DVD Decrypter Author Served With Take-Down Order 674
the-dark-kangaroo writes "The DVD Decrypter author has announced that he has been served with an order to cease his development of DVD Decrypter. The developer has been forced to hand over all source code and the domain that he was using. It is thought that it could be Sony who have served this notice, as it is rumoured that he broke their new copyright protection within 72 hours of its release."
Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
If I held my breath every time I was surprised by the abusive use of the abusive DMCA, I'd.... oh wait, I'd be breathing perfectly normally because it doesn't surprise me in the least that companies - which exist in a capitalist system for the sole purpose of taking money from people - are stomping all over people's rights for the purpose of fattening their wallets.
Of course, many of the people responsible for the passage of the DMCA were re-elected, and few, if any, people raked Clinton over the coals for signing the damned thing. What amazes me most about all this is not that companies are using this +5 Tool of Corruption, but that nobody outside the technical circle seems to care.
So fuck 'em. I say let the little bastard consumers wallow in their own shit until they're paying $11 every single time they want to watch the newest shitty hollywood flick that they can no longer obtain through any means but 24-hour-per-use download.
Cracking this garbage isn't going to get rid of it, it's just going to get people dragged into court. If you want it gone, let them piss consumers off enough that there's a backlash and the distributors and producers have no choice but to strike a reasonable compromise between fair use and protection against theivery.
Sony? (Score:1, Insightful)
Sony have been pissing me off for a long time and I've been hitting them where it hurts. I don't buy Sony and I encourage you to do the same.
Say no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Release on Freenet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Shame to see this tool go (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope he thought (Score:3, Insightful)
And the moral of this story is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead make your code Open Source; share it, publish it immediately, don't publish just working binaries in the US on an American host. If you are from the US get someone else to publish it anonymously in a different country. Share. Share. Share. Why do people keep making the same mistake over and over and over ?
Otherwise you are just trying to say I'm cool look what I can do. If you genuinely believe DRM is wrong then share your code and publishly anonymously.
regards
Rant (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully this criminal will get what's coming to him: full forfeiture of all property and property owning rights, plus several years in an east Asian manufacturing compound for good measure.
the-dark-kangaroo is Big Media's tool (Score:2, Insightful)
It's "copy protection" not "copyright protection." Why are you helping them to frame the issue and taint the language?
Slashdot wrote:
Ok, I'll wait until 12 minutes ago.Re:What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Release on Freenet - not the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Because just providing the software to the world is not their only -- or maybe even primary -- intent. Freenet denys a lot of the ego satisfaction you otherwise get from being recognized on your own web-site with your own page counters.
And besides, they'd have to actually write help files since there wouldn't be a website and e-mail link for questions, problems, and enhancement requests.
Now is the time for someone to put it on Freenet -- or Usenet.
Re:What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:5, Insightful)
But as you suggested, might makes right. Or, more accurately, money makes right.
I'd like to see the author fight it, but the risks for him are far greater than the possible benefits, so it make sense for him to simply give them what they want. Overall, the world will have lost, but he'll personally come out better for having just caved. It's not ideal, but it's the way things are. Fighting this would cost money.
The ACLU or EFF probably would like to help him, but they only have limited funds to work with as well, so they're going to pick their battles carefully and pick the fights that they have the best chances of winning and which will provide the most overall benefits to their causes.
Also note that the announcement said nothing of the DMCA -- he only mentioned a C&D (cease and desist) letter. The DMCA may be involved, but he hasn't mentioned it that I'm aware of. But judging from what he said, he's talked to them a lot more than just having read a C&D that they sent him.
I think code should be protected like free speech (Score:1, Insightful)
I am opposed to people pirating media and making it available on the internet. However, I am more opposed to court decisions allowing people to make fair use of their copyrighted material. The software industry has survived piracy for decades; the media industry will survive also as long as people realize that pirating music and movies is wrong (which is why I flame idiots on Slashdot who think they have a God-given right to free movies and music).
Re:Not Surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
So this is, in all honesty, not the real reason to be upset with the MPAA. They are just trying to protect their investments.
