replayable. So, the real legal issue is, is the right to remember something a fundamental right? I sure hope that the answer is obvious.
Mark Cuban's HDNet has been showing a panel forum taken from the 2004 Billboard Digital Entertainment awards. Scroll down here and look for "THE FUTURE OF DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS". Bram was on that panel and kicked ass. He spoke specifically about how the boradcast flag and anti-piracy measures are techical cul-de-sacs and won't solve the industry's problems. Then told the other folks on the panel (industry insiders) that they need a new business model. They didn't look happy.
HDNet rebroadcasts these panel forums every Sunday morning from 9am - 10am est. Well worth your time if you get the channel. --M
Don't push your luck buddy. We're already tired of your wares. Ticket sales are down across the board, and so is TV viewership among men 18-30, the most valuable demogrpahic.
Your marketing people are no doubt trying very hard to figure out why this is, but in your hear you know why... Its because everything you're doing is SHIT. Your writers are terrible, your plots hackney, your characters stiff, your actors couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. And yet you expect us to pay $9 for a movie ticket. Same goes with your television shows.
What is this "Reality TV" bullshit? It was cool for about a week, but the joke stopped being funny and you're still telling it. When I see model quality babes eating snails on TV like I did last night. Plus, everytime we *really* like something you kill it! Futrama, Firefly, Family (and what the HELL is american dad BTW?), Enterprise, the list goes on and on.
So when you tell me you can't broadcast your prescious movies on HDTV, I say, "Who the fuck cares?" Only you, my friend :) Yea, we had some good times, Fight Club, Star Wars, Star Trek 6 (the rest sucked), Casablanca, anything by Terry Gilliam (thanks for trying to ruin Brazil BTW), and a handful of other movies... but we just don't care anymore. In the last 75 years of modern movies you've produced a few hundred *really* good movies, and it really seems like the good times are behind us. You haven't captured our imagination in a long time.
So thats it, thanks. The long and short of it is, is we've given up on YOU, because YOU gave up on us a long time ago. Did you know most successful people don't have TV's or very rarely watch them? And btw, ben affleck, ben stiller, and adam sandler are incredible cocks who should never be in a movie again. thanks
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
The basic outline of the broadcast flag was approved in principle by a large and diverse group of consumer electronics, computer technology and video content companies. This consensus was reached after a thorough process involving all affected parties.
I see one group missing: consumers (aka people).
The MPAA and the RIAA hate anything that might be hurting their profits, regardless of the fact that they're earning more today than ever before. That means they hate the Internet and the consumer electronics industry, but seeing as they can't do anything about that (although they keep trying), they take out their frustrations on their own customers... as if that'll improve anything. Introducing measures like the broadcast flag and suing consumers can only serve to make them more unpopular; it won't change anything and may eventually hurt their profits more than if they did nothing. What they need to do is to offer their customers some satisfactory and affordable legal alternatives to use via the Internet.
Please stop whining and do try to figure out a way to create "content" that is worth my giving you money for in the first place.
I shall not be attending showings of "The Longest Yard," nor shall I even watch it for free on broadcast television. Not because I have 'stolen' it from the Internet, but because it is a piece of shit that isn't worth wasting my time on, something that is far more valuable to me than giving you buck or five.
If you wish me to watch it I must insist on getting my government scale billing rate of $350/hr, plus hazardous duty pay.
I can use the money to buy Nero Wolfe, a cable television production, on DVD.
KFG
Fact is, by the time a production makes it to broadcast television, it's made all the money it's going to make.
Fact is, all the producers and actors pray that their show is appealing enough to generate syndication deals that gurantee them a huge, long-term paycheck. DVD sales also get them a nice chunk of change.
Fact is, the only reason many programs get their big money before broadcast is it's too soon for the people with money to see how much the program sucks. It's pretty safe to assume they aren't the ones most affected by the piracy.
Organizations like MPAA/RIAA should be in Guiness Book of Records.. they never ever fail to top their last statement with something MORE ridicilous and unlogical..
Its about control.
The MPAA (which these days probobly covers most american made TV entertainment as well as movies) wants to stop people from being able to record a TV show onto their PVR and watching it later (fast-forwarding all the ads). And from recording something off the TV and keeping it to watch again and again instead of buying the DVD.
Just remember, anything capable of recieving video signals (TVs, VCRs, DVD Recorders, PVRs, Video Capture cards and probobly more) will have to deal with the flag.
And the flag will not just be for Free-To-Air transmissions, it will be for cable TV, sattelite TV and probobly the next generation of DVDs too (with the new generation of DVDs having the broadcast flag embedded into the video content in the same way that Macrovision is used on current DVDs to prevent illegal copying.
Now would probobly be a good time to buy a HDTV tuner card so that you have one WITHOUT the broadcast flag. Alhough at least we dont have this broadcast flag crap here in australia.
