Slashdot Mirror
Entertainment Industry's Dystopia of the Future
renek writes "If you think the RIAA/MPAA's tactics have been outlandish, laughable, and disconcerting in the past, you haven't seen anything yet. From government-mandated spyware that deletes infringing content to border searches of media players, this reads like an Orwellian nightmare. Given the US government's willingness to bend over for Big Media it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see how far this goes and how under the radar it stays."
You can't possibly protect content without directly affecting the people who play by the rules. Things like the Patriot Act suffer from the same problem.
Living With a Nerd
Customs authorities should be encouraged to do more to educate the traveling public and entrants into the United States about these issues. In particular, points of entry into the United States are underused venues for educating the public about the threat to our economy (and to public safety) posed by counterfeit and pirate products.
Customs forms should be amended to require the disclosure of pirate or counterfeit items being brought into the United States.
[x] One eye patch.
[x] One peg leg.
Thought thinks itself.
Gotta love Canonical... apt-get install dystopian-copyright-protection
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
That we citizen elect the politicians.
Yes, but we don't select them.
To be unnecessarily extreme, we can essentially pick between Hitler and Pol Pot. While it's a tough choice, it's not a choice I want to make.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
If they treat consumers as enemies they will become enemies.
crazy dynamite monkey
Surely this is more a case of haggling. Ask for an infeasible price knowing you then have more scope to haggle down to a still unfair price.
The Right to Read was written 13 years ago, and is still remarkably prescient.
I am officially gone from
Border searches of data storage - sure (a small addition of one stated purpose required)
Spyware that deletes infringing content - game DRM is very close; if it "thinks" something's wrong, it nukes your ability to use the content.
Managing to stay mostly under the radar just fine...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Trouble is, cartels tend to work outside of the free market...
crazy dynamite monkey
A few times in copyright threads, while alluding to the insanity of the media corporations, I have testified that one of my big paranoid fears is legislation that requires content filtering software on all computers and related devices. Fine and dandy for Windows and Mac, but implementing that for all the Linux distros would be ridiculously hard. The solution? Outlaw Linux. "It's just a hacker's tool anyway."
*shakes head*
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
Given the US government's willingness to bend over for Big Media...
Wrong metaphor; It is not the government who is getting screwed here. On the contrary, congressmen are collect big checks from media corporations for selling off our rights. I think you mean.
Given the US government's willingness to force citizens to bend over for Big Media
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I met a devil media, they took my music away
They said I had it comin' to me, but I wanted it that way
I think that any music is good music
And so I took what I could get, mmm
Oooh, oooh, they looked at me with big brown eyes
And said
You ain't seen nothin' yet
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
Here's something that you never gonna forget
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
And now I'm feelin' better, 'cause I found out for sure
They took me to their lawyer and he told me of a cure
He said that only their music is good music
So I took what I could get, yes, I took what I could get
Oooh, and they looked at me with big brown eyes
And said
You ain't seen nothin' yet
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
Here's something, here's something that you're never gonna forget
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
You need educated
Any music is good music
So I took what I could get, yes, I took what I could get
And then, and then, and then they looked at me with big brown eyes
And said
You ain't seen nothin' yet
Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
Here's something, here's something,
here's something, mama, you're never gonna forget
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nu-nu-nu-nothin' yet
You ain't been around
You ain't seen nothin' yet
I know I ain't seen nothin' yet
I know I ain't seen nothin' yet
Baby, Baby, Baby
You ain't seen nothin' yet
Orwell was an optimist.
Look, the reality is that the U.S. economy currently depends almost exclusively on culturally created content/entertainment. Nothing gets made in the U.S. and exported anymore BUT movies, music, etc. So it's not a surprise that it's becoming more and more draconian in trying to defend those assets.
It's like if one country controlled all the oil. They'd jack up prices, but they'd also do everything they could to stifle the creation of oil alternatives. They'd start to insist changes in engine designs that used their oil, or else they wouldn't sell you the oil. They'd limit anyone trying to purchase the oil then refine it on their own, because they'd want to do all the refining themselves.
