Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Tech Industry Versus Content Industry 169

Posted by Hemos from the battle-of-the-industries dept.
gambit3 writes "Business 2.0's Cover Story this month asks whether Andy Grove is a Pirate. Interesting read on the mainstream media about the battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Read about in Business 2.0"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tech Industry Versus Content Industry More

Tech Industry Versus Content Industry

Comments Filter:

  • Give me a break... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Quadrature ( 524139 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @06:39AM (#3378568)
    Chairman Hollings was only slightly less infuriated than the two CEOs. "Where did you get all this nonsense about ... 'irreparable damage'?"
    The same place you got this nonsense about treating the average consumer as a criminal.
  • Has anyone thought about asking the artists, like the anti-fair-use poster-diva Celine Dion, themselves what they think about the DCMA and its abuse by media corporations?

    In my youth artists tended to campaign for good causes so where has the idealism vanished? In this case the artists are in the front line for defending fair civic liberties. Are they with us, or will they rather stay quiet hoping for a fatter paycheck?
    • Are they with us, or will they rather stay quiet hoping for a fatter paycheck?

      It varies from artist to artist. Most of the smaller ones are with us. Even some of the larger ones are starting to see the record industry [salon.com] for what it really is. The Offspring, for example, wanted to release the entire Conspiracy of One album on their website (for free) several weeks before it was released on CD. Columbia (their distributor), wouldn't allow it, and since they preferred to spend their time touring rather than in court, they dropped the idea. I'm sure there are several other famous artists who support the consumer, but the Offspring and Courtney Love are the only ones who spring to mind.
      • my favorite is when artists who support the stuff START gettting big because they're doing it.

        John Mayer [johnmayer.com] is this posterboy of this phenomenon. he started off locally and posting mp3s on mp3.com, and the next thing he knows, he's on conan obrien, leno, vh1 mtv, etc...
        check him out if you get a chance. his 2 cds are the only one's I've bought in the last 4 years- I mainly listen to hippie music from the 60's and blues.

  • Positive feedback and IP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xxSOUL_EATERxx ( 549142 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @06:45AM (#3378575)
    The central problem of the Tech vs. Content industry conflict is the postive-feedback mechanism involved.

    To wit: "pirates" use some technological device to "steal" copyrighted material, which leads to an intrusive technological "solution" to the problem (i.e., CD's that break your computer and damage your speakers), which leads to some ingenious workaround, which in turn leads to an even more cumbersome technological countermeasure...

    What the Content folks need to realize is that eventually, this fedback mechanism will hit a point of diminishing returns, and the anti-"piracy" measures will make the media more trouble than it's worth to purchase and use, and consumers will simply stop buying, and seek out some other form of entertainment, like going outside and playing softball...

    You know, maybe the Tech v. Content struggle isn't so bad after all... :D Seriously, though, it would probably behoove the Content industry to try rethinking the idea of intellectual property as it is presently understood, before their frantic efforts to protect their "property" end up wiping out their source of profit.

    • The content people are in a technology war that they cannot win. They depend on consumer electronics that have to be cheap, require stable standards and have relatively long lifetimes. The technology people have general-purpose expensive devices that double in processing power every 18 months. Even when the protection depends on secret knowledge, it eventually leaks out (eg, Xing's player key stored in the clear) or is brute-force broken.

      They are also fighting a legal war (eg, DMCA) that I also think they will eventually lose. The high-tech industry spans most of the world, and it seems unlikely that the content people can get reverse-engineering banned everywhere. As long as software capable of making a copy is available, everyone who really wants it will be able to get a copy. At some point, when the studios try to put a million college kids in jail over copying (some fair use, some not), they'll lose the legal war.

      But they could win an economic war almost without trying. If DVDs and CDs were properly priced (and there's some evidence that even now they are priced too high to maximize profits), it's not worth the time and hassle to make a copy instead of buying an original. One exception might be those college students -- cash flow is a problem, and many have computer equipment completely out of line with their income. It's been a long time, but once I got out of school, the hassles of making a copy of an album were just not worth it.

