Slashdot Mirror
Broadcasters Want Cash For Media Shared At Home
marcellizot writes "What would you say if I told you that there are people out there that want to make sharing your media between devices over a home network illegal? According to Jim Burger, a Washington, D.C attorney who deals with piracy in the broadcasting industry, certain broadcasters want to do just that. Speaking in a recent podcast, Burger remarked that the broadcasting industry is keen to put controls on sharing media between devices even if those devices are on a home network and even if the sharing is strictly for personal use. When pressed as to why broadcasters would want to do this, Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right.'"
I read the referenced article, I fear listening to the 16 minute audio as I'm not entirely sure I have DRM clearance to do so, and do not want to be sued or accused of piracy.
That said, I'd be interested in more specifics on this. Does this mean potentially my Squeezebox from which I listen to my music stored on the mp3 server may no longer be a legal "share". Does that potentially mean mp3's on my samba share are no longer fair game on my XP box via WinAmp?
About a year or two ago I'd have accused people making these claims (that they're trying to do this) as ludicrously insane and paranoid. Today, I'm not so sure. I guess the most heartening thing to consider is these guys eventually cross that threshold where the consumer resentment goes from smoulder to explosion, and maybe the backlash settles it once and for all.
But then again, maybe not. I know people who pay more for bottled water price-per-gallon than gasoline... and they complain about the price of gasoline.
I've always known the end-goal for all media companies is pay-per-play, every single time.
Ibid.
they don't care how they get it.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I paid for that right when I made the initial purchase.
If they could get away with it, they would make you pay for content you don't even watch, but have the ability to.
Crooks, fighting to uphold a dying business model, and squeeze every penny out of it the entire way.
Ever hear of it?
This is how you kill your own business. Drive more customers to the internet.
If they don't want us to have the rights to content, why are they selling us the content on a disk? Does no one see how dumb this is? The summary makes it sound like they want me to pay 5 more dollars or something to take a DVD upstairs and play it vs. downstairs... there is just no chance people will pay it. Movie tickets are an example of a license to view that doesn't include a physical copy of the content, so I refuse to believe they don't know they're selling you your own copy of the content.
stuff |
Would you pay for the privilage of bringing a CD into your 'unlicensed' bath room to listen to?
Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'.
I already did, with my taxes. I have fair-use rights that trump the media industries desire to make money.
Discussion over.
I'm meeting more and more people who are shunning traditional TV and audio content--the very content that is being proposed to be locked down in TFA. The rush away from such content will become a stampede if such controls are enacted. Imagine not being allowed to record your favorite show in your living room while you're at work and then play it in your exercise room when you get home. The sheer lunacy of it will turn consumers off extremely quickly and therefore these companies will lose even more money. But they are far too short-sighted to realize this, so we will all suffer. Well, except for book publishers, who will see sales soar as we revert to earlier (and fully portable) media forms.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
In other news, paper companies want you to pay a fee if you reuse their paper.
-Daniel
Came to say that the simple solution would be not listening/watching their stuff, but then I thought their next step would be introducing the implied usage. If you are alive, you've got to pay for 3 new albums (1 if you're deaf) and 1 DVD release every month. If you have more two computers at home this means you're sharing, that would be $0.99 per share or $19.99/mo flat fee.
Grundes!
I'm guessing media doesn't support Linux.
I'm so angry I could almost tell the neighbor I am stealing cable from to write a letter to his provider!!!
Kid watching TV: Mo-om! The pay-TV people want more money again!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
* Home Not Included
Go fuck yourself!
You have to get closer to the average idea of what a consumer should be able to do, not further away. If you continue to make these outrageous claims, there's a good chance that you can't even hold your more reasonable points.
Stuff like this makes me not even care about the rules anymore. When you make it easier for your customers to get your product illegally, than legally, guess what happens? Yeah. Either the media industry is full of idiots, or someone needs to put their lawyers and spokespeople on a leash and shut them up.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Pay per play is the future of all media, both audio and video. Even software. This new technology of Pay Per Play will give the consumer the best value for their entertainment. Instead of having to pay for license to the IP forever, you only pay as much as you listen! This is obviously business responding to consumer demand. Write your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives in support for legislation to encourage this technology. This will help a lot of people. Just think about all the money our economy could gain? Remember, money is never gone, it just goes through the economy. So support this technology!
What if I happen to glance at my TVs reflection in a mirror. Does that count?
first you would have to dismantle the fair use doctrine in the copyright act...unfortunately for them, sharing copyrighted material between devices at home currently is considered fair use... you paid for the material once already -- its going to be hard for them to prove that paying over and over and over for an audio music file is reasonable... I'm sure if you had to pay for repeat broadcasts of television shows, people would probably stop watching television...
I wonder what DRM scheme is used on that ancient Internet protocol that is not to be mentioned?
I want $1 from everyone who does this too. And I have just as much right to it as they do.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
What I would like to see is certain terms very, very clearly defined.
For example, you should not be allowed to hijack domains and call yourself an ISP. You can still hijack domains and sell some sort of service, but you shouldn't be able to call it Internet service.
You should not be allowed to sell a CD with any kind of copy protection (let alone rootkits) and call it a CD. You can still sell them, but they should include a fairly large disclaimer to the effect of "This is not a CD." Ditto for DVDs with any copy protection beyond CSS, especially deliberately breaking the spec to where it won't even play on your own players (I'm looking at you again, Sony) -- you could call it a movie, but not a DVD, and it should be very clear that it is not intended to be able to play in DVD players.