Check For Updates Feature Used to Identify Users? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Say no? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:5, Insightful)
Terms of extortion. They don't have any rights, in fact, if you read the author's post he states that he's also got to contact anyone who was mirroring the site and ask them to stop, then turn over a copy of that request to Sony (or whomever).
This is what their lawyers came at him with if he wants the gun pointed somewhere besides his temple. I have no clue what license DVD Decrypter was under, but this is why the Free Software Foundation encourages authors who license code under the GPL to turn the copyright over to the Foundation. The FSF has more than $75 (approx conversion), to fight things like this.
If you're going to write cool stuff that might get a legal posse out to lynch you (legally), you should consider a strategy like the one the FSF offers to protect your personal assets. It is still possible to stick it to the man, but you better act smarter than the man.
IANAL, yet.
Re:What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would appear that the company more or less approached him and said. "We get to hijack your domain, steal all your source code, you stop all work on the project, tell your mirrors to do the same, and avoid referring to our company by name. You can either agree to this extortion, or fight it out in court where we have millions to pay a legal staff and you have jack." Okay, they probably spun it with language a bit more favorable to their firm, but that would be the gist of it.
Re:I hope he thought (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone in China could always continue development if he had access to the source.
Re:Refresher course in cryto theory (Score:5, Insightful)
They understand perfectly that technical solutions on their own aren't always tenable; they also understand that technical solution + threat of lawsuit == "teh win".
Re:Good summary. (Score:1, Insightful)
You already pointed it out for the most part. The GP is an idiot who is probably not married and has no family to support. Look at his blanket statement about "corporations".
This sounds like some teeny-bopper or 20-something that has never had to live in the real world yet and raise a family. All corporations are not bad. In fact, most corps in the USA have nothing to do with the DMCA. I work for a fortune 500. The DMCA has _nothing_ to do with our line of business. However, idiots like the GP, just throw out their blanket statements and assume that all corps are like MS, RIAA or MPAA.It doesn't take much to start a corporation. You just need to pay a small fee and you can have your own corp. Some of my fellow programmers work as independent contractors under their own corporation. I guess they are just as evil? The best thing you can do is just add idiots like the GP to your Foe list and mark them down -6 or something. Being a corporation is not bad. Many/most small businesses get a corporate license to protect their own personal finances from sue happy freaks. Being a corp is not bad, it is only _some_ of the big corps that are abusing Capitalism and the corporate title.
Re:Refresher course in cryto theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that DRM enforced by legislation is about as far from capitalist as you can get. Let us not make a habit of associating free market capitalism with pro-corporate authoritarianism, if that is indeed what you were doing. The two are polar opposites.
If you want it gone, let them piss consumers off enough that there's a backlash and the distributors and producers have no choice but to strike a reasonable compromise between fair use and protection against theivery.
I am positive that they won't actually push consumers that far. They always stop right before the breaking point, let people get used to it, and keep going. The problem is that they have been allowed to go too far already, and as people become accustomed to the rising temperatures, they are willing to stomach even hotter waters.
Re:Say no? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good summary. (Score:2, Insightful)
This sounds like some teeny-bopper or 20-something that has never had to live in the real world yet and raise a family. All corporations are not bad. In fact, most corps in the USA have nothing to do with the DMCA. I work for a fortune 500. The DMCA has _nothing_ to do with our line of business. However, idiots like the GP, just throw out their blanket statements and assume that all corps are like MS, RIAA or MPAA.
It doesn't take much to start a corporation. You just need to pay a small fee and you can have your own corp. Some of my fellow programmers work as independent contractors under their own corporation. I guess they are just as evil? The best thing you can do is just add idiots like the GP to your Foe list and mark them down -6 or something. Being a corporation is not bad. Many/most small businesses get a corporate license to protect their own personal finances from sue happy freaks. Being a corp is not bad, it is only _some_ of the big corps that are abusing Capitalism and the corporate title.
You're right. It's not all the corporations, just the publicly traded ones that are legally obligated to take any legal action that will maximise shareholder profit without regards for how their actions affect others.
If you're a privatly held corporation, you don't have to pursue profit to the exclusion of all other motivations. Of course, you're still shielded from any personal liability should you choose to do so.
