Consumer Electronics, Hollywood Work Against 'Video Napster' 237
cadfael writes: "The EETimes reports that "a new working group within the existing Copyright Protection Technology Working Group (CPTWG) will review a technical method for flagging video content that is not authorized for Internet transmission. ... The group was formed at the suggestion of Gary Shapiro, head of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), in a letter sent roughly two weeks ago to Jack Valente, head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)." Does this make sense in the light of this article?"
Circumvention (Score:1)
Not very long. (Score:1)
Persuant to the DMCA [loc.gov], we probably won't ever hear about it. Maybe, we need to help these guys [anti-dmca.org].
Soon, trivially with certified hardware and softwa (Score:3, Interesting)
All hardware vendors are involved in the "trusted PC" initiative. From BIOS, See www.trustedpc.org
The specification [trustedpc.org] has been published in december 2001.
Certified by an additional chip on your mainboard, before your BIOS even boots. It certifies BIOS, then bootblock, then OSloader, and then the OS and its applications. They really want you not to be able to see or hear content if there is even a single piece of hardware or software not certified. Let's hope it will become a failure.
Ofcourse, it is all done as a "privavy meassure" with a "privacy Certificate Agency" that will only unique mark you as anonymous entity, and which will not "store" your information after your application. Right.
Leto
Predictions (Score:1)
Well, it's nice to see that at least someone in the article recognizes encrypted CDs for what they are.
But I wonder if the people trying to flag these videos to prevent their transmission over the internet ever heard of hackers? I find it hard to believe that by now they can be so naive as to think that they'll be able to pull this off.
Re:Predictions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Predictions (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point. I wonder, though, if enough people will become enough tech-savvy that workarounds and hacks will still become widespread enough, or if those creating the hacks will make them simple enough for most people.
Also, what about the culture that has sprung up on the internet of not wanting to pay for things (God, we're all such freeloaders)? Is that going to hurt paid-for video over the internet the way it has killed music?
Re:Predictions (Score:3, Insightful)
Take script kiddies as proof of this. How many kiddies actually know how those "hack programs" work?
Re:Predictions (Score:2)
How? By putting a real "watermark" on the data. This watermark is not to prevent copying, and in fact it must have absolutely no effect on any consumer device. They then have an easy automated test they can do to data they find on the internet, and detect people selling or otherwise distributing copyrighted works, and go after them with the law. Once the illegal data has been detected humans can look at it and easily determine and prove that it is copyrighted, there is no need for the watermark's techniques to be revealed in court.
Unfortunately they are going to insist on blowing it by trying to avoid the need for law by making consumer devices recognize the watermark and trying to avoid copying that way. The problem with this is that it provides hackers with a trivial test to see if the watermark is there and allows them to remove it!
They could try both, but they shoud realize that if the hacker is encouraged to mess with the data due to the copy-prevention watermark, it is quite likely they will accidentally remove the other watermark, or they will detect the other watermark during their attempts to remove the copy-protection one (since it is likely the technologies will be tied together).
The people running the MPAA, etc. are idiots. They are sabotaging their own ability to stop pirates, and pissing off the consumers at the same time with difficult-to-use and overpriced equipment. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to change their mind because they have no knowledge of technology.
MPAA must find another way (Score:4, Interesting)
Just like RIAA, MPAA must find a way to be much more attractive to consumers actually buy their product and avoid them to download it from internet.
Recently RIAA lowered their prices to US$10 for a regular CD. If I'm really interested in an artist I would buy a ten-buck-cd, I would pay for audio quality, and even for graphical quality (and of course know the real music name :o) and for a nice case.
This was the first RIAA intelligent step, and I hope MPAA follows its fellow.
Re:MPAA must find another way (Score:1)
Re:MPAA must find another way (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MPAA must find another way (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MPAA must find another way (Score:2, Informative)
The real problem is deeper than just "we need to protect our investments." It's about the constant change in taste. Our society changes it's preferences much faster than say 1960's. Large corporations simply can't move fast enough to take advantage of a new trend. By the time they notice a new trend, it's close to its peak.
Record and movie companies rely on artists to create/notice a trend before it get big to take advantage. Problem is a lot of executives hate artists and artists dislike executives. Record companies know this and are afraid artists will go on their own. My opinion that's what they're really afraid of. By controlling distribution, production and equipment, they force artists to go through their system.
Hock Leow's statement "The encrypted CD will be an absolute nightmare" is on target. It's one to for new technology like DVD's to start out with encryption built in, but if I have to replace my CD players, it ain't gonna happen for 5-10 years. I sure as hell ain't going to replace every piece of audio/video equipment I own, just so they can control how, when, and where I watch/listen to something. That's why I buy DVD's. I want to own a piece of artwork.
Re:MPAA must find another way (Score:2)
They did? How come my local retailers haven't noticed? Most stuff is still 12.99 and up.
Oh! you are talking wholsale to the retailers.. Sorry.
CSS? (Score:2)
Oh well, we can run a sweep stake on how long it takes after release to get reverse-engineered. (I reckon 6-7 days)
[OT - kind of] Macrovision (Score:5, Insightful)
Example: Mary has an old RF (coax) input TV that works fine, and she has a semi-old (1990) VCR attached to it to watch movies. This VCR has a video input on the back for hooking up other devices, camcorders and so forth. Mary decides she wants to take advantage of the latest price drops in DVD players (example: Pioneer DVD player at Costco for roughly $200-250). Mary buys said DVD player, takes it home and plugs it into her VCR using A/V cables (RCA jacks). Mary proceeds to try to watch The Matrix. Lo and behold, Mary notices that instead of a superior image, she sees the image getting extremely dark, then turning bright, then dark again, repeatedly. The culprit? Macrovision.
It's bullshit that people should have to purchase a brand-new television set to watch DVD movies (and this may in fact not be possible for the person used in the example above, after all, a new TV can cost three times as much as a DVD player).
It's also interesting to note that Laser Discs, for whatever reason, didn't employ Macrovision. Another problem I have with Macrovision is that (supposedly, based upon my little understanding of the subject) introduces errors into the video (and audio?) INTENTIONALLY, errors which the human eye supposedly can't see, but which confuse video inputs on VCR's and other 'video input' devices (video capture cards in PC's, and so on).
Re:[OT - kind of] Macrovision (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:[OT - kind of] Macrovision (Score:2, Insightful)
Bastards.
Macrovision and the RF Converter. (Score:2)
Wait, do you mean you just got an adapter from the DVD player directly to the TV? That's not nearly as exciting...
-grendel drago
Re:[OT - kind of] Macrovision (Score:2)
Re:[OT - kind of] Macrovision (Score:2)
Then there's also the issue of TV out (though, honestly, on a 17" or 19" monitor, DVD video looks VERY nice, and it'll be loads sharper than on any TV you're likely to have). The other thing to keep in mind with DVD video is that (for NTSC anyways) it's 720x480 (720 pixels wide, 480 pixels tall)-- if you're running a 17" or 19" monitor, you're likely running 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (or heavens be, possibly even 1600x1200, though even on a 19" that tends to kill the eyes). So your monitor is already exceeding the resolution of the video it's playing back (in Windows 2000 (and I imagine every variation of Windows) the video is stretched to fill the screen left-to-right (and the aspect ration is maintained for the vertical resolution) while in full-screen mode.. it's not visible that the image was stretched however).