And you should not be able to sell media that has its fair use restricted and call it "selling" -- indeed, you must make it very clear that the customer is renting the media.
At least if we had a clear definition of terms, I could buy a movie and know it will play on anything.
As it is, they don't even need additional legislation to make this work. All they need is what they already have -- DRM + DMCA. They can use DRM to prevent you from copying the media around your house, and the DMCA will make it illegal to crack that DRM, even if you have the right to copy the media around your house.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
>>When pressed as to why broadcasters would want to do this, Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'."
Of course they want it.
Will we let them have it?
The media conglomerates are training consumers otherwise.
The whole point behind those stupid trailers in front of DVD's, stupid FBI warning and RIAA lawsuits is to instill fear.
They want you to believe *they* are the ultimate authority. So far, it's working great.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
One wipe per section, no fold-overs, and no sharing even if the neighboring stall runs out and they ask nicely!
I say that because 11 years ago, we got the DMCA, which already gives them this ability.
Essentially, all they have to do to make it illegal to share around your house is to implement DRM which prevents you from doing that. Since it's illegal to circumvent DRM, you're fucked.
And this does, in fact, prevent you from exercising your fair use rights, and, indeed, even the rights inherent in purchasing a physical disk (or a download, even).
I'd love to see it go to court, though. If anyone from the media industry is reading this, I dare you to sue me for playing my movies on Linux, or even ripping and time-shifting a rental. Come on, make my day. Who knows? Maybe it would end in new legislation banishing DRM at all, unless it allows all forms of fair use.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It's when your face is my seat, and you get to lick my balls. Next!
Let them do whatever they want with artists who have signed to their subsidiaries. Artists don't have to sign the same old contracts any more now that the Internet exists, so let economics figure it out.
I have the feeling that this would be like the Canadian blank CD-r tax. Money goes to the RIAA despite the existence of non-RIAA bands.
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
First, many of us already are kind of doing this with the premium iTunes music. I pay $1.29 so I can listen to a song on my laptop, my iMac at home, my home office PC and my computer at work -- without worrying whether I've gone over the five computer limit because I keep changing my home office PC and have to reauthorize.
Second, if I buy a song online to listen to in my home office, are they going to charge me to upload it to my media center PC in the living room? Now, what if I install a second set of speakers from my home office into my living room? Does that count? What's the difference?
What if I have it on a removable drive that I then bring from room to room and listen to the music on it on different computers? Charge me for that? What if I just walk from room to room with an iPod? Music in the office, music in the kitchen? What's the difference? Obviously, I can argue the fine points here, but that is just it. The various gray scenarios are absurd...
I should be able to buy music and listen to it (me and anyone within earshot) in any fashion, on any machine, no matter where I am.
[1] E.g. You don't have to buy a copy of content to exercise fair-use, like excerpts, etc.
[2] You don't have to pay taxes to have rights. Children, people who are unemployed, homemakers, and many other classes of people may not pay taxes but still have these rights.
No, they want you to pay for that privilege. Too bad for them it's a right that carries with it implicit freedoms.
They can take my freedoms when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.
If this happens, I have 2 choices -- either ignore the new laws or cut back/eliminate the consumption of media. I only have so much money available per month for entertainment, and with the cost of fuel and everything else going up (but not my salary), entertainment will be the first to go. I can live just fine without big Media -- there are still books, and that big room with the real high blue ceiling that I can reach through my front and back doors.
If big media wins, they lose. I (and many others on this planet) cannot just create more money every time someone wants more $ for the same or less service and/or product.
Beware of Sleestak
I hate greedy people. This is what it all really boils down to. The pirates are greedy by wanting to keep their money and avoid paying a fair price, whereas the broadcasters are greedy in that they want to scrape every penny out of something they can. IMHO, the consumer has already paid for the content, either through CATV/SATV fees or watching advertisements.
As I said, greedy people suck.
"At present this situation falls under the Fair Use exemption of the Copyright Act in the US. Broadcasters are claiming however that sharing media between devices over the air constitutes a grey area that needs to be more strictly controlled to fight piracy."
So if I don't use wireless, it isn't going over the air, right? Or will the air the sound or video travels through to reach me count as over the air?
The whole concept of seperating content from the hardware has just turned the content people into utter savages. Watching TV at home? You have to pay twice to see the ballgame. That's ridiculous.
Is there no limit to the greed these people have?
Can they even sleep with themselves?
This is my sig.
this will continue.
As long as all you sit on your ass and don't don't become vocal to your locally bribed congressman, nothing will change.
"According to Jim Burger, a Washington, D.C attorney who deals with piracy in the broadcasting industry, certain broadcasters want to do just that."
What part of 'FUCK OFF' don't you understand. We already pay a 'piracy tax' on all blank media, pay way too much for music as it is, and now you want me to pay for sharing my music on my internal LAN? Uh, I seem to remember something called "Fair Use".
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Unfortunately that's our decision, not yours.
-- Your Humble Public Servants
Slashdot apparently didn't run the article, and the same link had been sent in by the time I put it in the Firehose, but Microsoft patented some kind of TV that has biometric sensors to get information about who is watching the TV and to deliver targeted advertising. Of course, it would be simple to combine that with DRM schemes and force all kinds of weird licensing restrictions like those they're asking for here.
Was someone reading 1984 for "good" ideas again, or what? I wish the media middlemen would hurry up and die before they retard progress any more. They're no longer useful, but they have enough cash to buy obstructive laws.
If we do not do these things, then we have no right to complain about the rampant abuse of the consumer. After all, if we don't care enough to take these steps, who will?
It really makes you wonder why piracy is such a problem.... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............