The MPAA is playing a dangerous game by threatening to take its ball home. Copyright is designed to encourage content creators to publish their work. If they use copyright to prevent work from being published, then a much simpler legislative solution than the broadcast flag is to tweak the copyright legislation a bit and immediately revoke the copyright from any film or TV show that has not been shown on broadcast TV within two years of first showing. This would completely solve the problem, without restricting consumers' or manufacturers' rights in any way.
I'm not sure what your point is in the DivX part, is that sarcastic too? With the vast library of older movies to choose from, made-for-cable movies, and pirated movies, they can't afford to withhold content. Perhaps that your point?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
Me and my wife just make a plan to watch an hour less TV everyday and instead to use the time for reading/studying.
For as far as I concern, I don't really care if they show less mind eating material. pbs.org has a lot of good DVD on sale. If I want movie, I buy DVD or go netflix.
How can "they" talk about taking their ball/content and going home over network broadcast TV when it's an advertising driven medium?
I bet, dollars to donuts, if the networks start getting better/more deals for "product placement" and other nuevo-advertising AND they figure out how to account for internet downloaders to count as additional eyeballs/ratings, they'd change their tune pretty quickly.
Remember folks, originally cable companies (the group being lauded in the article) were originally pirates of broadcast television! Of course the industry reacted badly (lawsuits, hand waving, PSA's) to the birth of cable. Now it's a legitimate distribution medium.
This is how a slow cumbersome industry falls to irrelevanc as they react badly to new disruptive technologies.
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
Besides, if you put "I'll probably get modded down for this", it's like an instant bonus as they normally get modded up. Of course this post will be the exception to the rule.
MPCAWW (Motion Pictire Consumer Association World Wide) gives finger to MPAA. We don't want this kind of crap imposed upon us. go away!
Privacy is terrorism.
Then go.
This same tired argument is used by the airlines from time to time as well. "If government doesn't give us 52 billion dollars, we'll close up shop and then no one will have service." The reality is that if all the companies in the MPAA went away right this minute, the vacuum would be filled immediately as dozens of smaller studios suddendly received a torrent of investment capital. From the customers' standpoint, nothing would have changed.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
the money is, and that is a fact, it will make not much of a difference, if there is a broadcasting flag or not!
This was the same bullshit argument that the MPAA shills were using while pushing the Super DMCA bill here in TN. "If we get this legislation, we'll be able to provide better programming!" It's amazing we were able to essentially kill it after seeing just how completely crooked our legislature is.
Do you have ESP?
The MPAA should just check out the comments on both columns and itll become clear what the people think... heres a nice one.
You say, "Without proper protections, it will be increasingly
difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball
games on free television." But you do not tell us why you believe
that. I get the feeling you're talking at me, not to me.
Second, these types of protections have already left a bad taste.
For example, not long ago I wanted to show my kids something
quick that we had been discussing. My wife was trying to get us
out the door, but we had a minute, so I popped the DVD into the
player. It starts playing all the junk (sorry, that's how I see it) at
the beginning. So I hit the "Menu" button.
"Operation not permitted."
So I hit the "Next Chapter" button.
"Operation not permitted."
So I try the "Fast Foreward" button...
Do I have to say it? In total disgust, since we have no more time,
I hit the "Stop" button.
"Operation not permitted."
"What!? I'm not even permitted to stop it? Who gave those clowns
control of my remote?" is exactly what I said aloud, with my kids
present. I then turned off the power switch, conceding that was
all I could control in my own living room.
You want me to believe the broadcast flag will be any better?
And you can't even articulate a good reason why its needed?
You've got a lot of work ahead of you to convince me, and end
user, that the broadcast flag is worth the cost of more
legislation.
without this incentive good TV and movies won't get shown on broadcast television
So how does he excuse the past 20+ years of absolute garbage on TV, all without the presence of the broadcast flag?
More importantly, though, if the mere existence of the broadcast flag will make him happy, then fine, he can have his little flag.
I won't use a receiver that honors it... And when the housewives of America learn they can't record their soaps anymore, I suspect even Joe and Jane Schmoe will go out of their way to get a flagless receiver. But if the cable companies want to transmit that flag, hey, no problem. The only problem comes from legislation requiring all receivers to obey that flag.
For comparison, Audio CDs have something like the broadcast flag in them... A bit that means, "You do not have permission to copy this CD". I don't think any CD-ROM drives have ever honored that, but it exists, none-the-less.
If waving a flag at the cable companies makes the MPAA feel warm and fuzzy, let 'em have it. They can argue about flagged and unflagged content, distribution rights, timeslots, and the like. And, as always, the rest of the world will quietly ignore them, tape their shows, and watch them with the commercials (aka "pee breaks" back before the VCR) skipped.
... the point being, attract as many eyeballs for advertising as possible. Advertising pays the bills. If HDTV attracts eyeballs, they will broadcast HDTV.
Now, will it be quality programming? Is there quality programming now? People decry the lack of quality on TV, yet quote Homer Simpson at every opportunity. Gimme a break. If you like what you see, expect more of the same.