Plus, I like watching DVD's on my PC more than on the TV because I have a better set of speakers on my PC (just the regular built-in TV speakers on the TV). =)
Re:[OT - kind of] Macrovision (Score:2)
Re:[OT - kind of] Macrovision (Score:2)
Re:[OT - kind of] Macrovision (Score:2)
Re:[OT - kind of] Macrovision (Score:2)
Regardless, Macrovision is utterly futile; a search of 'Macrovision' on eBay turned up 15-20 auctions for a device to thwart it (connects between your DVD player and your VCR, which in my hypothetical 'Mary' situation, would be all she needs, and far cheaper than buying a new TV). The only problem with them is that 1) they're $40 (minimum bid) and 2) they require their own power source (which I guess is normal, but I'd think that this type of device, if running on a "D" cell, would probably run for eons). Shrug. =)
They have lost the music side of it. (Score:3, Insightful)
And if they buy legislation in the USA, it will take them about 5 years to impose it worldwide.
That is far too much time to stop the tide.
It's all about the codec / software.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the only way to enforce something like this technically is to build a check into the playing and transfer softwares. And of course, in order to make it work, it would have to be a closed spec, and would probably be licensed.
As long as "normal" software and protocols work, there's probably not going to be a compelling reason to switch to the new protected ones.
Re:It's all about the codec / software.... (Score:2)
They are betting people will still want the latest and greatest content. It will requiere a decoder box and subscription, just like cable TV. New content will Pay Per View, just like cable TV is now. It will be a closed format and limited on what will decode it, just like cable or Direct TV is now. You can throw a box on the TV cable line or LNB cable from the dish and make a perfect copy of the datastream now (with the right equipment) and take it to a friends house and play it back unmodified, but his equipment still will not decode and play it. That's how it will work. Your decoder will have an address. So will his. The same datastream fed to both boxes will not be treated the same. No subscription = no playback.
People will get the new hardware to get the new content.
Using the excuse my TV and antenna on the roof is perfectly fine is the same reason you gave nobody will get the new system.
By the same logic, nobody would get Cable or Direct TV and use some copy protected format requiring a decoder and subscription.
Woohoo! Still more effective actions! (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear you yelling. They want to flag a lot of videos that are being transmitted through file-sharing networks like Kazaa and Gnutella, right? It's gonna be tough to get some marker or flag to remain in place through the various compressions and wrappers (mpg, div-x, asf, avi, wmf, etc.).
Of course, if they do flag files, then it may b possible to use the DMCA as another method to sue the rippers, since the loss of the flag would be circumventing a "copyright protection mechanism".
Just my 0.02 [1]
woof.
About that .02 Euro: The plural of the Euro-cent is also "cent", giving you "Just my two cent". We have prices like "Fifteen Euro and twenty-seven cent". I already miss the Deutschmark (but not the Franc).
Re:Woohoo! Still more effective actions! (Score:2, Insightful)
If I can display the thing on my screen, I can hook up some simple AV cables and re-record the thing to another digital format minus any copy protection. Forgive me for being obvious, but this comes up in these conversations FAR to seldom. Remember, what we're talking about here is content - even at slightly less-than-digital quality it is still the same content, and just as transmissible. Or perhaps I'm mistaken as to where the average watcher's priorities are.
Re:Woohoo! Still more effective actions! (Score:2)
The same thing works in audio, and it still will no matter what the RIAA does.
If either of these groups wants true protection, which can only be approached, they'd have to use special hardware, then get it into everybody's houses. In other words, theyre fighting a losing battle, and we're caught in it.
Re:Woohoo! Still more effective actions! (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's take it in pieces...
For as long as you (or your buddy, in this scenario) have an analog recording mechanism (like a VCR) you're okay. But the AV equipment manufacturers don't make much money unless you buy new equipment. Therefore, you will always be under pressure to but a new VCR, or a recordable DVD box, or even a TV tuner card for your PC. In each of these cases, it opens a vulnerability because you are at the whim of the equipment manufacturers. (I'm neglecting the possibility that you build all of your own equipment from scratch.) The AV equipment manufacturers are under legal and business pressure to ensure that copyrighted material remains marked that way, and is not easily copyable. One simple way to do this is to mark all material as copyrighted, and therefore non-copyable. So, you (or your buddy in this scenario) could be stopped by a failure of his current recording mechanism, or by his own desire to keep current and upgrade.
This presumes the ability to convert analog content into digital content, or to somehow get the original content digitally. There are many schemes which can already be used to prevent you from getting the original content digitally. We will presume that an effective application of the DMCA will cut off your access to the original digital content. And since the scenario you propose seems to indicate a tolerance of any analog adequate copy anyway (since it's coming from tape) lets's focus on this instead.
This would seem to be the place where blocking is least possible, but only if we presume that all of the equipment (computer, disk, digitizer, and software) are under your own control. But there have been initiatives to remove this control from you, even for equipment you "own", in each of these cases.
The DMCA represents a broad example of law dictating what you can (or cannot) do with your own computer in your own home. As long as you're using a non-free operating system, then you will only have the ability to digitize video content if the OS manufacturer chooses to allow that capability, and then only under the terms dictated by the manufacturer. And, regardless of size, OS manufacturers are too big of a target for content providers to ignore. Is it too much to imagine an operating system which refuses to allow certain copy operations except under the approval of a digital copyright management scheme? Microsoft doesn't think so, and they've already applied for a patent for one way to do it.
You don't own the Internet; maybe a small part within your own home, but not the whole 'end to end'. I could imagine your scenario being stopped here by any of:
a limit on your buddy's upload file size, imposed by his internet service provider.
a prohibitive surcharge to your buddy, based on upload file size.
the inability of your buddy to run an FTP service from his own equipment, based on firewalling or terms-of-service imposed by his internet service provider.
the inability of your buddy to find an FTP server run by someone else, due to a prohibitive cost, liability concerns on the part of the FTP site provider, lawsuits shutting down such a central server or their inability to run an FTP service from their own equipment for reasons detailed above.
the actions of "intelligent internet routers" which examine initiating and terminating ports, as well as content type, and choose not to pass content which is not beneficial (profitable) to their owners.
download limits, imposed by your internet service provider, which restrict what you can download, or your total download speed.
This last one is the "flag" you are referring to. It is not in AOL/Time Warner's interest to allow you to bypass their controls (and profitibility) on their content using their routers, so you can expect them to (Lessig puts it; "as corporations they are legally obligated to") take actions to prevent this type of content from being carried over their wires.
There are already software systems deployed which can "recognise" a song, even if it was performed by an unknown artist. It won't be difficult to modify this research to identify a portion of a South Park episode, no matter how bad the analog encoding was.