Pay per-view for everything, everytime, is the goal.
Scumbags
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Mod Parent Insightful.
The parent is right.
you can pry my VCR tape from my cold dead hand!
I agree with copyright holders. Shame on you slashdot people! Wont you think of the children? How else will dodgy old men be able to get addicted to pain medication and molest little boys if they dont have a right to be given a penny every time you hear part of that one song that that britney spears person wrote as you are walking down the street and you hear a bit of it playing from some ghetto-wannabe persons ride? I say we allow the RIAA access to our homes and allow them to crash little kids birthday parties with guns blazing to mow people down for singing happy birthday. I think that makes sense, and stick with me here for a minute people - if we allow them to come and arrest us for inadvertently being exposed to content, then we can ALL sleep better at night knowing we have nothing to hide!!
It's just saying what businesses want, which is more money for less effort. It's an extension of the bad taste "fair use" leaves in their mouths and the continued actions being taken against it. The first CD that comes out that won't allow iTunes to fling it to an iPod will sell as many copies as Paris Hilton's album.
"Broadcasters are claiming however that sharing media between devices over the air constitutes a grey area that needs to be more strictly controlled to fight piracy."
Well this sounds like it applies to WIRELESS networks but NOT to WIRED networks.
So, I'm good.
Please, invest a lot of money trying to prevent us from doing so. I guaren-fucking-tee you that the hackers of the world will spend a lot less breaking whatever protection you put on it, and I guaren-fucking-tee you again that the regular citizens of the US that want to share their music to themselves at home will do so.
Nothing you say or do can stop them. Even if you passed a law saying people would be put to death for it, most people still would.
So please. Spend your money and time trying to stop us. Its just proving what we knew all along.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Whenever I hear a scheme like this, I wonder where these people got the idea that copyright gives them the right to tell people how they can use the copyrighted work after they've sold them the copy.
AFAIK, there's no law preventing me from purchasing a book then using a magnifying glass or opaque projector to read it. Why do they think that copyright for music or movies prevents me from using different technology to access the paid-for content?
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
I'd like a share of royalties every time I recommend a movie. Can I have that?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
What a silly, greedy lawyer. Hey, I am willing to give up all my little black boxes at home which record, timeshift, and stream, as long as there as a service that will (flexibly) host/record all my favorite shows and let me play them back anytime I want. I am even willing to give up my monthly cable bill. Just plug me in to the giant VOD (Video on Demand) server and let me watch whatever, whenever (flexibly).
:)
And while you are at it, get me movies, the top 250 from You Tube, the best International and Indie films, Net Flix, and give it to me streamed, HI-DEF, 1080i, low-def, ipod size, or even burned on a DVD-R. I am sick of all the care and feeding of black boxes and wires, just make it happen.
My advice, instead of racking your tiny little lawyer brain on ways to complicate everyones existence and meddle in areas where you don't have a clue, why not get the MBA's and Techies together and see if they can come up with a VOD business model that works. If it works well and is reasonably priced I think all the other problems will melt away. If you don't believe me, just ask Steve Jobs. MOD (Music on Demand) seems to be working out pretty well for Apple, I think they just hit 3 billion songs.
In other news, Toy Makers want to limit the amount of rooms and vehicles which your children's toys can be enjoyed in. If a toy is used in more than 2 rooms, a duplicate toy should be purchased. If a toy is used in a vehicle a special mobility license must be purchased for the toy. If your child's toys are shared with other children this is a violation of the toy license. When you look at this is a different context.....
Well, Burritos R Us wants more money each time it comes back up.
Can they even sleep with themselves?
Actually no, they sleep with incredibly sexy, supermodel blondes, because these guys are loaded with cash, and as you probably are well aware, most middle-aged super-wealthy usually have some kind of 20-something ultra-attractive, but vapid eye-candy in the passenger seat of the convertible Corvette.
And no, I'm not bitter at all.
....
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
No, but you do have to have someone willing and able to uphold those rights. They're called the military and/or police, and taxes pay for those organizations. While certain individuals may not pay, someone does.
Or you can try and uphold them yourself, but I'm guessing the guys that pay for the military and police have more firepower than you. "Rights" don't mean anything if you can't uphold them.
Everything boils down to force: either the threat or actual use.
If nobody's actually trying to attack you it doesn't mean you're safe; it just means you don't have anyone attacking you (kind of like computer security).
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
By the term "your media" are they referring to media that you paid for and put on your computer (but you don't really own, apparently... you just have a license to listen to or watch, so the possessive pronoun is a misnomer), or are they including media and other works that you yourself created?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I live on my own. No spouse, no roommates, no pets, just me. So, do I get to listen to or watch stuff in any room of my choice, of do I have to buy it again if I walk into a different room? Sorry, but screw that. I'd rather only buy it once. I can't listen to a song more than once at a time. I can't watch video more than once at a time (only one TV per room and none to PIP, not even my "fancy" projector)
"Hmmmm...No Sir, I don't like it."
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
...so how will a new way for legitimate content to suck help this? All the torrent sites must be having a collective orgasm over news like this, it means countless new hordes will tell the content producers to shove it and pirate it instead. Any conversation that ends with "Huh? I just pirated it from the 'net, I never have stupid problems like that" is practically suicide for the industry. Ok, so you can't win on cost. You can't win on quality (at least on things like 1:1 disc or stream rips). Can you at least please win on convienience?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The Mafi-AAs want to get to a point where we pay for each time we hear / watch / talk / think about their products.