    • "and seek out some other form of entertainment, like going outside" - you mean there's *actually* an outside world? lol
  • Surprisingly passable copies can be obtained simply by aiming a digital camcorder at a cinema screen -- especially if the pirate has access to the projection booth, with a head-free view and a direct link to the sound system.

    It would be awfully tempting for a low-paid movie theatre projectionist to accept a few bucks from some quick-thinking pirate, and sneak a high-quality digital video camera into the projection booth for some quick-n-dirty pirated videos of first-run movies!

    How long before DMCA-types start mandating surveillance of projection booths in all theaters, and a national licensing/registration system for projectionsts? Laugh now if you will, but check back in 6 months...

    • "Surprisingly passable copies can be obtained simply by aiming a digital camcorder at a cinema screen -- especially if the pirate has access to the projection booth, with a head-free view and a direct link to the sound system. It would be awfully tempting for a low-paid movie theatre projectionist to accept a few bucks from some quick-thinking pirate, and sneak a high-quality digital video camera into the projection booth for some quick-n-dirty pirated videos of first-run movies!"

      Although it's not common in the U.S., I've seen tons of first run movies ripped to the VCD format just that way. It was nice seeing tomb raider months before it was available in theaters (where I was). The added bonus - subtitles in languages like Chinese, Thai, Hindi, Bangla, Tagalog, etc. And, a REAL LIFE laugh track. You can't turn either of them off, though.

      The best part of the VCD format (for us, at least) is that it can be played on a tiny PS1 with a flip-up LCD screen with the install of a mod chip(total_cost&lt$100). Who needs a $1000 portable DVD player?

  • I don't know about Grove... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by j09824 ( 572485 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @07:00AM (#3378599)
    But I do know that Eisner is a pirate. His company has been stealing from the public domain and denying people their legal fair use rights.

    Disney's Michael Eisner and others say Hollywood will defend its intellectual property at all costs

    It's obvious that he will do whatever it takes: he is already going as far as bribing our politicians, giving free speech rights only to the wealthiest, and destroying our democracy.

    And what for? Disney rarely if ever produces anything other than useless fluff. The company is optimizing the same thing the drug industry is optimizing: a quick, addictive product that gets our children hooked early and lacks intellectual content or social merit. Disney shouldn't be censored, but we certainly don't need to make any special effort to protect their trashy content beyond the minimum.


    • the article actually mentions that point but presumably Disney would refuse to comment, even though most of their success seems to of been as a result of other peoples work and "IP".

      Many of Disney's classic children's movies were based on stories, like Pinocchio, on which any copyright claims had lapsed. Had the current law been in effect in 1939, David O. Selznick would have required permission from Emily Bronte's heirs to make his film of Wuthering Heights, a book written in 1847.

      funny how times change
    • Occurs to me that it would be fair to only allow a very limited copyright period on new works derived from works that are already in the public domain.

      Perhaps the original 17 years as a max -- that would allow the initial profit and one major re-release cycle, to make it worthwhile for productions of classics, and after that, too bad, the derived work should become public domain.

    • I don't know about Grove...

      But I do know that Eisner is a pirate. His company has been stealing from the public domain and denying people their legal fair use rights.

      Disney's Michael Eisner and others say Hollywood will defend its intellectual property at all costs

      It's obvious that he will do whatever it takes: he is already going as far as bribing our politicians, giving free speech rights only to the wealthiest, and destroying our democracy.

      What Eisner & Co. understand very well and what their opponents haven't been able to capitalize on is that you have to define the language of the debate in order to win it. That's why we're all talking about pirates and thieves, and not about a balancing of rights.

      Of course, it shouldn't be surprising that this is so, since what we now call the "content industry" has always been a major source of propaganda for the state. Those of us who want to effectively oppose the continuous extension of copyright need to start using the tools of the content industry. Calling Sen Hollings the Senator from Disney [slashdot.org] sounds like a good start.