That leaves two obvious routes your buddy might employ (obsfucation and encryption), each with it's failings and drawbacks. Obsfucation ("we'll ROT13 the file before we upload it") only works if everyone knows the obsfucation method, and you can bet the search and identify software will learn it, too. Encryption has the same drawback, unless the key is tightly controlled, in which case knowing the key in itself becomes a liability.
Instead of patting yourself on the back, secure in the knowledge (even if you're right) that they can never stop the trading of digital content, why not ask the question why they would want to? If you didn't value South Park so much, they couldn't justify taking such actions to protect it.
Imagine that. the answer was right in front of you all along.
Re:Woohoo! Still more effective actions! (Score:2)
effective when there is no competition. The
barriers to running an ISP aren't very big. Ones
that block popular services will some lose
customers to ones that don't.
And way are you talking about ftp servers, the
articles was mentioning much easier to use and
more modern peer to peer systems.
Its a lot more difficult to detect copyright
violating file transfers, when the data is all
encrypted as in freenet [sourceforge.net],
or when different chunks of the file come from
different users as in E-donkey [edonkey2000.com].
Flagging TV uncopyable (Score:5, Funny)
My second thought was "hmmm, I wonder if the comercials will be flagged as copy protected."
-
Re:Flagging TV uncopyable (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps they could also have nearly every single second of TV broadcast flagged as 'unwatchable'...
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Flagging TV uncopyable (Score:2, Funny)
No, we need more precision with that. We need at least "bad humor", "cliches", "stupid", "unimaginative" and "mediocre" flags.
...and for news broadcasts, "depressing".
Re:Flagging TV uncopyable (Score:2)
But I have an even better way of filtering out 100% of TV crap: Ethyl-Beryllium-Adenine-Y, better known as EBAY. One use of EBAY on you TV will even get you money!
No worries... (Score:3, Funny)
So, I am the sole owner of those shows and music that you are hearing, and I officially give you permission to copy them and pass them around to your friends.
Consumers.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So people use the internet to trade music. And they might invent something to trade video without the adverts. And years done the line they'll be trading whatever comes next. Why do companies insist on trying to stop what is obviously going to happen, and start embrassing it. Instead of trying to stop people doing this why not work on creating a business model that consumers are happy with and would be willing to pay for. I'd certainly pay a bit for television sans adverts (a bit of in-show product placement would keep the advertisers happy, I just hate the breaks), and if I could get these shows over the net as and when and whereever I want them I'd pay even more.
Companies that are wholely antagonistic toward their customers are really annoying.
I must be missing something here... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that whenever the powers-that-wanna-be try to establish total control of digital media, they lose whatever control or influence they already had. Why not redirect efforts toward better fair-use policies, reasonable licensing schemes, and accept that somebody will copy your work no matter what you do?
I think the real trick will be to improve Joe Random's perception of the recording industry to the point that he feels guilty about having media he hasn't paid for. Their current tactics will never accomplish that, and in fact will tend to perpetuate the Robin Hood fantasy that Napsterites currently enjoy.
"The more you tighten your grip, Valente, the more encoding systems will slip through your fingers." -- Princess RIAA
Re:I must be missing something here... (Score:2, Funny)
Right.
Even if you can't copy it using electronic means, the hardcore hackers that love the sitcom "Friends" could just watch the episode enough times so that they can just draw it out using Flash, and do all the dialog using their own voice. Heck, I know that my dainty baritone could be taken for Jennifer Anniston's voice anyday.
Heh, ok, maybe that's NOT such a good idea, but it would be funny ;)
Re:I must be missing something here... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only workable solution I can see is not very workable at all. You need to watermark ALL the "copyrighted" stuff and make sure that players only play it when it's coming from "legitimate media" (CPRM anyone?). Tricks like disc regions unwritable by consumer-level recorders may work.
Now, if you rip and reencode the watermark is present, but since your copy is (of course) not on legitimate media the player will refuse to play it.
Now, this is all nice and wonderful, except for a VERY MINOR problem: i.e. nobody says that you should use the compression algorithm supported by the players. If I rip to some random video format and then use some random computer program to play it, the "certified" video player never comes into play, so no copy control is possible.
This too has solutions, of course, like embedding copy control systems into the output device (= monitor). By using a crypto handshake between all the devices, from disc reader to monitor, it can be the monitor itself which refuses to display the watermarked data. Since forging the crypto handshake can be extremely hard, you would be forced to degrade the video quality until the watermark is lost, losing the advantage of digital copies.
Now, technologically this is probably feasible and would be very hard to defeat. Flat screen producers would very much like to be able to include electronics on the screen itself, since connecting the matrix to the control electronics is a pain, and this would make the hardware virtually unbreakable. What I think the REAL problem is, is that economically the growth of the last years has been brought by the amount of free stuff circulating. I cannot prove this, but I think, for example, that the price of HD went down because of Napster/warez/broadband. By locking all the stuff down at hardware level you kill the incentive to buy new hardware, since: 1- people don't need it, 2- the new hardware is as locked down at the old, so there's no added benefit in upgrading (while graphics cards still have room for improvement, the current CPUs are already way too fast for "end-user" use, the RAM very cheap, disk space almost free, audio as good as it's needed.... and there isn't much else in the general "multimedia" PC....). Whatever company follow this strategy will basically gut itself in face of the "non-compliant" ones which provide added value in terms of less control.
You are perfectly right when you say:
It seems to me that whenever the powers-that-wanna-be try to establish total control of digital media, they lose whatever control or influence they already had. Why not redirect efforts toward better fair-use policies, reasonable licensing schemes, and accept that somebody will copy your work no matter what you do?
Video rental stores seem to live quite well, and a "global renting store" via internet downloads would probably work very well. The problem is that it would be forced to apply prices which people find reasonable, which would undercut the massive profits of the content indistry (this is why they are fighting this at full steam). To give an idea of a "reasonable price" consider the cost of storing it on HD (including classification/retrieval, etc.), of download bandwidth and (this last is a negative value) the nuisance of waiting for the download (if you already have it on your HD you don't have to wait). People now hoards warez/music for the fear that the only other way to get it will be paying lots of money (both now or in the future), but would they really fill up gigs and gigs of HD and CD if the knew that for $X ot $Y/month you can just redownload it when you need?
Overall, I think that the outcome is inevitable, my only fear is the "collateral damage" which will result while the fighting continues....
Re:I must be missing something here... (Score:4, Informative)
It is fairly easy to prove that you can remove any watermark without significantly changing the signal to noise ratio of the image. Several people, including myself (as part of my PhD research in 1995) have proven this and published the proof. Unfortunately, the people watermarking digital media don't pay attention to research that doesn't match what they want to hear.
OT: a citation? (for my own enlightenment) (Score:2)
Would you mind passing along a citation or two that I could look over? I think this sort of work is neat, and I'd like to know more about it. Just reply to this message & I'll check it out. Thanks in advance . . .
Re:I must be missing something here... (Score:2)
Oops, you are forgetting something: Nasty People. They will be overjoyed to make viruses that embed watermarks into your PowerPoint presentations and Word documents and add a gate in front of your web-browser so that every page that comes into your machine from the internet gets tagged with a watermark, making it unviewable.
