MPAA Committed To Fair Use and DRM 212
Doctor Jay writes "At a LexisNexis Conference on DRM this week, MPAA's Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers. 'In his speech to industry insiders at the posh Beverly Hills Four Seasons hotel, Glickman repeatedly stressed that DRM must be made to work without constricting consumers. The goal, he said, was "to make things simpler for the consumer," and he added that the movie studios were open to "a technology summit" featuring academics, IT companies, and content producers to work on the issues involved.'"
If the MPAA sold fruit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If the MPAA sold fruit (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If MPAA sold fruit, I'd feed a banana in my DVD drive, and get out 100 bananas for free. You can clearly see the problem MPAA has to meet.
Not defending their actions, but come on.
Re: (Score:2)
That patent would have expired in 1970 anyway.
Re:If the MPAA sold fruit (Score:4, Insightful)
Not if her name was Mrs. Disney
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bananas *are* clones. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fair use (Score:5, Interesting)
What money did Da Vinci need to raise in order to create the Mona Lisa? Who funded the statue-carvers of Easter Island? How much of an advance did JK Rowling get in order to start Harry Potter (hint: zero).
Creative works made with only profit as a motive are not culturally fundamental. We'll live without them.
Re:Fair use (Score:4, Informative)
Bad, BAD example. He was supported by a long string of aristocrats, and many of his works were commissioned. He maintained a whole workshop.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll believe it when we see it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We'll believe it when we see it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yup, time for a new tag... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MPAA's new business model? (Score:4, Funny)
3000.00 down the drain. But not having to sit through Casino Royale
Transporter_ii
So, Mr. Glickman ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's that, Mr Glickman? That's not what you meant at all?
Oh, okay -- you support Fair Use, sort of, but only in some theoretical sense, because it's illegal to actually do, because of the laws you've purchased from those politicians who are perennially deep-throating the entertainment industry's collective cock?
Talk is cheap; I'm not buying.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? In order to rip DVDs you must use software that by-passes the DVD copy protection. That is a violation of the DMCA -- a law that was pushed thru by the MPAA -- and anyone who has attempted to sell this sort of software (DVD Xcopy, etc) has been sued into oblivion by the MPAA.
Re:Oh Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
As there isn't a unified DRM standard, they can't release that software yet, but if there some day will be, then they some day will release that software.
Universal, Reasonable and Demanded DRM Standard (Score:2)
As there isn't a unified DRM standard, they can't release that software yet, but if there some day will be, then they some day will release that software.
The universally accepted and demanded DRM scheme is a lack of digital restrictions. That's the standard they will use if they really mean what they say about fair use. There is nothing simple about them forcing restrictions on the industry and their customers and ultimately any restrictions limit your fair use rights by limiting what players you can u
Re:Oh Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
More interestingly, some of his comments lead me to believe they want to provide "legal" ripping as a service because he starts talking about establishing prices, etc. I would have to say that the MPAA still doesn't get it, but they are just now beginning to realize that they will start losing their market if they don't clean up their act. This response is akin to Microsoft's response to the EU. "Let's see how little we can get away with, and delay as long as we possibly can."
Re: (Score:2)
I have come to the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given what this guy is saying (the MPAA drone), what is the legality of ripping Netflix movies because you "don't have time to watch them right away"?
This is, of course, a completely hypothetical question...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cases in point:
1) Fan-subbed anime.
2) The mythical "24 hour rule" on ROMs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Drop the word "protected" or replace it with "copyrighted". And it has long been legal before the DMCA to make a copy of a work in your permanent possession, such as making a single archive copy for backup purposes. It was even legal to remove copy protections in order to achieve functional copies. (See "Copy ][ Plus" and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. They'll cross that bridge only after they've burned the existing free and open ones and built one of their own secure toll bridges.
And clearly they're only talking about it now after losing to Kaleidescap
Re: (Score:2)
"Despite the lack of specificity, Glickman's speech marks a step forward for the MPAA, which says it is now committed to allowing content to play on any device, from any manufacturer."
The operative phrase here seems to be "on any device, from any manufacturer." I think the real meaning emerges if we remove the comma. The MPAA represents businesses who want to sell content playable on devices built by manufacturers that have licensed this hypothetical D
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers" should be translated as: "Ripping DVDs to files with 'interoperable DRM', which can be played on a single system after connecting to the internet and getting an authorization code. The authorization code will cost $4.95 if you can somehow prove you're the original owner of the DVD. If you can't prove you're the original owner then we'll assume you borrowed it from somebody and the authorization co
Re: (Score:2)
love the product. I own a legal copy. heh - a legal copy that is meant to do 'illegal' things, which ends up restoring the rights you started out with, years ago. somehow, it seems fitting.
