MPAA Committed To Fair Use and DRM

Doctor Jay writes "At a LexisNexis Conference on DRM this week, MPAA's Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers. 'In his speech to industry insiders at the posh Beverly Hills Four Seasons hotel, Glickman repeatedly stressed that DRM must be made to work without constricting consumers. The goal, he said, was "to make things simpler for the consumer," and he added that the movie studios were open to "a technology summit" featuring academics, IT companies, and content producers to work on the issues involved.'"

Comments

If the MPAA sold fruit

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't be allowed to make a banana split, and you'd only be able to eat a slice banana with Kelloggs brand cereals.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[andyh3930]

Damn... My Bullshit Detector has just exploded!

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[mfh]

You wouldn't be allowed to make a banana split, and you'd only be able to eat a slice banana with Kelloggs brand cereals.

That has to be the most insightful comment I have seen on Slashdot pertaining to the MPAA.

Hey doesn't an old lady in Iowa own the patent to the banana split and every movie after 1950 with the banana split in it will have to help keep her grand kids in fast cars, coke & hookers?

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[Godji]

Hey doesn't an old lady in Iowa own the patent to the banana split and every movie after 1950 with the banana split in it will have to help keep her grand kids in fast cars, coke & hookers?

That patent would have expired in 1970 anyway.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[purpledinoz]

And you would have to pay royalties every time you used the word banana.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[Anonymous Coward]

No, just for public performances of the word "banana"*

*A public performance is any situation where the word may be seen or heard by one or more persons. By being born, you are agreeing to the following terms and conditions...

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[Some_Llama]

"That patent would have expired in 1970 anyway."

Not if her name was Mrs. Disney

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[Hemogoblin]

No, no, its more like a car that... ah, sod it.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[dingleberrie]

That's because you could only open the banana using MPAA-licensed tools. You wouldn't be able to clone bananas or plant bananas to make new banana trees. Your new bananas take away potential sales of MPAA bananas. I think that this is also true of several Genetically Engineered crops (not the tools part).

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[veganboyjosh]

you mean like monsanto's terminator seeds?

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[utopianfiat]

same way some guy owns the copyright to happy birthday.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[cpt kangarooski]

No, 1967, assuming the patent was granted in 1950. The term was 17 years from issue then, now it's 20 years from filing.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[HAKdragon]

..what if you'r using the word banana in a way that's unrelated to the fruit? - such as 'banana hammock'

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[suv4x4]

If the MPAA sold fruit .. You wouldn't be allowed to make a banana split, and you'd only be able to eat a slice banana with Kelloggs brand cereals.

If MPAA sold fruit, I'd feed a banana in my DVD drive, and get out 100 bananas for free. You can clearly see the problem MPAA has to meet.

Not defending their actions, but come on.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

It's actually owned by Warner-Chappell now, and the "guy" who had the rights before was actually the two sisters who wrote the song.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Happy_Birthday%22

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that with a lot fruit you can in fact plant them and get more, what's your point?

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[jZnat]

They would sue you obviously for stealing banana property.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit

[Beer_Smurf]

"If MPAA sold fruit, I'd feed a banana in my DVD drive, and get out 100 bananas for free. You can clearly see the problem MPAA has to meet."
Unfortunately, everyone has also figured out that the record companies are using the magic DVD drive to make the bananas in the first place so they don't have much sympathy.

DRM that doesn't constrict the user

[ultramkancool]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Re:DRM that doesn't constrict the user

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't call him a nazi moron!!

Hahahaha!! the captcha is "monopoly"

We'll believe it when we see it.

[faedle]

It's a shame that Sony's use of copy protection (that breaks even playback on standard licensed DVD players) means that at least one significant MPAA member disagrees... .. not to mention the recent actions against YouTube.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[ari_j]

Wait. What actions against YouTube are inconsistent with supporting fair use to the extent that the blurb (I didn't RTFA, and neither should you) discusses?

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[MightyYar]

They don't know what the hell they are even talking about. Some salesman who is much better with people than I am has apparently told them that everything can be inter-operable AND have DRM. I have a feeling that this salesman works for MacroVision, and his absurd plan involves getting MacroVision installed on every device that a consumer would ever want to use.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[\\]

Sony recalled the discs that recently came out and would not play on standard licensed players. Google around, you'll find the news.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Yes, when they got called on it they fixed the problem. But why was the problem created? Because they are trying to stomp all over fair use. They want dvds that can be 1) watched but cannot be 2) backed up. It was only because they screwed up (1). If they could find a way to satisfy (1) and (2); they'd be happy. So obviously they don't support fair use.

I suppose you think Sony was doing a really great thing when they released that rootkit uninstaller too?

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[falsified]

Are you referring to that article from a couple weeks ago? They fixed that. It was accidental. (If you're referring to something else, gimme some linky love please.)

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[shoptroll]

Which arm of Viacom are we talking about? Last time I checked there's a separate organization that handles protecting the TV shows... Or at least I thought so.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[monkey_dongle]

The recent Sony debochle is here: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005208.php

The latest is that Sony has "fixed" the problem discs and will replace them if you ask.

As for GooTube, Viacom recently announced new policies and a commitment to fair use. Here is what the EFF had to say: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005213.php

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[blibbler]

"Backed up"? Give me a break! How many people do you know who "back up" their CDs? How many people "back up" their books? Invariably, when someone says they want to "back up" their DVDs they mean "copy", and they don't mean for their personal use. "Fair Use" does not mean "give a copy to a friend"

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[MrDoh1]

Backed up seems perfectly reasonable to me... I have dozens and dozens of Elmo, Sesame Street, Barney, Carebears, Baby Einstein, and many other DVDs and CDs backed up and living in the original cases while the original disks are in a binder on a tall shelf in the office...

Anyone not backing up while having small kids has a lot more money to throw away than I do.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[paganizer]

Are you serious? who backs up their cd's?
All of the people who have them? everybody, pretty much, has a mp3 player. my teenaged kids mp3 players have music from my LP collection, my casette collection, the family CD collection, quite a few of the family DVD collection, live recordings, etc.
I also don't let the kids touch the originals of ANYTHING. it all gets backed up to CD or DVD, and they can tear that up.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[MrNiceguy_KS]

I "Back Up" my music on to my computer so I can listen to it on my MP3 player. Millions of other people have done the same. I have "backed up" multiple DVDs by ripping them to XviD so I can watch them over my lunch break using TCPMP on my Palm T3. A couple of the DVDs were rentals, but I delete the files after I've watched them. Yeah, hard drive space is cheap, but if I really feel like a movie is worth watching over and over, I'll buy a copy.

I suppose technically, these examples are "format shifting", rather than "backing up". I have copied DVDs, burned the copies, and shelved the originals as "Back ups". Those were for my daughter. Keep the originals safe from sticky fingers. But all of these examples qualify as "Fair Use". Contrast this with previous MPAA statements. "You want a backup? Buy another copy!"

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[Drooling Iguana]

Why would a consumer ever want to use a device with MacroVision installed on it?

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

""Fair Use" does not mean "give a copy to a friend""

No shit. I didn't say that. I have a right to a back-up copy. You're suggesting that I have lost that right (through no court decision) because you've got some anecdotal evidence? The only thing that your "evidence" suggests is that you associate and converse with people who violate copyright.

I'm glad you've already convicted me of a crime because I don't enjoy re-purchasing movies and/or albums. That's really appreciated!

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[Skye16]

I back up every single DVD I own. Actually, that's not correct. I make a copy of every single DVD I own, shove my DVDs on a shelf in a closet, and only watch the burned copy.

If you saw how many stacks of DVDs I go through because I can't take care of ANY optical disc, you'd fucking understand.

(You asked, I told you. :P)

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[MightyYar]

If they knew what it was, they wouldn't... but every VCR that I've ever owned had it installed. My stupid DVD player has it as well, which made me have to buy an RF modulator for my TV because I couldn't just run the DVD player through the VCR. Grrrrr.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[MightyYar]

I can tell you don't have kids. Kids only get to touch the COPY of their Disney videos. And all of my CDs are sitting under my bed in boxes.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[\\]

What part of "they recalled the bad DVDs" lead you to "I suppose you think Sony was doing a really great thing when they released that rootkit uninstaller too"?

Recalling a DVD that won't play is reasonable and simple to do, putting the rootkit back in pandora's box is a different animal entirely.

Go take your happy pills.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[jZnat]

I guess you're one of the 10 people left in this world who doesn't own an iPod or some other portable audio/video player. Or maybe you don't have kids who are very likely to scratch the DVDs you bought for them. Or perhaps you don't like the concept of having a digital media library that you can access from your expensive home theatre setup, choose a movie from the couch, and watch.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it.

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"Go take your happy pills."

I'm going to ignore this and respond to you in an honest manner. I am going to attempt to be civil to you even though you have not extended that courtesy to me.

"What part of "they recalled the bad DVDs" lead you to "I suppose you think Sony was doing a really great thing when they released that rootkit uninstaller too"?"

My reasoning was the following: you are commending Sony for recalling the DVDs but ignoring the fact that the DVDs were broken because Sony was attempting to take away fair use rights from the consumer. From this I was suggesting that you would commend Sony for taking action on the rootkit situation while ignoring the fact that it was Sony's own interest in trampling fair use that led to the situation in the first place. From my vantage point, you are ignoring the root cause of the situation which is that Sony doesn't believe in fair use - and I cannot tolerate that.

Are you going to try to respond in a calm manner to this post? If yes, feel free. If not, don't waste your time.

So, Mr. Glickman ...

[Kadin2048]

So, this means that he supports a removal of the onerous, no-Fair-Use, anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA?

What's that, Mr Glickman? That's not what you meant at all?

Oh, okay -- you support Fair Use, sort of, but only in some theoretical sense, because it's illegal to actually do, because of the laws you've purchased from those politicians who are perennially deep-throating the entertainment industry's collective cock?

Talk is cheap; I'm not buying.

Re:So, Mr. Glickman ...

[elrous0]

Well, when you're talking about a whore, it's hard to get around identifying him as such. I mean, how to do have a conversation about Congress and NOT discuss the penises in their mouths or the cash in their wallets?

Re:So, Mr. Glickman ...

[robbiethefett]

sweet, the MPAA has given me implied consent to rip dvds to my personal media center box... oh wait, i have Star Wars and Ghostbusters on VHS.. i'm screwed!

Oh Really?

[rudy_wayne]

"MPAA's Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers."