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
The basic outline of the broadcast flag was approved in principle by a large and diverse group of consumer electronics, computer technology and video content companies. This consensus was reached after a thorough process involving all affected parties.
All parties except consumers. The engineering group at my company acts somewhat in the same way:
Them: "Look at this cool stuff. You need to use it"
Us: "We can't, it reduces the functionality of our stuff that we have now"
Them: "But you need this new stuff"
Us: "If we use it, we will do less with what we have now"
Them: "Pffft...stupid end users"
It seems that there are always people that 'know better' and want to pat the consumers on the head and say, "That's nice, now run along and play with your friends while we give you what we want"
To this I say Pffft...
This is such a facetious load of crap. Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that the MPAA's only driving concern is money, pure and simple. If the article were written by someone involved in the creation of a movie, that quote might be a little more credible, but the MPAA's only role is to protect the industry's revenue.
Again, whatever. A movie that's not seen makes no money, and people want to make money. Does this guy think that the public doesn't understand basic, greedy motivation? The networks will show movies as long as they make money, even if it means that they have to lose control of the viewer's ability to copy the movie in the process.
It's such flawed logic to say that "if you can copy it, studios will quit showing their movies to you." You can copy things today, in a range of qualities, from crappy telesyncs all the way up to DVD rips, yet the movie industry is still growing, even in the midst of economic unsteadiness. How anyone can give any credence to these guys is just beyond me.
Wow! I never thought of it that way. I surely would not have bought the DVD of Mallrats if I could have easily pirated the ABC broadcast of it! All those edits for content and time didn't harm that movie at all!
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Well, someone had to do it: Well screw you guys... I'm goin' home!
If you ask me about magic in movies, I'd say we're better off without it. It's about time to kill the Harry Potter franchise.
The broadcast flag does not inhibit copying, nor does it prevent redistribution of programming over a personal home network; it only restricts unauthorized redistribution of programming over the Internet and other digital networks.
Which entails the following: " Possible restrictions include inability to save a digital program to a hard disk or other non-volatile storage, inability to make secondary copies of recorded content (in order to share or archive), forceful reduction of quality when recording (such as reducing high-definition video to the resolution of standard TVs), and inability to skip over commercials." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag).
Inability to save a digital program to a hard disk/make secondary copies: So when my TiVo hard disk runs out, the MPAA proposed solution is, of course, buy a new one!
Forceful reduction of quality when recording: Because we all know that if the quality of digital media is lowered, sharing will come to a complete standstill and everyone will rush to the stores to buy a MPAA approved DVD.
Inability to skip over commercials: Because we know that in the future, we all need to have someone prodding us to buy a product that's gone off the market ten years ago.
...Bill's bluff. He had to get better at snowing people, so now the computer market is flooded with crap software.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
All, I repeat, ALL you have to do is embed the ADVERTISING so that it cannot be stripped out.
Television is a medium for delivering advertisements to people. Period. If you believe otherwise, you're delusional. Tivo and file-sharing threaten televsion, not because of any nonsense about copyrights, but because they get in the way of this delivery network and allow people to watch TV without watching the commercials that are needed to keep it running.
(a copyright is a completely intangible thing. It is merely a route to profit, worthless in and of itself. Accordingly, if copyrights become a barrier to profit, they will fall into disuse.)
So, you just have to eliminate commercial breaks. This is pretty much a win-win scenario for EVERYONE, since it means (hypothetically) the entire TV show is one gigantic advertisement, and in the meantime, the TV-viewing public gets shows that are *actually* an hour long, rather than 40 minutes. Use product placement and scrolling banners, or perhaps a PnP in the corner flashing up logos and quick animations.
(won't work? Go look up studies about people who watch TiVo'ed commericals on muted fast-forward. They often have *better* ad retention than those who watch the commericals at normal speed with sound.)
So, that's it. Do that and no one will give the slightest crap how many people pirate a TV show, because every pirated copy is just one more person seeing the wonderful, wonderful advertising that makes the world go round. I can see a future just a few years away where TV producers are actively working to increase the number of shared copies, and including pirates in their viewing statistics when pitching to advertisers.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Surely television can be viewed:
1)from a critical point of view - Yes
2)active manner - No
Active means something like Slashdot where you get to talk back.
Now for the tricky bit. If you cannot do the active bit, will you sustain the critical bit? If you cannot call "Bullshit", you only upset yourself by watching out for it. So I doubt that one can watch TV and maintain a critical stance. Thus the answer might be that in practise it is No and No
Here we go again with more Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and outright lies from the MPAA's chief lobbyist.
Let's list the lies in Glickman's article:
As CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, my principal concern is protecting the magic of the movies.
Replace "CEO" with "chief lobbyist". His sole job is to speak to the media, and to testify and lobby before Congress, to maximize profits for the MPAA.
The challenges lie in protecting that content so that it is not stolen.
Copyright infringement is not "stealing". It's not "burglary", "assault", "murder" or any other crime, either. It's "copyright infringement".
it will be increasingly difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television.