Have you read the DMCA? (Score:4, Informative)
While companies are abusing it, it really does allow for fair use circumvention.
then this:
(1) CIRCUMVENTION PERMITTED- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title, if--
`(A) the technological measure, or the work it protects, contains the capability of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information reflecting the online activities of a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected;
`(B) in the normal course of its operation, the technological measure, or the work it protects, collects or disseminates personally identifying information about the person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, without providing conspicuous notice of such collection or dissemination to such person, and without providing such person with the capability to prevent or restrict such collection or dissemination;
`(C) the act of circumvention has the sole effect of identifying and disabling the capability described in subparagraph (A), and has no other effect on the ability of any person to gain access to any work; and
`(D) the act of circumvention is carried out solely for the purpose of preventing the collection or dissemination of personally identifying information about a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, and is not in violation of any other law.
So, for example, When MS embedded information gathering into their file, they were no longer protected by anti-circumvention.
And if the copyright holder gives you permission to circumvent.
The problems with the DMCA are:
a) more subtle then most people relize
b) abused by companies
c) To open ended.
What they don't understand is that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM and Fair Use are mutually incompatible terms.
I'm sure the MPAA understand that just fine. That's why Dan Glickman is happy to come out in support of Fair Use, knowing full well that it's been made impossible to implement it without breaking the law thanks to DMCA & DRM.
What they're counting on is that the audience don't understand that the two are mutually exclusive. That way to the ignorant listener the MPAA is fighting those evil pirates to protect us consumers from their evil ways. Cue applause and shouts of "God bless you Dan Glickman!" etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What they don't understand is that (Score:4, Insightful)
Contradiction in terms (Score:5, Insightful)
"to make things simpler for the consumer"
and they feel that
"DRM must be made to work without constricting consumers"
Isn't the point of DRM to constrict customers? The only way not to do so is to not have DRM.
Since its well known that DRM does not prevent piracy then the only purpose DRM can possibly have is restricting customers.
For those in the RIAA that failed logic 101 then you can not constrict customers if and only if you do not have DRM
I wouldn't give good odds on them getting this through their skulls any time soon....
Many (or "all so far") != All (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't the point of DRM to constrict customers? The only way not to do so is to not have DRM.
Since its well known that DRM does not prevent piracy then the only purpose DRM can possibly have is restricting customers.
The point of the purest concept of DRM is, "To constrict users to their legal uses."
Admittedly, every implementation so far has been a poor one, overstepping from constricting to legal rights in to outright diminishing those rights. But just because every implementation so far has been bad, that doesn't mean the core concept is exclusively bad.
Take moulds. Prior to the 1920s, most people would have said, "It is well known mould does nothing for us. The only purpose mould can possibly have is making us sick
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that we don't understand what DRM does. We understand it better than anyone. And DRM's ONLY REASON FOR EXISTING is to limit use. That's all it does. We're not talking "legitimate" vs "illegitimate" use, as that varies from place to place, we're talking completely artificial limitations on use because someone decided it should be so. There aren't any benefits to consumers, society as a whole, anyone except the people who create the DRM and try to confuse other people into thinking th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it doesn't follow logically, but the core concept behind DRM *is* bad. DRM is just encryption. In encryption, you want to get a message from A to B without C reading it. In DRM B and C are the same person. DRM is fundamentally flawed technolo
Re: (Score:2)
Take moulds. Prior to the 1920s, most people would have said, "It is well known mould does nothing for us. The only purpose mould can possibly have is making us sick." Then along comes Fleming who shows the right mould can be used to kill all kinds of bacteria. The same has been said of viruses - which we're learning to harness now, and even bacteria.
I just don't buy that analogy. Harnessing previously "bad" things as you mention above have a benefit for the end user. DRM adds no value for the end consumer of the movie or song.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't the point of DRM to constrict customers? The only way not to do so is to not have DRM.
Technically correct. But this is the MPAA and they've got an answer to everything.
In this case, their answer is for every fair-use they consider "reasonable", they'll license a product which can do it. Such as a licensed DVD-ripping box which allows you to rip your DVDs but stores the movies in some encrypted form so you can watch them fine but copying them b
Easier? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's only one way to do this... (Score:3, Insightful)
This would be the END of fair use.
