Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Asks Again For Control Of TV Analog Ports
suraj.sun passes along this excerpt from the Consumerist:
"The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window, but they don't want anyone potentially streaming that video out to other appliances. That's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again ask for the power to disable analog ports on consumer television sets. This capability is called selectable output control or SOC, and the FCC banned it back in 2003. SOC would allow 'service operators, such as cable companies, to turn off analog outputs on consumer electronics devices, only allowing digital plugs' such as HDMI. The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."
As Pogo said,
We have met the enemy, and he is us."
0100010001101001011001 0100100000011010010110 1110001000000110000100 1000000110011001101001 0111001001100101
It's bad enough that the American public has to live through really bad sequels. It's even worse that Hollywood hasn't had a decent original movie in a long time.
Now, even the lawyers can't think of new ways of screwing the consumer!
You just can't make this stuff up.
We don't live in Shouldland.
When is the MPAA and RIAA going to be broken up as a cartel? They all price match each other, control pricing, and even sue as a group.
It's a perfect cartel. I wonder if they like OPEC? Probably.
Why would you say "Fantastic Offer?" I think it is a pretty shitty offer.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
It's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies than it is to fiddle around with cables to make your own crappy analog copy. Hell, you can download a digital copy while you're watching the DVD/cable movie that they ostensibly think you're planning to analog rip.
I can't think why they'd even care about the analog hole any more, other than that it's a pure power ploy. They push for something crazy like this, then reluctantly accept a "compromise" position like adding another hojillion dollars to the statutory damages for copyright infringement.
Or, and this may be a real possibility, they are simply batshit cuckoo-bananas insane and just can't stop fighting a battle that they lost a decade ago.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
The ability to turn those plugs on and off would not affect their ability ("could offer") to offer more goods to consumers, it might affect their willingness ("would offer") to offer more goods to consumers. However, I think the reason they used the words they did is because they don't necessarily want to offer more goods to the consumer, they just want more control over the consumer.
The MAFIAA has this idea that since they can't control what you do with the product once they let you have it (and thus possibly allow someone to gain access to it without paying them), they should do without the money they would make by selling it to you in the first place.
Further, as they tighten their control over the products they sell, they can't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Slashdot story in 2012: MPAA asks again for control of bank accounts
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers' bank accounts, they could offer more goods to consumers.
Ya know.. I don't want any more goods and services. I have enough, thank you.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
If the mpaa want's people to use TV's (or other devices) that have such restrictions they they should set up factories and SELL them. If the market wants them then tally-ho.
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
The obvious George Carlin question here is " Why do they call it 'goods' when it sucks so badly?"
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
you are assuming the media companies are trying to stop the pirates.
The pirates, are a straw man for the media consortium to be able to give the users less (i.e. less work on the media companies part), while still ensuring payment of the same price.
I see both as the enemy - the pirates for giving the media companies this tool, the only tool in their belt, as well as being so inundated with a sense of entitlement that they can't consider doing without... And the media companies for just being greedy bastards.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
And those bent on ripping and sharing it online will find workarounds anyway; thus only limiting the possibilities of people already obeying the law.
The Long Now Foundation
Well said. Mod up. This isn't about piracy, this is about controlling what we can do with the content, so they can charge us at every transaction point. Put it on an ipod? $.50, transfer to a new computer, $5, stream this to your kitchen, $1.25.
For the person who chooses not to consume pirated content, the ideal is a world where producers are maximized
However, the way to maximize producers isn't necessarily a broader scope of copyright. Without a meaningful right and ability to make fair use and other unregulated uses of a copyrighted work, a lot of producers can't produce due to copyright restrictions on derivative works.
At the point when "content providers" (I really fucking hate political incorrectness...) reach into my home, and disable features on a device which I own; I feel compelled to wish someone would kill them until they are dead.
Really, the FCC has no business interfering with my usage of my communications technology until that usage interferes with some medium they regulate.
Universal Studios, Sony Pictures, etc, can kiss my fucking ass if they ever get the power to do this, I will stop buying DVD/Blu-Ray releases, cancel my subscription to DirectTV and Comcast, smash my HDTV on the doorstep of the local BestBuy and take a shit on it. I will then use multiple computers/servers spread around the globe to pirate every fucking thing I can get my grubby ex-consumer neo-pirate hands on, even if it means going to jail.
Some causes require martyrdom to see the goals come to fruition.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
While I am very much for people generating their own content, there is certainly room in the market for large corporate producers as well. If the world depended on individual entities to make everything, we'd be lucky to have anything more than crude hammers and drafty shacks to live in.
You asked if passive consumption of entertainment is really any good; I would venture to say that is serves some purposes. Everyone needs an escape, the human mind simply cannot deal with everything that happens in the world. This content merely provides a simple and safe avenue to reach that. Other people might work out, drink, smoke, go clubbing, waste time on the internets, or what have you.
The main issue we face today is not who produces the content, but how it is owned and handled. Right now, the only way to get something is to pay a pre-defined price for it. This has been a workable system before, since most products required you to pay a static cost for material, large scale manufacturing, delivery, sales, the wages to support all this, as well as a more fluid cost criteria for profits and R&D. With much of the content we want getting digitized, though, there are less and less static costs associated with the process. A system where the majority of the revenue goes to recoup R&D cost, and then moving to nearly pure profit, is a system that can truly support the idea of patronage.
In fact, patronage, or paying what you believe the content is worth to encourage the creation of new content, has been around for a very long time. I believe the idea needs to be updated for modern usage, for instance, by making it really simple to donate, by suggesting pre-set donations, and by adding incentives or benefits for those that do donate, while not penalizing those that do not, but that's getting into details. The fact is, you can have both corporate and individual content generators, because they would target different markets.
A common argument is that patronage would not stop piracy, but I prefer to instead see it as *nothing* will stop piracy. As long as you are selling a product that people will actually, physically have, it will be pirated, end of story. Also, when you try keeping the products out of consumers hands, or otherwise close it down, many people will simply not buy your product because it will quickly grow stale and boring. So, why fight piracy then? Instead, your business model needs to be updated to account for it, and take advantage of the human mindset behind it.
Further, a lot of pirates are actually pretty reasonable people. They will download the game, song, or movie, and if they really like it, they will buy it. The issue then becomes a matter of price. If I get a game that provided me with $30 worth of entertainment, I would be happy to pay $30 for it, but I simply will not pay $60. Some may say that I should not have downloaded the game if I was not prepared to pay for it, but that is simply not how human nature works. We are creatures of curiocity; we like to try and to explore new things, and we always want the latest and greatest. I would even venture say that trying to change this would stifle innovation, and hurt your long term profits more than anything else. The simple fact that the content is out there means that a lot of people will be interested in it. Telling people they cannot have it is like telling the oceans to part, and let you through: When you can do something like that, you get your own religion.
Really, the FCC has no business interfering with my usage of my communications technology until that usage interferes with some medium they regulate.
Without the FCC's interference, "content providers" would already be able to use the communications technology that you willfully purchased that supports their disabling the analog out on your devices at the providers' whim.
It's the FCC saving you from the providers. You already surrendered to them.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."