Any technology that is inherently bad (and trying to stop regulate when and where somone views content is bad) will be used in nasty and evil ways by people who were never inteded to be given access.
Subsidized displays could win... (Score:2)
I've wondered about this for a while, and if the MPAA/Studios/whoever else are really convinced they're losing as much money as they say they are, a fix is realtively easy: They simply commission several big-name consumer electronics companies to build a really nice flatscreen display with copy-protection embedded in the monitor's silicon, then subsidize the heck out of them in the marketplace.
Think about it: How many people wouldn't jump at the chance to get a nice 42" HD plasma screen for $500? Not many. (In the volumes we're talking about, those prices wouldn't even need all that much subsidizing - big flat screens are expensive now at least partly because volumes are low.) People would suddenly decide they didn't care very much about that little poison pill embedded in the product, and once enough of the market is seeded, then rights managment is a de facto reality.
The interesting thing is that this could work quite well right now, but there is a limited window in which there is a tasty enough piece of bait (flat screens) that people want, but don't have. It works for the content owners because they now know that the screen owners will have to obtain thier content legitimately in order to view it.
Perhaps I should write this up and let them pay me for building such an initiative...
Re:I must be missing something here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Analog isn't inherently lower quality than digital. The problem with it is that you can't make a perfect copy, and successive generations of copying tend to degrade the quality, but that isn't important in the distinction between digital and analog output devices because that conversion gets made at most once by any output device. Digital signals can have just as crappy fidelity as the worst analog signal, and conversely, analog signals can be just as good as the best digital signal.
Out of touch with reality (Score:5, Interesting)
If they wanted to sell their products, they'd lower the prices (seriously, 10$ CDs are good, but 30$ for a DVD? Come on, a DVD isn't that expensive, and you've already raped the consumer in the theaters, so drop the price. 15$ or 20$ for a new DVD would be nice), as well as try to get intelligent people to protect their goods.
Instead of going after whoever cracked CSS, the MPAA should have approached them, asked for suggestions to improve encryption, not sue them for copyright infringement, or whatever bullshit they currently are pulling out of their asses.
Information will find a way to be free, be it ripping CDs, DVDs, or whatever. As long as you have computer-illiterate people making the decisions, we'll always have news stories to post on
Gawyn
Re:Out of touch with reality (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what I've been paying. Except fo rmy Special Edition of Shiri which was $30, and the only version I can play on my DVD player.
I think what this is intended to do is really work for future video "broadcasts" via next-gen TV. DVDs already have copy protection. The industry needs to create a system that ensures people don't rip "Buffy" before it's shown in Australia or Europe or make their own DVD of the show before the episode is out on DVD.
What I don't understand is why people want to share these things over the net. It'd be much more efficient to use the internet to create sharing pools and then exchange the stuff via CD-ROm or DVD.
Re:Out of touch with reality (Score:2)
Lots of people are already trading media on CDRs. They rely on Gnutella/Kazaa/Usenet/etc. to get New Stuff, and then the one person with a large pipe burns the New Stuff and starts bringing it around. Believe me, the filesharing piracy is just the tip of the iceberg.
Re:Out of touch with reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. The industry needs to update their distribution methods to account for a global economy. Their existing methods treat Australian and European customers like an "after-thought" market. This is a complete failure to leverage digital distribution to the content providers' advantage. Why not a global simultaneous release? Because it used to require shipping large quantities over vast distances. What these companies don't seem to realize is the digital distribution they are fighting could drive their own distribution costs down and improve geographic coverage with their "authorized" product, cutting into the market for unauthorized distribution to areas that are they artificially cut out of the supply chain.
A global release completely obviates the need for region encoding. They are using technology to force the market to adhere to their current business practices rather than using it to adapt and adress consumers evolving needs. How they think they can keep this up is beyond me...
Re:Out of touch with reality (Score:2)
1. You can't dub/subtitle movies in a lot of languages in a few days. They require time and money.
2. Distribution rights are given to different companies throughout the world.
Example:
Shaolin Soccer came out in HK last summer. It did very well at the box office. Disney/Miramax bought the rights to release in North America. When will they release it? They claim they will release it here, but when? They recently went after gray market importers in the US and Canada, essentially forcing them to quit offering it for sale here. The DVD has English subtitles so I can easily watch it, but Disney isn't see any of my money.
While a global release is desireable the economic reality is it isn't possible unless the same company has distribution rights throughout the world. And that isn't going to happen.
Re:Because theaters aren't digital (Score:2)
- convert theaters to digital,
- print more films,
- change the initial distribution of the limited prints we have,
- release DVD's independent of global (variable) theatrical release dates,
- or think of any other way...
Naah! We'll just legislate that it's illegal for our customers to use technology to get our product before we're ready to make it available to them at our own, completely arbitrary schedule.They need to reverse the process and ask: How can we use technology to make our product more available to more people?
Re:Out of touch with reality (Score:2)
Re:Out of touch with reality (Score:2)
Since you worked in a video store you understand the margins are razor thin. The majority of money is made on fees, right?
What will happen is video rental outlets will see the same thing with DVDs as cassettes th eonly difference being video stores will pay a higher premium for less content. For example, the DVD for LotR will be released at video stores shortly after the PV run. However, it will be just the movie with no extra features. But when the consumer release follows they'll get a cheaper price and more features. IF the studios price DVDs between $10 and $20 there will be little reason for people to rent them.
I expect video rental stores to continue to diminsh. A lot of their costs is in storing and replacing VCR tapes. While DVD could lower their costs in the long run, their short term costs will be huge because they'll need to replace their catalog and a LOT of movies arent on DVD and may be waiting a long time (especially the small and independent studios).
If the studios want to control their product fully they'll continue to squeeze out the rental markets ont he low end and continue to consolidate their hold on the big chains.
But you are right in that high prices are in place to protect the studio's release chain for the time being.
Re:Out of touch with reality (Score:2)
Where do you buy your DVDs? I never pay more than $20. Just bought three romantic comedies for my wife at Costco for $12.99 each. Most new releases are $17.99. These prices are available at almost every online retailer, Costco, usually Best Buy & Circuit City for a week or so after release, etc. Out of the 100 some odd DVDs I own, I paid an average of $15-$16 a piece.
DVDs, IMHO, are in their perfect price range. As long as I can always buy new releases for less than $20, I'll stay a happy camper.
Re:Out of touch with reality (Score:2)
And the fact that it's impossible in Reality is not daunting to them, because they have enough money to play with the Alternate Reality known as the Legal System, where the rules are not based on ethics or morality (not really they're not, although some may claim otherwise) but on precident and convincing the lawmakers that it will benefit them (payola, reelection, etc.) Then the Police can sweep in and harrass the "media hackers", since by definition, they are now criminals.
The reason they don't care about good encryption or being fair is that some bean counters have determined that it's not the fastest way to increasing profits, and that is all that does matter. Fairness doesn't buy these execs bigger mansions, faster cars, or hotter hookers. And the reason it's so repulsive is that they're literally locusts, eating everything in sight on a path to instant fatness but inevitable starvation, but it's as if they've somehow bought out Mother Nature to make the crops grow back artifically fast through bribes to the Soil Nutrient Bureaucrats.