Every indicator I see says that this is going to get much worse in the future.
This probably isn't true. The point of the article is that the entertainment industry is trying to push obscene measures to stop "piracy." While in a normal market situation people would just stop supporting these companies and go to a competitor, such a scenario is unlikely to play out since there are no real competitors besides companies that will probably be squelched as illegal.
Think of it this way: would the automobile ever have taken off if the buggy industry owned and legally controlled all materials and technology related to the making of wheels? Sure the buggy makers could adopt the new automotive technology, and it would be better for the consumer if they did, but there is no immediate incentive for them to do so.
The music industry as a whole controls the vast majority of music, and are pushing laws to crush emerging technologies that might obsolete their main revenue source. There is no reason for them to switch and take advantage of these new technologies, because they don't have to. The average consumer of entertainment just doesn't have the self control to stop listening to songs or watching films for an unknown amount of time just to put pressure on the industry, and groups like the RIAA know this. Thus, they have every incentive to try and legislate the problem away, as the market has no way to correct. Only if their grip on copyright is loosened, or some form of piracy allowed to flourish, is there any pressure to adapt to changing realities in the world.
That we citizen elect the politicians.
Yes, but we don't select them.
To be unnecessarily extreme, we can essentially pick between Hitler and Pol Pot.
Or Kang and Kodos! (Simpsons did it!)
Bow-ties are cool.
I thought you could write whomever you wanted onto your ballot?
Nope. They have to be pre-approved (pdf in Google Docs) or they just plain won't be counted.
"The majority chooses who wins, and I'm not part of the majority!"
No, my objection is that the minority choses who the majority gets to pick. The US version of an "election" is a joke relative to modern systems.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
I've seen this objection before. I'm pretty sure what makes it that Republican or Democratic candidates are the ones that get enough votes is because so many people choose to vote for them
The Republican and Democrat candidates are the only ones who really get presented to the public. Every election I can remember that got covered on major media is always red vs. blue, every single one. Some early debates might include several candidates, but once things start getting close to election day the debates are also red vs. blue.
In the most recent presidential election there were five parties with ballot access in enough states to win the required 270 electoral votes. So how come the televised debates only show two of those parties to the public? Who has the authority to decide which parties get to debate and which don't? Why aren't the Constitutional, Green, and Libertarian parties allowed to debate in prime time on major networks? The reason most people vote for red or blue is because those are the only choices they think they have, they never even have a chance to hear the other voices to decide if those fit their views better than The Two Who Are More Alike Than They Are Different. How come Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Bob Barr weren't allowed to debate in prime time with the others? Even with no coverage those 4 candidates together got over 1.6 million votes. Imagine how many they would have got if every debate included all 6 candidates.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
That's "sudo apt-get install dystopian-copyright-protection" dumbass.
Also, "Couldn't find package dystopian-copyright-protection"
This is the new War on Drugs. Think of all the freedom we lost fighting the war on drugs. If you're within 100 miles of a border, you can be stopped and search for any reason without a warrant. It's a common occurrence to piss in a cup in front of a stranger as a condition of employment. Anyone carrying moderate to large amounts of cash can have it confiscated by the police, with no trial of any sort. And so on.
But the war on drugs is old and busted, we need a new enemy. As the U.S. loses its economic dominance of the world, anything that threatens (whether in theory or fact) the cultural dominance we've had is going to be attacked vigorously. It will be a scorched earth policy. We can expect to lose as many, if not more of our right under this new War on Copyright Infringement. It's just ramping up now, but we'll be seeing people who speak out against the new laws branded as anti-American. Copyright infringement will become a jailable offense.