Really? In order to rip DVDs you must use software that by-passes the DVD copy protection. That is a violation of the DMCA -- a law that was pushed thru by the MPAA -- and anyone who has attempted to sell this sort of software (DVD Xcopy, etc) has been sued into oblivion by the MPAA.

Re:Oh Really?

[qbwiz]

No, that's the point. They want to add DRM to portable video players and home media servers, and they want to release software that respects adds that DRM when ripping. If they are the ones that license the DRM-full ripping software, then using that software to rip into those devices would be ok.

As there isn't a unified DRM standard, they can't release that software yet, but if there some day will be, then they some day will release that software.

Re:Oh Really?

[GreyPoopon]

If they are the ones that license the DRM-full ripping software, then using that software to rip into those devices would be ok.

More interestingly, some of his comments lead me to believe they want to provide "legal" ripping as a service because he starts talking about establishing prices, etc. I would have to say that the MPAA still doesn't get it, but they are just now beginning to realize that they will start losing their market if they don't clean up their act. This response is akin to Microsoft's response to the EU. "Let's see how little we can get away with, and delay as long as we possibly can."

Re:Oh Really?

[CharlesDonHall]

No, you're not thinking like an MPAA executive.

"Ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers" should be translated as: "Ripping DVDs to files with 'interoperable DRM', which can be played on a single system after connecting to the internet and getting an authorization code. The authorization code will cost $4.95 if you can somehow prove you're the original owner of the DVD. If you can't prove you're the original owner then we'll assume you borrowed it from somebody and the authorization code will cost $29.95." The MPAA is perfectly fine with all of that.

Re:Oh Really?

[zappepcs]

And that is what we really should be afraid of. If any one group can control that many devices, have their DRM software installed everywhere, who is to stop them from using it to support government policies? Yes, that sounds like I regularly wear a tin foil hat, but with recent events and the government's record (any government) I would not want to install anything that would permit them to even have the possibility, never mind the actuality of spying on all that I do with my computer(s).

I have come to the conclusion that DRM, the DMCA, and all its look-alikes must be defeated for the security of society as a whole. The invasion of 'big brothers' into our homes and lives is not something that should be accepted regardless of what big business might lose their ability to remain big. It's not even about fair use anymore, it's about privacy and my right to control what the devices I own do. Sure, they can stop selling or renting content and I say go ahead, stop, give up. There will be 100s of people to take the place of the MPAA's members.

Re:Oh Really?

[rudeboy1]

I've been looking for a place to ask this lately...
    Given what this guy is saying (the MPAA drone), what is the legality of ripping Netflix movies because you "don't have time to watch them right away"?

    This is, of course, a completely hypothetical question...

Re:Oh Really?

[flappinbooger]

Sounds almost like time shifting to me... Like a DVR you can get from your cable company. Almost.

Re:Oh Really?

[qbwiz]

Well, that violates the DMCA, so it's illegal. QED.

Re:Oh Really?

[TheGratefulNet]

go see ANYDVD (the product). they're in the west indies and it seems they are escaping the long arm of the MPAA?

love the product. I own a legal copy. heh - a legal copy that is meant to do 'illegal' things, which ends up restoring the rights you started out with, years ago. somehow, it seems fitting.

Re:Oh Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an easy question, and has nothing to do with the DMCA. Copyright law as it stands has never allowed you to make copies of a protected work in your posession just to keep around. It's the same law that's always applied when you check out a book from the library -- feel free to read it as much as you want while you have it, and place-shift/format-shift all day, but keeping a copy after you've turned the book back in isn't remotely close to fair use.

Some people will go on about time-shifting of broadcast works, but that area of law has never applied to physically-distributed works.

Re:Oh Really?

[rudeboy1]

I figured as much, but I thought I read somewhere that it was in smoe kind of legally murky territory, and was looking for clarification of both sides of the issue. Doesn't sound like there are 2 sides. Oh well.

Re:Oh Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know if DRM had a standard and you were able to rip dvds to a backup for yourself or put it on your portable player, then I don't see the problem with the DRM. I think alot of people would no longer be able to bad mouth it. It was pointed out though that they were talking about pricing it out as a service. I think that is wrong. If they want to sell their own software for ripping drm software to a media player or making your own backup thats anouther thing.

I just hope that the either they drop the DRM in its current state or that it equalizes so that it doesn't hurt the consumer and cost them more money to use their products that were legally bought.

I miss fair-use.

Re:Oh Really?

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's called "Trusted Computing". Look it up: it's built into Vista, and its primary focus is DRM. It's technically built reasonably well, and it requires specific hardware features built into recent Intel and AMD cpu's, or add-on chips. But the feature is not wildly expensive in hardware terms.

Re:Oh Really?

[WedgeTalon]

Usually when people say something is in "legally murky territory" or other such "grey area" phrases, it simply means that it IS illegal, but they want desperately to rationalize it and make it seem, at least, "somewhat ok".

Cases in point:
1) Fan-subbed anime.
2) The mythical "24 hour rule" on ROMs.

Re:Oh Really?

[HTH NE1]

No, that's the point. They want to add DRM to portable video players and home media servers, and they want to release software that respects adds that DRM when ripping. If they are the ones that license the DRM-full ripping software, then using that software to rip into those devices would be ok.

Exactly. They'll cross that bridge only after they've burned the existing free and open ones and built one of their own secure toll bridges.

And clearly they're only talking about it now after losing to Kaleidescape. It already secures its copies. It just doesn't do it using technology the DVD CCA controls. So they want to invent their own and mandate its use in future licenses so that they can force everyone else to pay them to license it.

Re:Oh Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to rip DVDs you must use software that by-passes the DVD copy protection. That is a violation of the DMCA

It's only a violation if you do it "without authorization." Keep this guy's quotes filed away for future use.

Re:Oh Really?

[HTH NE1]

That's an easy question, and has nothing to do with the DMCA. Copyright law as it stands has never allowed you to make copies of a protected work in your possession just to keep around.

Drop the word "protected" or replace it with "copyrighted". And it has long been legal before the DMCA to make a copy of a work in your permanent possession, such as making a single archive copy for backup purposes. It was even legal to remove copy protections in order to achieve functional copies. (See "Copy ][ Plus" and related software, which was even legally distributed with title-specific protection cracks, be they custom parameters for reading unusual disk structures or even modifying object code.)

It's the same law that's always applied when you check out a book from the library -- feel free to read it as much as you want while you have it, and place-shift/format-shift all day, but keeping a copy after you've turned the book back in isn't remotely close to fair use.

Which is why people with eidetic memory have to be registered and are barred from utilizing any library services, and why photocopiers are also barred from being installed on library property, and why possession of a hand-held print scanner is illegal.

Oh wait, that's right: they aren't.

Some people will go on about time-shifting of broadcast works, but that area of law has never applied to physically-distributed works.

Never hyphenate with an adverb.

Only because it is a natural extension of the time shifting right. What makes broadcast (or cable, including premium cable) so different that the rights deemed fair with them are not deemed fair with anything else?

Granted retaining a library of broadcast television indefinitely is outside the approved time-shifting fair use, as it would be for any borrowed or rented work. But then, if people didn't do it anyway, some broadcast works would have completely ceased to exist. As would have many printed works if not for the efforts of monastic scribes reproducing entire ancient texts with painstaken exactness.

Re:Oh Really?

[Red Flayer]

what is the legality of ripping Netflix movies because you "don't have time to watch them right away"?

Well, seeing as Netflix allows you to keep movies indefinitely, I think you'd have trouble convincing a court of that being your intent.

Re:Oh Really?

[yuna49]

In the concluding paragraph, the author at Ars states:

"Despite the lack of specificity, Glickman's speech marks a step forward for the MPAA, which says it is now committed to allowing content to play on any device, from any manufacturer."

The operative phrase here seems to be "on any device, from any manufacturer." I think the real meaning emerges if we remove the comma. The MPAA represents businesses who want to sell content playable on devices built by manufacturers that have licensed this hypothetical DRM system. What the Ars article didn't cover was how this could apply to "devices" built with open and free tools. I can see how these systems could be implemented on Vista using the existing Intel/Microsoft DRM system. I can also imagine implementations for portable media players like the iPod or Cowon through some combination of firmware and software. What I can't imagine is an open implementation for Linux or BSD that would not run afoul of the DMCA's "no-circumvention" clause just like DeCSS. It would still be illegal to distribute such implementations into or within the United States.

Now if someone could build a commercial product that plugged into a USB port and gave you the same freedoms as the other platforms offer, that might have a market. In fact, it might even help level the playing field against the proprietary platforms since you'd have less incentive to buy into the Intel+Microsoft or Intel+Apple solutions. Of course, there'd be a substantial segment of the Linux market that would refuse to purchase such a device on political grounds. However, if desktop Linux ever takes off, those people will represent a smaller and smaller share of Linux users. I could imagine many Linux users who wouldn't mind paying $29.95 for a device that would let them do the same things with DVDs as their friends running Windows and OS X can do. In fact, if I were the MPAA, it might better business sense to license the technology only to dongle makers and avoid having to deal with Intel/Microsoft/Apple. Just sell the dongles and a driver disk that supports Windows/Mac/Linux.

Re:Oh Really?

[Sax Maniac]

This smells an awful lot like a "free speech zone". You get a "fair use zone" which grants you a tiny fraction of what fair use really is, enforced by the DRM. Not so unpredictably, the fair use zone will line up nicely with other things they are selling: RIAA-approved DRM hardware and software, of which they'll naturally get a cut. Just a nominal fee, you know.

I'm somewhat pleased, but still wary. At least they're starting to acknowledge what people want to do, rather than just spout out Valentiesque head-in-the-sand sancitmonious bullshit.

Re:Oh Really?

[yuna49]

Only because it is a natural extension of the time shifting right. What makes broadcast (or cable, including premium cable) so different that the rights deemed fair with them are not deemed fair with anything else?

You might want to read John Paul Stevens decision in Sony v. Universal, specifically footnote 2 which reads, "This case involves only the home recording for home use of television programs broadcast free over the airwaves. No issue is raised concerning cable or pay television, or the sharing or trading of tapes."

The Court ruled that time-shifted viewing of programs on advertiser-supported broadcasting imposes no harm to the rights holders of those programs. Because time shifting enables advertisers to reach additional viewers, broadcasters are thus able to charge more for these larger audiences. Copyright holders should thus be able to capture some of this additional revenue by charging a higher rights fee to the broadcaster. So, in theory, the rights holders benefit financially from time-shifting. Without financial harm to the rights holders, it's tough to argue against a "fair-use" right for the time-shifting viewer.