      Here's a proposal. I think we should start describing the DMCA as, "The Dirty Money Copyright Act". The phrase hasn't shown up on Google yet, and I think it should.

      How does that sound? Any other suggestions?

    • Wouldn't it be nice if it were possible to make these superlong copyrights retroactive so that Disney suddenly owed massive royalties to the descendants of H.C. Andersen, the Brothers Grimm, and others and AOL Time-Warner had to pay up for all that public domain classical music used in the Looney Tunes cartoons?

  • Time for TIME (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Now let's see an article like this in TIME magazine. Something more mainstream.


    The article mentions two things about copyright a lot of people seem unaware of. Firstly that the actual INTENT of copyright is to get more content into the public domain. It exists only as an incentive for creative works. Secondly it notes that copyright expirations have been extended retroactively faster than things can expire!


    In my opinion, we should go back to 2-5 year copyrights depending on the material.


    ~Blake

    • 20 years would be better. Some kinds of works take 3-5 years to develop.

    • Re:Time for TIME (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lonath ( 249354 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @09:28AM (#3378878)
      Now let's see an article like this in TIME magazine. Something more mainstream.

      Not gonna happen. TIME is part of AOL/Time/Warner, a giant MEDIA company that makes its money by generating copyrights. Err generating stuff that's protected by copyright.

      This is the biggest problem we face when fighting this. There aren't any giant media corporations that are independent of the content industry.

      FOX likes the law and makes TV shows and movies. Vivendi owns CBS (I think) and makes records and movies (Universal). Disney owns ABC, and GE owns NBC. Finally AOLTW owns CNN. The only possibility I could see is NBC owned by GE which makes machines, not strings of bits.

      So, the problem is that the government has let the media concentrate itself into a few giant corporations and they are filtering this news. This is something that most people would hate if they knew about it, but most people don't read and if they do, it's one of the major magazines or websites that are already owned by the giant media conglomerates. That means that most people will not be able to find out about this. I wonder if people here paid for a PSA about this whether the networks would even run it. :P

      To me this is proof that there isn't the major media companies aren't watching out for the "little guy" because if they were, this would have been page-1, top-of-the-hour news in every corner of the media world. Especially since this kind of law will cause loss of privacy and give corporations an extreme amount of control over peoples' lives.

      So, don't ever expect the "media" to take our side in this and actually report this stuff. The "media" is just another arm of the "content industry". Also, it isn't even that I want them to take our side in this. All they have to do is accurately report it, and even if they're putting a positive spin on the bill, people will figure out how bad it is. So, the only option they have is to never report on this at all. Hence, it will not happen. Remember that, and spread the word yourself.

      • Re:Time for TIME (Score:3, Interesting)

        by weave ( 48069 )
        Not gonna happen. TIME is part of AOL/Time/Warner

        According to a disclaimer in the story in that magazine, Business 2 is owned by AOLTW...

      • Look, the content industry is doing some disasterous things to copyright, granted, but it really isn't something that should be front and center right now.

        In case you forget, we're fighting a war in Afghanistan because we believe that the coordinators of some Kamikazi attacks on us happened there.

        The White House is terrified that Iraq is close to weapons of mass destruction, and the "enlightened" Europeans are throwing a tempertantrum that Israel is defending itself. Europe is joining the fray by attacking Jews in their own country.

        The Saudi regime is scared of an Islamist rebellion (which would cut off our oil access), and other problems that are forcing the Bush administration to back off Iraq, possible too long.

        And you want them to DROP coverage of THIS to discuss attempts to make duplication of digital audio/video harder?

        Ya know, I bet you lots of bullshit like this would have gone ignored during the last World War as well. Sometimes you need to get our of your Slashdot bubble.

        Alex

        • Re:Grow up, this isn't THAT BIG (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jeffehobbs ( 419930 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @10:51AM (#3379120) Homepage
          Look, the content industry is doing some disasterous things to copyright, granted, but it really isn't something that should be front and center right now. In case you forget, we're fighting a war in Afghanistan because we believe that the coordinators of some Kamikaze attacks on us happened there.