If they had their way, if we were outside, and a car drove past, and we could hear their music, we'd be charged a listening fee. The owner of the car would be charged a performance fee. They'd like radios to be tied to the internet so we could be charged a listening fee every time a song was played, and we tuned in.
I'm really shocked that they haven't tried to sue car stereo manufacturers for enabling illegal public performances of their products.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Surprised noone has brought up the 360 example yet.
I have an xbox 360 on my home network which I sometimes use to stream stuff from my XP box. It's doing nothing illegal, it's acccessing the same media which I would normally watch/listen to/look at on my pc, but just doing it remotely. The idea that I would have to pay for anything twice in this example is foolish - My guess is that this kind of thinking stems from business execs that don't understand computers.
For that matter, that could be the source of most of the worlds problems...
(But those aren't shared devices! Oh yes they are. Well, if you're running PCI-e 2.1, or virtual machines, or have sharing enabled through the OS, or a myriad of other options.)
Oh yeah, this means that Plan 9 users will presumably need to have factorial the number of nodes in their system licenses for each CD and DVD they buy in order to play any CDs or DVDs at all, as hardware location is largely unimportant under that OS. And I dread to think of what happens to people who actually run Beowulf clusters...
How will they get away with such an obviously unfair, unreasonable and obnoxious burden on unconventional desktops? Well, it'll be very easy. Most users are ignorant of the capabilities of modern machines, most users are ignorant of the fact that modern computers ARE a home network, and so most users will assume it's someone else's problem, not theirs. Once a few precedents are set in court, the broadcasters can bill who they like what they like, with no fear of retribution and an almost total guarantee of winning in court. Ignorance - even of technology - is not a valid defence in the legal system, which is reasonable enough when not taken too far. Here, it could be exploited by gold-diggers to create a perpetual stream of income.
Would the judges go for it? If the attacks start with "obvious" targets and then move to subtler and subtler definitions of home network, provided they keep winning, they'll create case law. Judges don't necessarily understand technology too well, but they do understand case law very well. A clever enough team of lawyers could easily manufacture a legal understanding of what a network was that could include a cluster that could only ever act as a single machine, any PC with a PCI-e 2.1 bus, a box running VMWare or Xen, or anything else in which multiple "top level" devices (physical or virtual) can access a single data source.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What if I just walk from room to room with an iPod?
The US Supreme Court is currently evaluating a case (DC vs. Heller, nee Parker) where, for the last 30+ years, Washington DC has actively prohibited anyone owning a LEGAL firearm from moving it from room to room without explicit federal permission to do so.
It's been done for decades with other rights, so what makes anyone think your iPod will continue to be exempt from comparable oppression?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I will need to explain some of the background. This footage will give you such of the essential information you will need to understand where the broadcasters are coming from.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If I have to pay to share songs throughout my house then I have a foolproof plan...
:(
I'm going to turn up the volume in the lounge till I can hear the music in the bathroom.
Hang on...what if someone introduces a volume tax? Imagine the payments for turning the dial to 11!
Translation: "because they're greedy bastards"
Their goal of course is to squeeze people as far as possible before the pain drives them away in droves. Enjoy it... maybe that's the real entertainment factor.
"When pressed as to why broadcasters would want to do this, Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'."
A 'right' is something that you can do without asking anyone else's permission. Once you have to ask someone's permission, then it no longer becomes a 'right' but a 'priviledge'. He just admitted that they want to charge people for exercising their right to use their own property. At best, he's just not that bright; at worst, this is yet another unwarranted advance on our freedoms.
It's all part of the book publisher's and librarian conspiracy. For the last couple of decades fewer people spend time reading actual books. They sit and stare at the TV all day or listen to music in larger and larger quantities. To fight this the publishers and librarians have been helping develop P2P software and slowly infiltrating the TV, music, and movie industries and getting them to enact this kind of stuff to alienate users. If the plan succeeds the vast majority of people will no longer be able to afford any kind of media except for books.
Look how far they have come, in a few short years most TV sets will no longer be capable of receiving over the air broadcasts unless the user buys a new digital set or tuner. That will drive more people to cable if they can afford it. At which point the cable companies and the show producers will up the ante and start trying to charge for each viewing of a show.
The decline of theaters is on going. Fewer people go to the movies now, many wait for the DVD to come out because it is cheaper at the moment to buy a DVD than go to the theater. Now that they have people conditioned to that they will increase the price of DVDs so most can not afford them or put DRM systems in place that make it impossible to use a DVD.
Librarian's around the world are all working toward this end.
I'm going to download his podcast! I want to listen to it all the time, so I'll copy it to my mp3 player, the computer in the living room... D'OH!
I have two DVRs, one windows, one linux, and I still usually just download TV shows I wasn't home to watch. I've always wondered about the legality of it, since I have the ability, and the show is broadcast on free channels, does it matter if I record it or someone else? I know the broadcasters stance, I didn't watch the commercials, so they want more money than they already got for the advertising revenues...
Just keep thinking of those adds before movies of how downloading hurts the little guys, carpenters, etc, while hollywood still somehow managers to pay more per day than I make in a year to the actors, execs, etc.
An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
You uphold you rights every time you exercise them.
That's like so last week. That is, weak.
- 20070728.html
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert
So basically, the media companies realize their income from sales of recordings is not going to hold out much longer, and they're looking to come up with a range of taxes and levies to cover the losses. Whoopee.
That's my point exactly: Nobody "gives" you rights; they can only place restrictions on your activity. I like your terminology that the military/police protect your "rights" from compromise (basically, they ideally stand in the way of people trying to prevent you from exercising your rights). I will allow that the policing agencies also enforce restrictions as well...so they are kind of a double-edged sword.