Any reasonable person can see how benefiting artists and consumers alike is what's best for everyone. No one may get fabulously wealthy overnight, but entertainers will be well compensated, and the people will get entertainment at prices that are reasonable. The opportunity costs of pirating entertainment would outweigh the costs of getting it legally, and piracy would disappear for all but the very poorest and entertainment starved of people. But the cartels don't care. The RIAA and MPAA aren't interested in anything but increasing their own wealth RIGHT NOW at the expense of everything else, and it's no wonder there's a groundswell of people who want them gone.
Re:Out of touch with reality (Score:2)
Seconds Out, Round 2 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Seconds Out, Round 2 (Score:2)
You can't! The content industry has lost touch with reality.. just read my sig!
Re:Seconds Out, Round 2 (Score:2)
"Survivor", "Blind Date", "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire"... mission accomplished.
Finally, some sanity (Score:3, Interesting)
I really don't have a problem with this as it would be no different than car manufacturer's putting the VIN everywhere they can on a vehicle.
In this case, enforcement might be substantially easier than prevention.
If you can play it, you can copy it (Score:5, Insightful)
You can do whatever you want to a binary file, but the reality is that when the consumer wants to listen/watch the file (You know, guys, WHY you made it in the first place!), there has to be a translation from protected digital to unprotected digital before it is converted to analog. All I have to do to pirate is capture that stream before it goes to analog.
Their answer seems to be to force everyone to push the translation from protected digital to analog into hardware and pass laws to make it illegal to break their algorithm. This will never work. Everytime you change your protection scheme, you make all the current players obsolete - pissing off your customers.
It takes months or years to get the new algorithm distributed to consumers in the form of hardware, but is takes only days or weeks for hackers to reverse engineer it in software and start pirating.
It is a game they can not win. They need to simply make it a hassle to pirate, accept that a certain percentage of people are going to pirate no matter what they do, and focus on their legitimate customers. Accept the price that the market will bare and get on with life.
It the day of ReplayTV and Broadband, it is moronic that I can not tie into media servers of all the major studios and download any movie or tv show on demand on a Pay-Per-View basis. They technology is *ALL* there today to do it
And they have to understand that once I have downloaded it
That is reality. That is your market. Sell to it and stop trying to using the government to be your Guido the Killer Pimp that throw people in jail because they dared to watch a DVD on Linux!
Re:If you can play it, you can copy it (Score:4, Insightful)
> when the consumer wants to listen/watch the file (You know, guys,
> WHY you made it in the first place!),
Actually, I'm sure the MPAA and the RIAA see the actual viewing/listening to their product only as a secondary necessary concern that furthers the real reason they make the products and sell them: Revenue.
Everything that they've done with regards to innovation on the technology front the past couple of years has been to protect the content from copying, rather than focussing on what the consumer wants. This is a recipe for long term disaster where market share is concerned. First rule of business: MAKE MONEY. However, never ever forget that the first rule is very impacted by the second: SERVE YOUR CUSTOMER. Make them _want_ to come back to you. If you don't do this, you won't last.
Failure to innovate to the customer's needs will eventually be what leaves them looking around asking, "Oh no, where did our market share go? What did we do wrong?" Many of us will just look at them and shake our heads.
I keep returning in my mind to the video game copy protection conflicts in the 1980's, and how that turned out. The producers eventually got the crucial points:
1. Those who were going to copy the products rather than buy them weren't very likely to buy a manufacturer-produced copy anyway.
2. Annoyed customers don't buy more of your products - you lose future sales. In the 90's, copy protection on games has once again reared its ugly head. Electronic Arts found from me what annoying a customer does to future revenue from said customer. I purchased a copy of Electronic Arts' Dungeon Keeper 2 Best Buy, and could NOT run it on my Plextor UltraPlex CD-Rom due to the copy protection method (Safedisc/c-Dilla). After wasting a half hour on the phone to customer support to find out they knew about the problem with Plextor drives and weren't about to release a fix/patch, I finally informed them I would have to go download the crack, and play the game THAT way, and that this was a crazy way to make a customer go to play a fifty dollar game they just purchased. They actually tried to tell me I shouldn't do that. *shaking head* Now when I see an Electronic Arts logo on the box, I avoid the game, much as I might want to purchase it. Sucks that they want my money, but it sucks that they make their games unplayable on my equipment. Even if they fix the problem now, I'll probably never know and will keep avoiding their products.
3. For every way to protect media, there's a way to break it, and there are uncontrollable distribution methods to get the cracks/breaks out to people who want them.
Okay, enough of my rant. Time to go serve my own customers and make money.
Re:If you can play it, you can copy it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If you can play it, you can copy it (Score:2)
While technically true, all it would take would be a D/A converter that accepts encrypted input. An example of a chip that does this can be found here (although it's for voice only, right now). [analog.com] You'd need to probe up a dozen spots on the chip, and each spot could be protected by metalization above the trace you're trying to probe. This would raice the cost of digital ripping so high that it would be worthless to most people. DVD pirates would (and do) just make copies of the encrypted digital content.
Re:If you can play it, you can copy it (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who works now and then on next-gen TV jobs, I can tell you that A) there IS such a thing as pirate-proof digital media (you just haven't seen anything done by people who understand crypto and security yet - but you will), and B) if such systems are embedded directly in the same silicon that has to process and display the image, it's close enough to impossible to hack to count.
Realistically, any system that requires ion-beam implanters to hack is one that will be realtively effective at deterring "piracy".
Businesses WILL fail (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet is the greatest developement in communication since the invention of the printing press. More people have access to more information than ever before deamt possible. The cost of distributing information to unlimited numbers of people is virtually zero.
We can embrace this new technology and it's benefits, or we can reject it, cripple it, destroy it.
The adoption of any new technology means change. Any bussiness unwilling or unable to adapt to that change will fail. The adoption of the automobile meant the doom of the buggy-whip industry.
With the adoption of new technology businesses will fail. They will make way for new businesses and new possibilities. We will all reap the rewards.
As for the other choice, that road leads to maddness. In this specific case - flagging video - for this scheme to work EVERY SINGLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE must respect this flag. This means all other devices must be made illegal - including existing devices. It must be illegal to alter devices you own. It must be illegal to create your own device. It must be illegal to attempt to understand how these technologies work. It must be illegal to explain to anyone how these technologies work.
KNOWLEDGE MUST BE MADE A CRIME.
Furthermore, such restrictions must be enforced GLOBALLY. Any nation who resists must be crushed into submission.
Such is the madness of the DMCA, EUCA, and other attempts to "protect" us from progress.
-
Re:Businesses WILL fail (Score:2)
The classic new tech vs old tech is the buggy-whip manufacturer. Buggy whips went out with the coming of the automobile, and the buggy whip makers who survived were those who adapted, and transformed into something else.
Except now the buggy whip makers are the RIAA and the MPAA, and through their amassed capital they have apparent dominion over the new tech - the Internet. It's still not clear to me that as a society we won't throw out the baby with the bathwater, keep the media cartels through more and more restrictive information laws, and move to universal 'untamperable media-restricting hardware'.
