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.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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 |
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!
Richard Stallman is a loon, but he's absolutely right. The only mistake I can see is that he was optimistic on the schedule by 25 years or so.
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!
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.
Yeah but you can't drink gasoline
You can, you just can't do it twice.
[Insert pithy quote here]
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.