"Sure, you can make a copy of that movie, but with these restrictions and only on these devices."
I'd sooner stick with the current system of breakable DRM
And it is called... (Score:2)
DRM & Consumers (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with DRM is that you're trying to limit access to the very same people who are trying to buy access to the media. DRM will not work if the methods for acquiring or viewing this media are not easy. Right now, it's easier for me to fly BT Airways to watch unedited, newly released episodes of Dr. Who or Torchwood in a timely manner than it is for me to obtain them through legal means. I would buy the content if I could, but I can't, so I'm a criminal for being a fan of a show. And I'm sure Australian fans of Battlestar Galactica or Heroes feel the same way. The only reason we're unable to watch legitimate versions of our favorite shows is because of outdated licensing agreements.
So make the content easy to get no matter where in the world the viewer happens to be, and make it easy to view on any device, and you won't need DRM. People want things to be convenient, and they'll only pay for it if it's convenient. People will always steal content, with or without DRM. So the best way to ensure you get paying customers isn't to make DRM easier, but to eliminate it and make paying for the content easier. Most people don't want to be crooks.
Be careful! (Score:5, Insightful)
People will always steal content, with or without DRM.
Making a copy of something is not "stealing".
Of course, I agree with everything you say about eliminating digital restrictions and how that's what the industry really needs to do. Thanks for the down under perspective of licensing issues.
stealing and end results (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it isn't but realize what the results of making that statement are.
Customer: I didn't steal that movie, I copied it for/from a friend. Copying isn't stealing.
MPAA: Right. Copyright violation. Now we can sue for $100,000 for each time you copied it.
Customer: But isn't the movie only worth $20?
MPAA: Sure. But you said you didn't steal it, right? So it's a copyright violation.
Re: (Score:2)
No, making a copy of something and selling 50,000 copies of it (or putting it on a P2P network for 5 million people to download) is a crime.
Let's call it how it is, shall we? The MAFIAA is not worried about people asserting their fair use rights and making a copy of a DVD for backup purposes. I do that all the time. What they're worried about is the guy that makes a copy of the DVD, removes the protection and then puts the recompressed ISO file on the PirateB
Re: (Score:2)
YES!! But it is not stealing. People seem to thing that when soneone says 'it's not stealing' there saying 'it's not a crime' which is not true.
And if that 20 year old can do it, why can't the MPAA?
In fact, I would wager that most people would rather down'oad from a legitimate site they trust, then from some warez site. I think iTunes backs that up.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. The problem is that the *AA and friends have not gotten and probably will never get the fact that their stranglehold on the packaging and distribution of content is about to die a painful death. If they had anticipated that in the early 90s and ad
It is not a crime. (Score:3, Interesting)
One of my many fans [slashdot.org] misses the point, as usual:
making a copy of something and selling 50,000 copies of it (or putting it on a P2P network for 5 million people to download) is a crime.
Selling 50,000 coppies of someone else's work is civil not a criminal violation. The neither the person's work or reputation is destroyed by your actions, nor is the public harmed. You may have cost the author money and they can sue you for it, but this is not a crime.
Sharing something is even less of a crime. Only publ
Re: (Score:2)
its a NEW thing that needs better definition.
its not an either/or. this binary thinking is what is causing so many problems. the old laws fail, horribly, in the digital age. you cannot apply laws that were made when people had wooden teeth (!) to the world we live in, today.
making a bit image of some electronic file does NOT cause any kind of real money loss to the 'owner'. there is no less inventory, no shipping charges, no cost involved at all. in fact, if
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't see why all TV shows aren't released Globally at this point? Why does the TV and movie industry insist on living in the past when it was possible to delay a series or movie as long as desired when that obviously doesn't work any more? It may had made sense at one time to wait for a better price before releasing a series to another market, but with the BT and other P2P networks, it is too easy to bypass the bureaucracy, even if it is not strictly legal to do so.
The quicker the entertainment
Re: (Score:2)
There's just a small problem with that arguments. Pirates are offering a service that's not only higher resolution and quicker to market (for US HDTV broadcasts vs EU SDTV broadcasts), but it's also ad free, gratis, convienient and permanent. If a TV series
Re: (Score:2)
I use iTunes like TiVo. If I miss an episode of a show, I can buy that episode for two dollars. Granted, I could find a torrent for the show and download it, but it's much more convenient for me to simply pay the two bucks.