Pay television was still in its childhood in 1984 when Sony v. Universal was handed down. Stevens excluded pay television because it wasn't so obvious whether the rights holders were harmed by your taping a movie off HBO. Time-shifted viewing of a movie doesn't increase either HBO's revenues or the revenues of the movie's copyright owner, but it does offer a potential for harm if you share that movie cassette with someone else. In practice, of course, the studios never asked that the pay-TV part of the decision be reconsidered. Once the Court ruled that video recorders could be sold legally in the US, the case was lost.

Like all fair-use cases, there is no guaranteed "time-shifting right." Fair-use is a right that must be balanced against the rights of the copyright owner. In this case Stevens decided that the studios failed to show sufficient harm to restrict the public's right to time-shift advertiser-supported broadcast programming.

As an aside, this case also raised what Stevens then called a "novel" legal argument, namely that Sony's decision to market VCRs as devices designed to record televised copyrighted works itself constituted an act of "contributory infringement" which required the devices to be banned. While the Court ruled against the studios in 1984, they took the opposite view in the Grokster case a few years back. There the Court ruled that Grokster had engaged in contributory infringement by providing and encouraging the use of its software to exchange copyrighted works, and that the use of this sofware directly benefitted Grokster since it drove people to visit Grokster's advertiser-supported website.

Re:Oh Really?

[rtb61]

Whta the are really saying is they want DRM but they are becoming acutely aware of a customer backlash against them as well as against the DMCA and copyright in general.

The biggest fear is customers as a group reviewing the whole commercial copyright process and as a group forcing whole sale changes to the system. Their is an old saying where you never really buy politicians you only borrow them.

For example the Christian right could force through an amendment to copy right legislation where it contravenes the constitution ie. all work most contribute to the sciences or the arts for copyright protection, as a result all pornographic work could be legally stripped of copyright protection, be it movies, pictures or music, via a constitutional challenge.

The MPAA and the RIAA are waking up to the fact, that along with the Mass media companies, that they are losing control of the mob, and that via the Internet, the mob is starting to riot in which ever direction it chooses. The mob hates copy protection and does not agree with it, regardless of what is fair or not, like children they only know that they 'want'. Computer geeks stopped being the main, so called 'pirates' some time back, and it is the typical end user be it an adult or a child, who is doing by far the bulk of the 'pirating' now days (often the child is doing the pirating for the parent because the parent does not know how to do it but still wants the free pirated content).

Re:Oh Really?

[ToriaUru]

I thank God (and myself) that I got that program DVD X Copy when it was sold. Believe me, I treat that program disk like GOLD! It's invaluable with kids in the house and $15 DVD's that never seem to be put away in their proper cases! Yes, I copy My DVD's for archival purposes, and I'll thank the Canadian CCRA, and the U.S. MPAA, or whatever it's called to allow everyone to do that. Will that happen? Not if we don't demand it, and stand up for OUR RIGHT to do it! This is smoke and mirrors. NO DRM is the only way to go. NO DRM period. End of sentence.

What they don't understand is that

[Daishiman]

DRM and Fair Use are mutually incompatible terms.

Re:What they don't understand is that

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

DRM and Fair Use are mutually incompatible terms. I'm sure the MPAA understand that just fine. That's why Dan Glickman is happy to come out in support of Fair Use, knowing full well that it's been made impossible to implement it without breaking the law thanks to DMCA & DRM.

What they're counting on is that the audience don't understand that the two are mutually exclusive. That way to the ignorant listener the MPAA is fighting those evil pirates to protect us consumers from their evil ways. Cue applause and shouts of "God bless you Dan Glickman!" etc.

Re:What they don't understand is that

[Chabil Ha']

Not necessarily. I would be totally cool if (with the purchase of my DVD) it came with software to rip it in a format that suits my DRM enabled media player best. This means that only I can use it, I can't use it to distribute to the whole world. I'm totally fine with that because it fits in with the idea of Fair Use (because I still get to use it the way I want) and they still 'feel' better that it has some form of DRM on it. That's a win-win to me.

Re:What they don't understand is that

[Shohat]

That's just an empty slogan. Tell me why Digital Rights Management can't include Fair Use by design ?

Re:What they don't understand is that

[cpt kangarooski]

Because any otherwise infringing use is a fair use given the right circumstances, but the same use, under different circumstances, might not be fair. Courts have a tough time with this, there are frequent reversals, and shifts in the law over time. No mere DRM machine can permit all fair uses while not permitting infringing uses.

Re:What they don't understand is that

[aaarrrgggh]

Not necessarily. I would be totally cool if (with the purchase of my DVD) it came with software to rip it in a format that suits my DRM enabled media player best. This means that only I can use it, I can't use it to distribute to the whole world. I'm totally fine with that because it fits in with the idea of Fair Use (because I still get to use it the way I want) and they still 'feel' better that it has some form of DRM on it. That's a win-win to me.

...that is, until you have some player or device that isn't supported by their ripping program.

Or, 5 years from now, when the operating system that the program was written for is no longer available, and you no longer have the tools to make your fair use copies. ...Or, 10 years from now when your original media is scratched and you want to restore a copy from your backup.

While in theory DRM and Fair Use can coexist, the DMCA prevents "future proofing" anything. Furthermore since Fair Use isn't legally defined you have no guarantees as to functionality over time; it is at the publisher's sole discretion. Possibly more importantly, any DRM system needs to "time out" at its copyright expiration.

The movie industry should be smarter than Music, but they really need to be proactive to understand the differences between people's needs bot now and in the future. DRM doesn't help that move. Watermarking might, but it is not easy to make it really solve their problems. How granular can you be?

Re:What they don't understand is that

[FrankieBaby1986]

Problem with DRM is that, in today's internet-dependent times, it will not be that simple. First, you'll buy the DVD with the understanding that you can use the ripping software to put the movie on your home media player made by company X. Then the DVD company gets in dispute with company X, and blacklists your box. Your DVD recording stops working. Where's your value-add ripping software now?

Or, perhaps, they decide to change the rules, first you can rip it to 10 devices (to get you to buy the DVD) but then a few months later, when they need more revenue, they restrict it to 2, and you can purchase additional rights again. Sounds like fair use, doesn't it?

Re:What they don't understand is that

[Chabil Ha']

Or, 5 years from now, when the operating system that the program was written for is no longer available, and you no longer have the tools to make your fair use copies

I'm sorry, but that's just the technology beast. Five years ago 3.5" floppies were still heavily used, but I would be hard pressed to even find a floppy drive. As long as you have that DVD, what's the issue of the format of any fair use copies. This becomes even more irrelevant if you can make fair-use duplicates of the DVD itself.

Re:What they don't understand is that

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Not necessarily. DRM is not designed to rob you of your fair use rights. It's designed to take the absolute freedom out of owning certain patterns of bits. It is possible, in theory, to create a scheme that respects fair use and that curtails copyright infringement, but I've yet to see anything that comes close. This scheme is a step in the right direction, though.

Re:What they don't understand is that

[aaarrrgggh]

This becomes even more irrelevant if you can make fair-use duplicates of the DVD itself.

If your method of producing fair-use duplicates is through software on those 3.5" floppies (which are still DRM protected), then you are SOL. This is the problem with "perfect DRM." It can't anticipate the future in codec, needs, or physical media.

Contradiction in terms

[simm1701]

Ok so they want to:

"to make things simpler for the consumer"

and they feel that

"DRM must be made to work without constricting consumers"

Isn't the point of DRM to constrict customers? The only way not to do so is to not have DRM.

Since its well known that DRM does not prevent piracy then the only purpose DRM can possibly have is restricting customers.

For those in the RIAA that failed logic 101 then you can not constrict customers if and only if you do not have DRM

I wouldn't give good odds on them getting this through their skulls any time soon....

Re:Contradiction in terms

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to define these terms before saying the conflict. Consumer is one who purchases the license to use the product, not the consumer's friends who want a copy of the product.

If there was a way to brand video with a limited-user license, and create something to reconfigure the video for other devices while keeping the branding intact, MPAA would be happy, it seems. Something transparent like tying an iPod to a certain computer and using iTunes as the conduit to transfer media. As it stands, you can give any of your friends the CD you bought / stole / burnt and they can re-copy it on their own computer and copy it to their own iPod, creating a new brand on the reconfigured (compressed and branded) audio. But think of a time when you could insert a DVD-type thing into your computer, where the software registers your computer as sole / initial owner of the use license, allowing you to transparently copy the movie onto your video player. In copying, the video is marked again, limiting use to your computer and your video player, which can only connect to your computer. To the end user, this is easy, and the end user can't pass the DVD-type thing to his or her friends to view / copy at will.

Of course, slashdotters aren't your typical end user, with their "weird" systems running "non-typical" operating systems, or realizing they can alter / make / find software that will ignore / work around the limitations of the media and media players. iPods can be copied anywhere, with the right software or know-how. DVDs can be ripped, with the right software and know-how. But will there be something that will be Digital Rights Management Made Easy(TM)? It sounds like this might be the next attempt.

Re:Contradiction in terms

[Anonymous Coward]

Example: DVDs cannot simply be copied in the same fashion that CDs can, but can be watched on hardware and software that can work with CSS. Most end users don't understand how all that works, content that their movies play when they put them in DVD players. DRM works, but not allowing you to shift your video to other products, at lest without bypassing the copy protection mechanisms.

Update licensed software for updated access, allowing for copying to specific devices and you've got transparent, easy to use DRM. Of course, you can limit which video players work with the software, but the end users won't mind too much, just something else to buy.

Re:Contradiction in terms

[jimicus]

"DRM must be made to work without constricting consumers"

Isn't the point of DRM to constrict customers? The only way not to do so is to not have DRM.

Technically correct. But this is the MPAA and they've got an answer to everything.

In this case, their answer is for every fair-use they consider "reasonable", they'll license a product which can do it. Such as a licensed DVD-ripping box which allows you to rip your DVDs but stores the movies in some encrypted form so you can watch them fine but copying them back onto another DVD is made awkward by things like Macrovision (if you try recording through analogue) or encryption (if you try dumping the digital data directly).

The minor issue with this is that fair-use by definition is a use for the media, not the mechanism to enable such use. "Fair Use" which can only be exercised by buying another licensed piece of equipment isn't really fair use at all - it's "fair use provided we don't lose control", which strictly speaking isn't fair use at all. But it's probably close enough that anyone trying the "Your honour, I was exercising my right to fair use" argument can be shot down with "Why didn't you use a licensed product to do so?"