          It's precisely because of that fact that we should be paying attention to this kind of stuff... it's my opinion that our government is now *deep* into the "opportunism" phase of post September 11, where our government can get all sorts of crap laws they wanted to get passed anyway, all in the name of "fighting terrorists". From oil drilling in "ANWAR" to funding Columbian shadow governments to new provisions in attorney/client privileges, it's all shady fucking bullshit and I'm kinda ashamed to be an American right now.

          ~jeff
          • Very well said, both of you. To the rest of the audience, please go read this book:

            Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, Gore Vidal [amazon.com]

            (ISBN 156025405X for those of you boycotting Amazon)
          • From oil drilling in "ANWAR" to funding Columbian shadow governments to new provisions in attorney/client privileges


            I'll agree on the second and third points, but drilling in ANWR was a good idea before 9/11 and is even more important now. Depending on the Middle East for our energy needs is insane, and if using 2000 acres out of 15 million acres of essentially frozen wasteland can reduce that dependency, I'm all for it. Long term, we need to shift to renewable energy sources, but until that happens we need to minimize the economic harm that can be inflicted by nations filled with millions of people who hate us (arguably for legitimate reasons, but that's not relevant).

        • A counterpoint, no more to the very 'over-simplified' statements above:

          • Bush thwarting FBI investigation of Bin Laden family could have *contributed* to 9/11- BBC [bbc.co.uk] greg palast [gregpalast.com]
          • Terrorism in Iraq definitely should be in the news - BBC [bbc.co.uk] - HRW [hrw.org]
          • As for the Israeli attacks in the west bank, it's a sad situation, but to say that Israel is dealing with terrorism is like saying the holocaust was Germany's way of dealing with Jews not leaving the country when asked - ie an OTT reaction that flippantly disregards the history of the region - so you're happy invading Iraq over ignoring UN resolutions, but also happy to ignore Israel when they do the same [aijac.org.au]?
          • Ah the Saudi Regime - our favourite dictators! But that's OK, because they let US troops stay there. Dictators are only a problem if they can't be used to US advantage - I forgot. Good dictator, bad dictator.

          Life is so much easier when everything is either Black or White, but I prefer a world of many colors - even if it is a bit harder to focus.

          sigh

          .02

          cLive ;-)

        • The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.

          The fact that anyone is trying to get away with raping every consumer in the world is reason enough to make this more common knowledge and make it "front and center."

          You're a perfect example of the effects of propaganda, and blind patriotism. You think that just because your country does something that it's somehow justified and morally correct, you've got a very self centered and extreme nationalist attitude. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being proud of who you are and where you're from, but just because you're from one place doesn't make you any better than anyone else. It also doesn't mean that everything your country does is right. The fact is if the US govt. kept their god damn noses out of everyone's business there wouldn't have been a sept. 11th attack and the US wouldn't be in a 'war' right now. Bush is a warmonging idiot of a president, since he's been in power it's been one international incident after another. US foreign policy has always been horrendous, The US set up and financed Bin Laden and the Taliban when they were fighting the russians. The US also financed Hussein during the Iran Iraq conflict. In both cases the US left them high and dry after the US's agenda was satisfied.

          As for Isreal well that whole thing has been a mess since day one, you can't have a third party cut up a country and give part of it to someone else without problems... and quite frankly why is this any kind of important issue to the US? There are far worse problems in other countries, christ there have been 30 year revolutions happening in African countries that change political power and names faster than Rand McNally can print maps! Yet you don't hear a damn thing about them anywhere on any US channel. It would seem the US public doesn't care what happens there, so why should they care what happens in Isreal? The Palestinians have never been a threat to the US, they just want what they believe (and rightly so) is their land back, land that is holy to jews, christians and Islamics.

