Slashdot Mirror


Death By DMCA

Dino writes "There's a good article in the IEEE Spectrum, titled 'Death by DMCA', which talks about how whole classes of devices were eliminated, and how others won't even see the light of day as a result of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One example is ReplayTV's TiVo-like devices which featured sharing capabilities, along with automatic ad skipping; the company was sued to bankruptcy, and the reincarnated device supported neither sharing nor ad skipping."

10 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane by yagu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is cool, I don't have to change my "subject" lines for posts any more... it's all about the entertainment industry's state of mental health.

    From the article: "These new capabilities did not please Hollywood. Jamie Kellner, then CEO of Turner Broadcasting System Inc., called skipping commercials "theft" and, along with 28 entertainment companies including major movie studios and television networks--such as Disney, Paramount, Time Warner, Fox, Columbia, ABC, NBC, and CBS--sued ReplayTV for contributing to copyright infringement."

    WTF? Skipping commercials is theft? FUCK YOU Jamie Kellner.... FUCK YOU TBS, FUCK YOU Disney, Paramount, Time Warner, Fox, Columbia, ABC, NBC and CBS! So, for those not using some sort of tivo-like device, if they should step out to relieve themselves, is THAT theft?

    It galls that devices are being driven away from the marketplace because they're too good. And it equally galls that layer upon layer of obfuscation continues to be heaped on existing technology, to the point that when something works, my heart palpitates: is it the signal?, is it the unit?, or is the FUCKING DRM that I somehow forgot to set correctly?

    Also from the article (referring to the ability to create "unencumbered digital tuners": "The entertainment companies do not like the flexibility of these home-built machines--or, more significant to them, the flexibility of the machines that consumer electronics manufacturers could offer under the current copyright law and its Betamax rule." WTF?, again?

    They don't like the flexibility of these machines? I'm willing to bet somewhere in their ad campaigns they're bragging on some feature they're offering as flexible, etc. Gawd, I hate the industry.

    So, technology continues to improve in quantum leaps, but the governor that is the RIAA/MPAA consortium does everything in their power to ensure technology is crippled to their whims, to enhance their power and profit.

    Has anyone read Player Piano by Vonnegut? Great book... pretty good story about technology and designed obsolescence, and the collapse therein of a society... I won't give away the ending, it's worth reading.

    </vent> Thanks, I feel better now.

    1. Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane by masklinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, I'd like to ask a simple question. If the networks can no longer count on people watching at least some ads, how are they to pay for content?

      How about "that's their fucking problem not mine"?

      Pro-capitalism, pro-"free trade", pro-whatever-you-think-that-is americans (I'm not american btw) usually point out that the market sorts itself out, how about letting it sort itself out for once?

      They could switch to 100% pay-per-view, or a single "free" channel and some for-pay channels, or they could die altogether for all i'd care, but the fact that their current business model would be fucked is not a good enough reason for me nor for anyone else to accept that kind of crap.

      How are they to pay for content? I don't give a fuck, seriously. It's their job to figure it out but it's not their job to make it impossible for me to get devices I'm interrested in.

      Progress always win in the end, while they can delay the widespread use of TiVo-like devices they can't slaughter it altogether, they're merely getting some more time.

      I'm not saying it's theft or agreeing with any of the other comments made by those companies, but you need to put down emotion and maybe start coming up with reasonable alternative business models if you want to see devices like this suceed.

      Of course not, I don't need to come up with "reasonable alternative business models", nor does the GP, I'm not a content provider or anything, it's not my job. If they can't come up with alternative business models by themselves then they're better off dead, and the sooner the better, other more intelligent guys will think of something and take their place in no time.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    2. Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane by jthill · · Score: 5, Insightful
      venting on Slash about the end of society
      Who'd-a-thunk anybody could strawman that post?

      Have you never once wondered why almost no one objects to Google's ubiquitous ads?

      Perhaps you think it's because they bribe us with all those cool toys. I thought about that. I don't believe it.

      I think it's because they offer the ads. They're easy to ignore.

      You can skip right over them without even noticing.

      But, say the networks, if they can't shove ads in your face for twenty minutes an hour, and sue you for ignoring them, they'll go broke? They're running ads for companies that can't sell their product without bludgeoning people into insensibility. "Revolutionary new garden tool!!!! Makes a great gift!!!!". Christ, buddy, they're trying to sue us for not watching spam.

      --
      As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
    3. Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane by Corbets · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, the use of non-market strategies (i.e. legislative means) is very common in business. Businesses do it all the time. If you want that to change, time to work on your politicians!