I do work for a big corporation and support my kid with the money I earn in doing so as well. Made my compromises just like you. But I can still recognize the effects of my decisions and the realities of our system, and understand that the GP is RIGHT in this regard. If you feel the need to pretend that you have no feet of clay and deny the existance of your compromises so you can live with your decisions, that's up to you, but making disparaging remarks about the GP like you've done only makes YOU look like an idiot.
Better stick me on your foe list quick there... wouldn't want to risk your precious illusions.
Asshole
Re:Hypocracy (Score:2, Insightful)
There are LEGAL uses for DVD burners. I use mine for legal purposes all the time. It is for THESE uses that Sony, et. al. market their burners.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Say no? (Score:4, Insightful)
-Z
Re:Say no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, then there's your solution. Just do what congress does and start calling DVD decryptors "Child Protecting, Terrorism Stopping Patriotism Programs".
Re:Hey dudeeo (Score:4, Insightful)
2. You can't fight back without money for a solicitor.
3. If he fights it and loses (which would be inevitable without legal support), he will likely spend the rest of his life in debt, lose his house and quite possibly spend a non-trivial amount of time in prison.
You think the guy deciding not to throw his life away is "lamo"?
I will damned well back up my own CDs and DVDs! (Score:2, Insightful)
The really stupid thing is that companies like Sony are really annoying the people they can't afford to annoy - i.e. their consumers. I buy DVDs and CDs legally and have two children who are good at wrecking digital media - so I keep the originals as masters and back them up - using the backups on a day-to-day basis. There is no way that I will buy or use any product containing DRM unless I can't help it.
Based on this I will not buy a Sony DVD or CD again (and I have done in the past). If more people vote with their feet then hopefully (eventually) they might take note. I was going to buy a PS/3 at some point but now it will have to be an X-Box (what a choice - M$ or Sony...! - perhaps I won't after all!)
This is why open source software is *so* important and applications like MythTV are infinitely preferable to M$ Media Center. I do support and fund production of quality films but abhor the cartel (and it *is* a cartel) that controls all of this. As others have said here - what we need is not only to publish the dource code of DVD Decrypter but also full details of how the copy protection works to as many web servers as possible. This really is very scary and big-brother-ish...
Re:What about the author's intellectual property? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, to quote an apropos line from a page on Wiley's [wiley.com] site for the book Brand Name Bullies:
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious: how exactly would you suggest, in a purely capitalist system, that the creator of a thing which can be copied (and thus re-sold without any money going to the creator) protect his product? Put differently, how would support the people who innovate?
Easy example: suppose the existence of a molecular replicator on a small level, i.e. a device capable of "reading" medicine and generating perfect (i.e. digitally perfect) duplicates of the original at a significantly reduced cost. Now, there is a disease (it doesn't matter of what type). A developer (a person or a corporation, it doesn't matter) spends a few billion dollars to develop a medicine that perfectly cures the disease. The process is highly complex, and the procedure for making it is patented (like currently). However, the existence of the replicator means that anyone who obtains a microscopic sample can easily and cheaply replicate countless amounts. How is the developer to recoup his costs? He cannot sell the medicine for any more than it would cost to replicate it (assume that one person bought it at full price, but then sold a ton of it at cost).
Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't speak for most people, but I use it back up DVDs before my 6 year old or my 2 year get near them... I let them scratch up copies instead of originals.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
One definition of capitalism [answers.com] states:
The "government restriction", for many libertarians (often seen as the biggest promoters of true capitalism) at least, would include the argument that the government should not aid OR abet any enterprise, in addition to not restricting them.
The real issue comes down to why corporations feel that "trampling our rights" is okay. Well, you needn't look any further than the myraid of government licenses, regulations, and tax laws to see why businesses feel justified in harming the citizens that work for them. Our "us vs. them" mentality has only turned competing businesses to do the same back to us.
What we need to see is a seperation of corporation and state. We need to have a government that doesn't exist to promote any corporate policy just like our government doesn't (or at least, shouldn't) promote any religion. Unfortunately, there is a false belief that government intervention and regulations on businesses actually work for any real change in this direction to occur.