Notice how he throws baseball in there, to panic Joe Sixpack. He is referring to Internet distribution that bypasses a regional blackout, but standard-definition distribution won't be stopped by a HD broadcast flag.
Broadcast flag technology protects the content of our shows from redistribution over the Internet.
Broadcast flag prevents ALL fair use copying, or imposes strict DRM that severely limits fair use.
It would also lead to unnecessary confusion in the marketplace, since most television manufacturers have already changed their production to incorporate broadcast flag technology.
How does this justify taking away our rights for all of the future?
Any TV manufacturer that didn't plan for a simple driver update to disable BCF deserves to eat the cost when no one buys their product. It's software, people!
Some say that this regulation would take away Tivo
FUD.
The broadcast flag does not inhibit copying,
False.
nor does it prevent redistribution of programming over a personal home network;
It prevents "redistribution without our DRM"
it only restricts unauthorized redistribution of programming over the Internet and other digital networks.
Since when did "unauthorized" become a synonym for "infringing"? Most of it may be, but it's a subtle difference.
The basic outline of the broadcast flag was approved in principle by a large and diverse group of consumer electronics, computer technology and video content companies. This consensus was reached after a thorough process involving all affected parties.
Most parties in consumer electronics and computer technology OPPOSE it. Replace "Video content" with "MPAA".
The irony, of course, is that modern cable and satellite delivery systems already have imbedded technical means that maintain the value of digital programming by preventing its redistribution over digital networks.
Neglecting to mention that this is not mandated by the government. In fact, the government regulations insist that cable companies allow third parties to build and sell cable boxes, which could include companies that preserve consumers' fair use rights.
In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era.
OK, so maybe movies appear only on DVD, not on TV. Fine. But all other TV shows will allow fair use copying. But with BCF, NO TV SHOWS WILL BE COPYABLE. If you think the BCF will be set only for movies, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Let's repeat a quote from the beginning:
it will be increasingly difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television.
Pardon my french, but this is bullshit. It's about using the broadcast flag to increase profit. Nothing more. The justifications he provides are smoke and mirrors.
I went and saw ROTS last week.a t/akeysections/4lim/apelev2.html
Here in Canada that cost me $12 (Canadian) or about$9.60 USD
My friend in Manila went and saw it the same day.
His cost?
About $2.00 USD (often less):
http://www.passport2manila.com/akeysections/copyc
So, what is the value of the movie ticket?
Clearly, if the MPAA members they truly believed in what they are saying, then they would not "give away" seats at $2.00
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
The Broadcast Flag or a US Flag, one way or another we're about to have a very public flag burning party.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The FCC is basically shooting themselves in the foot by even worrying about the broadcast flag. TV networks make their money from advertisers, and publicising this so much is definitely worrying the advertisers on where they should spend their money.
Thanks, FCC, for screwing over _everyone_ once again.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Okay, they are basically saying. We won't sell you the product and make money off of you because you won't do what we tell you to.
So, instead, we are going to earn less money, and accept the fact that even through those channels if something is good that the public wants, the public will find some way to view it, and we will get no money at all.
If that's how they do business, then let it be. But with a business strategy that consists of "You are not going to get our product unless you do this weird dance." Will just lead to more piracy, and even more black market behaviour, and in the end they'll burn themselves more than help themselves.
~ kjrose
You the consumer will be losing out because he's threatening you the consumer with the idea that movies wont be on tv for free anymore.
;)
Dont you feel so lucky to have corperate America looking out for your best interests?
Gosh, Gee.. Golly... I'm so glad they're watching out for us consumers.
I guess we'll just have to record things off of TV for free. And i was so looking forward to having to buy every tv show i miss when i'm hard at work, working for peanuts while these guys wipe their asses with solid gold toilet paper.
As if watching a movie on tv is a fucking great experience. Just watch Spike TV and half the fucking screan is overlayed with a fully animated, WITH AUDIO... advertisement for some other shit show of the week...
Yeah enjoy recording that high quality free movie off your HDTV feed. I hope you can reconstruct the frames and audio thats ruined by the shitty overlayed ads that run constantly in the bottom right corner of the screen.
We'll make a new one. How many people are killing themselves because there's no hockey this year?
What?
Movies weren't designed to be stopped every 20 minutes for commercial breaks. I can't stand watching movies on free TV.
PowerLevel.com - A next generation marketplace for virtual items and services
"without this incentive good TV and movies won't get shown on broadcast television."
Just my opinion, but since when have "Good TV and Movies" EVER been shown on broadcast tv, digital or not?
For that matter, when has "Good TV" ever been produced in the US? Doesn't matter what media its on, 99% of everything I've seen on tv, be it satellite, cable, or broadcast, sucks major ass.
But then again, anything created to be entertaining to somebody with a 3rd grade education and a 30 second attention span is bound to be annoying to someone who actually thinks...
But in 29 years.. I think MAYBE I've seen oh, 3 or 4 things on broadcast TV that I thought was "good tv." Their track record isn't good enough for me to give a yak's ass about their threats.
