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."
And the newly elected congress might be just busy enough to say 'sure sure' and pass something like this through.
I prefer the other MPAA story they have on their site though: MPAA to Thwart Pirates By Making All Movies Suck (It would be funnier if it wasn't so true.)
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
Actually, the site in question has a lot more satirical (and IT-oriented) funny stories.
Perhaps not on the BOFH level, but still they have some pretty witty stuff, like God Going After Bible Pirates, or Sony's Self-Destructing DVD Player(TM) Most of these skits are several years old, but still very relevant today.
. Thanks for posting this!
Z.
I don't understand the MPAA. In ways they're even more idiotic than RIAA. Let's take an example...
I'm sure most people have come across MPAA's anti-piracy adds. For example, there's that one that starts out by saying:
"YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR..."
Now, let's just stop for a moment and consider the one segment of viewers who are 100% guaranteed to see this ad: Legitimate customers. What is the car-world equivalent of legitimate customers? Car owners. When was the last time you got into your car and saw a big sign saying "YOU WOULDN'T PIRATE A MOVIE!" spraypainted across your windshield? What about the candy equivalent? How often do you buy a Coffee Crisp only to open it up and find, drizzled onto the top of the bar in iridescent-green super-sour gummy, "YOU WOULDN'T POACH ELK OUT OF SEASON...". Does IHOP serve pancakes with motor-oil drizzled on top of them to spell out "YOU WOULDN'T EAT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S KIDNEY WITH A NICE CHIANTI AND SOME FAVA BEANS..."
Only the MPAA is insane enough to take the one thing they have to offer a customer and deliberately vandalize it in a way that only their legitimate customers are likely to see. The scary thing is that these morons have enough money to lobby the government for stuff nearly as crazy as in the linked spoof. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing if people did pirate movies a little more so that the MPAA didn't have quite so much money to throw around in Washington.
Ironically, I hate those ads so much that it's rather put me off buying DVDs. I guess that means at least I'm not going to copy it.
A friend of mine simply copied all her discs to her PC to circumvent it.
It's interesting that there is actually doubt enough, and that people would almost believe MPAA would try to pull something like this off.
Ironically, I hate those ads so much that it's rather put me off buying DVDs.
Ironically, I copy the movies off DVDs just so I don't have to watch that crap.
Every time I see those adds I want to report them to the advertising standards agency for making false claim and accusations.
How I understand it making a private copy of a dvd, or downloading one (ie piracy by their definition) is breach of copywrite, which is a civil offense, not a criminal offense.
Since it is not a criminal offense then it cannot be described as a crime (by the definition of the word).
Since the advert says it is it is suggesting that people who may or may not be commitinga civil offense are criminals which seems to me is slander...
But then again IANAL, though I would find it ratehr amusing if the ASA banned their trailers in the uk til they changed them (same for the ones about TV licenses for those that don't have or want TV but thats a completely different rant)
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
No, I wouldn't steal a car.
But if someone could invent a torrent for a Ferrari F355, I'd certainly download one.
I don't download movies, but I sometimes really wish I could skip all that crap. I just put the disc in and let it play through before turning the TV on. So the recent ones insist on a few button clicks to get past. Bastards.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
I wouldn't steal a car, but if a local hoodlum who's been running a protection racket fof the last 30 years, ripping off people continually had THEIR car stolen, then I wouldn't lose much sleep
Compared to some of the bon mots that the MPAA has dropped on us in the past, this satirical piece is totally plausible - the best gags are the ones that could actually be true, and the MPAA has given us more than enough reason to think something like this would be legit at first glance.
Still, well played, BBSpot.
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
Although to be fair, TV licences in the UK are to pay for the BBC - commercial free TV. Since it's a public service, the BBC should either be paid for like that or through taxation, and at least this way you only pay if you are actually watching TV :)
Jeb
I've seen that commercial exactly once. I bought the DVD of Office Space, got home, saw that, and went right back to the store to return the movie. Amazingly enough, walmart WILL take opened DVDs back, for a refund (not "another copy"), if you claim it is defective and are patient enough to wait while they find the store manager. I explained that I had expectations of seeing the movie I paid for, not a 5 minute insult that I couldn't skip, and therefore the product was defective as designed, and another copy would not be acceptable.
I will not be buying any more DVDs. I already don't go to theaters. I just wish I could find contact information for Fox Home Entertainment to tell them WHY their anti-piracy insults have now hit their bottom line (even if it is only a few dollars / year).
Yeah. What's with all the "introductions you can't skip" crap lately?
I don't need to watch a copyright statement in ten languages, and which has questionable if any validity in my jurisdiction anyway, before getting to the main menu. Neither do I need to watch five minutes of trailers for other DVDs from the same distributor.
Like the parent poster, I now find myself looking up any DVDs I'm thinking of buying, and I don't bother if they have too much crap associated with them. Given the limited amount of time I spend in front of the TV, there are plenty of other films/drama series/documentaries/whatever for me to watch, without paying to have my time wasted.
It would be nice if a court could just rule that DVDs where you have a significant compulsory wait before you can get to the real content are not fit for purpose, and impose stupid punitive damages on the distributor. Do us all a favour and make them stop doing this! (Yeah, yeah, I know that this is just dreaming.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
> I guess making a bit-for-bit duplicate of a DVD for personal use is okay, but
> if you decrypt the video stream, you've violated the DMCA, a criminal statute.
DMCA violations are only criminal if committed for commercial advantage or financial gain. No one is going to be subjected to criminal prosecution for decrypting a video stream for personal use.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Playing devils' advocate... couldn't this be a very good thing? If enough people believe this truly came from the MPAA and start screaming about it, the MPAA will have no choice but to put out a press release denying it, and it is bad press for them to even need to do such a thing.
Doesn't matter if the article is true or not; if it is believable enough, it'll still have power. Whether it is right to fight FUD with FUD is another question, of course.
Of course the BBSpot piece is a satire but did you know that this was basically the way they intended things to go when VCRs were first invented?
The story is retold in one of Lessig's books -- The Future of Ideas, IIRC. Someone invented a videotape with a lock, so that to watch it a second time you had to pay (someone) again and get them to rewind for you.
As I understand it, an MPAA exec rejected the design, because there was no way to tell how many people were present at a given viewing. They wanted a design that charged by the person as well as per-play.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Satire aside, one of the reasons my family doesn't go to the movies is cost.
Even when we go to the cheap, weeks-before-release-to-DVD theater, the cost of the movie runs more than half the price of the DVD at Costco. And that ignores the cost of munchies, which can boost things way beyond the theater tickets.
And if we were crazy enough to see the movies when they first come out, we would be spending enough money to buy the DVD and order fresh pizza from our favorite pizza place.
It does mean that we don't have much to say about the new movies that other people are raving about. On the other hand, we avoid the turkeys and duds.