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've always known the end-goal for all media companies is pay-per-play, every single time.
Ibid.
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.
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
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.
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 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!
You should not underestimate people's ability to bow to these kinds of pressures. We live in a world where most people do not think twice about waiting for a dvd from netflix in the mail. Sneakernet as a way to deliver bits is alive and well.
I read the articles but did not listen to the mp3, and the articles had little information. The surprising thing though is the openness at which the real issue here is control. Some people are so bent on control that they fail to see the difference between information/ideas and physical things. Sadly we are still a long way from the day that people can produce and distribute their own media. There are a few people who are able to do it, but it seems that even those small gains are under constant attacks from a wide variety of powerful entities.
No
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!
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.
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.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Run wires to speakers in another room and there is no charge.
Do this with a wireless replacement and there's a fee?
Shoot these bastards. Leave their bodies in the river.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
why does everything have to be illegal? are the artists who create the content having difficulty feeding their families on their meager earnings? What horrible situation are we trying to correct or prevent with all these restrictions?
I say if you broadcast a message over public airwaves using the community's radio spectrum, you probably shouldn't get the same rights that you do if you are publishing a book or releasing a new CD. If you don't like that idea, then maybe you can not use public airwaves, which belong to the community.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
"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.
People like her have kids...Where is her means of getting around cheaply, dependably?
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Tell the whore to keep her legs together until she can afford to feed the kids that she is producing.
The flip side of this is that the government decided that it was in the public interest to have a broadcast communication network and that it was unfeasible for them to build it themselves as it would be infrequently used. The result is that they awarded some privileges to the people who did build the network and whom in exchange for the right to restrict the fair-use of their broadcast allow the government use of their network in times of emergency. Now i do believe that anything that the public should benefit in a non-trivial way from any private enterprise that traverses a public good be it railways, entertainment broadcasts, etc... and that any signal that you can receive should be yours to do with as you please as long as you don't interfere with the production of such signal.
"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?"
Fuck that.
That is all.
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre
In which case those "artists" could use their art as a hobby/pastime activity, and seek out paying work like the rest of us.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Exactly. A lot of clueless, ivory-tower folks around here. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how they don't get that not everyone is privileged, or lucky, or given the same chances in life. Before most common people have a chance they are addicted to big tobacco, have kids they can't afford and credit card debt they can't pay back. To top it off, they've changed bankruptcy laws so that, now, they can't even escape that massive debt. And these people haven't even finished getting their wisdom teeth most times.
People are raised in environments that affect them. Rich inherit wealth, poor inherit poverty. People struggling and trying are tempted by credit cards. They end up both working at and buying everything from walmart which is fast becoming the modern equivalent of the early 20th century's "company store...."
Meanwhile, mod me off topic, again, for addressing something that original parent brought up (gas prices) and also by stating, again, that in light of the economic woes of the U.S., music trading, copyrights laws, is just such an oddity....
Odd, I thought this place was full of democrats....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
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.
"The surprising thing though is the openness at which the real issue here is control"
It was ALWAYS about control. Intellectual property is and always was about control. It was NEVER about "stimulating invention for the benefit of the species." That has never been established anywhere in history or in theory.
And if you accept the basic premise of IP, it leads inexorably to exactly this situation - total control over your behavior.
And it's not just the state that wants total control of your behavior - it's everybody else, too.
Basic primate psychology: "If you're right, I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'm dead - and that can't be allowed. So I'm right and you're wrong. And that means I have to control everything you think and do - assuming I let you live at all."
And since we have the state, the easiest way to do that is to bribe it to pass laws so I can draw on the state's "monopoly on violence" to my own benefit. Because I'm afraid I don't have the power to compel you the way I want to without the state's support. Which is also why I bow to the state - because they might kill me otherwise.
This is the way the human species works - non-stop, pervasive fear. The only solution is: transcend human nature so it is no longer ruled by primate emotions.
Fortunately that is likely to happen in this century as nanotechnology and biotechnology allow us to alter the human body and brain into new configurations.
In the meantime, things will get worse before they get better.
Operative: It's worse than you know.
Mal: It usually is.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
It isn't impossible for something to go from luxury to necessity. I need food and shelter for myself and my family. In order to get those things I need money. In order to make money I need a job. It is very hard to find a job within walking or riding distance of my house. In our current society (at least in a city that has suffered from sprawl) it is very hard to call my car a luxury. Now that I choose to drive a small luxury car that only gets 30mpg instead of a true economy car pushing 50mpg is a choice, and that extra gas is a luxury. But the purchase of gas itself is a need if not very close.
I guess I could move to another city.. Oh wait, that would use gas too.
Gas maybe cheaper than it was in the 50's adjusted for inflation. How is that minimum wage doing adjusted for inflation?
All points of time and space are connected.
BUT PEOPLE NEED GASOLINE.
They do? Oh shit, what happens if you don't get it? 'cause I haven't bought gasoline in...let's see...ever.