In essence, MAKE KNOWLEDGE A CRIME.
Yecchh.
Re:Businesses WILL fail (Score:2)
The current media giants might have more money and power to try and enforce their business model (in comparison to the buggy whip makers), BUT, ultimately that strategy can only fail in the marketplace. They'll eventually run out of bullying money, laws will be ignored, and copy-prevention technology will be bypassed. People know when they're being unfairly screwed, and they're sending a clear message about what the market is willing to bear, but no one's listening yet.
Like John Perry Barlow said, "Whenever there is such profound divergence between the law and social practice, it is not society that adapts."
Anyway, eventually a fair and happy medium between creators and viewers will be found; one without the prehistoric middleman used to skimming everything off the top, and one where people have a basic understanding of the cheap economics at work... (hm... "cheap economics"... those two words don't work so well together, but oh well).
--
Re:Businesses WILL fail (Score:2)
Second is the critical issue of getting media protection into electronics. The moment it becomes Standard, and the moment TV is marked copyrighted, then non-protected media will wither. We're the Geek Fringe, and the other obviously affected area will be the Artistic Fringe. Joe Sixpak won'e notice it, because the non-copy TV will stage in with HDTV. Since it's HDTV, it won't go onto a VHS VCR, and the new hardware that could "just won't happen".
If this gets to the point where non-protected media withers, we're toast.
OTOH, we've been on a long run of pro-money, pro-business, greed-is-good, ordinary people are merely consumers. I suspect the liberal/conservative pendulum is at or near its limit. Ironically, the Geek Rights issues we harp over may well be the final tap that starts pushing the other directionc combined with many of the post-9/11 actions.
Revenue Models (Score:2)
However much you may think that the MPAA or content producers are the evil empire, they are at the end of the day just companies trying to make a profit. They know they can make a profit if their content if their copyright protection is in some way enforceable. The problem is technology has made copying easier and with digital media copies maintain perfect quality. There are only two ways forward - find a different revenue model that can survive large scale unauthorised copying, or try to prop up the existing one. Most of the effort seems to go on the later because no-one seriously believes that a revenue model exists that doesn't at least strongly discourage unauthorised copying.
Personally I don't know where this will end but I can only see tough times ahead. Companies are not going to stop trying to protect their content and thus their revenue, and inidividuals are not going to stop trying to use the flexibility that the technology promises.
Re:Revenue Models (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me?
These have all been making money for years.
"But", you say, "The quality deteriorates with these copy methods."
Franlky, consumers don't care squat about audio or video quality. This little fact is what killed Betamax and laser disks, and will soon kill HDTV.
Re:Revenue Models (Score:2)
Franlky, consumers don't care squat about audio or video quality.
Well enough people, care enough to pay enough to make it viable.
Ha ha (Score:2)
Trash the outdated business models (Score:2, Interesting)
backward thinking (Score:2, Interesting)
Things move in cycles and the execs know it. Now that school dropped classes like music, art and other liberal arts courses, people are creating their own. There's no barrier preventing a gifted artist from distributing their work around the world without a media company making a cent. The modern metropolis created the need for distribution systems, but the internet has decreased the value of those institutions.
The core function of a media company is under attack from all sides. Look at the 405 movie made by a few guys that got world wide attention. Median execs are afraid that will become the norm and not the exception.
Bandwidth & Arbitrary Code (Score:2)
- Ordinary users now have an ever-increasing array of high-bandwidth transfer mediums at their disposal: ftp, IRC, ICQ, email, web hosting, CD-Rs, tape drives, removable hard drives, laptops... you think the new iMac's DVD burner is going to be used for home movies?
:)
- Ordinary users still have freedom to choose what code their machines run, which means content is in enemy territory. It can be unlocked, transferred to a new format, edited, or even just played.
Content providers need to address these underlying problems, not the latest Napster clones. This will mean locking down media, data, networks, protocols, OSes, apps, BIOSes, hardware, the whole lot. Pretty doubtful, methinks.I just don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Movie studios took a risk a few years ago by putting money and support behind a new format (DVD -- and don't come back by asserting that there was no way the format could fail so therefore it wasn't a risk). DVD brought consumers high quality, non-degradable copies of their favorite movies in a small, convenient, and AFFORDABLE package. Why is everyone so intent on spitting in their faces? Let's take a look at some of the common reasons:
1. "If they would price DVDs reasonably, I wouldn't pirate them." $20 (or less) isn't a good enough for movies that are of excellent quality, will never degrade (theoretically), and usually come in very nice packaging? I've got news for you... just because it cost $1.00 or so to produce that DVD doesn't mean that companies are making $19.00 of profit when it's marked up to $20! These movies cost many millions of dollars to produce and market, and many fail to even break even. A lot of my favorite movies were complete box-office failures or are very obscure... I think it's very GENEROUS of movie companies to take a risk and produce thousands of copies of movies which they might lose money on just so a relatively small number of people can have high-quality copies of their favorite (obscure) movies!
2. "Sure, lots of movies bomb, but that wouldn't happen if the studios weren't making crappy movies." I've got news for you... studios aren't nearly as stupid as you may think. They've been in the business long enough to know what moviegoers want, AND THEY MAKE THE MOVIES THAT AUDIENCES WANT TO SEE! Teens love stupid teen movies, so movie companies produce them. Most people enjoy crude humor, so movie companies produce crude comedies. It's just that simple. Movie companies are only willing to take a risk on cutting-edge movies if they have a feeling that audiences will go for it, which usually doesn't happen. Maybe our society should broaden its tastes and then Hollywood will respond.
3. "Movie companies aren't willing to embrace the internet revolution and they're getting what they deserve." Okay, hotshot. You've just spent $50 million on a movie. Naturally you want to make that money back, right? How do you plan on doing that if you distribute your movie on the internet with no copy-protection whatsoever? Charge a "reasonable" price for a download of your movie (which can be viewed indefinitely)? What might be a reasonable price to you is a ludicrous price to someone else. You may think $5 to download your movie is reasonable, but there's a bunch of pirates and freeloaders who think your movie sucks far too much to be worth a whole $5. And, since you don't believe in copy-protection, it's even EASIER for said pirates to share your hard work with everyone on Morpheus. Good job. You're now bankrupt.
I think the whole pro-piracy/anti-RIAA/anti-MPAA issue boils down to this:
1. If given a choice, most people would take a movie at 90% of the quality for free over 100% quality for $20.
2. People who support pirating movies/music believe that if the tools to reproduce and redistribute movies/music are there that it is their God-given right to use them.
What you people have to realize is that movies and music ARE NOT PART OF YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Companies can charge WHATEVER THEY WANT for their products. Movies and music are LUXURIES, they are not necessities. Things would be different if the MPAA had a stranglehold on milk/bread/fruits/vegetables/etc. and started charging ridiculous prices for them -- BUT THAT ISN'T HOW IT IS. They have luxury (non-necessary) items that they spent billions of dollars on FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT -- all they ask of you is that you give them a modest amount of money to compensate their efforts. Grow up and stop trying to get a free ride.