Put another way: you can always do whatever you want as long as there is nobody around that is capable of stopping you from doing it and you have the necessary resources available.
The way I see it, "rights" are the things that, if someone is trying to get you to stop doing, the government will step in to allow you to do it anyway.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
I'm sure plenty of morons will buy it. And quickly tell their friends to stop buying it if they find they can't play it in a CD player.
But even if they all buy new CD players that can play it, at least it becomes obvious to me which ones to avoid.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Could this happen to toilet paper as well? Some newspapers aren't even worth wiping your darkest place with...
There are many people who get paid a lot to make new laws. Would you expect them to say 'Okay, society has enough laws now, lets close this department down and go flip burgers for minimum wage'?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Please feel free to use this if you like econ guys, just cite me as a source ;)
Why don't bands, or movie producers, or whatever media types just state how much money they want to make before hand?
Seriously. Lets say I'm in a band and we record an album. Now, on my website me and my bandmates say we will release the materials digitally and DRM free and you can distribute it willy nilly all over the place and use it for any damn thing you want. But not until we raise X amount of dollars prerelease.
So after a few weeks of having this website up we hit our mark and then BOOM the media hits the scene. Everyone who donated gets to download the material initially and then distro it however they want. The materials are still available for a small fee for those who don't want to use a P2P technology or who don't want to fish around for it or whatever reason they desire.
In fact, the P2P scene does self regulate. Finding a torrent for some materials is pretty hard, and sometimes the download times outweigh the consumers desire to "have it now". They may go directly to the source and pay for the materials, even though they are available for free. Shit is more expensive at the convenience store than it is at the grocery store - yet people still buy beer there......hrm.
This really isn't any different than what many studios do now. They invest in a movie, and then hope it makes it at the box office and in DVD sales. Most movies and albums lose money anyway, so whats the difference?
I was going to make fun of this, but then I remembered that corporations get pretty much whatever they want in America (unless it infringes on the rights of another corporation).
Two words: "Fuck. You."
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
I take it one step further and state that it is my responsibility to ensure my activity.
The addition of the government as a protection method just bothers me. They haven't been looking out for my constitutional interests for quite some time. So why would they protect me, as an individual, from being oppressed by someone else? Police don't help me in the matter at hand, they come into play after the fact.
I really take the inalienable rights concept to heart. While you stated:
you can always do whatever you want as long as there is nobody around that is capable of stopping you from doing it and you have the necessary resources available
I say you can do anything you want as long as you are willing to pay the consequences of your actions, whatever those may be and however fair they are.
But then again, maybe not. I know people who pay more for bottled water price-per-gallon than gasoline... and they complain about the price of gasoline
Yeah, but most people don't drink as much water as cars do gas.
This is my sig.
My LPs are great. I can play them on ANY turntable, in any room, bring them to friend's houses and listen also. no DRM, no compatibility problems, and they sound just fine on any decent system. And I never heard of anyone getting busted and sued for listening to their LPs in another room or at a friend's.
Books. Again, no DRM, no nonsense, so long as there is some light I can read. When I am done I can put it on a shelf for years and it will still work, or I can lend to a friend, or give it away, and there is no problem. Zero police/RIAA/MPAA involvement. And if I want more, there is the library!
The newer is not necessarily better. Yes, digital is a great technological feat but congress is either asleep at the wheel or completely bought off by media companies and are allowing an ever-increasing tightening of laws and technology to assure compliance with these laws. Penalties are now criminal instead of just civil (actually, *both* criminal and civil) and are rapidly approaching punishment levels beyond violent crime.
Like another poster mentioned, there is always the outdoors. All the side garbage that comes with new media effectively raises its price. There becomes a point where it is too much of a luxury and while revenues will seem to be on the increase, sales numbers will be on the decline, with a narrower and narrower catalogue of new titles. Prices will have to be increased, volumes will drop further, until the media conglomerates have eliminated piracy and have 100% control and STILL revenues are decreasing. At that point they will either collapse or succeed in getting legislation passed to subsidize themselves at taxpayer expense. Smaller government Republicans, and Hollywood paided Democrats will both embrace these ideas.
"Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'."
You don't pay for rights. Rights are inherent (or God-given, if you prefer). You pay for privileges.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
If they truly want money for the data transfer between my dvd player in my living room and my dvd player in my bedroom. they are going to have to take that up with Nike. I already paid them for the transmission device. (sneakernet)
I see advertisements regularly for movies on DVD that say, and I quote, "Own it now, on DVD!" They don't say license, they say OWN. Furthermore, they don't say own the DVD, they say own "it", meaning the movie itself on the DVD. What's the legal status of that?
Not so long ago, it was 'illegal' to split your analog cable inside your own house so that you could have more than 1 tv hooked up too.
Fuck that.
That is all.
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre
Does anybody remember this published a few days ago? Maybe Burger should have a look.
Children today are being taught in schools that they don't have those rights. Just look at Captain Copyright. They are trying to brainwash them young so when they're older they can just screw them in the ass.
How about we pay them to go back every so often and cull out the crap. Even one year out of four would suffice. They get paid , we get less crap to interfere with us.
I don't know about anyone else, but my television watching habits have already been getting thinner and thinner over the last several years because there's so little on anymore that's worthwhile to watch, if they actually pulled off getting legislation like this passed into law, that would be the end of it for me, I'd likely defenestrate my TV and put TiVo up for sale on Ebay. Who the hell gave them the idea to start taking pages out of the RIAA's playbook? Can't they see that they're digging a grave for broadcast media by doing things like this?