Re:Contradiction in terms

[simm1701]

If I can't do it with my free software on my free OS using open source tools on a piece of hardware I built but I can do it on an overpriced box that they license be then it isn't fair use.

If fair use laws say a customer should be able to make a backup copy of media they own then its that simple - they should be able to make a back up copy. If the law where you are says you should be able to format shift then same thing.

Since the law doesn't say you should be able to as long as you buy an extra piece of hardware licensed by these people then it obviously isn't fair use (and is possibly leveraging a monopoly/cartel position for control of a different market)

Easier?

[shoolz]

Exactly how is DRM intended to "to make things simpler for the consumer", when the very purpose of DRM is to prevent the consumer from doing things he/she paid good money to be allowed to do?

Re:Easier?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

They mean, it makes it simpler for the consumer to hate the MPAA.

Re:Easier?

[evilbessie]

Because it's an "enabling tool"...

There's only one way to do this...

[dteichman2]

To set up a DRM system that allows a copy of the protected media to be displayed anywhere, but still protected, you'd need a unified media platform at the hardware level. It's not only insane, it's scary. It's like Trusted Computing, but with everything: TVs, portable devices, media servers, etc.

This would be the END of fair use.

"Sure, you can make a copy of that movie, but with these restrictions and only on these devices."

I'd sooner stick with the current system of breakable DRM ;)

DRM & Consumers

[Paulrothrock]

The problem with DRM is that you're trying to limit access to the very same people who are trying to buy access to the media. DRM will not work if the methods for acquiring or viewing this media are not easy. Right now, it's easier for me to fly BT Airways to watch unedited, newly released episodes of Dr. Who or Torchwood in a timely manner than it is for me to obtain them through legal means. I would buy the content if I could, but I can't, so I'm a criminal for being a fan of a show. And I'm sure Australian fans of Battlestar Galactica or Heroes feel the same way. The only reason we're unable to watch legitimate versions of our favorite shows is because of outdated licensing agreements.

So make the content easy to get no matter where in the world the viewer happens to be, and make it easy to view on any device, and you won't need DRM. People want things to be convenient, and they'll only pay for it if it's convenient. People will always steal content, with or without DRM. So the best way to ensure you get paying customers isn't to make DRM easier, but to eliminate it and make paying for the content easier. Most people don't want to be crooks.

Re:DRM & Consumers

[Gonarat]

I really don't see why all TV shows aren't released Globally at this point? Why does the TV and movie industry insist on living in the past when it was possible to delay a series or movie as long as desired when that obviously doesn't work any more? It may had made sense at one time to wait for a better price before releasing a series to another market, but with the BT and other P2P networks, it is too easy to bypass the bureaucracy, even if it is not strictly legal to do so.

The quicker the entertainment industry accepts the way things are and competes in the real world, the better off they will be. The RIAA has fought the battle against p2p for over eight years now, and things are just getting worse for them. THe MPAA has some time -- movie downloads are bigger (especially HD) and one still cannot beat the bandwidth of Netflix or the local rental store. Forget DRM and work on making your product easy to get and easy to use. IMHO P2P is not really free, there is a cost (time and bandwidth) to get stuff off of BT or any other p2p service. Give me an cheap, timely, easy, and DRM-free way to get that new episode of Doctor Who, and I won't need p2p. Continue down the current road, and p2p will still be the best value.

Re:DRM & Consumers

[Kjella]

[Talk of TV shows] So make the content easy to get no matter where in the world the viewer happens to be, and make it easy to view on any device, and you won't need DRM. People want things to be convenient, and they'll only pay for it if it's convenient.

There's just a small problem with that arguments. Pirates are offering a service that's not only higher resolution and quicker to market (for US HDTV broadcasts vs EU SDTV broadcasts), but it's also ad free, gratis, convienient and permanent. If a TV series doesn't make money on ads or subscriptions or dvd sales, what's paying the bills? It's proven time and time again that people don't want to pay the eyeball rate to avoid seeing commercials. Despite all the jammering about ads, it's all about avoiding it rather than voting with your wallet and paying more to avoid seeing commercials than others are willing to pay make you watch commercials. That goes for the "super premium" rates you'd have to pay to really have premium channels without ads too. With CDs and DVDs the pirates are delivering pretty much the same product. With TV series, the pirates are delivering a greatly superior product (there's about 42 mins of content in a 60 min block). How exactly can they win on convienience when their whole business model revolves around inconvienencing their viewers with ads, instead of payment in hard cash?

Re:DRM & Consumers

[Paulrothrock]

I use iTunes like TiVo. If I miss an episode of a show, I can buy that episode for two dollars. Granted, I could find a torrent for the show and download it, but it's much more convenient for me to simply pay the two bucks.

I've also done a cost analysis for my video content. At current prices, which is $2 per episode and $20-$30 per season, it's cost-competitive to buy my content from iTunes. I'm willing to pay that because it's convenient, and while there is DRM it's not too obtrusive. (However, this doesn't mean it shouldn't be eliminated.) The only reason I'm not ditching cable TV altogether is that the best broadband in my area is cable, and they charge you $15 more per month for it if you don't subscribe to at least their $15 per month basic packages, which is another rant for another time.

Also, based on the value my employer pays me for my time ($22/hour), those 18 minutes of my time are worth more than the $2 per episode I'm paying. And the frustration of commercials (why are they so much LOUDER than the show itself?) simply makes it more economical for me to get my content by paying for it than waiting an extra 18 minutes while they try to sell me an SUV or convince me to join the military.

Finally, the current market for downloadable content is very small when compared with the market for television. Heck, the market for cable is small when compared with the total market for television viewers. The people who are going to push downloadable TV aren't going to be geeks like you and I who know where to look for pirated content. They're going to be folks like our parents, or the secretaries at our jobs. They're not technical enough to know the difference between codecs or which open source players to download or even what a torrent file is. They're also frightened that stealing video content is going to get them thrown in prison. They want something that is convenient, easy, and legal. DRM removes the first two, and piracy removes the latter two. Only by creating an online store that works with any kind of player will people start moving away from broadcast or cable TV.

Re:DRM & Consumers

[Isaac-1]

One more thing, make the pricing sane. Really does anyone think $40-$50 per season is sane for box sets of old TV shows, some of which air currently on basic cable?

Dialog simply validates that they have a say

[Gothmolly]

By creating the atmosphere of a "summit", it puts them on a conceptually equal footing with technology companies and consumers, when in fact, they are not. They can choose not to produce, but if they produce, they have no choice - Fair Use exists. Debating details about Fair Use is irrelevant, and can only result in some diminished definition of the same.

It's called "lip service"

[debest]

Unless there has been a tremendous upheaval and changes within the MPAA that we haven't heard about, there is *no way* that they genuinely want this. It is obvious that the media industry's desire is for control of the consumers' viewing and listening habits, and permitting "fair use" in the manner described is not what they have in mind. All evidence of their actions for the past 20 years or more points to the contrary.

I think that this is just a feel-good press release statement to publicly demonstrate that they are the good guys, but in the end they will act in their own best interests, not their customers'.

Re:It's called "lip service"

[AusIV]

Recently they lost a court case that allowed a device to copy DVDs to the device for later playback. They're trying to retain some control over how their media is used by setting guidelines regarding the expanded fair use before they simply lose control in court battles.

The Shoulders of "Giants"

[Applekid]

So, who picked this guy to be the successor to Jack Valenti who once famously said: "If you need a backup copy of a DVD you can go out and buy another one." Was it Valenti who choose/endorse the succesor, or did the board vote him in?

So back then the voice of the MPAA was just blowing smoke?

Re:The Shoulders of "Giants"

[Rolgar]

Glickman was a Congressman from Kansas, who probably got the job for helping pass some DRM-friendly legislation through Congress.

Re:The Shoulders of "Giants"

[Rob the Bold]

Glickman was a Congressman from Kansas, who probably got the job for helping pass some DRM-friendly legislation through Congress.

In between those gigs, he was Secretary of Agriculture under the Clinton Administration. I have no idea how that helped him land the MPAA job.

Re:The Shoulders of "Giants"

[MrNiceguy_KS]

His son is a Hollywood producer. I'm sure between that and his congressional connections he was a perfect fit.

Re:The Shoulders of "Giants"

[squiggleslash]

Well, being Secretary Agriculture involves regulating an industry that shovels a lot of bullshit and makes huge amounts of money in the process. So yeah, I'm not sure why he'd be Hollywood's supremo either... ;)

Re:The Shoulders of "Giants"

[jimicus]

So, who picked this guy to be the successor to Jack Valenti who once famously said: "If you need a backup copy of a DVD you can go out and buy another one."

In the world occupied by the likes of Valenti, it's no big deal to go out and buy another copy of a DVD every time it gets damaged because compared to what his salary was, the price is fairly nominal.

Clearly nobody every argued back with "But what if it's no longer in production?" or "I have two small children; you expect me to replace every other DVD in my collection every week?!"

What??

[Jugalator]

How can the same guy that want to intentionally encrypt these movies talk about intentions to make things simple for the customer? :-S

talk is cheap

[swschrad]

and statements like glickman's cheapen it even further every day

In other news...

[psmears]

The KKK announced their commitment to Civil Rights and lynchings...

Re:In other news...

[lilomar]

Microsoft is committed to interoperability and transparency. The RIAA is committed to diversity in music. Haliburton is committed to creating American jobs. Lawrence Lessig is committed to increasing copyright terms. The FSF is committed to DRM. Karl Marx is committed to capitalism. George Bush is committed to getting out of the war. The NRA is committed to stricter gun control. The Pirate Bay is committed to eliminating file sharing. ect...

Awesome

[Grashnak]

Similarly, I am deeply committed to both virginity and fucking my brains out. Woot!

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooo... You're committed to your right hand then?

"make things simpler for the consumer"?

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough* bullshit! *cough*

Digging Their Own Grave

[Anonymous Coward]

I never thought I'd live to see the headline of "MPAA to Star in Own Snuff Film" but, well, here we are.

You got it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The very purpose of DRM is to prevent the consumer from *giving copies* to other people (which you are NOT allowed to do according to copyright). The rest is collateral damage. By "make things simpler for the consumer" they mean eliminating the collateral damage so that law-abiding citizen don't notice a thing.

Fair Use Protected

[eboot]

Basically they have invented a sort of physical key and lock device that will be sold with all future content. Each DVD will come with a Dual Immutable Content Kernal that you will have to place inside a peripheral that attaches to your DVD/Blu Ray/ HD DVD player. The peripheral is call the Asynchronous Security System and is a revolutionary device. Trust me, this is the future of DRM, where everytime you watch a movie you will have to put their D.I.C.K inside your A.S.S.