You just don't get it... (Score:3)
1. Cry me a river. For some reason, pity doesn't exactly gush from my heart for the poor, poor movie studios. The cost of any movie not considered a flop is recouped in the theatrical release. Making the DVD is gravy.
2. Umm, studios make mediocre, derivative crap because they are afraid to take risks. This is why they make sequels. They know that enough people will go see it to make back their investment, and then some. This is what happens when a supposedly ``artistic'' industry is run by a bunch of accountants.
3. Like I said, theatrical release almost always makes the cost of the movie. They could *give away* digital copies of the film once it had made back the investment plus ten percent. What a wacky concept, eh?
No. But fair use is.
Yeah, so?
I think we have two different perspectives here. Sure, piracy is illegal. But any technique that would supposedly prevent piracy would also prevent fair use. I'm sure the studios will be crying all the way to the bank.
I'm having a really hard time believing you're a) serious, and b) not Jack Valenti.
-grendel drago
And we've successfully shifted the debate. (Score:2)
Regardless of whether the industry is losing its shirt, we have the right to fair use. When the industry sells us product, we as consumers have the right to fair use. The industry's desire to eliminate the potential for crime is a distant priority at best.
It is never okay to abrogate a right in order to remove the potential for crime. I'm trying to think of an example to put here, but they're all coming out police-state-y, and I don't want to fall prey to Godwin.
-grendel drago
I am going to make the $10,000 toothbrush (Score:3, Interesting)
And then, I'm going to demand protection by the government to make sure that I *do* make money.
Or, I could see the writing on the wall and make cheaper toothbrushes. If I make $10 toothbrushes or $1,000,000 movies, its harder to lose your shirt.
Yeah, in the future, the $100,000,000 movie may not exist. So? Home Alone cost a couple of million dollars. There's no way India's film industry (bigger than hollywood) makes movies costing that much.
Trust the free market. They'll make money; hell, like television and the VCR, this will probably lead to more profit than ever before. (despite their origional claims to the contrary) The demand for Entertainment is insatiable, and hollywood is DAMNED good at manufacturing it by the ton-lots.
They will find a way to make money.
This is my number one reason for Linux advocacy (Score:3, Interesting)
But what about an open source environment? When the stream-to-video APIs are open source, it becomes trivial to stick a frame-grabber on top, instead of a media player. Instant, lossless recording of any internet video stream, whether it be "copy protected" or not.
Access-controlled streaming is going to be the standard MO in the media industry, and that means two things: one, that open source OSes are going to be left out of the content-on-demand game, and two, if Linux takes over a commanding portion of the desktop, Big Media will be inhibited from doing any sort of access-protected media streaming.
The best reason, in my mind, to use open platforms is that it keeps the entire Internet open and functional for everyone.
They're too late (Score:2)
***Looking to stave off a potential video versions of services like Napster, ***
Not only is this bad grammar, isn't this called Limewire (insert app of choice or favorite videohound on IRC)?
Or to really break it down, as so many have already tried to say in great length, if it's 0s and 1s, it's going to be transmitted over the Internet and all you can do is make it a little tougher to get started.
This quote sums up the solution: (Score:2)
The solution is simple: if we don't want the RIAA/MPAA's encrypted proprietary formats, make them obsolete. Put them out of business by offering something better: a new generation of independent media. Chuck is dead on when he says "today anyone can create anything." More and more musicians, even just hobby musicians, have everything they need to make exceptional quality recordings in their basements. If not, they probably have a friend that does. The same can be increasingly said for movie production. Prosumer DV cameras are getting cheaper and better. Off the shelf computer hardware can produce CG effects that surpass what Hollywood could muster 5 years ago. Free software for audio and video editing is slowly maturing. And regardless of the technology, TV shows like South Park have demonstrated that most people don't even care about visual quality if the desired content is there. (not that I particularly like SP..)
So in conclusion, the best way to fight the media giants is to provide an alternative, much as Open Source has provided an alternative to MS and proprietary software.
Video Napster? Nope. Video and Audio not the same (Score:2)
Now, granted, this observation was made by a music fan/musician to music fans/musician. And you have to take into account that for every time you can watch "The Mummy Returns" or "O Brother Where Art Thou" you can listen to "Short Skirt, Long Jacket" or "Man of Constant Sorrow" about 30 times. however, I've listened to William Walton's "Belshazzar's Feast" which is about 30 minutes probably hundreds of times. Brandenburg Concerto #4, ditto. And most people will listen to a complete album (like, say, U2's Joshua Tree) over and over. So I think the generalization holds. People's interest in music holds longer (whether or not there's less material). The author of the article held it was because there's a mental/emotional participatory nature to music that isn't present in TV or movies. I think the way he said it was "In music, there's an 'us'. In TV, there's only 'them'."
Anyway, the point is, a Napster for video would work differently, and perhaps not as well. I think you'd have a smaller number of people constantly scouring the thing for files. Fewer people on as often reduces the value. Except for real film fans (you know, the people that actually BUY most of the movies they watch, rather than rent, or that work at blockbuster and/or majored in film at school), most people would have a small collection on their hard drive of a few favorites, and perhaps a season or two of their favorite show. So mostly, it'd be easy to find "E.T." and "The Simpsons". Films by Zhang Yimou might be available when the right people got on.
Yeah, that problem existed with Napster. But it'd be magnified for video... because fewer people I know are as anxious to make video a constant and repeated presence in their lives. Music just trumps it as an art form.
(Of course, it may just be that since I stopped watching the TV in the early 90's -- occasional exceptions for Animaniacs, Simpsons, the Tick, and the X-Files -- I haven't made friends with TV people, and am out of touch.)
Where's the bandwidth? (Score:2)
This means that in addition to the content providers wanting to stop a video napster, the cable internet companies will also want very much to squash it. The impression I got with audio naptster was that the bandwidth usage was low enough to not hurt cable performance, and so the cable companies didn't care that much, and so didn't want to get involved.
Video peer-to-peer will have a much harder time catching on, I think...it won't take many cases of ISPs canceling accounts of people who do it to scare people away.
Re:Devil's Advocate Here (Score:2)
Re:Devil's Advocate Here (Score:4, Interesting)
Recording artists and movie stars command very high fees for their services. If we were to offer them significantly less, many of the most talented and popular artists would simply go into retirement. In short, no pay, no play.
Geez - that wouldn't be because they get paid a hell of a lot more than they should in the first place, would it? Imagine the money that could be saved if actors got reasonable salaries, rather than multi-million dollar movie deals...
Sure...initially the quality might go down as multi-millionaire actors and actresses who have been spoiled by disgustingly huge salaries decide to start retiring - but with the money you save there, you could hire more/different actors and actresses, and have a more diverse offering.
Sure, the studios make large profits on hit movies and albums. However, there are also our fair share of bombs. At the end of the day, our return on investment is not significantly different from that in other industries.
In other words, because you can't learn from your mistakes, you want to sock it to us. Why am I not impressed by this viewpoint? Again - if you cut the obnoxious salaries, more money could be put into things like writing and development, rather than just producing special effects bombs, or stupid teen flicks.
