Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Goes After Home Entertainment Systems
philba writes to tell us that home theaters may become the new jurisdiction of our MPAA overlords. The MPAA is lobbying to make sure that home users authorize their entertainment systems before any in-home viewings. From the article: "The MPAA defines a home theater as any home with a television larger than 29" with stereo sound and at least two comfortable chairs, couch, or futon. Anyone with a home theater would need to pay a $50 registration fee with the MPAA or face fines up to $500,000 per movie shown."
This would be funny, if the government didn't listen to them half of the time.
My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
Aren't there any editors around here?
"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise.
Come on... folks... when you get this quick to outrage it just makes YOU look silly...
That some people don't get the joke or that I can understand well why they don't.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too", Dan Glickman, head of the MPAA (FTA).
Now, I really want to know this: So, what rights do we get for buying a DVD? The right to watch it by my lonesome? Should each family of four have to pay for four copies of a movie? If I want to watch a DVD with my girlfriend, should I have to buy two copies? If I could get four copies worth if I had a familiy, why couldn't a single guy invite three of his buddies over to watch the film? Am I really supposed to believe that buying a DVD merely allows ONE person to watch the DVD and no more?
Because, to be perfectly honest, 75% of the reason I buy a DVD is to show it to friends that haven't seen it already. My DVD library is a collection of movies I think everyone should see (and I wouldn't mind watching repeatedly). If I were "not allowed" to buy DVDs with this express purpose, I don't think I would buy any at all. I don't rewatch movies all that often on my own; when I want to see a movie -- especially alone -- I want to see something new.
In short: This is ridiculous. I wish there were an effective way to do something about it.
There is something that's worse than the MPAA regulating home theaters. And that's Slashdot posting a link to an obvious satire piece and a great many of its readers (and possibly a certain editor) not having the intelligence to realize that its satire.
P.T. Barnum was right.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Actually the funny thing is, that those ads probably are one of the major factors why moviegoer numbers are steeply declining. First of all there are the ads, then the insults and then the trailers. I guess the insults pushed it over the top for many. If I look into my own surrounding, there used to be a lot of people who went to the theatre once a week. Nowadays it is only twice per year, and it basically was due to the ads, and the insults. I recently went with them into a movie, after 10 minutes of constant ads we were close to walking out, the following piracy insult basically did it to ruin the experience entirely! Needless to say, no theatre visit anymore for the following months by anyone of us!
Same here. I find it amusing that they're giving this Anti-Piracy shit to the people who've either bought their DVD or are watching their movie in the cinema... I've already paid for your shit! Leave me alone!
On the other hand I could download a ripped copy (for free), with no ads what-so-ever and watch it on my computer without having to arse around. Hrm... it makes me want to pirate more just to show them that their little advertisement scheme isn't fucking working.
if someone does a movie parody , I'd love to see a fake add that says
"you wouldn't doctor your books to get zero profit as a tax dodge"
"you wouldn't offer unsuspecting people the chance of a percentage of non-existant profits"
and so on.
Thing is, when you say "they want $50 for any home theater system," I got the image (to borrow from Robin Williams) of two guys with the middle name "the" showing up at my place and knocking on my door (like "Jimmy the Fish" or "Johnny the Shark"). Because let's face it - the *IAA is just the new Mob, specializing in extortion using the legal system, whose lawyers should have the middle name "the".
I talk about stuff.
The problem with satirical articles about the MPAA is that they have to get well beyond the realms of reality before they stop being believable.
Don't forget that here in the UK we have TV licensing. Home Theatre licensing isn't so far fetched from that.
Satire? Looks like they're just giving the MPAA more great ideas... We're doomed!
Yes, it's satire. But that fact that no one would be at all surprised if the MPAA was really being that retarded speaks volumes about them.
I have an issue with "dirty work" organizations. Microsoft and other companies don't want to get their hands dirty suing customers so they fund the BSA. Record labels don't want their name on enforcement actions so they fund RIAA. One of the best things Congress could do for the consumer is strip away the ability of companies to hide behind their mafia inspired enforcement organizations. I don't think it would stop Sony from suing people for using file sharing software but it at least they take the PR hit for doing it.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Sadly, the antics of the **AA make this one just a bit too close for comfort. Who wants to bet that we'll see something along these lines sooner rather than later? Maybe a tax on home theater equipment similar to Canada's tax on recordable media? Or maybe a tax on comfy seating for 2 or more people?
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
When I realized that this article was from BBSpot, I didn't know whether to laugh or be relieved...and that's a frightening thought.
Seriously. We have to do something about these media cartels before articles like this stop being satire.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
If you had read the rest of the comments (hell, even the first one) you may have saved some face here...
71.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
*cough* TV licenses in the UK*cough*
Too well played, I believe. Their site is not only being Slashdotted, but I think millions of gullible people are frantically sending each other emails right now saying "OMG, Dave, they want to charge you $50 for your big screen TV!!!" Their site is going to take a looong time to recover from this one!
Past experience suggests that I'll get this exact link from a well-meaning relative sometime in the next two or three months.
John
As someone who was recently a teenager myself, let me tell you: teenagers aren't that stupid. They do know that it's against the law; they just don't care.
The copyright infringers would be offended too, you know -- car theft is a Hell of a lot "worse" (if you even accept the proposition that copyright infringement is wrong in the first place)!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The real disgrace is in the majority of responses here which indicate how many of us are willing to believe that the MPAA would actually propose something like this. See also the Federal Government.
It's obvious that there is, indeed, a growing clampdown on individual rights in the United States. If it were simple fascism, the Constitutional controls could be applied for a relatively speedy and simple remedy. It's not the government, though. It's private corporations.
Does anyone still believe Friedman's simplistic assertion that the only moral responsibility of a corporation is to provide value to its shareholders?
As pervasive as corporate corruption has been shown to be, this issue is completely independent of shadowy malfeasance: It's all about above-board actions, ignored or rubber-stamped by the Congress, which make sense only to authoritarians. The referenced satire clearly illustrates that American citizens realize that there is no democratic representation in private corporate decisions which impact life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--and that these private concerns have more power than their century-old counterparts, which had only labor to exploit.
Corporations collect, retain, and use private information without so much as the most minimal regulation. Their claim that they need the data for business purposes seems to trump concerns of freedom and privacy. How egregious must their offenses become? Must we endure an actual example of the satire we discuss today?
"Press to test."
(click)
"Release to detonate."
When Friedman said this, he was talking about corporations in the context of a capitalist economy, where there is competition between lots of small corporations, and none of them are able to influence the market.
What we have here is not really a capitalist system. It is more like a feudalist system where the overlords control everything for their own benefit and prevent anyone else from competing with them.