Sure, it sounds preposterous now. But once upon a time jailing someone for Cannabis would have been preposterous. The American propaganda system is the best in the world. If they can sell a 70 year war on a substance that's factually safer than aspirin, if they can manipulate us into an optional war in Iraq for absolutely no reason at all, they'll have no problem turning copyright infringement into the next witch hunt.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Package dystopian-copyright-protection is a virtual package provided by:
obscene-censorship
government-intrusion
corporate-greed
ubisoft-games
sony-rootkit-drm
You should explicitly select one to install.
E: Package dystopian-copyright-protection has no installation candidate
You seem to be confusing "upset with big media controlling the law" with "pirate everything under the sun". Personally, I believe in financially supporting my entertainment, but I'm still sick of the US government bending over backwards for big media by creating more and more over-restrictive IP laws. Copyright law was originally created to give authors a TEMPORARY monopoly on the rights to their works, in exchange for their works eventually entering the public domain. The fact that copyright law has, at the behest of big media, been extended from the original maximum of 28 years (assuming the author was alive to renew it after the first 14 years) to author's life plus 70 years means that once the work DOES enter public domain, it's completely irrelevant and forgotten by modern society.
Bottom line: copyright law was created to benefit SOCIETY, not big media, and we have every right to be upset with them removing any value we receive from it.
My sig can beat up your sig.
The PP will probably never win an election, it's just there to show them how many votes they lose when they support the RIAA.
(OTOH I'd bet the PP could get quite a few votes in today's America...)
No sig today...
You think as if they are NOT already treating customers as enemies.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
When I was a child our house was heated by oil, a tank car came by every now and then and fueled up a tank in the back.
That no longer happened. The guy who drove the tanker, has lost THAT job.
Coal was used earlier, and a lot of people made their money mining the coal in Holland and shipping it to homeowners. The mines have closed. The miners are gone.
In Amsterdam and many an old city you can still see evidence of horse stables in the center of the city. Evidence that once horses were the only method to power transport and the industry that made it happen.
Gas lighters once went around, turning on each street light individually, a job typically given as a charitable cause for people who could not earn their money in another way.
Countless jobs are gone as companies claimed that putting them in other countries was best for society, for the world, for the future.
And now, it is the time of the artist to loose their job, to see their means of earning a living turned upside down.
Does that matter? Is it worth halting progress to keep some people earning money the same way they are used to?
We could have stopped the car from ever going faster and thereby saved the horse industry. But at what cost to our society?
But art is different. Why? Great art has been created LONG before copyright was added (the current copyright is a recent invention and was fought tooth and nail by the record industry) and that art will remain.
Will people stop performing Opera because the composer is no longer being paid... oh wait, the composer died centuries ago.
Then perhaps people will stop making new art... except unpaid art is produced all the time. Go to flickr.com for just a tiny sample. Nobody there expects to be paid, yet they are producing art.
Yes, some artists will perhaps die of starvation. Just as lost of coal miners lost their job and countless stable boys before them.
THOUGH LUCK. The MPAA/RIAA/Brein/Bumastemra all love to claim that our society will collapse when no more "play for cash only" bands will exist. No more spice-girls, no more backstreet boys. The end of civilization as we know it. I could just cry.
But does it matter? I am not going to argue that pirates buy more CD's because I am trying to make a far bigger point. If indeed the end of copyright means NO more music is produced. Will that matter? Or is it just another development of our society? Imagine a world without movies. Ain't that hard, movie tech is not all that old. One thing often miss about Star Trek is that it is a fictional world without money (ToS and TNG at least) but ALSO without art. Think about it, there are no paid for artists and content in the series itself. We watch on TV a TV-less world. They make their own content, for their own consumption and art is "merely" something that each does for the fun of it, not for profit.
The RIAA and the likes hate such a future. They want us to believe that the artist who works for profit, a Michael Jackson or Madonna IS the ONLY part of our modern civilization that is worth anything. Everything else is secondary to them. The Spice girls are the 20th century, and everything else just plays second role to it. If content is not paid for, it does not exist, it is not worth it and if it is content it must be paid for.