Vista comes with home network media sharing (in Windows Media Player, the menu under the 'Library' tab, 'Media Sharing...'.
Two Vista machines on the same LAN can share media with each other, even if the media is DRM'd (maybe there is a no-sharing flag available.) there are a number of restrictions that lock it down to local use only, but the protocol works with the XBOX 360 and many 3rd party devices. (to play DRM files, the device needs to support it)
WMP 11 on XP only has server-side functionality built in, while the XBOX 360 is client only, so it can be used without Vista.
This is separate from the 'Media Center Extender'
Myself, at home I use Hauppage MVP's which are incompatible, and run Linux themselves, but I'm trying to write a conversion layer so they'll play media from MCE/WMC. DRM wouldn't work, but I avoid DRM media myself.
i would say "ARRrrrrrr! these douchebags don't stand a chance."
Gasoline can mess your mind up badly over time.
If you smell it inside your car you should really get it fixed.
I had a relative who was apparently going crazy and then we rode in their car and my friend (I missed it) pointed this out. In about 30 days her apparent sanity improved enormously.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
If anything would get J.Sixpacks attention it would be something like this.
Up till now the DRM BS that the media companies have been doing has been, at most, a mild inconvenience to the common person. But this would hit them ALL where it counts, their wallets. It might just get enough of the sheeple pissed off enough to pull their heads out of the sand and say "enough".
Of course I have also been accused of living in an idealistic dreamworld where people actually use their brains for more than keeping their skull from imploding into a vacuum.
Once again greed defeats common sense.
I was just thinking that the pro-piracy people were going a little too far, but I'm not feeling sorry for the broadcasting industry after this.
When pressed as to why broadcasters would want to do this, Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'."
Have no problem with this as long as the broadcasters pay performance rights...now...until the end of time & retroactively. 80 years of not paying their fair share with interest seems to be a fair method to take care of this.
Wonder if the broadcasters are as interested in this idea as much as they enjoy cornholing their current & increasingly former listeners.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
And well they should! People have been getting away with illegal sharing of media through such devices known as "speakers" forever, and it's time it stopped! *anyone* within earshot can listen to the content, not just the person who paid to hear it. Everyone should listen to music with closed headphones attached only to their own device playing only content they've paid for so that they're not illegally distributing what they're listening to. It protects people from having to put up with that awful independent stuff, and protects the income of the popular artists who put out what people actually like. It's a win-win for *everyone*!
These guys are just pissed that they can't find anyone who knows how to advertise on the "new" medium of the internet. Sales Managers continue to believe that they can call the shots, because they work for a company that owns thousands or millions of dollars of broadcast equipment. They hardly realize that advertisers ultimately call the shots, and they will figure out how to get the most bang for their buck -- even if this means dropping traditional, expensive, and centralized broadcasting systems for new, cheap and distributed _networks_.
Ultimately, this will mean less control over the content, but more exposure to and money from the consumer.
Pirate everything.
These laws are getting so out of hand it's become laughable. Why should I pay $15 for a CD when it's almost at the point where it's illegal to take off the shrink-wrap? I pity the artists themselves getting caught in the middle of this, but the sooner we stop giving these companies our money the sooner they die and life can return to normal.
Anybody know the term?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking
Basically, the idea is that in classic economic theory (Adam Smith et. al.) you make money either through wealth creation (mining stuff that's useful, producing food, manufactured goods from raw material) or by trade (I buy tea in china and sell it for more in England).
When companies/individuals try to "game the system" and have the regulatory environment changed to suit their interests.
A simple example would be, say the US government was talking about legalizing drugs (I know, huge suspension of disbelief required), and a lobby group consisting of organized crime interests and central American cocaine producers came together to keep the current status quo in place.
It's a classic moral hazard, and when this behavior becomes common, it's probably a sign that things are seriously wrong with your economy.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Because they have abused monopoly powers, that's why.
... if there's anything you think is truly useless in the sense of having no use, it's either useless by definition or you don't have enough imagination.
Besides, I meant "useful to society" not merely "having some use"
As for the "sheep" bit, I don't like sheep and I'm not from NZ or Australia. There are no "sheeple" here (although there are plenty of gullible idiots) and I hope it stays that way.
Fuck that, they should pay *ME* for allowing their trash to eat up my bandwidth. Maybe I should send them the bill for bandwidth usage each time I stream a movie from my media server to my living room.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
One for the network drive ...
One for the copy on local disk
One for the clip currently in memory
One for the frames currently in the processor cache
One for the image being processed in processor registers right now
Any of you older geeks remember when the Motel 6 chain (way before Tom Bodett and "we'll leave the light on for you") used to have coin-operated TVs? Really -- you put a quarter in the slot, and it worked for an hour or something. Well, this sounds like a technology that the media barons would love to bring back -- every time you want to watch a TV show, put a coin in the slot. Every time you want to watch a DVD or listen to a CD -- plop in another quarter.
Look, the bottom line on this is...I can understand media providers wanting to limit file sharing -- I may or may not agree with it, but I can understand it. I can understand them wanting to bring down the DVD mills that pump out umpteen pirated copies of the latest Hollywood crap (though not their wanting to arrest a teenager for taping a 20-second clip with her camcorder). But once I have paid for the content, and it is in my home or at least in my personal possession, I should be able to do pretty much any damn thing I please with it, as long as I am not distributing copies, either through the Net or at the local flea market. If I want to make a backup copy, I should be able to. If I want to format-shift to enhance or simplify my personal use of the media, fine. If I want to rip some movies onto my laptop to watch on a plane or in a Holiday Inn on vacation, that should be perfectly kosher. The line should be rock solid between copying for distribution and copying for personal use.