Re:Fair Use Protected

[PenguinGuy]

That's an awesome post...completely shows the MPAA's thoughts about us.

Re:Fair Use Protected

[Some_Llama]

But I think the real question is "how much will I have to pay per A.S.S. insertion?"

Some places charge a lot for that...

Is that legally binding?

[Just Some Guy]

IANAL, but doesn't a public announcement of your position kind of make it hard for you to sue someone who acts in accordance with it? Estoppel, or something like that? I mean, it would seem that he just gave explicit permission for citizens to use DeCSS and similar tools in order to format-shift their purchases.

Article is mis-titled

[xjimhb]

The article title should read "MPAA (and spokesman Dan Glickman) should ***BE COMMITED*** "

Here's the important part!

[CyberLord Seven]

The MPAA does recognize that progress on DRM needs to be made soon, or impatient consumers will increasingly turn to unauthorized sources for content.(emphasis mine)

Unlike Jack Valenti, this guy seems to see the writing on the wall.

I buy DVDs because I like the high quality, and trust the techs hired to transfer the film to disc much better than I trust myself to burn a copy of a DVD. I have burned copies of DVDs that were not available for purchase. I have bought "bootleg" DVDs but not in any great numbers because I did NOT enjoy watching some moron get up in the front row to get popcorn in the middle of the movie.

However, with the recent FSCK-up by Sony, AGAIN, I must admit I'm wondering if I will just rent their DVDs in the future or just buy bootlegs. Then there is the additional problem with all those damned advertisements stopping me from watching my movie.

I don't have a problem buying DVDs. I DO have a problem if the studios make it a problem!

He's fine with it?

[boyfaceddog]

I guess he's fine with consumers NOT being able to rip DVDs for personal use, too.

Universal, Reasonable and Demanded DRM Standard

[twitter]

As there isn't a unified DRM standard, they can't release that software yet, but if there some day will be, then they some day will release that software.

The universally accepted and demanded DRM scheme is a lack of digital restrictions. That's the standard they will use if they really mean what they say about fair use. There is nothing simple about them forcing restrictions on the industry and their customers and ultimately any restrictions limit your fair use rights by limiting what players you can use.

Now that the cards are delt, Call.

[csmacd]

If you are sincere, then publish a statement that will release circumvention software from prosecution.

While you're at it, go ahead and state for the record that fair use will not be prosecuted, including, but not limited to, parody, short clips posted to the internet, ripping for media servers, etc.

Magic

[Maximum Prophet]

...they recognize that consumers should be able to use legitimate video material on any item in the house, including home networks.

I guess the pretty pink DRM unicorns will be carrying all this content around and will determine if any device is actually mine or someone else's.

Be careful!

[twitter]

People will always steal content, with or without DRM.

Making a copy of something is not "stealing".

Of course, I agree with everything you say about eliminating digital restrictions and how that's what the industry really needs to do. Thanks for the down under perspective of licensing issues.

Re:Be careful!

[dedazo]

Making a copy of something is not "stealing".

No, making a copy of something and selling 50,000 copies of it (or putting it on a P2P network for 5 million people to download) is a crime.

Let's call it how it is, shall we? The MAFIAA is not worried about people asserting their fair use rights and making a copy of a DVD for backup purposes. I do that all the time. What they're worried about is the guy that makes a copy of the DVD, removes the protection and then puts the recompressed ISO file on the PirateBay. Their problem is that they are institutionally incapable of distinguishing between the two.

Seriously, is it that hard to understand that? The grandmothers and dads on food stamps that get sucked into the "enforcement" lawsuits are unfortunate and should not be happening, but they are a result of the overall effort by the content owners - Slashdot doesn't normally publish the plight of the 20-year old who was found running a warez FTP with half a million high-quality MP3s and making a tidy profit from them.

Re:Be careful!

[geekoid]

"No, making a copy of something and selling 50,000 copies of it (or putting it on a P2P network for 5 million people to download) is a crime."

YES!! But it is not stealing. People seem to thing that when soneone says 'it's not stealing' there saying 'it's not a crime' which is not true.

And if that 20 year old can do it, why can't the MPAA?
In fact, I would wager that most people would rather down'oad from a legitimate site they trust, then from some warez site. I think iTunes backs that up.

Re:Be careful!

[TheGratefulNet]

Making a copy of something is not "stealing".

its a NEW thing that needs better definition.

its not an either/or. this binary thinking is what is causing so many problems. the old laws fail, horribly, in the digital age. you cannot apply laws that were made when people had wooden teeth (!) to the world we live in, today.

making a bit image of some electronic file does NOT cause any kind of real money loss to the 'owner'. there is no less inventory, no shipping charges, no cost involved at all. in fact, if you make a bit copy of a cd or dvd, you don't even have to INVOLVE the 'owner' at all. if the owner can't even know or measure his 'losses' are they really REAL losses? no, I don't think so.

otoh, suppose that all software was copyied and never paid for. that model doesn't work either.

so you see, its not either/or.

but what IS clear is that copying bits is NOT 100% the same as if I broke into your house and stole your tv. in one case, the PROPERTY was transferred, but in the other case, the property (bit image) is not 'removed' and you can still sell or copy your bits with no real material loss at all.

society needs to re-invent laws that deal with 'virtual property'. its very clear to most of us that the old paradigms of 'property' need a total re-write for today's world.

Re:Be careful!

[dedazo]

So it's a crime, but we can't call it "stealing". OK, and this helps how?

And if that 20 year old can do it, why can't the MPAA? In fact, I would wager that most people would rather down'oad from a legitimate site they trust, then from some warez site

Absolutely. The problem is that the *AA and friends have not gotten and probably will never get the fact that their stranglehold on the packaging and distribution of content is about to die a painful death. If they had anticipated that in the early 90s and adapted to it, they'd be rakin' it in by now from all sides.

Re:Be careful!

[suv4x4]

Making a copy of something is not "stealing".

If I had a big red button in front of me saying:

"CLICK TO MAKE INFRINGEMENT THEFT"

I'd press it, just to silence you all, annoying naggers.

Further more, EU is on the way to make illegal copying into actual full-fledged theft, by law. With all extras. Let's see how will you be able to argue on a technicality then.

Re:Be careful!

[Paulrothrock]

Making a copy of something is not "stealing".

Absolutely true. In fact, I'd argue that if it weren't for me "stealing" the BSG miniseries, I wouldn't have become a fan. Same with Dr. Who and Torchwood. In fact I'd never have seen the latter two if it weren't for P2P technologies.

But to many people, my parents included, it still looks like stealing. They worry every day that I'm going to be picked up by the cops.

And I'm sorry, but I'm not from Australia. That was just a typo. But I do know someone from Australia who's a big BSG fan.

Re:Be careful!

[crabpeople]

"No, making a copy of something and selling 50,000 copies of it (or putting it on a P2P network for 5 million people to download) is a crime."

So is smoking weed, speeding, having underage sex or a beer(in amerika) when your 18. I guess Im getting ripped off then as I share tonnes of media but have never made a cent from it. Maybe Im just not the 133t crackz0r entrepreneur you are invisioning. That is what you are invisioning right? Some seedy underworld where people download movies and music off private ftp sites? the 80s called... but wait!

"Slashdot doesn't normally publish the plight of the 20-year old who was found running a warez FTP with half a million high-quality MP3s and making a tidy profit from them."

Perhaps because that character only exsists in your head?

"The MAFIAA is not worried about people asserting their fair use rights and making a copy of a DVD for backup purposes. I do that all the time."

Too bad under current law, thats a crime too. It must be nice to pick and choose which crimes to commit and then have the gall to set the "morality line" just below what you personally do.

No ones saying that people should profit off of other peoples work, but comparing file sharing to selling dvds on a streetcorner is flamebait at best.

Re:Be careful!

[dedazo]

I guess Im getting ripped off then as I share tonnes of media but have never made a cent from it.

I guess in your mind that makes it OK, then. Very good. Maybe you should hold up a bank and give all the money to charity. No victim there either.

Perhaps because that character only exsists in your head?

Yes, of course he does.

Too bad under current law, thats a crime too

Unfortunately that's true in the age of CDs and it wasn't in the days of cassette tapes, but I'd feel safe going to court on that than a charge of distributing thousands of DVD ISOs for profit (or not).

comparing file sharing to selling dvds on a streetcorner is flamebait at best.

No, missing the point on purpose and nitpicking the concept of "sharing" to justify gross copyright violation so that you can regurgitate your tired sheep argument might be.

Re:Be careful!

[russotto]

Further more, EU is on the way to make illegal copying into actual full-fledged theft, by law. With all extras. Let's see how will you be able to argue on a technicality then.

Abe Lincoln once posed the question "How many legs does a dog have, if you call a tail a leg?". The answer is "Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.".

Re:Be careful!

[TheTapani]

Absolutely. The problem is that the *AA and friends have not gotten and probably will never get the fact that their stranglehold on the packaging and distribution of content is about to die a painful death. If they had anticipated that in the early 90s and adapted to it, they'd be rakin' it in by now from all sides

Actually there is more to blame than the companies. At least where I live (Sweden) corporations dealing with IP has a problem with accounting of the value of their IP.
What is the value of the right to sell, say 10,000, copies of a song?? Under the current rules, the value of this asset is 0. But if you burn 10,000 copies to CD:s and stock them, that is an asset with an value of 10,000 x X!

It is backward, yes. But companies that don't have enough assets on paper are forced into bankrupcy. This is one problem for IP companies leaving the physical medium model of business. And that part is not their fault. //T

Basic conflict

[cdrguru]

The problem is that what the movie companies would be happy with people doing is what maybe 50% of the people want to do. The rest want to share with the world and ensure a single copy of a DVD is sold, period.

You see, to enable format-shifting you need to be able to access the digital content in an unrestricted manner. So that means you can make it into a different format, upload it and share it with the world.

What the movie companies wouldn't mind is if you took the movie in some manner that it could not be shared and put it on a portable device. Not really possible today, because once you can move it, it isn't protected against being shared with the world.

The real answer is (a) nobody buy any DVDs any more or go to theaters and (b) download everything. Sales drop to near zero and it takes 10 minutes to find the latest stuff on web sites worldwide. Movies become 90-minute ads for embedded products and advertising picks up where the ticket and DVD sales left off.

Perhaps not

[woolio]

I was wondering about that.

