Slashdot Mirror
Slyck Interviews the MPAA
An anonymous reader writes "P2P community and news source, Slyck, interviewed vice president Dean Garfield of the MPAA. Topics covered range from the MPAA's thoughts on BitTorrent, Limewire and DRM. Garfield acknowledges that they do not have much of a grip on the file-sharing world as they would like to believe."
The motion picture industry is working aggressively to take advantage of wide array of digital distribution platforms
He misspelled "ban".
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
It's hard to have a grip on anything p2p these days, since most p2p users have more than a single client depending on their interests/needs. Sometimes, bit-torrents come in handy, other times people resort to eMule/limewire and the various sorts of softwares available. Big deal. Kazaa really did it best when they got into the market and spread like wildfire before the competition. Their use of advertising helped give them a profit and in turn, feed back into making them a stronger company. And now with skype, what a landslide that was... The future of p2p is going to be up to the communities of people and their needs. It's not enforcable like it once was, shutting down warez servers one at time like the old-days. It's everyone and everywhere these days and gripping the market as a whole is next to impossible. Good luck
Given that few would support commercial piracy, and given the poor publicity over the use of DRM, how much of their problem is directly caused by commercial piracy?
Garfield: "We are studying that issue, but do not have a real answer. Identifying the scope of the commercial versus the open source problem is no easier than discerning real data on p2p usage.
Eh? Where in that question did he infer the interviewer was talking about open source anything? This sort of ridiculous statement about the open source by a clueless muppet with no idea what open source is, let along how it works, just makes him look like a jerk. The interviewer clearly meant commercial piracy as in a person selling what they make with a DVD duplication system in their garage as opposed to someone sharing something they've downloaded either through a P2P network or giving copies to their mates.
Gah. Idiot.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
How much of their problem is directly caused by commercial piracy?
Garfield: "We are studying that issue, but do not have a real answer. Identifying the scope of the commercial versus the open source problem is no easier than discerning real data on p2p usage.
Last time I checked, 'open source' and casual piracy were not synonymous.
That's truly dumb. Educating parts of the market by beating people with a piece of legal two-by-four is not productive. Advertise, promote, share information and engage with the people you're trying to reach is healthier and more likely to create understanding.
"The motion picture industry is working aggressively to take advantage of wide array of digital distribution platforms and to provide consumers a wide array of legitimate options for enjoying movies and television shows.
Hey, way to be about 15 years late. Everyone with a half a brain realizes that Hollywood should have changed their distribution methods when the Internet usage became widespread, instead of *ignoring* the problem.
"One way to look at this issue is through an analogy. At present, when you purchase a car there is computer technology in the car that keeps track of your average speed, but that technology is accepted and is viewed as net value add. However, if that technology were to automatically report the fact that you speed to the authorities then peoples perspective would change. DRM is the same. The technology is a part of a balance that is struck with the consumer."
Ewwwwwwwwwwhaaatttttt? The device doesn't curb your usage of speed; am I the only one that doesn't see how this analogy is supposed to work?
I'm going to step out on a limb and say that this war on piracy is like the war on drugs -- a glorious method of wasting resources. There's nothing you can do to keep people from *acquiring* media however they want; just as you cannot keep drugs out of America.
Yeah.
They want all the economic advantages of the latest tech advances, but they don't want to pass those benefits on to their customers, nor even allow their customers the same tech or advantages. This is called gouging and people respond appropriately to it.
At present, when you purchase a car there is computer technology in the car that keeps track of your average speed, but that technology is accepted and is viewed as net value add.
Correct in terms of a car, but that's where he (and the **AA's at large) go wrong on DRM.
When I'm going down the road, I WANT to know how fast I'm going. I don't want to wait until the nice police officer decides to pull me over and inform me of it, nor do I want to find out a bit too late that I'm taking a curve way faster then I should. Therefore, indeed, the speedometer is a value add-it's something that I, the owner of the car, WANT in my car (and in fact, even if legal not to have one, would not purchase a car without one.)