          Fact is the US is not liked by the vast majority of the world, and with your swelled propaganda filled head, you'd probably think it's because everyone is jealous of 'the best country on earth' which is not the case, everyone is just sick of being dictated to by the US and have to suffer with US meddling. The US is only concerned with it's own interests and has no problems stepping on others to meet it's own ends.

        • Europeans are throwing a tempertantrum that Israel is defending itself.

          Up until 18 months ago the kill ratio of Palistine to Israel was 20 to 1, it has only recently come down to 3 to 1. This is not self defense, it is slaughter.

          Europe is joining the fray by attacking Jews in their own country.

          Judging Europe based on the actions of a few idiots, is like judging the US based on the actions of Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh.

          Your world view is very narrow and only serves the purpose of spreading fear, uncertainy and doubt. This is the exact response Bin Laden is looking for. He wants us to live in fear, he wants us to distrust our nieghbors, he wants us to overeact so our nieghbors will distrust us, we have done exactly that and you are perfect example.

          • 20:1 is not terribly surprising given the disparity in training, unity and material, no? It's not like there is one Palestinian resistance movement; there are multiple rival organizations, and there's probably a fair bit of duplication of effort. I suspect that the various Colonial wars (Brits. vs Zulus and Sudanese -- think Khartoum) were pretty one-sided in loss ratios, as well.

            It also doesn't take a genius to realize that standing in a street, lobbing rocks with a slingshot at troops, is not a terribly great military tactic. Nor, for that matter, is standing in a a street and firing an assault rifle at a buttoned-up Merkava(*). Of course, both may be useful POLITICALLY. Notice, for instance, that Palestinian funerals tend to be political rallies and propaganda events...

            (*) Given the questionable Israeli habit of sending tanks through hostile cities mere scores of feet from enemies, and the amount of explosives in the West Bank -- TNT-laden mortar shells and improvised explosive compounds -- it's surprising that they've not lost more. The PA has tried to import RPGs through Iranian channels, but apparently hasn't been too successful.
          • Up until 18 months ago the kill ratio of Palistine to Israel was 20 to 1, it has only recently come down to 3 to 1. This is not self defense, it is slaughter.


            Cops kill more criminals than vice versa. Does that mean the criminals are the good guys and the cops are engaged in "slaughter"?

            • Cops kill more criminals than vice versa. Does that mean the criminals are the good guys and the cops are engaged in "slaughter"?

              There is a big difference between fighting crime in the streets and an occupation force attempting to suppress ressistance to an oppressive government.

        • It should be mentioned. When you consider how much money people spend on "interactive digital devices" every year (which is almost anything that gets plugged in or runs on batteries) and how important they are it is a big deal. When an industry wants to slow down technological progress and take control of huge numbers of things you interact with every day, it is a big deal. I also think that these kinds of controls are what the government would like to have to fight its war on terrorism. The same control you use to stop people from copying things illegal is the control you use to stop people from conspiring to commit terrorism.

          Also, to everyone who pointed out that B2.0 is ownd by AOLTW, you got me. My bad. I missed that.
      • Guess what? Business 2.0, where the article appears, is owned by AOL/TW.

      • TIME is part of AOL/Time/Warner, a giant MEDIA company that makes its money by generating copyrights.

        Business 2.0 is owned by AOL-TW as well..

      • Um, so Time is owned by AOL-Time Warner, huh? And that means they'll never publish an article critical of the Hollings bill and Hollywood's attitude, like the article in Business 2.0? If you'd actually _read_ the article, you would've noticed that Business 2.0 is owned by AOL/TW...

        All this paranoia about media and what they report has some validity, I think, but too often it's just a kneejerk shortcut to an unhelpful "us vs. them" attitude. I know I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but the simple fact is that it's not black and white. What we need to do to fight this issue is work to exploit the areas of the media more willing to provide an outlet for our views. So, for example, talk to Steven Levy (he still writes for Time or Newsweek or whatever, right?), or other writers who are concievably interested in the cause. They may not always present it in the way we'd like, but if it's a big enough story, they'll cover it. The trick is making sure it's a big enough story for their readers...
    • Ya know, it helps to read the whole article.
      Business2.com IS Part of "Mainstream".
      From page 4: "Warner Bros. is part of AOL Time Warner, which also owns Business 2.0.)".