I had high hopes that our generation would be the one to establish the seperation of corporation and state, but I continually see this misconception of the US economic system as being "capitalist" as detrimental to any real progress. The US economy is FAR from capitalism, there is HEAVY government intervention and involvement.
About the libertarian comment: There is the start of a revolution in libertarian (note, small "L" to indicate philosophical as opposed to political party) thinking that copyright laws actually serve to "harm" rights of the individual. I belong to this group of thinking and if you're interested, I would encourage you to read up on it [libertariannation.org].
Re:Refresher course in cryto theory (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, but no cryptographic system has been created that can stand up to Carol attacking Bob with a soldering iron and screwdrivers.
Doesn't matter if Bob is human or machine either.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we?
Because... It doesn't actually work for that particular purpose, most of the time.
Personally, I use it to extract soundtracks from (for example) concert footage for listening in my car. For making something that passes as a backup of movies I actually own, I use DVD Shink.
Why?
Because almost all new releases on DVD use double-layer. Meaning that making an actual copy would currently cost you $10-$15 per disc just for the DL blank, more than you can outright buy a legal copy of most movies on sale.
Now, sure, HDDs have gotten rather cheap. But I suspect the number of people who would set up a cheap raid of SATA drives just to hold their pirated movie collection, at a cost only about 25% less than just buying the movies, falls quite a bit lower than those who would use such a program legitimately... Which I also consider a low number, quite likely.
So what do I think most people do with it?
I would say that yes, they rip movies they rent. But for the purpose of 1) Keeping it just a little longer than the rental period (perhaps keeping a constant rotation of 5-10 movies on their HDD), and 2) To remove the incredibly annoying pUOPs - Personally, it drives me to near rage when I put a movie into my player, and it tells me I can't skip right to the main menu. And yes, I will admit that more than once, I have taken such a movie (rented or not) immediately out of the drive and ripped it on a temporary basis for precisely this reason.
And, y'know, I seriously believe THAT bothers Hollywood far more than outright piracy. I see movie sales following the same path magazines took half a century ago - They only charge a cover price as a sort of token of interest (to keep people from taking home the whole print run to burn for heat through the winter). They actually make the vast majority of their money from the ads they run, not from the cover price (thus explaining how they don't hemorrhage money when they let you subscribe for over 90% off cover).
Re:Not Surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
By "purely capitalist," I am assuming you mean "no state invervention in the market." In such a system, DRM backed by legislation would not be an issue, since there could be none. I would see two results from this scenario: the development of "perfect" DRM; or a change in the present business model.
You seem to be lumping DRM with copyright. DRM is an attempt to enforce copyright through technical means. Most forms of DRM presently achieve this at the expense of the end user's rights. This is why legislation made to enforce DRM is wrong.
In short, legislation to enforce copyright != legislation to enforce DRM.
Work around it (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad day... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprised (Score:1, Insightful)
I mean, these corporate businessmen have families to feed too. Now you're depriving them of the continuous stream of money they've been having for buying multiple copies of the same thing all over again...
See it at the theather... (more than once?)
Buy it in VHS...
Buy it in DVD... (or rent numerous times?)
Buy it again in DVD (got scratched)...
Buy the soundtrack (of which you already had half the songs on other CDs)...
Buy it in a couple years of HD DVD - then again on Blue Ray after HD DVD went bankrupt!
It wouldn't be hard for them to have a trade up/replacement program for media, but that wouldn't rake in money.
I mean, once you paid to own a copy of the movie on VHS, why do you have to pay full price to get the very same movie - just in better video quality (on DVD)? Or full price for a replacement DVD?
Until that happens (never), we'll have to make use of our fair use rights to avoid buying the same thing several times, and they'll be fighting us having fair use rights (tools).
DMCA, DRM and all that crap is gonna get expensive for us if it's not avoided/bypassed.
Sharing the source code. (Score:5, Insightful)
Without Jon releasing the source code, there would be no T-shirts and haikus to show how stupid and simple it really was to crack the useless DVD protection. I'm pretty sure this new scheme is just as useless if it was cracked within 72 hours, but this very important message may now be lost forever.