DRM by definition cannot be a "value add", only a "value subtract". No consumer buys a DVD saying "Man, I hope they made it hard for me to back this thing up!" or "I sure hope this will refuse to play on my computer without installing a bunch of intrusive software".
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
"One way to look at this issue is through an analogy. At present, when you purchase a car there is computer technology in the car that keeps track of your average speed, but that technology is accepted and is viewed as net value add. However, if that technology were to automatically report the fact that you speed to the authorities then people's perspective would change. DRM is the same."
There are two key problems that his analogy brings up. First of all, consumers would obviously resist this hypothetical speed tracking hardware. Perhaps something like this will be implemented some day, perhaps not. But it will surely be fought, and rightly so. Until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade and we lose our constitutional right to privacy, that is.
But the real difference is that speeding is often an issue of life and death, both for the driver and for everyone else on the road. Piracy isn't even remotely analogous. Even if the industry could prove that piracy is hurting them so much, the "hurt" here is loss of profit. I apologize for not sympathizing with your pain, my rich corporate friend.
"The technology is a part of a balance that is struck with the consumer. The creative community distributes high quality digital content and the consumers accept that they can't randomly and wantonly redistribute that high quality digital content."
As a consumer, I do not accept that I can't randomly and wantonly redistribute their content. He's talking about how he wants things to be, and then he characterizes consumers as agreeing with him. Someone needs a reality check.
Although I do like his use of the word "stuck". Personally, I like to think that a bargain is only good if one side is getting shafted because they lack the legal and legislative resources to stand up for themselves.
"Cornflakes are not the innocent critters they seem"- Sterling Morrison
"We are committed to making sure that the digital distribution of content is a reality."
.mp3 file, or you can deliver that clean .mp3 file yourselves, gain some good publicity from that and get more from people who'd rather buy a clean .mp3 than pirate it if possible.
It already is a reality, you just missed the boat by about a decade.
"For example, we are still trying to learn more about what people want for entertainment, how do the(y?) want it, and how we strike a balance that is fair and gives people choice."
I can answer that for you, we want it cheap (as in ALOT cheaper than CDs), easy to download and without DRM. That will stop a larger proportion of piracy than your existing methods of beating old and young alike with legal documents. I mean you basically have a choice, use DRM piss off a large proportion of your audience, however pirates will just strip the DRM away (don't be naieve enough to think that it won't be cracked) and it'll be shared as a clean
Identifying the scope of the commercial versus the open source problem is no easier than discerning real data on p2p usage.
Ah, yes. Those problematic open source P2P authors.
Mr. Garfield, I like hacking on P2P software. You can sic attorneys on every visible open source P2P author, and all that will happen is you will drive people underground -- and you don't need much of an underground to write all the software that anyone could ever use. You aren't going to manage to stop the production of open source P2P software.
Perhaps you'd like to look at Microsoft, Mr. Garfield. Microsoft has greater annual revenues than *all your member studios put together*. Microsoft has *clout*.
Microsoft wasn't able to quash open source development, despite spending an awful lot of money and effort on it, Mr. Garfield. I'm going to give you *very* slim chances of succeeding where they failed.
What are you going to try? PR? Microsoft did that. They called Linux a virus. They said it exposed users to liability. They said that it was insecure, and that it was *communist*, Mr. Garfield. It didn't work.
How about legislation? Maybe, if you're *really* lucky, you can manage to pay enough legislators to vote in laws criminalizing the production of software that is used to cause greater than some degree of purported damages. I don't think that you can manage that -- you'd face opposition from a lot of tech types, and a number of legislators have noticed that people don't *like* stories in the newspaper about nine-year-old girls being sued for thousands of dollars. But let's say that, despite all that, you manage it. There are a *lot* of open source programmers overseas, Mr. Garfield, and software does not understand national boundaries. The US government made export of encryption code illegal due to national security concerns for a long time. What happened? Encryption development and distribution continued, from overseas. It didn't do any good. You can't quash software development.