      Now there is one for our side.

  • He "gets it". He actually does. (Score:4, Informative)

    by VValdo ( 10446 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @07:06AM (#3378610)
    I almost cried tears of joy when I read the transcript [business2.com] of W. Brian Arthur (economist), Andy Grove (Intel chairman), and Lawrence Lessig's (law professor) discussion about these issues. A lot of the same points are made that you see daily here on /., and a lot of comparisons to the nineteenth century railroad industry and various information revolutions of the past 200 years.

    A very interesting read that helps put current events in an historical context...

  • If Disney and co get their way... (Score:4, Informative)

    by dipfan ( 192591 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @07:07AM (#3378611) Homepage
    ... then this could hurt the US tech industry in more ways than one. Groves is right when he says in the article "Suppose I use my personal computer now to create a playlist and burn music onto a CD. Suppose in three years, the only PCs on the market won't allow me to do that? What is my incentive to buy a new computer?" And what's the incentive then for companies to invest in R+D for new consumer devices, if they can't be used because of zealous copyright laws?

    Someone should point out an example to Sen. Hollings: the eurobond market. In the 60s and 70s some too-stringent US regulations meant that it was difficult for foreigners to use the US capital markets to sell bonds in US dollars. So the market grew up in Europe instead, where the trade remains enormous today. Overbearing copyright legislation could do the same thing: the innovation in creative industries could easily move abroad to a more relaxed regulatory environment.

    (BTW, this was a very good article - although the number of cookies the site tried to place on my machine was ridiculous - about 20, just for reading one article, sheesh. How about some legislation against that?)

  • Quid Pro Quo, then... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pedro ( 1613 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @07:08AM (#3378613)
    Let the tech producers that enable such products as Toy Story, or whatever else CGI driven film, or even, say, a CD that exploits a sonic effect, or a book that utilises a typesetting tool charge these media bozos a per-frame, or per-second, or per-page royalty.. enforceable via the very hardware protections that they are clamoring for.
    Even better.. how about a CGI actor's union that charges a per-actor fee for all of the 'extras' in the background of scenes in films like The Mummy, or Star wars?

    If we choose to strike back along these lines, the Eisners of the world will be begging for mercy by the time we're done with them. Just go crazy with licensing terms, and let 'em bend over.

    Fire with fire, I say.

  • Killer app (Score:3, Insightful)

    by u01000101 ( 574295 ) <u01000101@yahoo.com> on Saturday April 20, 2002 @07:13AM (#3378619) Homepage
    "Piracy is the killer app."

    This is interesting; the other two killer apps, pr0n and games, were NOT so terrified about piracy - or they didn't have so much power.
    Come to think of, we're talking about the *entertainment* industry here. Stop reading for a second and think "entertainment"... ok, now how does this fit with all the big words/phrases like "intellectual property", "innovation", "loses of billions of dollars"...? If Disney goes bankrupt tomorrow, how will the life of the average American change? Will millions of people starve, or freeze to death? Extend to African, Asian etc.
    I think all this has gone way out of proportions.
    • Great point.
      The passage of these many IP protection acts amount to an 'unfunded mandate' or media subsidy paid for by the mass of the American people.

      Screw 'em all. I can do without.

    • The great question that should be asked, if, after a movie is shown on television(free to air), you copy it from the television using a tv-in and then distribute it over the internet with the advertisments that paid for it to be aried still included would it still be a violation of the act? And what about other countries that violate the DMCA, why should I give a damn if some guy in America wants to cut my balls off because I watched Pocahantos with the sound turned down four hundred and forty seven times in a single week? I think the best attitude is the one Australians took when France told us not to call our wine Champagn. "Invade us."(Ben Elton. Stark)

  • COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Peale ( 9155 )
    Was anyone else affected by the earthquake that seems to have hit the northeast USA about ten minutes ago?
    • Yup - felt in Ottawa, Canada, 60 miles from U.S. border.