When will corporations learn? Only when us consumers show them the way. I'm all for copyright and IP protection (I come from a family of artists), I'm all against piracy and fully understand its terrible consequences (I live in one of the top 3 pirate countries in the world), I'm a loyal consumer and don't own anything counterfeit or pirated but I'm pissed that people like me are starting to get crippled and outdated versions of everything, including our rights.
Last august I attended a presentation in Los Angeles of the new anti-ripping scheme Sony was developing for DVDs (don't know if it's the same but they DID mention DVD Decrypter). I was thinking "do these people really believe it will work?". I mean, the game consoles are meant to be closed standards and they still get cracked open in a matter of months, sometimes even days. How can they expect a protection scheme like that to work on an open standard like DVD? I wanted to scream "IT'S THE BUSINESS MODEL, STUPID!" during the presentation but I'm pretty sure I would've been kicked outside of the hall if I did.
That didn't stop me, though. During the Q&A session I told them it just takes ONE clever person to rip the DVD and get it through the illegal distribution channels, they simply responded the scheme was aimed at the casual ripper. Some people (especially the ones from Disney) listened to my concerns and seemed to be more receptive, since they had a wonderful presentation that day, showing a deep and surprisingly honest study on the issue of copyright infringement and its distribution mechanisms, kudos to them.
I'd say the moral of the story is to not keep your opinion to yourself, and that includes your code as a form of speech.
Solution To Consumerism (Score:3, Insightful)
People spend so much time complaining, but very little time backing up their complaints with actions. Apparently, bitching about consumerism is about as far as people are willing to go. It personally drives me nuts, because consumer is so simple to battle. You can live a consumer free life, even in American, with a minimal amount of effort. In fact, I would say that it is EASIER to live a consumer free life then it is to be a consumer. It is real simple. Ready?
Don't buy stuff.
You would be amazed at how much happiness you can squeeze out of life when you decide not to give a shit about that latest Hollywood crapfest, or, in the very least, stick to Netflixs to see it. Clothing is cheap and plentiful when you are not obsessed over the label. Hell, even a car is a simple matter when the only thing you are looking for is an AC/heat (if you live in a climate that needs it) and reliability. $5,000 is more then enough to get a used car that runs. No, you will not look cool with your 1990 Honda Accord, but who the hell cares?
I personally love capitalism and consumer culture and hope we never get rid of it. Why? Because it is voluntary and easily avoided. I don't eat at McDonalds, I don't buy DvDs, I don't buy music, I don't watch MTV, and most of my furniture is so cheap it borders on free (and some of it was). To the companies that have a business model that I approve of like Netflixs, Trader Joes (extremely cheap supermarket), and my local coffee shop, I give money. To the companies/groups that I disagree with, like the MPAA, RIAA, and McDonalds, I give nothing to.
If consumer culture is bothering you, grow a spine and stop giving them money. If consumer culture still bothers you even after you have stopped giving them money, trying not giving a shit about the dumb masses and find some like minded friends.
Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're talking about an end of (or drastic reduction in) physical scarcity, much like how there is very little scarcity in the electronic realm. Just like copying a bit is nearly free, copying a physical molecule would be nearly free.
A developer (a person or a corporation, it doesn't matter) spends a few billion dollars to develop a medicine that perfectly cures the disease. The process is highly complex, and the procedure for making it is patented (like currently).
Do they not have replicators? Just like pressing CDs, we can assume the procedure for making the drug is "take existing sample of drug and place in replicator; push go".
Given a replicator, I would be amazed to find a drug that cost billions to develop. You would never need to run a reaction larger than what fits in a lab, and you would never need to worry about running out of rare materials or difficult to produce intermediate steps -- just replicate everything you need. If we assume that the replicator can make small changes to copied molecules, then there is no need to run any reactions at all. Just fabricate the molecule you need.
Okay, there are still costs involved in researching the drug. How does the developer recoup these costs? By selling the drug at a reasonable price. Take, for example, music: most people do want to reward the creator. Even with a price disparity of $0 vs $15, most people choose to pay $15. Yet today, in a replicator-less world, pharmaceuticals still charge so much that they not only recoup their development costs, they also recoup their 2-4x larger marketing costs, and then still post profits that are the envy of every other industry.
So how would a pharmaceutical survive in a world with replicators? Well, if they are as greedy as existing corps, they wouldn't. Good fucking riddance. If instead they wanted to charge a fair price, they would survive.