You going to try to track down all the people copying software and music and movies down? Mr. Garfield, one of the primary functions of a computer is to reproduce and distribute data quickly and accurately. There is *huge* demand for this, demand which far exceeds and outweighs any demand for entertainment. They have a device which does *exactly* what you don't want. There are *too many people* that want to be able to copy around movies for this to work.
How about a technical solution, Mr. Garfield? You spent plenty of effort trying to lock up DVDs -- that didn't work (you excluded Linux from your supported platforms, which was pretty stupid and put a lot of very smart Linux-using techies and crypto types to work on the problem, but even if you hadn't, it wouldn't have lasted long). You want to try again? Well, there are a lot of security types who would love to take your money and can guarantee you the moon, but it isn't going to happen.
You want to try keeping digital data from becoming analog? Good luck.
You want to try keeping analog data from becoming digital? This is a new, interesting one. You're now trying to plug a hole that requires *one* person with *one* analog-to-digital encoding device somewhere in the *world* per movie. It makes no more sense than trying to use CSS to keep people from getting at DVD content. It's just not a feasible approach.
I know that this is a really appalling concept, and one that you probably don't want to entertain. But it is possible -- just possible -- that your only solution is to reduce costs to where the convenience and guaranteed quality of buying your product from you outweighs the inconvenience of pirating. That means that you have to trim all your excess fat. That means that maybe you can't spend hundreds of millions of dollars producing and marketing a movie. Maybe you can't *have* actors that get tens of millions of dollars for every work. Maybe you need to use CG, and can't afford to recompen
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
That is from Slyck! Last time I checked those technologies did things like disabling HD output unless you are using HDMI (with support for a no-copy flag). WTF?!? Not only are most HD displays manufactured to this date lacking an HDMI input, but such technology eliminates my FAIR USE RIGHT to make a full quality backup! What kind of a sell-out crappy-ass solution is that?
If you want to make sure I never pirate content here are a few tips:
Once these requirements are met, all my media will be obtained 100% legally because it will just make sense!
I am willing to pay a reasonable amount for convenience, quality, and flexability.
I find laziness to be an excellent motivator.
but I own a computer repair store in a town of about 5,000. I am the only one. I do not support DRM or anything with 'Trusted Computing', and NEVER will, for that matter. When someone asks what they should use to get music, I point them to Limewire. I preload Limewire, FireFox, AVG, Nero OEM, and Ad-Aware, on all the PCs I sell. I put the burdon of DRM reactions on the MPAA, RIAA, and those who sell broken music that violates my customer's fair use rights. When a customer has a Sony rootkit problem, I fix the problem, then give them Sony's number for their corporate office, and the number of a good lawyer. If a customer has music with DRM attached to it, I have tools to strip the DRM from the songs, then re-encode them into mp3 format. I now have 3/4ths of the town's file sharers on limewire, and am going strong. I don't put ANYTHING on a customers computer that restricts what they can, and cannot do with THEIR OWN machine. Untill the entertainment industry gets their act together, and stops infecting people's private property with viruses, and spyware, lobbying our elected officials, and continued cyber-terrorist activity, I will continue to recommend Limewire, and fight them with what resources, and influence I have. And at the moment Mr. Garfield, my business is expanding, fast, and vastly increasing.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
It's nice that you move directly from a recreational activity that (might) harm the person who engages in it and no one else, to an activity that prematurely ends another's life ... good to see we all have a little perspective here on /. ...so it's not so obious to people that it should be illegal, which is why there is relatively high use and even countries where it is actually legal... where exactly is murder legal or tolerated?
I actually think the analogy isn't too bad: The only reason that pot is illegal and alcohol & tabacco aren't is pretty much an accident of history. There's no actual reason to distinguish between these drugs (and they are all three drugs, but only two are legal).
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?