Entertainment Industry's Dystopia of the Future 394
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."
It's already here basically (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
For once, /. summary not an exageration (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a sample:
There are several technologies and methods that can be used by network administrators and providers...these include [consumer] tools for managing copyright infringement from the home (based on tools used to protect consumers from viruses and malware).
In other words, the entertainment industry thinks consumers should voluntarily install software that constantly scans our computers and identifies (and perhaps deletes) files found to be "infringing." It's hard to believe the industry thinks savvy [sic], security-conscious consumers would voluntarily do so. But those who remember the Sony BMG rootkit debacle know that the entertainment industry is all too willing to sacrifice consumers at the altar of copyright enforcement.
Pervasive copyright filtering
Network administrators and providers should be encouraged to implement those solutions that are available and reasonable to address infringement on their networks.
Right. I have a hard enough time getting my customers to realise the danger of installing pirated software; now I'll have to tell them that they should try and implement stuff that will detected 'illegal' MP3s and AVIs.
Oh, and in order to do so will necessitate rootkitting all their boxen and opening the corporate firewall?
Yeah, that'll work...
Re:Don't forget... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The new War on Drugs (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Don't forget... (Score:1, Interesting)
How so? Obama is a corporatist, sorry if that's the part that offends you, but he does want to give you health care. He kinda made a big deal about it, you may have heard it in the news recently.
Personally, I think he sold out to Big Medicine, and what we ended up getting will require a lot of fixing. We need a single payer system that guarantees free health care to all, like every other civilized country on Earth. It's a moral issue: we're Americans and we shouldn't let Americans die like rabid dogs in the street. That's third world bananna republic bullshit.
Re:Market balancing itself (Score:5, Interesting)
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
"Free" Content will Change Everything Eventually.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't forget... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've heard this argument before and the counter argument to it as well: this flawed first step is necessary in order to get the ball rolling. And, you know, it does do a few good things. Not everything in the HCR bill is a corporate giveaway. Some things are quite necessary, like requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Obviously, this is not the universal coverage the majority of Americans wanted. Hopefully, the bad parts can be fixed while the good parts are retained.
No doctors are going to leave the country or into other professions because of this bill, that is really over the top hyperbole. Really, where did you even get that ridiculous hypothesis?
Re:Don't forget... (Score:3, Interesting)
No doctors are going to leave the country or into other professions because of this bill, that is really over the top hyperbole. Really, where did you even get that ridiculous hypothesis?
There's a lot of places in the country where it's really hard to find an OBGYN because they've left states where the malpractice insurance was too expensive. I've also heard of doctors quitting general practice because of malpractice insurance premiums costing more than their entire revenue.
Not to be a wikidick, but [citation needed]. Even in states with restrictive requirements, there are physicians mutuals that are physician run and much cheaper than commercial insurance providers. Have been since the 70s.
Re:Don't forget... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing's a panacea. But at least government doesn't have profit as its primary role and motivator, unlike private companies who exist solely to make a profit. Additionally, the government, while frequently bloated and inefficient, is still answerable to the voters. Private companies are answerable to no one but their boards of directors.
Finally, the choice seems to be between two systems:
1) taxpayer -> government -> insurance companies -> healthcare providers
2) taxpayer -> government -> healthcare providers
Either way, you're going to have government involved. It should be pretty obvious that with fewer entities between the patients (taxpayers) and the healthcare providers, things will be more efficient and cost less.
Of course, things are rarely so simple, and there are plenty of cases where government-regulated private companies word fairly well (such as with public utilities in many places). However, the key here is regulation, which is something that American government (and in particular, the Federal government), is REALLY bad at. After all, it was lack of regulation that caused the bubble and Mortgage Meltdown. So I don't have any faith that they're going to do a good job here either, especially since they still haven't bothered to fix the problems that caused the Mortgage Meltdown.
Re:Don't forget... (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I think the Federal government is broken, and should be abolished. The states should break apart, and form new, smaller unions with their regional neighbors, and if anything, the US should have a loose union more like the EU, where they only share currency and defense. States need to go back to governing themselves, and funding their own projects, instead of crying to the Federal government to do everything for them. Eventually, states that can't govern themselves well and turn into 3rd-world countries (I'm looking at Louisiana and Mississippi, among others) will lose their smarter residents to other states that have a higher standard of living.
Large-scale government just doesn't work very well in practice. Countries that grow too large are destined for failure due to internal tensions and corruption. Europe is doing much better in this regard, because they've gotten over all their warmongering, but are still separate and mostly sovereign and their countries are small, yet they do work together on some projects (like currency and free trade) without developing a big, centralized government that tries to control everything.
Thanks to all (Score:3, Interesting)
Blanket reply here at the end of the thread, because I don't feel like hanging around for the "slow down cowboy" thing.
Thanks for pointing out that the data were stale, and for providing data that were less stale.
As for how the meme got started, I actually think the *AAs are late comers. We did see a shift from the rust belt to the non-union South in auto manufacturing. Unions probably preferred to blame international competition, as opposed to interstate competition.
Among geekdom, the phrase "music movies and microcode" dropped out of fiction (the name of the author escapes me, was that Stephenson?) and people seemed to forget that it was fiction. Political parties that are out of power also seem to find the meme useful. Lately, the Tea Party movement seems to be using it, but others have too.
It serves a lot of purposes, for a lot of people, so it survives.
That said, the more recent chart with multiple years does indeed show China on the move. That change can have a strong psychological impact, since it puts us behind if present trends continue.