      How about "that's their fucking problem not mine"?

      Sure is, and they're trying to solve it. Look at it this way - for the people working in those companies, it is their job to get you to watch TV and more specifically watch those ads. They will pursue all means that they think are ethical/legal and probably some that they don't. But it's their job, and you can hardly blame them for doing it any more than they can blame you for flipping burgers at the local Mickey Ds (or whatever your country has - but I live in Switzerland at the moment, and even these guys have the golden arches). Obviously they haven't yet come up with better ideas. When they do, they'll get implemented, and given the quality of technical skill some Slashdotters have, there's even a chance that the solution could come from here.

      We're getting back to copyright issue, I think - it's their content, according to current copyright law, and they think they grant you a very specific use - to watch it on your TV. You, on the other hand, think that once they broadcast the content to you, it's yours to do with as you please. In this case, the law would appear to disagree with you. Until and unless a majority of people within the US share your view, which will not happen until you can share it without cussing and sounding like a fool, then US law will continue to protect the interests of those TV networks. Unbridled anger rarely serves effective change.

      Sure is nice to see one of my posts stir up so many comments, though. ;-)

    4. Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane by Alef · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Look at it this way - for the people working in those companies, it is their job to get you to watch TV and more specifically watch those ads. They will pursue all means that they think are ethical/legal and probably some that they don't. But it's their job, and you can hardly blame them for doing it

      I beg to differ. You can blame them, and in fact you should blame them. That is how a market economy works: if I don't like that a certain shoe manufacturer profits from child labour, then I blame them for it, and stop buying their shoes.

      When we accept questionable and dishonest behaviour from corporations, simply because it is somehow expected of them, then that is how they will behave. The truth is, it is expected from them only because we accept it. If we didn't, it would no longer be profitable and they wouldn't do it. Companies have no intrinsic moral; their only moral stems solely from the criticism we as consumers place on them. Humans are the only source of moral in the system, and we must use it.

    5. Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      in about 20 years all the politicians are going to be people who lived through the shutdown of napster, the lawsuits, and the general stupidity.

      Today, all the politicians are people who lived through Vietnam and Watergate. It doesn't seem to have made them any less inclined to invade other countries on the slimmest pretext, nor does it seem to have made them any less inclined to commit crimes in office and then lie about them.

  2. Proof we are not a democracy by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is yet more evidence that we are not a democracy. These bans and discouragements are almost entirely the result of lobbying backed by big inc's with deep pockets. No citizen majority voted for these. "Silly company, voting is only for humans".

  3. Proof we are not capitalist by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not an economics major, but all the capitalists I've ever talked to seem to love the whole idea of "the market will solve". It's sort of their silver bullet to any arguement. So why don't we let the market solve? Capitalism is supposed to be dynamic. Companies have to accept changing roles and adapt to them, not fight them. Big companies have to be forced to accept that sometimes they "have to roll the hard 6" and take risks. There should be no corporate entitlement. No company is guaranteed to make money. That's what pisses me off about the RIAA and MPAA. They refuse to consider changing themselves to the world, they'd rather change the world to suit themselves. Granted, that might mean the end to $300 million production value blockbusters or fewer 1 hit wonders and more solid bands, but the world will cope, and the market can decide which model they like better.

  4. Non-U.S.'ers not safe either by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, this was a damn good article, one of the most thoughtful and thorough ones I've read in a long, long time.

    Second of all, non-U.S. citizens aren't safe. The RIAA and MPAA are pushing our government to force other countries to sign their digital freedoms away in trade agreements and treaties. The article specifically deals with this issue.

    Remember, the guy who released deCSS was arrested for breaking no Norweigian law. The Pirate Bay guys have had their equipment seized for breaking no Swedish law. The point is that just as the U.S. flexes its military muscles in places like Iraq, it flexes its corporate muscles in countries such as the one that you call home, wherever that may be. And as weird and hard as it may be to believe, I'm 100% sure that the government in your country is just as capable of doing the same really boneheaded stupid things that the U.S. government has done given the right (*ahem*) incentives.

    So no, this is not a problem unique to the United States. Yes, the U.S. may be the worst of the lot, and yes, a lot of this foolishness has arisen primarily because of corrupt greedy U.S. organizations who don't give a flip about consumers there or anywhere else, but if you believe nothing else, believe this: This idiocy will reach you in your supposedly safe and comfortable home country unless you are vigilant and active about stopping it.

  5. Qoute by Robert Heinlein by Reaper9889 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then I saw this story I could nearly hear Robert Heinlein saying this: There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.