Whatever... Fuck them. The whole industry needs collapse under the combined weight of the absolute crap they call 'art' and their own inability to keep up with the times.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
His claim that consumers will ultimately suffer because if this is a flawed premise. If consumers hate what's on TV, they will stop watching, and the TV stations will go out of business.
Like it or not, they *need* us.
~Knautilus
Why is a law necessary? It's really none of the government's business...
What's stopping them from being detailed in the contract; like tell the networks "You can broadcast this movie only if you use this technology." If enough companies did this, they'd eventually get their way without a law.
But don't force a law on us which stops broadcasters from broadcasting how they want to.
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
Without proper protections, it will be increasingly difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television.
Now if he just threatened to take away NASCAR, too the rednecks would rise up in rebellion.
And children's educational TV! Think of the children!
and go the f**k home then. Your ball is not entertaining anymore.
This guy is full of bullshit. He's just scaremongering.
The broadcast "flag" itself is probably actually good for everyone. It's a standard metadatum which indicates the copyright status asserted by the sender. What happens when the receiver wants to know what that status is? How does it know where to find that external metadata? The flag should have at least a few fields:
- Copyable
- Copyright transferred
- Copyright transferrable (to next recipient(s))
- Copyrighted by <URL>
or just a URL to a copy policy dataset in standard, machine readable terms.
These flags should not be legally binding, as we saw the FCC recently agree, as every card-carrying Slashdotter knows. The assertion is far from necessarily true, and automatic machine interpretation is too prone to error. But, since every recorded expression published is, by default, copyright controlled further up the stream, recipients need a way to distinguish those that aren't. If we don't get a standard copyright field now, we'll have to graft it on later, and that hell will make the current mess look like just an unmowed Garden of Eden.
--
make install -not war
Since when has anything done by the MPAA members been a driving economic force in NON pay television? Do they think showing Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark which hit the theaters in 1982 is some sort of cash cow? Or are they referring to imaginary box office hits that they are fantasizing about coming to NBC first instead of Starz?
Broadcast television still does make money and garner viewers. Plenty of cable and satellite customers turn to the networks every night. Many of them got those services not because of the pay channels but to get proper picture reception of the programming carried on local stations.
However, since long before the advent of the VCR, major motion pictures were shown, ran their run, and that was it. They never came to television.
Is the MPAA somehow thinking that NBC and the others will stop producing things like CSI, Survivor, The Bachelor, etc.? Did the existance of the VCR stop horrible mid-eighties television movies of the week? Did it stop Thirtysomething? I only wish it had.
These are the same people who were originally against cable television itself, later on HBO and other movie services, and that was long long before the advent of the VCR. Later on they were against the VCR. Then they were against DVRs.
Are cable and satellite DVR service users a threat to their bottom line? Not in the slightest. Cable DVR service users cannot open and modify their units without destroying cable company property. Dish users can open their self-owned boxes and frequently do "rip" movies and shows. However, they can only rip what was already broadcast by HBO and the others first. By the time that has happened, the movie has already been availible for rental on DVD for one or more months. And the initial pirate rip? It was done BEFORE the rental/purchase DVDs were manufactured when the movie was still in first release, BEFORE it hit the matinee discount theaters.
There's no way around it: the MPAA has their heads so far up their asses they've become living Moebius strips.
Personally, I'd like to see the other side put their money and effort where their mouth is to counter this horsehockey. IOW, the independent movie makers out here should see about getting the end-users/viewers to be the ones fronting the money in advance of the making of the picture they way big movers and shakers in Hollyweird buy into movie production bonds on spec to make money after it is finished.
Except that the movie in this case would be made entirely on the receipts paid by the viewers in advance and if anything was left over, that would be the profit. The catch? The movie goes the way of FOSS and can be distributed and copied ad nauseum any way and number of times the public likes but NO ONE can charge a cent for it: the money was already paid in. The people wouldn't be investing to make money on it, they'd be investing on taking a share of the collective IP resulting.
I'm sure that there's plent of geeks and nerds hereabouts who would damn near kill to get a proper movie about hackers and network life made as opposed to Hackers and War Games.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
"Without proper protections, it will be increasingly difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television"
Boo hoo. Take Fox then and shut it down. Big loss. If it means I miss out on next week's Stacked, American Idol, My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss, Super Nanny, or half the crap they've been peddling on network TV for the last 6 years, they can keep it. It's a sad stste our television entertainment industry is in when half our network lineup is bad reality shows and the rest is courtroom drama. There's nothing challenging or entertaining on broadcast television anymore.
"Some say that this regulation would take away TiVo, but in fact, the FCC has certified a TiVo implementation of the broadcast flag. The broadcast flag does not inhibit copying, nor does it prevent redistribution of programming over a personal home network; it only restricts unauthorized redistribution of programming over the Internet and other digital networks."