Problem is, the same technology that enables copying or format shifting for personal use also enables mass copyright infringment, if one is inclined to do so. They know that machines and software don't care about why they are being used -- there's no way to tell a box o'electronics that this copy is OK, but that one isn't -- you can't program a machine to recognize intent. So, the only solution in the eyes of the corporate world is to make ALL copying and format shifting both illegal and as close to impossible as they can.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
I want cash every time someone says my name, looks in my general direction, or even thinks of using any oxygen to which I have laid claim.
I figure I have just as much a chance of people paying heed to my desires as these broadcasters do, so what the hell.
...really? It's too bad that Americans don't live up to their reputations; angry and armed, make my day etc.
Broadcasters say that only one pair of eyes may watch a show at a time if the show is licensed for one pair. It cannot be watched by two pairs at the same time. A camera is defined as one pair. Same goes for ears and listening.
2010
Broadcasters say that you may not discuss a show with others. It is only licensed for one mind at a time.
2011
Broadcasters say that you mustn't carry the memory of a show for a duration longer than the duration of the show. It is copyrighted and you have no right to etch it in your brains. This constitutes violation of some license.
minimum wage in 1955 was $.75/hr, now it is $5.85 (680% growth)
a gallon of gas in 1955 was $.29, now it averages $2.56 (783% growth)
I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
This is crap - yet another group who haven't learned that ruining the experience for the customer and attacking how the customer wants to acquire and digest their media not only doesn't work, it actually works against their bottom line in the end and ruins their image in the process.
We can speak out about this, write a million posts, contact congresspeople (who are mostly bought and paid for), but, like many things these days I get the feeling that the decision has already been made and that any "process" involved is likely just for show.
If this turns out to be correct, then since this government and it's corporate whoremasters doesn't listen to us, subvert our rights, sell us out to each other, and do a whole host of other illegal, extralegal, and unethical things - that I am just going to do what I want when it comes to my media regardless.
These media conglomerates can keep trying, but they're too big and too slow; and there will always be a way around DRM/restrictions -and that's not even looking at market based solutions; because if they cripple their devices there will always be somebody innovative enough not to cripple their offering to the public, or to at least leave back doors to easily enable features technically advanced users want, kind of like what Philips does with some of their products.
create two legal bodies.. one requires a 2/3rds majority to pass laws.
the other requires a 1/3rd majority to repeal existing laws
anything 2/3rds can't get behind- shouldn't be-- and anything that 1/3'rd won't stay behind... no longer will be...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
broadcasters can fuck off.
I'm gonna put content on whatever devices I want.
They're using their grammar skills there.
*huge: enough to live on without working ever again, and maintain my current standard of living
Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
Gas mileage on an average car has more than doubled since '55, so the cost per mile has actually probably dropped significantly since '55 (again, relative to minimum-wage increases)
I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
"What would you say if told you that there are people out there that want to make sharing your media between devices over a home network illegal?"
I would say that I'd like to get all these guys together in a garage on Valintines day to "work out the details."
I don't care if he squats on the MIT campus. And he has a MORAL reason.
Calling him a loon because he doesn't live the way you do, or the way you want him to, is... well... they stuff NERDS in lockers because of the same mentality.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
in slashdot history.
Mod up, please.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Pretty soon, they won't let me play the music for anyone else inside my home either. They'll say, "If I purchase it, then only I can listen to it." Whatever happened to fair use?
to this absurdity can be most eloquently expressed with one finger.
And we don't have to if we don't want to. Rights are taken, not given.
Edith Keeler Must Die
The first fool that tries entering my home to enforce this type of law will be met with both barrels of a shotgun.
I doubt this law will ever pass.
How about a system where I get paid royalties every time someone reads a comment I leave on Slashdot or anywhere else I comment on stories? It's just as fair and reasonable as anything the RIAA / MPAA comes up with, and I have just as much right to getting paid every time someone reads my comment, as they have a right to get paid every time anyone uses 'their' content.
You do realize that every piece of plastic that you use is made from some form of refined crude oil. So EVER is a very big word when used in this context. You DO use gasoline (well it's parent - but the money goes into the same fat bastard pockets). So I suggest that you stop being so high and mighty about wants and needs and concentrate on simply educating people about options to what they 'feel' that they 'need'.
Let's see how they like it if we made broadcasting illegal for them and only legal for us... How about they pay us for the right to broadcast?
there are some things in life i'm destined to never understand, like quantum physics. this has a similar feel. maybe the entertainment industry is ramping up for some kind of new product that once purchased is never viewed, listened to or used in any way.
Serenity now, insanity later.
Dennis Detwiller and others are already doing this with roleplaying games - though he himself provides free downloads once the ransom is filled. After being impressed by one of his previous releases, I plunked down $10 towards a future one. It was far more satisfying than buying something the traditional way: it made me feel a kind of responsibility for the work. This model transforms consumers into participants and enablers, which IMHO is at least as valuable as its economic success.
By the way, I recommend Detwiller's Music From a Darkened Room. It's is a great read.
Listen to the audio at about 13 minutes in. The wanted to abolish the common carrier provision and require ISP's to filter content.
AT&T has announced that they are going to filter anyway!
This is a particularly extreme concept of rights. And while my disagreement may seem theoretical, it is not: keep in mind that copyright holders are also claiming "rights". Is it the 28 year or the life+70 year term that is inherent or God given? If you accept these rights as inherent, it becomes very difficult to argue from other positions (e.g. that maximalist copyright is economically inefficient, morally wrong, or impractical).