Then again, this guy does not represent the govt... Perhaps he is only stating that the RIAA won't prosecute in civil courts [since they've already gotten the federal laws on their side]?

On an related note, it didn't matter that the airlines ticket counter representative said it would be okay for me to carry my luggage on the plane. TSA thought it was too big and forced me to check it in. By the book, I think TSA trumps airline employees. Is digital content any different?

Think tank

[flogger]

he added that the movie studios were open to "a technology summit" featuring academics, IT companies, and content producers to work on the issues involved.'"

This is a nice sounding think tank to solve issues. But what he is really saying is, "We (The companies, programmers, ane movie Execs that have helped us to get to this point) are going to get together and do what we want even more and NOT get any input from the consumers and users of the content that we want to control."

Comming to their senses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody usurps control of my hardware or software for DRM, that's the end of the discussion. P2P is a great distribution mechanism and a business opportunity the studios and record labels have been foolish not to turn to their advantage. Some form of protection as a deterrent (eg: scrambled content and license key) I don't have a problem with. It has to be priced correctly and made more convenient than hacking the key. Most of us are essentially on the side of the entertainment industry, we want it to be commercially viable for them to continue producing stuff.

I for one hope the tech community and RIAA/MPAA openly work towards a method of ensuring renumeration for rights owners - without subsidizing freeloading assholes.

Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, I should be able to share data freely. I should not be able to sell data if I don't own the "profitright," but giving it away freely with no profit motive should be allowed.

That is my idea of fair.

Re:Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be the movie studios' incentive to spend tens of millions on a movie when the first person to buy a copy would be able to give it away for free to everyone?

Re:Fair use

[voice_of_all_reason]

Not our problem.

What money did Da Vinci need to raise in order to create the Mona Lisa? Who funded the statue-carvers of Easter Island? How much of an advance did JK Rowling get in order to start Harry Potter (hint: zero).

Creative works made with only profit as a motive are not culturally fundamental. We'll live without them.

Re:Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

Not our problem.

Bullshit. If no one could make money off of books, movies, television shows or video games, they would stop being made. Music would dry up and be limited to concert bands only. Entertainment as a whole would be limited to live acts. That would be a problem for most people. Creative works made with only profit as a motive are not culturally fundamental.

Because it's that binary? They have to be made with "only profit as a motive"? They can't be made because the possibility of profit actually allows something to be made? Do you know why there was a whole series of Harry Potter books? Because they were selling and JK Rowling could write full time rather than have to work at some other job for a living.

I love how people use history as an example that people will still create. You can come up with a lot of examples, from the whole of human history, but how much of that was available to any given person at any point in time?

Re:Fair use

[beckerist]

When art is driven strictly by monetary gain, you end up with crap like "alliwantforxmasisapsp.com" and Metallica. The point of the grandparent isn't that it's BAD to pursue art for money, it's that if that were the sole purpose of creating the art then who needs art? It'd be preposterous to say that J.K. Rowling didn't continue to write the books for the money. Of course she did (and who wouldn't?) It's just not what drove her to create art in the first place and isn't what drives the majority of ANY art.

and you, AC about 3 people up...my guess is you're either very uninformed about economics or you work for the MPAA (which isn't necessarily mutually exclusive.)

Re:Fair use

[UbuntuDupe]

Creative works made with only profit as a motive are not culturally fundamental.

Please, please tell me you're joking.

Re:Fair use

[Knuckles]

What money did Da Vinci need to raise in order to create the Mona Lisa

Bad, BAD example. He was supported by a long string of aristocrats, and many of his works were commissioned. He maintained a whole workshop.

Re:Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

When art is driven strictly by monetary gain, you end up with crap like "alliwantforxmasisapsp.com" and Metallica. The point of the grandparent isn't that it's BAD to pursue art for money, it's that if that were the sole purpose of creating the art then who needs art?

That's fine, but irrelevant. You're doing a great job of shooting down a point I didn't even make. Just because some people make art solely for monetary gain isn't a reason to remove the ability for those who create art to have monetary gain at all. There is a vast amount of art that was not created for the sole purpose of gain, but which were made possible because gain could be made. Most people who would like to create art full time could not do so if there was no money in it. People need to pay their bills. It's not like there's a sudden increase in desire for people to create art, the human spirit has not changed, yet somehow there is magnitudes more art available than there were in earlier centuries. This is because people can afford to create it now.

and you, AC about 3 people up...my guess is you're either very uninformed about economics or you work for the MPAA

Nice ad hominem. Since we're guessing my guess is that you're a sexually deprived pervert with a fondness for little boys. Look, I can do it too, and it makes about as much sense.

No one has refuted the point that by allowing people to make money by creating art, the availability of art has skyrocketed. Saying that "art created for profit" is an irrelevant statement, for the reasons I've given above. I would guess that you're either very uninformed about history, or a communist. Oh look, there I go guessing again. I should stop that, but you got me started on it.

Re:Fair use

[obeythefist]

Actually Da Vinci was presumably either independently wealthy or had some kind of patronage (I am not a historian), likewise the statue carvers were presumably slaves that got fed by their slave owners (I guess that is just like RIAA contracts) and I think JK was on the dole when she wrote the first Harry Potter (or maybe she had some part time job)

But in most cases it's true that they're not specifically commissioned works (except perhaps the easter island heads, I think someone specifically wanted those for some reason, although they might have just done it for the cool factor).

But, quite true, it seems that the best works are created by independent artists who are then railroaded into these organisations, I can't think of a band being famous before their work, or an artist being famous before their paintings. Except of course the "manufactured" artists like boy bands etc etc.

Re:Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

I write music. I play live at least once weekly. -- wait for it... I also have a desk job...9am-4pm.

And I quote: If no one could make money off of books, movies, television shows or video games, they would stop being made.

I'll let you guess which one pays the bills...

--beckerist

Re:Fair use

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Not our problem.

Maybe not, but if you want thriving culture (like I do) in the age of the internet, we do need protection for artists.

What money did Da Vinci need to raise in order to create the Mona Lisa? Who funded the statue-carvers of Easter Island?

You may disagree, but if you want to convince me, you'll have to do more than cite examples of great creative works made in the years gone by when we couldn't copy creative works easily and exactly. Or artworks made out of religion or spiritualism (those days are fading). In short, please use contemporary examples, since society has changed a lot in the past few years.

How much of an advance did JK Rowling get in order to start Harry Potter (hint: zero).

She got the promise that if her book was successful, she would get a lot of money. The money was not guaranteed by any means and it was certainly a gamble, but because of the chance that she would make a decent amount of money, there was value in writing the book. Without copyright law, the book industry would be in such an anaemic state, the idea of publishing a book to the rest of the world probably wouldn't even occur to her.

Creative works made with only profit as a motive are not culturally fundamental. We'll live without them.

I take it all back. I am clearly in the presence of someone who is vastly more informed than me. Ladies and Gentlemen, this Slashdotter obviously is familiar with all creative works made for profit! I believe he is also able to distinguish between works that are made for profit, and ones made to better our culture! Wow, and to think I used to believe that people who made claims like that were unfairly profiling creative works and automatically applying prejudices without considering the content of the creative work.

Re:Fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. If no one could make money off of books, movies, television shows or video games, they would stop being made. Music would dry up and be limited to concert bands only. Entertainment as a whole would be limited to live acts. That would be a problem for most people.

I smell even more bullshit.

First, let's look at video games. Take a look in your local apt-repository - no money made off those games.

Second, movies. How about all those Star Wars fan films out there? They're made for even less than free; the producer absorbs the costs.

Third, TV shows. Check out Star Trek New Voyages. That's free.

Fourth, books. Project Gutenberg, My Boot! She hates my futon.

It's all available, to anybody, any time, in exactly the same way that a museum or library is available to anybody at any time.

In summary: you are either a corporate schill, a lobbiest, or a plain fool. It might pay for you to shut the hell up in future no matter how much you're being paid.

Of course he is in favour

[Bullfish]

Just as Jesse James was committed to redistribution of wealth while loving railroads and banks.

DeCSS

[brufar]

So he's saying we can play legally purchased, store bought DVD's on our Linux boxes right ? I mean that should be covered under fair use....
If you can legally circumvent DRM under the fair-use provision to make a COPY of a DVD as a 'backup', then circumventing that same DRM to simply playback a movie should be a non-issue

Wow. What's their position on the sky being blue?

[Elwood P Dowd]

MPAA's Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers.

(See subject.)

Pot, meet kettle.

[Anonymous Coward]

You had a good point until your mind wandered (once again) into the field of male-male fellatio.

Who said it's male-male fellatio? The GP never said anything about "politicians" being male.

Whose mind is wandering, again?

stealing and end results

[Anonymous Coward]

"Making a copy of something is not "stealing"."

Of course it isn't but realize what the results of making that statement are.

Customer: I didn't steal that movie, I copied it for/from a friend. Copying isn't stealing.
MPAA: Right. Copyright violation. Now we can sue for $100,000 for each time you copied it.
Customer: But isn't the movie only worth $20?
MPAA: Sure. But you said you didn't steal it, right? So it's a copyright violation.
                      Now we can treat you like we would any other billion dollar business that infringes.
Customer: Crap.

Of course the real problem is the copyright laws and the grossly disproportionate fines associated with what essentially amounts to getting a copy of a movie for free and prosecuting the general public with laws that are designed for businesses.

In the case of a consumer, making a copy is closer to being "stealing" than it is to being "copyright infringement" (at least in terms of how it should be prosecuted, etc. -- "copying" here as I use it refers to taking / making a copy of something you haven't bought yourself).

Re:stealing and end results

[Anonymous Coward]

If I logged in and had mod points, you would get modded up. An interesting point, one that I never thought of when people argue that yes it is stealing it's the same thing blah blah.

at least in terms of how it should be prosecuted,

Yup, but it isn't. So downloading without permission is really *vastly different* from stealing, in terms of the punishment.

Dan Glickman, Oxymoron

[Lambchops3]

Geroge Orwell called this double speak. Why whould anyone believe anything these guys say. Yet another ex-politician, still lying to us. Why should he change, just cause it is out of office.

Re:Dan Glickman, Oxymoron

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Mr. Orwell called it newspeak.

Re:Dan Glickman, Oxymoron

[user24]

actually, orwell either spoke of "doublethink" or "newspeak", but not "double speak".
I can't see how either is related to this, though. Suggest you read 1984 before crying Orwell.

Re:Dan Glickman, Oxymoron

[geekoid]

Hear Hear.

It may be lying, but that isn't Orwell exactly what Orwell was talking about.