Basically, I'm curious as to what you think a capitalist system should contain to prevent this problem?
I do not consider the end of scaricity to be a problem. There are, of course, those whose power is based on scarcity and thus do see it as a problem. If the replicator is ever invented and runs as cheaply as we assume here (unlikely to put it mildly), then there will certainly be huge and horrible wars fought over the right to use the device. I tell you this right now: I will be fighting on the side that wishes to end physical scarcity and grant everyone access to replicators. Anyone who wishes to tell me I don't have the right to do this I will consider a mortal enemy.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't think things like this hurt the MPAA/RIAA, which is why I don't consider people who make/use the cracking programs public heros. I would think more charitably about people who assassinated them. Do I seem extreme? These are people who have corrupted our government (even more than it already was). It is hard to think of something bad happening to them that I would not applaud, unless it adversely affected innocent bystanders. (Unfortunately, all too likely.)
And I have yet to hear any justification for their behavior that holds any water at all. They show neither signs of remorse, nor even any sign that they realize that they are enemies of humanity.
Calling them enemies of humanity requires a bit of justification, because they're up against some stiff competition, but basically:
1) they bribe (legally, usually) the legislators
2) they are endeavoring to steal the entire history of human culture, and seal it away under lock and key so that it will never again be retrievable by anyone without their permission.
3) when they lose interest in any particular piece of culture, they abandon it WITHOUT taking the necessary steps to allow others to preserve it. And it's all recorded on quickly degradeable media.
4) in addition, they are attempting to crowd out all content that they don't own, so that noone can even discover that it exists.
They haven't been totally successful, but these are what they are attempting, and for just attempting it I feel that they are deserving of death. These are crimes against the very essence of what it is to be human. How many folk songs do you know in a non-proprietary form/b? Generally they make some small change, which entitles them to claim the copyright on that form of the words. But they don't tell you which pieces they are claiming as proprietary, they claim the whole thing, and unless you can PROVE that the form you know is public domain, any court will presume that their copyright is valid.
Try to copyright a tune, just try, and you'll get some small flavor of what I mean. Every folk tune around has been copyrighted, and the copyright doesn't say what part is original, so courts will presume that the entire tune is copyright by the copyright holder, even though their original contribution may only be a change of three notes in the fourth measure. (This is second hand, but I believe it to be true. I know that Joan Baez & Vanguard copyrighted minor variations of a multitude of folk songs...and they don't tell you what they changed from the original.)
I wouldn't regard suing the people who made the tool as wrong if the entire system wasn't so unjust. As it is, I reguard everything the RIAA/MPAA member companies do as irredeemably wrong.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
speak for yourself. i use it so i can watch dvd's on my linux box - without being forced to watch those goddamn fucking piece-of-shit advertisements, toothpick-in-the-eyes-Clockwork-Orange style, unable to skip or fast-forward through them.
if dvd makers treat me like a fucking lab rat, i reserve the right to hop the walls of the maze, if i can.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
- Speak for yourself. I use it to make copies of my purchased DVDs so they no longer have restricted user actions. That way I can pop it in, hit menu when it starts showing the FBI warning and not have to sit through the FBI warning, the Company's logos, the Dolby or THX logo or whatever else crap they think I should be forced to watch on a DVD I bought. I don't even rent DVDs myself, if I like it I'll buy it, but I'm not going to watch their shit before the movie, that wasn't part of the deal.
So this is, in all honesty, not the real reason to be upset with the MPAA. They are just trying to protect their investments.The issue isn't the MPAA trying to protect their investiments, it's about the MPAA _controlling_ when/where/how and on what you can play movies you _BUY_ from them.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
He should be releasing the source code. (Score:3, Insightful)
code and then let the community take care of the rest.
Thats what any good netizen would do, wouldn't they?
Arash Partow
Re:Not Surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if you're going to erect analogical strawmen, how about this one? Suppose my business model is, "I smile at you nicely, and you give me $1." When I discover that I'm not making enough money using this model, I get Congress to pass a law requiring you to give me the dollar.