Having lived in a couple different places, I've used public transportation most of my life. There are a few of those places where there's no way in hell I'd live without a car, if I couldn't have one I'd move to the city immidiately. Just because *you* don't need a car doesn't mean there's a lot of places where you do. Plus that's just me, if you have to deliver kids to daycare or whatever, the opportunities are often few. Sure it's not a basic necessity to survive, but it's not like I'm going to back to the stone age (hey, people survived back then too) voluntarily. It's necessary to live what I would consider a normal, average life.
Maybe in your absolute view of the world some 95%+ of the world is living in luxury because they're able to afford more than food, clothes, shelter and medicine (roughly 0.1% of the population starve to death by comparison), but I'd say that's a very fucked up definition of luxury. That doesn't include the luxury of sending your kids to school instead of working to support the family. It doesn't include the luxury to earn anything to buy or own anything, it's basicly what you'd get at an emergency aid camp. Anything on top of that is luxury? I dare you to live one month without any of your "luxuries", I bet they won't feel that way afterwards.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Hasn't it occured to people (read: idiots who write, propose, and pass laws) that by making something that's commonplace in society illegal they just make "fake" criminals? Even worse, by passing laws that people are either 1) not even going to even KNOW about 2) not care about or 3) intentionally break because they dislike the law ... they take yet another step towards total disregard for our laws and lawmakers and courts.
I say: WAY TO GO!!! Yet another excuse to totally ignore laws being passed solely for the benefit of large corporations.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
I would like them to try to prove that a 1 to 1 wireless connection can be considered "broadcast" at all.
Now, if you were referring to just swalllowing it whole...
Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
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!
Who says you can't cut said coconut-sized rock into juicy, bite-sized pieces?
I'm not a geologist, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say cutting a rock isn't gonna make it juicy.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Please, this whining about bottled water is childish. Fine, you don't think paying for purified water is a good idea. Good for you. Mind your shoulder, you don't want to sprain it while patting yourself on the back. Some of us have good reason to worry about the water we drink though, so keep it to yourself.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Pure unfettered greed is control! Millions of dollars buys a lifestyle. The only thing that only Billions can buy is Power.
Look at the situation with films. A few people, i.e. Roger Corman, turn out movies on shoestring budgets. Corman never had a single over budget film or a single flop. His Autoiography is entitled "How I Made a Hundred Movies in Hollywood and Never Lost a Dime". He trained some of the best modern directors still working today in their fledgling years, and people such as Speilberg have given him praise for his skill. While his own work was chiefly 'B' movies such as the many Edgar Allen Poe 'adaptations' he directed, his guidance and funding played a large part in many more prestigious films such as "The Lion in Winter" (O'Toole/Hopkins/Hepburn version, not the Patrick Stewart remake). But while directors and actors generally like Corman, He still gets no respect at all from most of the Hollywood producers and certainly not from studio management, and is often treated in a way no one else who even once had the clout to get even a single picture made would expect. With admittedly a very few exceptions, the studios have ignored his methods of getting pictures out on time and budget totally.
Why? Because it's not just about making money to them - it's more about having a film that gets number one's right and left in publicity, that afterwards people will be saying it impacted a whole nation or generation, a film that says you have had more power over the rest of reality, particularly political reality, than all the other guys in the business. Studios routinely take huge chances and lose millions without anyone getting fired.
People who want another good example might read up on the original Planet of the Apes series and what the studio did with the profits from those films.
Or look at Audio. Why did an RIAA member decide that, with rumors of child molestation already developing before they started negotiation, they should put nearly their full year's promotion budget into a Michael Jackson comeback album? Especially, when his last album had sold less than half what Triller did, and he also had developed physical problems with his appearance (also pretty well known within the industry by then)? Maybe you can claim that's still all about money, but to me, it looks more like somebody thought they could reshape public taste any way they wanted, that they had the sheer power to override all the negatives accumulating and turn him back into a literal billion buck ultra-platinum income source. Scarier, there's talk of another comeback attempt this fall. If this is all about money, do you think there there are any real financial arguments for such a second attempt that can sway even a semi-rational corporation into taking such a gamble again? Powerlust makes people take gambles even greed can't.
Who is John Cabal?
I'd say that's a very fucked up definition of luxury ... I dare you to live one month without any of your "luxuries"...
For the record, I have done exactly that for much longer than a month before, but that's beside the point. I do have luxuries, just like you and everyone else, and if I had to get rid of them all forever, my life wouldn't be as fun. I also often catch myself taking them for granted - beginning to believe that they're not luxuries at all but things I need in some absolute, urgent sense.
They're not. There's nothing wrong with having luxuries, but call them what they are. Calling something a "need" has an implicit subtext that we have an inherent "right" to have it. I'm not calling for the elimination of all luxuries, I'm calling for perspective. Realize that we can go without a lot of the things we take for granted, and it's a lot easier to reconsider how much we want of them, and if it's worth all the consequences. By refusing to acknowledge this reality, we give ourselves a free ticket to continue doing exactly as we like, without caring about the result.