I doubt even 1/3 of the people who talk abuot Orwell actually bothered to read the book.
Since this is /., they probably read the cover blurb and figured that was enough to get the jist of it. ;)

Re:Dan Glickman, Oxymoron

[Caffeinate]

Double speak would be talking like this talking like this.

Re:Dan Glickman, Oxymoron

[pintpusher]

[quote]Since this is /., they probably read the cover blurb and figured that was enough to get the jist of it. ;)[/quote]

If you read the whole thing, then you'll miss the frosty pist...

No thank you.

[pla]

The goal, he said, was "to make things simpler for the consumer,"

Gee, thanks for the thought, Dan, but thanks to the DMCA your organization pushed through, we can't rip DVDs without breaking the law (not because of copyright, but because of the need to circumvent CSS).

Clearly, therefore, this reprehensible action you describe, "ripping DVDs", simply must not occur. And we don't want it to occur, of course, because it would cut into your profits.

So, as much as we appreciate the thought, please take your visions of ubiquitous DRM and shove them straight up to your appendix.

Yup, time for a new tag...

[greppling]

yeahright

Many (or "all so far") != All

[nick_davison]

Isn't the point of DRM to constrict customers? The only way not to do so is to not have DRM.

Since its well known that DRM does not prevent piracy then the only purpose DRM can possibly have is restricting customers. The point of the purest concept of DRM is, "To constrict users to their legal uses."

Admittedly, every implementation so far has been a poor one, overstepping from constricting to legal rights in to outright diminishing those rights. But just because every implementation so far has been bad, that doesn't mean the core concept is exclusively bad.

Take moulds. Prior to the 1920s, most people would have said, "It is well known mould does nothing for us. The only purpose mould can possibly have is making us sick." Then along comes Fleming who shows the right mould can be used to kill all kinds of bacteria. The same has been said of viruses - which we're learning to harness now, and even bacteria.

Even more ironically, the MPAA and RIAA were some of the first to condemn P2P because "Its well known that P2P does not promote legal fair use. The only purpose P2P can possibly have is piracy." We laugh at them for their narrowmindedness on Slashdot, we lament how they can attempt to destroy a technology simply because many or most of its users do bad things with it, we scoff at how they don't really understand the full picture, then we turn around and do exactly the same thing.

Re:Many (or "all so far") != All

[PitaBred]

Troll much?

It's not that we don't understand what DRM does. We understand it better than anyone. And DRM's ONLY REASON FOR EXISTING is to limit use. That's all it does. We're not talking "legitimate" vs "illegitimate" use, as that varies from place to place, we're talking completely artificial limitations on use because someone decided it should be so. There aren't any benefits to consumers, society as a whole, anyone except the people who create the DRM and try to confuse other people into thinking that they're being limited for their own good.

Re:Many (or "all so far") != All

[Hatta]

Admittedly, every implementation so far has been a poor one, overstepping from constricting to legal rights in to outright diminishing those rights. But just because every implementation so far has been bad, that doesn't mean the core concept is exclusively bad.

No, it doesn't follow logically, but the core concept behind DRM *is* bad. DRM is just encryption. In encryption, you want to get a message from A to B without C reading it. In DRM B and C are the same person. DRM is fundamentally flawed technology.

Re:Many (or "all so far") != All

[exi1ed0ne]

Take moulds. Prior to the 1920s, most people would have said, "It is well known mould does nothing for us. The only purpose mould can possibly have is making us sick." Then along comes Fleming who shows the right mould can be used to kill all kinds of bacteria. The same has been said of viruses - which we're learning to harness now, and even bacteria.

I just don't buy that analogy. Harnessing previously "bad" things as you mention above have a benefit for the end user. DRM adds no value for the end consumer of the movie or song.

Re:Many (or "all so far") != All

[the-empty-string]

Admittedly, every implementation so far has been a poor one, overstepping from constricting to legal rights in to outright diminishing those rights. But just because every implementation so far has been bad, that doesn't mean the core concept is exclusively bad.

Riiight. And communism is a brilliant idea, it's just that it was poorly implemented.

Re:Many (or "all so far") != All

[jZnat]

It might actually be a brilliant idea, but it is also defective by design. Just like how DRM tries to use encryption in a way that doesn't work (where B and C are the same person as mentioned above), communism fails to take into account that humans are greedy by nature.

Re:Many (or "all so far") != All

[the-empty-string]

Which is what I meant. I thought the sarcasm was apparent.

Ad-Supported Movies

[Anonymous Coward]

"Movies become 90-minute ads for embedded products and advertising picks up where the ticket and DVD sales left off."

And movies subsequently loose all artistic value and die a horrible death.

Re:Ad-Supported Movies

[Caffeinate]

Movies ARE ALREADY 90-minute ads for embedded products . . . Fixed it for you. (Watch Casino Royale for an excellent example of this).

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Chinese government committed to Free speech and shooting dissidents.
American government committed to freedom, legal random phone tapping and strict gamabling controls.

I'm sure there are better examples....

specifically, "lip service" for technically unsavy

[plasmacutter]

Specifically.. it's lip service for the technically unsavvy made under the misleading proposition than DRM can be applied without walling off the ability to change the format of said dvd so it will fit into your desired portable device.

In other words, it's to mislead joe sixpack and "series of tubes" stevens into believing that:
A - Their proposed "idea" of "nonrestrictive" digital restriction is possible
B - The growing outcry and movement against DRM is unreasonable
C - They are "reasonable" in trying to reach a "compromise" by continuing to push DRM.

another implicit message is "bear with us while we, in our cognitive dissonance, attempt to do the impossible at your expense"

That's fine talk...

[Eric Damron]

"Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers."

But didn't the MPAA sue the maker of a piece of hardware that was designed to store and play ripped DVDs? I seem to remember an article about it right here on slashdot.

I think I hear double speak...

And in other news...

[bgt421]

And in other news:

Microsoft loves Open Source!

...Hell freezing over, anyone?

If that's the case

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not give us the tools to make personal backups?

And it is called...

[TheAxeMaster]

HDMI. And they already built it and put it into use. DX10 respects it, HD TV's respect it, HD DVD/Blu-ray players REQUIRE it to get full resolution, etc. Once they fully turn it on, you won't be able to watch a movie without "approved" hardware. And millions will buy it, because just like a pork bill that no one wants, when it is piggybacked onto something good (1080p, 8 channel uncompressed audio on a single cable) people will take the good with the bad.

Re:And it is called...

[jZnat]

Actually, it's called HDCP, and it also works in DVI-D. Both HDMI and DVI can be used unencrypted, but HDCP is the anti-consumer crap that's forced in all HDMI devices and many (but not all) DVI devices.

Re:And it is called...

[dteichman2]

Not so fast. HDMI wouldn't really be a means to do anything neat with making backup copies. You'd have to tie the backup to each user.

Bananas *are* clones.

[Grendel Drago]

Every banana you get at the store is a clone of the same Cavendish banana. If there were to be a plague on bananas, they'd be extraordinarily susceptible. Of course, since bananas are the third most popular crop on the planet, we'd be in quite a world of shit, then.

Re:Bananas *are* clones.

[HAKdragon]

Oh shit! Somebody better tell Kirk Cameron then!

Re:Bananas *are* clones.

[Skater]

Actually it already happened once. Popular Science did an article on this a while back. Turns out we used to eat a banana nicknamed the Big Mike (unfortunately I don't see a Wikipedia article on it) but that was wiped out by disease, reversing the fortunes of several Latin America countries (see the history of the term Banana Republic). The PopSci article is pretty interesting, even if only for the history (if you're already familiar with the Cavendish issue).

Re:Bananas *are* clones.

[Knuckles]

Snopes has the story: http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/bananas.asp

Uhh

[Anonymous Coward]

So, which one is it?

CSS Kaleidescape case......

[mrsteveman1]

I seem to remember a recent lawsuit where the CSS people sued Kaleidescape, and lost, for enabling their devices to rip DVDs to disk, separating the watchable copy from the physical disk. That was a media server.

Now that the CSS lost the Kaleidescape case, the MPAA now thinks its ok to rip DVDs to disk on a media server.....

Re:CSS Kaleidescape case......

[Vegeta99]

I'm glad they won. The MPAA fuckers try to tell me I didn't buy the physical DVD, I just bought a license to view what's on it, and then when I say okay fine, I'm going to watch my movie for home entertainment purposes anyway and keep the DVD in a different place, they're upset.

MPAA, You got your disgusting cake, now fuckin' eat it.

Where I think we're going...

[Kjella]

...is that they'll simply leave the PC itself out of the equation. This idea was a thought that came to me as I read about the GF8500/8600s 100% hardware acceleration of H.264, if they're doing all the processing why involve the CPU as a trusted party at all? Just have the Blu-Ray / HD-DVD player negotiate a key directly with the graphics card, while the CPU only shuffles encrypted data like an Internet node in a SSH connection. That means there'd be no need for trusted software, an open source linux player could just as easily and securely do it. It'd be a lot easier than locking down the BIOS, CPU, system bus, memory+++ and not give Microsoft a free lock-in and make them the keyholder of all HTPCs (you'd think MPAA could take a clue from RIAA and Apple).

Re:Where I think we're going...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also kills other elements of fair use. We don't just want these playable on Linux, we want to be able to copy them legally -- rips, backups, etc. If what you described has to talk directly to the optical drive, we can't do that. If it doesn't, then all it prevents is transcoding -- you can still copy the entire stream around.

The thing is, you're not going to get 100% of fair use with any kind of DRM which is effective at preventing piracy -- if it was ever about that anyway.

Actually, it's bigger then that

[geekoid]

He is saying we can rip content to play on other media, not just backup.

MOD PARENT UP

[CowTipperGore]

I wish I could say I don't understand how the GP was modded +5, but I'm not that new here. Most or all current implementations of DRM have been skewed toward the copyright holder at the expense of the consumer, but that does not invalid the concept of DRM or the importance of it.

mod article +4 funny

[hachete]

This is a joke? /me checks calendar - it's not April 1st. It just feels like it.

Have you read the DMCA?

[geekoid]

`(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

While companies are abusing it, it really does allow for fair use circumvention.

then this:

                          (1) CIRCUMVENTION PERMITTED- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title, if--

                                    `(A) the technological measure, or the work it protects, contains the capability of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information reflecting the online activities of a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected;

                                    `(B) in the normal course of its operation, the technological measure, or the work it protects, collects or disseminates personally identifying information about the person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, without providing conspicuous notice of such collection or dissemination to such person, and without providing such person with the capability to prevent or restrict such collection or dissemination;

                                    `(C) the act of circumvention has the sole effect of identifying and disabling the capability described in subparagraph (A), and has no other effect on the ability of any person to gain access to any work; and

                                    `(D) the act of circumvention is carried out solely for the purpose of preventing the collection or dissemination of personally identifying information about a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, and is not in violation of any other law.