I've also done a cost analysis for my video content. At current prices, which is $2 per episode and $20-$30 per season, it's cost-competitive to buy my content from iTunes. I'm willing to pay that because it's convenient, and while there is DRM it's not too obtrusive. (However, this does
It's called "lip service" (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that this is just a feel-good press release statement to publicly demonstrate that they are the good guys, but in the end they will act in their own best interests, not their customers'.
specifically, "lip service" for technically unsavy (Score:2)
In other words, it's to mislead joe sixpack and "series of tubes" stevens into believing that:
A - Their proposed "idea" of "nonrestrictive" digital restriction is possible
B - The growing outcry and movement against DRM is unreasonable
C - They are "reasonable" in trying to rea
The Shoulders of "Giants" (Score:4, Informative)
So back then the voice of the MPAA was just blowing smoke?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In between those gigs, he was Secretary of Agriculture under the Clinton Administration. I have no idea how that helped him land the MPAA job.
What?? (Score:2)
talk is cheap (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Awesome (Score:2)
Fair Use Protected (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Some places charge a lot for that...
Is that legally binding? (Score:2)
IANAL, but doesn't a public announcement of your position kind of make it hard for you to sue someone who acts in accordance with it? Estoppel, or something like that? I mean, it would seem that he just gave explicit permission for citizens to use DeCSS and similar tools in order to format-shift their purchases.
Perhaps not (Score:2)
Then again, this guy does not represent the govt... Perhaps he is only stating that the RIAA won't prosecute in civil courts [since they've already gotten the federal laws on their side]?
On an related note, it didn't matter that the airlines ticket counter representative said it would be okay for me to carry my luggage on the plane. TSA thought it was too big and forced me to check it in. By the book, I think TSA trumps airline employees. Is digital content any different?
Article is mis-titled (Score:2)
Here's the important part! (Score:2)
Unlike Jack Valenti, this guy seems to see the writing on the wall.
I buy DVDs because I like the high quality, and trust the techs hired to transfer the film to disc much better than I trust myself to burn a copy of a DVD. I have burned copies of DVDs that were not available for purchase. I have bought "bootleg" DVDs but not in any great num
He's fine with it? (Score:2)
Magic (Score:2)
Basic conflict (Score:2)
You see, to enable format-shifting you need to be able to access the digital content in an unrestricted manner. So that means you can make it into a different format, upload it and share it with the world.
What the movie companies wouldn't mind is if you took the movie in some manner that it could no
Think tank (Score:2)
This is a nice sounding think tank to solve issues. But what he is really saying is, "We (The companies, programmers, ane movie Execs that have helped us to get to this point) are going to get together and do what we want even more and NOT get any input from the consumers and users of the content that we want to control."
Of course he is in favour (Score:2)
Wow. What's their position on the sky being blue? (Score:2)
No thank you. (Score:2)
Gee, thanks for the thought, Dan, but thanks to the DMCA your organization pushed through, we can't rip DVDs without breaking the law (not because of copyright, but because of the need to circumvent CSS).
Clearly, therefore, this reprehensible action you describe, "ripping DVDs", simply must not occur. And we don't want it to occur, of course, because it would cut into your profits.
So, as much as we appreciate the thought, please take y
Where I think we're going... (Score:2)
mod article +4 funny (Score:2)
DRM Joke (Score:2)
An encryption system is a way to deliver information securely, even through the hands of thieves.
A DRM system is a way to cut out the middleman, and deliver information securely into the hands of thieves
-
Confusing the thief for the customer is why DRM will never work.
Confusing the customer for the thief is why DRM will never sell.
The MPAA strategy behind this (Score:2)
Are they offering to document DMCA exceptions to the public?
Can we add "Bullshit" to the tag list... (Score:2)
MPAA fine with fair use = Baloney (Score:2)
Yeah of course because they already see DVD as a dead format. The reason DVD is a dead format is that they were obliged to kill it on purpose because the protection was broken by us consumers in order to rip DVDs.
Now ask Dan Glickman how the MPAA feel about consumers ripping HD-DVD or Blu-Ray at the full HD res. that we already paid for. I can guarantee he won't give the same
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see how either is related to this, though. Suggest you read 1984 before crying Orwell.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be lying, but that isn't Orwell exactly what Orwell was talking about.
I doubt even 1/3 of the people who talk abuot Orwell actually bothered to read the book.
Since this is
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the whole thing, then you'll miss the frosty pist...
Actually, it's bigger then that (Score:2)