For all practical purposes, rights are not inherent. They are created by the actions of individuals and of society. True, the American Declaration of Independence reads, "all men are created equal . . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." First notice that this claim is only for "certain" rights, then read the next passage: "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". For Jefferson too, rights are something we create. Here is Terry Hoy in The Political Philosophy of John Dewey (1998, p. 85):
If we make copyright rights, we can also unamke them. If we want to enhance our freedom and our society through wise rights regimes, we must actively fight for the appropriate structures and laws. It is no solution to fall back upon a claim of preexisting rights, for then we give up our own opinions, interests and right to participate.
I will leave you with a contrasting characterization of rights as a product of people's actions (Benjamin Barber, Strong Democracy, 1982, p. xv):
Man, it's going to take at least 10 pirated albums for me to balance the anger I feel at the broadcasters for pulling this stunt.
Maybe 20.
Let me take a moment to point you towards Baen Books. They not only sell current books online, they sell them in an couple open formats (html, rtf), as well as some that aren't so open (Rocket, Palm, MS Reader). They even have a section for free books. If you like their material, support them by buying their books. If you don't like ebook formats, buy hard copy. They'll still appreciate your service. This is the most forward-thinking of the traditional publishers (the founder was in the business for over 35 years - traditional enough for me). I'm not surprised of the genre they're in. They're even getting traction with other sci-fi/fantasy publishers, like Del Rey and Tor.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Broadcasters Want Cash For Media Shared at Home
... sure buddy. I got yer cash right here.
Sure
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
They already got paid twice when I replaced my albums and tapes with CDs. I'll be damned if I pay them again. And they have a lot of fucking nerve charging damn near $20 for a CD that has made them a fortune a thousand times over. Check the price of classics such as Led Zeps Stairway to Heavan CD, or Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Both phenomenally successful. Both well past the intended length of copyright. Both sold a zillion copies. Both over priced.
And now you want to charge me again (and again and again) because I've ripped all my CDs to my server so I can stream them through a password protected web page (usually from work)? I don't think so. Fair Use Bitch!
I have not purchased a music CD in over a year because of the RIAA. Nor have I downloaded anything. I'll be content with what I already have until I see some serious change in the music industry. Most likely when the revolution comes and we put your asses in front of a wall and put a bullet through your collective brain cell.
-- Will program for bandwidth
That's my point. I don't call him a loon. There's an old saying, "A prophet is hated in his own country." Given how on the mark Stallman has been, repeatedly, about the future of our digital rights, I would say he's as close to a prophet as they come. Wall Streeters whose record is as solid as his, make billions.
If Stallman could "relate" to those of us with families, he might not have the perspective that he has, and he might not have the wisdom that he has. It's his role to be where he is; Stallman lives and walks his talk, not like the rest of us who piss and moan about the corporate state and yet are FAR more brainwashed than he is.
When being a revolutionary doesn't seem realistic, then something is wrong with the system, and something is wrong with our way of coping. You and I are hypocrites: we eat out of the hand that we bite and even curse. Stallman lives a revolutionary life you can't live, Stallman lives a revolutionary life that I cannot live, but somehow you think of him as a loon and I think of him as a visionary that walks his talk. I respect him in spite not being able to live like him. I could never be a Richard Stallman, but I definitely see the validity in how he lives.
I think what you mean by him not relating to you is, you see he's freed himself from the corporate state more than you or I have, and frankly, it induces a sense of either guilt, or an inability to understand where he is coming from. No offense intended, but he is very much worthy of respect. Without him you'd be using a proprietary set of Unix tools for Linux. Do you use GNU/Linux?
So now we get to his personality faults. Which, being a mortal man, he is bound to have. He yells at folks for no good reason. Yup, that's a fault. He's a man and thus he's not going to be Jesus... though Jesus once threw over some merchant tables at a temple. I feel that his flaws are outshined by his achievements and vision.
We need more people of vision in this world, and fewer greedy strategists finding new ways to feed us all to the corporate state that Stallman is up against. How they live - as long as they're not hypocrites - does not take away from their respectability, in my book.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
FUCK YOU ASSHOLES.
You guys here know who.
I would say, "No shit, sherlock!"
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
When you pay for a movie or some music what you usually want is to get entertained. The mainstream big names in cinema and music, however, are not the only ones offering entertainment productions. There are millions of amateurs doing exactly the same, and now with the Internet it's easier to find them. You can get far better entertainment by preferring independent music groups and amateur movie productions, often licensed under a free licence. You can even create your own mashups and share legally with others. Now that the copyright lobby has become very unreasonable and aggressive in trying to maximise its profits, it's the right time to strike back by associating with other amateurs and becoming a producer yourself, too.
WHERE IS THE HUMANITY PEOPLE!?
> They do? Oh shit, what happens if you don't get it? 'cause I haven't bought gasoline in...let's see...ever. And neither have a whole lot of people on this planet, who somehow seem to be getting by okay, and are even enjoying themselves most of the time.
Sure, if they don't like things like... electricity. And hospitals? Oh, they use plenty, so people do die if they don't get it. Everything plastic? Yup, petroleum byproduct.
The only way you couldn't be using it at all would be if you hadn't typed that message from a computer. Oops. You haven't *bought* any, but you sure as hell need it.
>What would you say if told you that there are people out there that want to make sharing
>your media between devices over a home network illegal?
I'd say "Screw'em" and do as I pleased anyway.
This is the problem with the legal system. There are now enough laws that everybody is already guilty of something.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.