So why does Tivo get the only "Get Out of Jail Free" card? Why can't a viable model like eDonkey or BT be allowed? He's allowing for transfer in a personal home network. Why's that okay but not online? The content you record off air in CA is no different than the content in TX, AZ, NJ, or NY. Who cares if it came locally?
"The irony, of course, is that modern cable and satellite delivery systems already have imbedded technical means that maintain the value of digital programming by preventing its redistribution over digital networks. The broadcast flag extends that same protection in the estimated 15 percent of American households that do not subscribe to cable or satellite services but rely instead on over-the-air broadcast television."
No there isn't. Tell me where that flag is that prevents shows like Aqua Teen Hunger Force, American Chopper, Reno 911, or the Sopranos from getting around online on file trading networks? I've never seen it get enforced. I would think that if this is a problem, it would have been flipped on at the satellite's end LONG ago.
"Our companies want to continue to show their movies and television shows to viewers who don't or can't subscribe to cable or satellite systems. But without the broadcast flag, that option will look less and less appealing. In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era."
Really? Who makes money off of television... You or us? I think consumers can find newer and better ways of entertaining ourselves in a lack of "appealing" television options. Glickman's concerned that we'll all suffer with no TV. For christ's sake! Are we all that stupidly addicted to Survivor and American Idol?! I would hope not.
If he thinks local television will ONLY suffer when their crappy programming gets killed off, he needs to go talk to some of the smaller local network affiliates who had to shutter their news departments due to lackluster lead-in ratings performance from their national network feed.
The only thing he can think about is money, and how to screw things up. That's common among Jews.
The broadcast flag is just another tool devised by the MPAA to help insure that if people want to watch something beyond the original air-date, they'll have to go out and buy it.
The fact that this statement is so true is both funny and sad.
If the broadcast tv folks true aim is to get me watch their advertisements, they have a better chance of me doing that on pause and rewind than they do when it actually airs.
Reason? When I tape a show, I'm watching it at my own leisure. I've popped it in when I actually have TIME to watch the show. I'm more relaxed, not pressured for time, and I'm prone to let the ads just play through, forget to fast forward, or even, if I see something interesting, rewind, play the ad, get the info and then go out and buy that product.
When I'm watching the show when it airs, it's crunch time. Unless I'm taping, it's the only time I'm going to see it. Commercials are when I run to the bathroom or make sure Suzy brushed her teeth or feed the dog or whatever.
In this instance, their logic may be flawed because the only time I really see their ads and actually pay attention to what they want me to buy is when I "time-shift" their programs.
But I will never BUY a program to watch beyond the original air date unless I'm getting the entire season DVD for a show I really, really like. And I have yet to do this, despite how many shows I like are available mainly because they're so damn expensive. They may be on my Amazon wish list but they have yet to make it to my shelf.
So the broadcast people really need to wake up. I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and especially don't try to get money out of me for a "product" that doesn't mean that much. I can always read a book or just enjoy the other parts of my life.
We need to send a message that corporations do not own us, and we are not to be branded and sold whatever they feel like selling us.
I hate sigs.
They're losing the market, and they're scared. What good TV shows? What good movies?
I don't even watch TV anymore. And when I do, I put some music channel, or FTV, or something that doesn't 'distract' too much. I'm especially tired of all the 'reality shows' and similar crap - people who don't have their own lives watch other people not having lives either. Amusing...
I started watching Chinese (watched 2 today), Korean and other non-US movies because I'm tired of Hollywood sh*t. Was left speechless with effects and camera shots in some Chinese movies, as well as stories (real refreshment). I just can't stand Hollywood movies anymore, where everyone has some 'childhood trauma', or has lost wife/child/dog, etc.
So, if I have to choose between "no broadcast flag, no Hollywood spectacles" or "broadcast flag, and we control your TV" - by all means I recommend MPAA to go ahead and NOT show all those "great shows and movies".
But don't tell me what I'll do with my damn TV.
I've been advocating this point of view quietly for awhile. I think the justification for it is sound.
The third amendment reads:
I take this to mean that people shall not be required to personally support agents of the state in their homes. The broadcast flag requires that a piece of hardware that tries to monitor and control your activity for the purpose of furthering the goals of the state be installed in devices that you buy and pay for the electricity to run and such. I think this constitutes being forced to personally support an agent of the state in ones home.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
on the contrary, the "unfortunate" people who are unable to get the satellite/ cable and are only able to get free to air broadcasts will actually benefit if this asshat is correct. if there is no "good" content due to lack of "protection" they might get off their (highly likely to be) big fat asses, and go and do some exercise. more likely though they will just turn on their xbox360/playstation whatever. unless of course verification servers make their life hell. we can always hope.
Mod parent up. Please.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
"TV Industry Promises to Stop Broadcasting Altogether"
EXCELLENT! PLEASE DO!
What I don't understand is why broadcasters would cut themselves off from another advertising channel. an ad is anything that is used to promote the sale of a product or service, and, these days, that means the actual shows and movies themselves are ads, since you can go buy them on DVD, as well.
Am I really going to "suffer" from losing an advertising channel? Hell, I'd pay to get RID of it!