(In other words, I'm deeply suspicious of any newly proposed, authoritarian, antilibertarian rule that is supported with arguments of the form, "But without this law, how could the business that depends on it make moey?".)
Re:Problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Paying a bunch of private-sector PHD guys (i.e. expensive salary) to spend years and years on an item that most likely won't pan out
2) We've gotten the easy drugs out of the way, to do the stuff on the next level we are skirting the safety line and testing for a decade along with legal ramifications.
For an example look at drug Tysabri 2 months ago, Biogen lost half of it's value (and it's a multi-*billion* dollar company) because one of the secondary drugs from another company that it combines with theirs to fight the affects of MS possibly caused a death after the decades of testing. They had a market cap of $22 billion, after that they had a market cap of $12 billion.
I don't think you can just wave your hand and say "Okay, there are still costs invovled in researching"... especially when that is what 99.9% of the cost is in. Now saying exactly opposite of what you said i.e. waving your hand and nonchelontly saying "Okay, there are still raw material costs" would be more appriate since they are a tiny sliver of a fraction of the cost.
Re:Solution To Consumerism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Solution To Consumerism (Score:1, Insightful)
I couldn't give a shit about most consumer stuff, but not so the wife...
Re:Not Surprised (Score:1, Insightful)
The alternative is that everyone can buy a "matter duplicator" for $79.95 and anything that can be duplicated will cease to have value. If you are invested in the wrong place (like the members of the RIAA) then you are soon going to be one of the average people again.
Re:TORRENT PLZ (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
The real issue comes down to why corporations feel that "trampling our rights" is okay. Well, you needn't look any further than the myraid of government licenses, regulations, and tax laws to see why businesses feel justified in harming the citizens that work for them.
This is the kind of naive thinking which drives me away for libertarians.
There seems to be this prevalent "the free market" will solve anything. Seems like no-one knows their history enough that when "the free market" ruled during the beginning of the industrial era factory workers were more or less slaves (they got paid but no boarding) to the wims of the factory owners. Only after government restrictions and worker unions was a balance between the two met. (I guess there will never be complete balance, just less unfair in one way or the other.)
The reason companies do this is because they have exactly one reason to exist. To Make Money. There are no other objectives for a company. Furthermore if the company is on the stock exchange the board has a resposibility to their owners (stock holders) to Make More Money. If it were legal a corporate entity would have no qualms about killing off half of it's workers as well as consumers in the process, as long as they made more money that way.
It Is All About The Money.
Somehow libertarians seem to think that if we just "made it easier for companies" then everything would suddenly be nice and rose fields will spring everywhere the Free Market arrived. Not gonna happen! Look at the developing nations and specifically China to get a good look at how well companies treat their employees when there are no laws restricting them.
As long as they can get more workers they are happy to chew on them for a while and then spit them out when they are useless.
"Oh, but that can't happen here! We live in America!" Oh yeah? Did you happen to look at all the reports from sweat shops at EA games the last few months? Those were legal ways in order to abuse your employees to the point of where they were used up both at work and wrt their personal life.
I seem to have gotten off on a bit of a rant here. Sorry 'bout that, just something I had to get off my chest.
Re:Not Surprised (Score:1, Insightful)
If we continue to think like this then the artists will be broke.
Most artists are already broke or make most of their money in a different line of work because of the way we think. And by we I mean morons like you who buy the bullshit that defending the wealth of a miniscule minority somehow magically supports the overwhelming majority. It's people like you, through your continued support of a perverse work ethic, that have created the Frankenstein monsters now destroying our rights for the sake of their dollars.
When a doctor is done setting your broken arm, you pay him for the work he has done. When a mechanic has fixed your car, you pay him for the work he has done. It's the same for 99.99999% of us. When we stop working, we stop making money. But when Tom Cruise stops working on whatever movie he's in next, he'll keep getting paid until he's dead or the movie goes out of print. Why should he? The people who operate the equipment that records the movie don't get paid like that. The people who edit the movie don't either. The people who make the actual DVDs don't either. A tiny few, whose actual work is a microscopic fraction of all the work that makes their scheme possible, benefit indefinitely for they once did. Why should they? Where's the benefit to society in work once, get paid forever? What is it, besides greedy and lazy?