This goes to such extremes that copyright mafia's collect royalties for music for that isn't even subject to royalties. If I produce a piece of music and put it in the public domain and it is played on the radio (in Holland at least) then Bumastemra collects a fee for it. A fee I, the person who created the music can't collect, nor can anyone. They have a legal right to collect money for something they don't own and which they never have to pay out to anyone. It would be like giving Shell the right to collect a fee from anyone on the road, no matter if they drive a car or not.
And the Internet, personal liberties, common sense, artisic license, law, they all got to bend or be broken s
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
But what protects that same guy from the RIAA/MPAA/**AA bankrupting him and ruining his life for (maybe) sharing a few songs?
That's more important to you than your civil liberties?
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
The EFF isn't "pirate friendly". They just have different priorities: namely civil liberties.
Calling civil libertarians "pirate sympathisers" is a nice bit of Orwellian Newspeak.
Pirates are simply preferable to the alternative.
Although the real value of "eliminating piracy" is highly disputable. It's not a given that it would benefit artists.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Not only that, but there is another, and may be stronger force which distorts the market operation: advertising. The entertainment industry would be dead without it. And it is not that the advertisement pays the bills, no: it is what it does to our brains. The TV-watching public is not able to make rational choices in the marketplace. An individual can, through a concentrated effort which involves skipping commercials and/or boycotting the advertised brands, but on average, enough people are brainwashed into buying shit they do not necessarily need. Entertainment is not food. You cannot get free quality food on a regular basis, but the entertainment you can. The fun factor is completely subjective and is determined, in most heads, by ads. You could rent DVDs twice a week ($10/week), or you could play with you cat ($0). You could buy an album per week from an online store ($10/week) or you could play your own guitar ($0) or a bassoon ($0). Or you can record your music and post it on your website ($5/month), or walk in the park with your dog and try to pick up chicks ($0), you get the idea.
Ladies and gents, let's do it, let's educate the public. Tell your friends how to block ads: this is the first, and pretty much the last step, the nail in the coffin of the commercial pop art industry. Stop wondering why bad movies sell so well, I'll tell you the secret: the movies may be bad, but the ad campaigns are real works of art. So educate your friends, lovers, people on the street, and even enemies, on how to
"Nothing gets made in the U.S. and exported anymore BUT movies, music, etc." [citation needed]
Try this for starters.
Please note, I'm not picking on you in particular. You, like a lot of intelligent people, have come down with a nasty case of memes wrt to the composition of output in the US economy.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You know what's entertaining?
Watching people argue for rights they don't have against people enforcing rights they don't have.
Mark my words, what we ended up with is going to be even worse than the mess we had before, [...]
What's interesting is it's basically identical to the system in Switzerland (compulsory health insurance from private companies, subsidies for the poor), and there it seems to work quite well (base on my few years living there).
(Not that I think it will work in the US - way too much corruption here from what I've seen so far.)
The market tried to sort out the banking industry, but the the goverment stepped in and handed a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to the banks for no good reason, ensuring they wouldn't learn a lasting lesson from their foolishness.
The government certainly has a role in regulating the logistics of markets: creating a standard language for contracts, defining standards for weights and measures, enforcing contracts, and protecting against fraud. They had a serious failure in doing so with the mortgage derivatives market that caused so much hassle. But the regulation needed there was simple "look, trade this shit on the CBOT or another major exchange, so that everyone is using the same standardized set of contracts". This is required for most other financial intruments, and creates enough transparancy to keep the market functioning (without the government even needing to create the standards, just insisting that there are standards.
Plus, of course, the mortgage fraud was starting to get out of hand before the collapse, but we didn't need any new laws for that, just to stop turning a blind eye to it.
Rather than doing the simple, non-instrusive job the government is suposed to, it created a problem which it then used to nationalize a big chuck on the American economy. Ditto healthcare, and to some small extent auto manufacturing.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.