This was a threat. It does not come off to me like a plea to users. He is saying they will not, not "cannot", put out decent content if they cannot protect it to the point of keeping their overpaid companies in business. There is no value to the content they have been putting out recently. Re-hashed content from the past, like it was a part of the business model they came up with when the first recording abilities showed up in their arsenal. They were thinking, "Allright, we no longer have to fill every minute with new content. What's more, we can use past content with new versions using new actors and new modern phrases and send the same content out. The longer we last, the less we have to do."
We can do one of two things, (without giving in to these media terrorists). Learn to live without the media mind killer, (not likely with most people I know), or start another corporate killing industry of Open Source or Shareware media. Not media making apps, but produce the content ourselves. Writing Open Source software is something people are doing out of need in many cases due to the lack of innovation or lack of "perfect fit". Not everyone does this, but those that do are helping millions of others. Why not media content? As it has been stated again and again by many, including these corporate babies, the ability to make and distribute media content is no longer a "corporate only" ability. Many are making content, but not enough to cover all the demand.
Where are all those people that cannot watch a show or listen to a tune without saying all the things that could have been done better? Explain to them how open that field is. All of you with these tech toys need to get with these creative minds and help them put their thoughts to content.
I hope some listen.
.. we won't miss it. Keep in mind that most of the stuff they make is generic brain sludge engineered to distract you and expose you to advertising.
maybe mpaa loses out as consumbers buy less movies because they never see any movies broadcast!
i love how business convinces the consumer that the consumer will lose out if they dont consume!
I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
They can take their ball and hide it if they want, for me that will be the same as the broadcast flag.
The only TV I watch is recorded. If I can't record it I won't watch it. Same as them taking it away, empty threat from my point.
If they DRM I will not watch it. Probably have more time to develop my own content - opps there goes more of their precious market.
Blogs are just the start of people developing their own content. What the media barons have to watch out for is independent media taking over. If they make it hard to get their media then more independent stuff will fill the holes and they lose even more ground.
Welcome to the information age, please leave your dinosaurs at the door.
charge me a montly fee to your station and let me time shift the fucker so I can watch it whenever i want. Oh and no commercials either.
Make your time... set up us the bomb.
All your copyright are belong to us.
It was BETAMAX dipshit!
VHS was still under development in panasonics labs by then.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Good, I think its great then they won't make any more money from the movies. They can store 'em in the basement somewhere and let them be forgotten. This is just an empty threat because it was overturned. They will show the movies not matter if the broadcast flag was passed.
God I hate the MPAA.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
The technology was replaced years ago and has only been around as the tediously slow transition takes place. Real (affordable, plentiful) broadband (still at least a few years out) will be the final nail in the coffin and he expects we are going to be conned into changing for that?
Quack, quack.
That's silly, he can't take his ball and go home.
Kind of hard to sell advertising on a channel with no content! The only way to make money without an audience is to do it Enron-style!
If he's serious, I better short-sell the stock.
"Our companies want to continue to show their movies and television shows to viewers who don't or can't subscribe to cable or satellite systems. But without the broadcast flag, that option will look less and less appealing. In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era."
After you've withheld your movies and television shows, I guess you and the rest of your cronies will have to watch them all by yourselves. Not to worry, though; you're well-paid enough that you could easily make up the lost revenue.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
Next.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
MPAA: "Submit to our restrictions or we won't let you watch our stuff!"
Me: "Whatever. I'll read a book, or play a game, or visit Slashdot, or, god forbid, even go outside and meet people. Maybe I'll even spend time making my own creative content. Whaddya think about that?"
MPAA: "But... but then how will we make any money from you? Commie! TERRORIST!"
You must think in Russian.
You know the real theater? With people on stage? If they stop making movies they can always make theater - more fair too - people actually have to show up each time and earn their money.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
What good TV and movies? I hope he doesn't mean the Junk that is currently produced
you and your corporation suck,
you suck the most.
you are Hitler with 'the' aids.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
... but then again he never came up against the MPAA. If he had, it might have gone more like this:
... ah, screw it. You're a jackass."
And I'm sure he meant every word
I disapprove of what you say, but I will
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Everytime Slashdot links to another article where someone says something about a subject in which they have direct commercial interest, I wonder - WHY???
We are not really getting to hear someone's opinion on the matter, because these people will say anything that they think may improve their cash flow, even if they know they are saying crap.
So what potentially interesting or useful information is in such articles??
We are not reading anything remotely productive, we are not learning anything, you just get another snapshot of the greediness of human nature. But we don't need any more of that, do we?
So why do we have these articles?
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"
Glickman made a mistake claiming content providers will stop producing good TV and film if consumers don't give in to the MPAA protection racket. There isn't enough quality programming out there in the 1000-channel universe to justify this argument.
I stopped watching TV a year ago. I don't miss it. The few interesting, informative, or entertaining shows out there aren't enough to make me drop $100 for a boob tube and at least an extra $20/month for the basic cable package, especially since some of that good programming is only available on the more expensive tiers. Better to blow my cash on food, content I can peruse at my heart's and mind's desire, and spending time with friends, among other things.