We realize the consumers' desires to make personal copies, pass programming onto friends, etc. We simply cannot make a profit without sufficient copy protections to ensure that people actually buy our products.
Again, this is because your overhead is far, far too high to begin with. Cut the fat, and your numbers would look a hell of a lot different. Offer your products with good quality at a reasonable price, and people will buy it. Otherwise, they will find other ways. That's the way it is.
Although there are good consumers who would abide by our copyrights...
...which have been extended ad infinitum by Disney
Join us! Turn in your neighbors for their subversive activities! Be rewarded!
Look - first, stop trying to manage your own financial blunders by taking our rights away. Second, start taking a realistic look at why people are turning to alternative distribution methods. They're turning to them because you're not offering your products with good quality at reasonable prices, you're offering a mediocre product at an inflated price. Third, start taking a realistic look at your budgets, salaries, and other offerings, and see where you can make some cuts to save money, lower your overhead, and make the numbers work out.
The idea that information is free is simply not true.
Hogwash. information is, and should be free. Products, however, should have a reasonable price based on their quality. The overhead involved should be carefully managed such that it doesn't force the price up beyond reasonable levels. But information itself has been, and should always remain, free.
Without a way of paying the producers for their time and effort, the amount of material would evaporate until nearly nothing remains.
The question here is not about payment. Noone will argue that for products of sufficient quality, which have reasonable prices, people will pay. Some people will choose not to, in any case. As you said before, there are always some bad apples. Instead of taking "normal" people's rights away in order to exert control over the bad apples, simply come to grips with the fact that they exist, have always existed, and will always exist. You can't simply throw your billions of dollars at congress and expect them to go away. They won't. But - you can sway more people to the paying side if you embrace what the people want, instead of trying to take away their rights.
Okay...it's far too early to have posted something like this - flame on!
Re:Devil's Advocate Here (Score:2)
Artists "retire"? Right! They're all media whores. (Score:2)
But then they wouldn't have their egos stroked by paparazzi and their throngs of fans. These people are not driven by economic utility, and that is what you are basing your model on.
Brad Pitt would make movies for half of his going rate if that is all that was offered. What else is he going to do, sell used cars?
Quit treating these people as dispassionate, rational agents out of an ecomomics textbook. It doesn't wash.
Re:what law am I breaking? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're both illegal.
Under the landmark Sony v. Universal case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to ban VCRs because they could be used for time-shifting: i.e. watching Starsky & Hutch (or whatever people watched back in the '70s :) at a different time than whenever NBC (or whoever) decided to show it.
They decided that this was a fair use.
It's not actually stated, but it's pretty strongly implied in the decision that the now-common act of building ad-free libraries of TV shows is illegal.
And it's certain that distributing videotape copies of shows is illegal. It's a violation of copyright, not saved by fair use, even in the U.S.
Of course, people do it all the time. This is just one of the many inanities of copyright law in the modern era.
Another inanity: The U.S. is the only country in the Western world with a fair use doctrine in copyright law. That means that probably time-shifting is illegal in every other First World country. However, the movie industry knows that if they were to, say, sue to stop Brits having VCRs, they'd win the lawsuit but then the Brits would change copyright law - to make it weaker - and they don't want that.
Re:what law am I breaking? (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem like you are informed on the subject (more informed than me), so I wonder if you could answer a question for me. What would be the legality of the following:
1. My brother who is living in a different state records a show on a channel I do not receive and sends (either on VHS tape or digitally) it to me.
2. My brother who lives in the same city (with the same TV channels) as me tapes a show I was too busy to see and drops it off at my house so I can view it later.
3. My brother who lives with me tapes a show I missed so I can watch it when I get home.
4. (2), and he watches it with me.
5. (3), and he watches it with me.
6. I tape a show with my TiVo when neither of us are home and we come home and watch it together.
It would seem 3, 4, 5 and 6 would all fall under the fair use doctrine, but are they really any different than 1 or 2?
Re:what law am I breaking? (Score:2)
Okay. 2-6 are probably all okay according to Sony v. Universal, as long as you don't keep the tape for archival purposes. You're watching a show that you're legally entitled to watch, just at a different time from when the original broadcaster put it on. It's when you keep tapes lying around that the law gets messy.
1 is questionable, and not a matter of settled law, at least not in the U.S. AFAIK. There are two possible sub-branches. I will deal with each of them in turn.
This probably isn't what you meant. But in this case you're almost certainly breaking the law. Effectively, you're using your brother's VCR to reduce your cable bill. You could get the show (and tape it to watch whenever you wanted) just by paying your cable company some more money (and possibly buying a VCR). I'd have a Real Hard Time arguing fair use here.
This is probably what you meant. And it's tricky. Sony v. Universal doesn't deal with it. The entertainment industry would say that the right thing to do is to lobby your cable company to add the channel you want, or get DirecTV or something like that. You might say "But I can't get DirecTV because I live in an apartment building, and my cable company won't listen." It'd be a fun argument. However, given the rulings in the 2600 cases, I suspect you'd lose in the current U.S. judicial climate.
Does that help?
Re:what law am I breaking? (Score:2)
Okay, I should have said Western European, sorry. :)
I was trying to exclude Russia et al., didn't get quite specific enough.
Re:what law am I breaking? (Score:2)
Check with a British IP lawyer before either:
As it so happens, I live in a country which has a very similar Copyright Act to yours [justice.gc.ca] (or theirs; perhaps you're not a Brit, but you certainly write like one).
Re:what law am I breaking? (Score:2)
Typical arrogant Brit bullshit. Sigh. Read my other post to another Brit. I'll explain in more detail right now. Fair use is unique to the U.S., at least in the Anglo-American world; what the Commonwealth uses is a concept called fair dealing, which is considerably more restrictive.
Fair dealing shows up in the U.K., Canada, Australia... probably all of the Commonwealth, those are just the copyright acts I've read.
Re:what law am I breaking? (Score:2)
I should also comment on your abuse of my handle. It's a reference to a classic British SF novel which you evidently haven't read. I usually go by the nick Haflinger. Between these two nicks, you should be able to figure out which novel I'm talking about, unless of course you're an illiterate peckerhead.
Re:what law am I breaking? (Score:2)
That's right, noncommercial use is presumptively fair. That doesn't mean automatically fair. Presumptively fair just means that the copyright holder has to defeat the presumption: it sets up a higher bar.
Odds are that duplication for archival would go over that bar.
However, we may never know what those justices would have thought; the main aim of the DMCA IMO was to overturn Sony v. Universal anyway.
Re:what law am I breaking? (Score:2)
But wouldn't this then violate First Sale doctrine? A copy that you legally possess is yours to do with as you will -- watch, sell, donate, burn, etc. -- as long as you don't copy it. At leas that's how I understand it.
As to whether you can create ad-less video libraries: If I went through my collection of Scientific Americans and cut out all the ads, then stored the remainder, would that violate copyright? I don't think so -- I think you may do whatever you want, so long as you don't distribute a copy.