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.
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.
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."
"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.
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.
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'.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
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?
More Twoson than Cupertino
The KKK announced their commitment to Civil Rights and lynchings...
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
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.
Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
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).
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.
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.
`(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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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 $3000.00 and a "no-postage necessary" envelope addressed to the MPAA.
... priceless.
3000.00 down the drain. But not having to sit through Casino Royale
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
One of my many fans misses the point, as usual:
making a copy of something and selling 50,000 copies of it (or putting it on a P2P network for 5 million people to download) is a crime.
Selling 50,000 coppies of someone else's work is civil not a criminal violation. The neither the person's work or reputation is destroyed by your actions, nor is the public harmed. You may have cost the author money and they can sue you for it, but this is not a crime.
Sharing something is even less of a crime. Only publication is properly banned by copyright and you will have a hard time convincing anyone that one or two coppies is a publication. If sharing was a crime or outraged the public, we would have no public libraries, so think very hard before you advocate digital restrictions that are more severe than those that have always existed for physical coppies.
The point of copyright law is to spread knowledge and advance the state of the art. When the law thwarts those things, the law is out of line and needs to be fixed.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.)
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.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
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.