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 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!
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
"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
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.
I have not met a computer illiterate person who gives a shit about copyrights. For many, they don't even think it's illegal to download. After all, plenty of ISP ads are along the line: download music and movies at blazing speeds!
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)
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.
Think of it this way, today the popular shows are subsidizing the niche (good) shows, with ala carte the niche shows will have to survive with just their own audiences.
But survival at a higher price can be better than death. Firefly might still be around if fans could have voted with their wallets.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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.
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".
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.
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