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

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

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."

What they don't understand is that

[Daishiman]

DRM and Fair Use are mutually incompatible terms.

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.

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....

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?

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.

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'.

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?

In other news...

[psmears]

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

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.

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.

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).

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: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.

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

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

[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.