Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
DRM and Fair Use are mutually incompatible terms.
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....
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
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?
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
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
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.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
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."
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"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).
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.)