But, go ahead, try to lock down mass-broadcast media. Perhaps the time of pirate TV has come...
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
See, the king owns all the land, because that's the divine order of things. Without the king, the peasants would starve, because he provides the land for them to farm. We wouldn't have any entertainment unless giant corporations owned the rights to all of it. Nobody will invest in entertainment unless the government guarantees that someone other than the actual creator earns every possible penny from it. Get it now?
In the end, it will be the consumers who suffer the most if the broadcast flag is not mandated for the digital era.'"
"There's nothing on TV."
"There's gotta be a rerun we haven't seen, or something."
"No, really, there's nothing on. Literally, nothing at all."
"Well, let's go on a picnic, then, with the kids."
Yeah, terrible suffering.
I mean, we have extremely valuable programming on our networks. You know, Survivor, The Real World, Fox 5 News, year-old number-three-at-the-box-office movies...we've come a long way, baby!
(this damn form keeps removing those sarcasm tags--and I personally hope someone puts that Conan O' Brien in primetime, in place of that stuff.)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
With out viewers who exactly is your content targeted at??? Take note, I cannot speak as to the motivations of others within my age range (I happen to be a 30 yr. old male that is technically inclined(Basicly that means that I know what a computer is and know how to use it)). I do not understand this mush that is prime time televison. It does not appeal to me. I as many others within my age bracket, I am assured of, am not impressed by this so called reality television, american idol wa-cha-ma-fuck that is currently prevalent on the airwaves. Do I really care if anyone loves Raymond, hell I'm really worried if anyone loves me! So in my opinion you can take whatever show that you deem is not reaping the profits that you think you deserve and stuff it, we as the public are probably better off with out it. The day that any resonable thought is put into a show I hope that I am not too snakebitten to realize it. However until that time I wish you good hunting and many advertizing dollars spent on tring to track down the tastes of the elusive (semi young) professional female and male.
The government will protect the consumer -- because the government wisely understands that the people need their bread and circuses without restrictions.
Imagine the problem Rome would have had with the populace in the last days of the empire, if they had restricted how and when and why you could see the Christians being eaten by the lion.
Frankly the MPAA doesn't realise what a huge problem they are creating for themselves. They think they are powerful, but ultimately, the public is more powerful -- all the money in the world can't stop a mob from over-running you, and, to put it in modern terms, the moment such restrictions would go into effect, the MPAA would be up to their eyeballs in class-action suits.
The minute joe average notices that he can no longer watch his recorded copy of "Survivor" Season 12, which he missed because he was on vacation, there will be action taken.
There's nothing worse than a lot of angry people all looking for their pound of flesh -- and if you're the cause of that anger, you will be taken out, regardless of law, money, power, or even soldiers.
The only thing keeping the general populace in its place is the TV pacifier -- which, if taken away, will signifigantly affect the ability of the government to keep the people where they are.
If the MPAA gets its way, the government may let the populace rise up and direct their riot toward the MPAA itself, -- replacing broadcasters and content providers with "government sponsered free TV".
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
"The Incredibles return to date is $640 million world-wide in ticket sales and DVD. 18 million DVD sales domestically in its first release, and currently the gold standard for home theater projection and sound. The odds are approaching 1 in 5 that if you own a DVD player, you will own a copy."
And as nifty as that sounds, the video game industry dwarfs this.
So what is your point? That because they're popular and provide jobs congress must protect them?
Baloney.
these 360K people employed by the movie companies sounds suspiciousy bullshitty, but lets go with your number. If Sony et al were forced out of business, there is still a market for movies, and those people would be employed. Just not by Sony. Why do I care about that?
Further, there is no link between piracy and the sale of movies. Oh, maybe there is...piracy seem to encourage people to buy more legal product.
So the end result is (a) you're full of crap (b) but even if you aren't, you haven't made any point that says "We should give up our freedom because the MPAA members are job-creating-machines.
Its just crap.
Somebody should tell him that he doesn't own the only ball of the world....
Maybe if there was something worth watching on TV I'd be scared but what kind of threat is this. At worst I'm just gonna miss the next season of Survivor.=P
Most intelligent poeple responsed with a warm 'Fuck you asshole' while others cried out 'please, take my freedom free me if it means not being able to watch Steven Segal weekend on TNT!!'
In other news....."this company will be pirated right out of business,"
How can that be? You're saying a company is more profitable by locking films in a vault than by showing it on TV?
Or are you saying that pirated media will reduce the amount of revenue that they would get if everybody paid every time they watched a movie? Seriouly, this is one of those arguments that seems insightful until you really sit down and think about what its saying. Then you realize the argument is nonsensical.
Think about it for about 5 minutes and you'll see what I'm saying.
Paragraph breaks.
Anyone else notice that the talkbacks to the oped has been removed?
/. conspiracy theories. >:->
Cue
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!