So, for example, When MS embedded information gathering into their file, they were no longer protected by anti-circumvention.

And if the copyright holder gives you permission to circumvent.

The problems with the DMCA are:
a) more subtle then most people relize
b) abused by companies
c) To open ended.

Re:Have you read the DMCA?

[HTH NE1]

You've missed the point that, while circumvention is permitted to exercise fair use, the trafficking in the tools necessary to do that circumvention is illegal under the DMCA. Effectively, you can circumvent only if you develop your own tools. This bars most people from the very ability to exercise fair use.

Do the MPAA or DVDCCA have standing to legally distribute a tool that circumvents CSS protections on independent films?

Re:Have you read the DMCA?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the spyware built into BF 2042 causes it to fall under this provision, right? Now I can go search for it!

Re:Have you read the DMCA?

[cmattdetzel]

most of the license agreements you must agree to in order to use the media [music, dvd, software, etc] include explicit provisions which work a WAIVER of these provisions of the DMCA - the real evil here is LICENSING AGREEMENTS. Typical jurisprudence which applies to contracts for the sale of goods has been sidestepped by these content rights holders. Shrinkwrap and clickwrap licenses have continually been given effect by the courts - those of you in the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit [Chicago - Judge Posner's Court] are bound by some heavily pro-business precedent. See ProCd v. Zeidenberg, Hill v. Gateway 2000, etc. You have to hand it to those Law and Economics types . . . Unfortunately, rather than adopting their own constructions of the law, most of the other circuits have adopted or followed ProCD and its sister line of cases.

Most people are confused about Fair Use. It is not a "right" granted to you by the law. It's a DEFENSE to a claim of infringement. So in order to establish what is or is not a "fair use," you have to be sued for infringement and litigate the issue. If it were otherwise, i.e., an affirmative right, we'd see organizations like the EFF challenging these restrictive measures and theories of infringement in every circuit in the country on the OFFENSIVE. So rather than attack the DMCA--which will require legislative action to disable--we should be attacking LICENSE AGREEMENTS from the standpoint of UNCONSCIONABILITY, unequal bargaining power, unsophisticated parties, contracts of adhesion, etc. The best arguments will demonstrate negative impact on the market [ECONOMICS] rather than some argument in EQUITY.

just a thought.

DRM Joke

[bitspotter]

What's the difference between an encryption system and a DRM system?

An encryption system is a way to deliver information securely, even through the hands of thieves.

A DRM system is a way to cut out the middleman, and deliver information securely into the hands of thieves //directly//.

-

Confusing the thief for the customer is why DRM will never work.
Confusing the customer for the thief is why DRM will never sell.

The MPAA strategy behind this

[erroneus]

Seems to me that they are beginning to see the mess they have made. This is damage control. I think the idea here is to offer to give a little before a lot more is taken away.

Are they offering to document DMCA exceptions to the public?

Can we add "Bullshit" to the tag list...

[Overzeetop]

or is it improper, even on /., to use profanity on the front page?

MPAA's new business model?

[transporter_ii]

When a friend let me borrow a copy of Casino Royale and it wouldn't play on two different DVD players, I pulled out the DVD case liner notes looking for info on what I thought was obviously some new type of copy protection gone awry. Wrong. When I opened the liner, a subpoena to show up in court on a copyright-violation charge fell out, along with an offer to settle out of court for $3000.00 and a "no-postage necessary" envelope addressed to the MPAA.

3000.00 down the drain. But not having to sit through Casino Royale ... priceless.

Transporter_ii

MPAA fine with fair use = Baloney

[JustNiz]

>> Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers.

Yeah of course because they already see DVD as a dead format. The reason DVD is a dead format is that they were obliged to kill it on purpose because the protection was broken by us consumers in order to rip DVDs.

Now ask Dan Glickman how the MPAA feel about consumers ripping HD-DVD or Blu-Ray at the full HD res. that we already paid for. I can guarantee he won't give the same reply.

It is not a crime.

[twitter]

One of my many fans misses the point, as usual:

making a copy of something and selling 50,000 copies of it (or putting it on a P2P network for 5 million people to download) is a crime.

Selling 50,000 coppies of someone else's work is civil not a criminal violation. The neither the person's work or reputation is destroyed by your actions, nor is the public harmed. You may have cost the author money and they can sue you for it, but this is not a crime.

Sharing something is even less of a crime. Only publication is properly banned by copyright and you will have a hard time convincing anyone that one or two coppies is a publication. If sharing was a crime or outraged the public, we would have no public libraries, so think very hard before you advocate digital restrictions that are more severe than those that have always existed for physical coppies.

The point of copyright law is to spread knowledge and advance the state of the art. When the law thwarts those things, the law is out of line and needs to be fixed.

As long as ...

[Skapare]

The MPAA is fine with fair use as long as they get to define what the fair use is, when and where it can be used, and how much it costs.

So... beautiful...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a beautifully crafted PR statement. Too bad it fails to jibe with reality and with law.

umm...

[DragonTHC]

hahahahahahahahaha

This doesn't merit discussion.

iTunes "Rip from DVD button"

[aegl]

Ok Apple ... the MPAA says ripping a DVD to watch on a portable player is acceptable.

Lets see how fast you can release an update to iTunes that can rip DVDs (as well as CDs).

Do it fast, before they change their minds.

RIAA vs MPAA dichotomy ?

[mantm]

Am I the only one here willing to give the MPAA a little slack here? I guess so. But for me I see a difference between the MPAA and RIAA. Movies were late to the peer-to-peer revolution and I guess I expected the MPAA to follow the RIAA dumb playbook to the letter. Dan Glickman's statement statements sound like some there may see the handwriting on the wall? We all know that DRM will ultimately fail. Or at the very least not prevent those who want unrestricted access. Technology will always favour the lone attacker who only needs a single weakness to exploit. I guess I pity the MPAA much more than I fear them.

Summit Contents

[wrook]

the movie studios were open to "a technology summit" featuring academics, IT companies, and content producers to work on the issues involved.

Here's how such a summit would go:

MPAA: What we want is a secure system that will allow people to exercise all their fair use rights, but will stop them from doing anything that we think of as "piracy".

Programmer from IT company: I don't think that's possible. Either we trust the consumer with the content, or we will have to block them from seeing it at all. Besides, I don't even understand what you mean by "piracy" and "fair use".

Academic: I agreee. One can show mathematically that the system can't work and still be secure. It doesn't matter what you want to do. It's just impossible.

Sales guy from IT company: Don't worry. If you hire us, we'll build the perfect system for you. All of these obstacles the other people have mentioned are just hurdles for us to overcome. Our company is full of smart people that have solved all sorts of problems before.

MPAA: Great! IT company, you have the contract to build the system!

And the world goes on...

Impractical

[rdean400]

You can't build a system that permits the user to burn a copy to any of their devices without constricting the design of those devices.

We lost? Well...let's pretend it's what we wanted

[JoeShmoe]

The reality is that the MPAA is reacting to the fact that the court system handed a victory to Kalidiscope, who were sued by the controllers of the DVD format for copying DVDs to hard drives. What made this particular case interesting is that Kalidiscope had actually applied, paid for, and been granted a DVD decryption license (ie like what DVD player manufacturers get). Kalidiscope took this license and used it to decode DVDs and then store them on a custom RAID system (ie, locked up and not accessible via conventional means...so there was no danger of legal rips leaking onto the Internet). This allowed them to sell home theater systems to rich sports stars starting at $12K and going upwards of $100K. The DVD format controllers realized that their contract didn't explicitly prevent this so they changed it and then tried to sue Kalidiscope for infringement. Great guys. The only company to actally pay money and try to do legally what DeCSS and DVDXCopy and a million others were doing illegally...and you sue them.

Well, the courts handed Kalidiscope a victory and said pretty much that there was no violation of the license by what Kalidiscope was doing. So basically, either they have to stop selling DVD decryption or they have to accept that within a closed system, whatever is decrypted is covered by the license.

Andd....so now...having lost that battle...the MPAA sees the writing on the wall and is magnanimously deciding that what was forced on them was what they actually wanted to do "for the customers". The reality is that they have not giving up on the holy grail of per-view pricing and the idea of someday doing away with content possession so that everything is pay-per-view...they are just putting that goal aside and instead going to be milking the device makers first. First sell them expensive DVD ripping licenses to companies like Dell or Panasonic, so that those companies can create DVD jukeboxes without the silliness of Sony's 300 DVD spinning wheel o' media...then after they have gotten consumers to forget entirely about the fair use and first sale rights inherit to physical media...gradually start shifting to on-demand content available from the same system.

3) Profit.

Oh well...if I have to be damned by the content industry's grip on movies and television shows...I'd much rather be able to buy mass produced DVD jukebox/rippers at Wal-Mart for $30 than having to cobble together some legally questionable MythTV box myself.

- JoeShmoe
.

Don't they realize?

[crhylove]

Conceptually from bottom to top, DRM is a flawed idea. There is NO WAY to allow content to be viewed in certain circumstances, but not in others. It's impossible. The whole plan is idiotic. There will NEVER be a way to provide "security" to media which is viewable by ANY machine. There is simply no way to do it. I mean, for an entire industry to be committed to such a Quixotic idea is really indicative of what kind of morons are running said industry.

Honestly, I'm done even trying to "fight" their logic. I just feel bad for them because clearly a huge swath of them are completely retarded in some horrifically obvious way. It seems that even a four year old could understand the logic behind the problem, and why their logic is flawed. A smart four year old, I suppose, but I'm sure out of the 100's of four year old students I've had over the years teaching violin, at least one of them was that smart.

Seriously, does not one key member of the MPAA have the reasoning ability to see the horribly flawed logic of their whole idea?

rhY

MPAA is only Committed to two things:

[halcyon1234]

Fair Use and DRM

... and Fair Use just left town.

I'm all for a DRM that enables fair use

[mgiuca]

I have argued strongly and passionately against DRM. But hey, I'm all for a DRM that enables fair use. A DRM that prevents users from doing illegal activities, but which allows any and all legitimate use of media users have purchased.

The only problem is, it's a logical impossibility.

Less-restrictive DRM is actually worse, because it means that more people are "OK with it", while it still has the same fundamental problem of all DRM.