      Very brief - the earth moved once or twice. For a moment, I thought Sheila Copps had an orgasm.

      • It went on here for about 60 seconds.
      • Must have been solo, John Crosby retired and she has no one to play with.
        "Pass the Tequila, Sheila and lay down and..."
      • Maybe they were trying to get corroborative data to pitch against ascii whites test?

      • For a moment, I thought Sheila Copps had an orgasm.

        Thank you for that mental image. I was worried I was going to be able to sleep tonight, but you cured me of that.

      • Yup, felt it strongly in Toronto. I woke up to find my air mattress sliding around, and looked up to see the hanging light swaying much more than normal. It came in a couple of waves 5-10 seconds apart if I'm not mistaken.

        However I'm on the 30th floor of an apartment building, and the building is always swaying a bit, the machine room right above me puts some funky resonances into the building every so often.

        So I concluded that there was simply a 70 mile per hour wind gust outside, and that my air-mattress was perfectly resonant with it and thus shaking more than normal. I fell right back to sleep. I only gave the thought of an EarthQuake a few seconds consideration, and until I saw these posts here, didn't even realize it was one!!!

        Reminds me of the time I was in SF and a 5.x happened. I was in the shower/bathtub, and I heard a rumbling from above. I simply thought it was some big football player or fat guy running around like a madman in the apartment above me!! LOL. It wasn't until later in the day that I found out it was an earthquake.

        Maybe next time I'll be able to recognize it for what it is.
    • yeah, my monitor started shaking. (New York City)
    • yeah, i thought my roommate was just having some crazy sex, but then i realized that there's no way in hell he would be awake at 7 am on sat. morning. conclusion: earthquake.

      -confused in connecticut

    • Likewise. My monitor was wobbling, and the windows were rattling. I checked some the regional earthquake websites, but nothing was listed. Then again, it was only a few minutes after it happened. I would've blamed it on the washing machine if it was running. But I don't do laundry this early.

      Btw, I was in Southern Maine.

    • Looks like it was about 5.1 on the scale:

      check it out here [usgs.gov]
  • My favorite part:

    And it won't have to be pirate-proof. Copyright, after all, has always been a leaky vessel. Publishers have managed to tolerate the sharing, swapping, reselling, and lending of books. The software industry figures it loses $12 billion a year to piracy, but it hasn't called for anything like the sweeping controls Hollywood seeks. The recording industry, on the other hand, tried to develop an elaborate technological security regime; it proved unenforceable. "We lost two years," says Eric Alben, chief lobbyist for RealNetworks, which supplies streaming software to the recording industry. "And in the interim, pirated music proliferated." When the major record labels finally launched their own online services, MusicNet and Pressplay, they imposed so many restrictions that few customers have signed up.

    I agree with the media industry in some areas: Yes, I believe in purchasing the CDs that I listen to (although I promptly rip them and then never use the CDs again). Yes, even the middle-man between the artist and the consumer deserves to make a buck or two. But just because some people are stealing doesn't mean they have the right to invade everyone's life. Every other industry seems to be able to come up with adequate (not perfect, but good enough) methods of reducing the impact of theft. But the recording industry goes crying to Congress when they start seeing a bit of piracy.

    There are changes coming, and I really hope the recording industry figures out a good way to take advantage of it without screwing up everyone else.
  • On several occasions I've witnessed people blatantly downloading songs into local storage. They claimed the copy was of poor quality, but they clearly were humming the melody and remebered the words. Sometimes other people would hear and start humming too, thus proliferating the illegal copies to other pirates.

    This must be stamped out. The recording industry is working with goverment to mandate mind control devices to eliminate people enjoying music without fair and equitable payments to the rightful copyright holders. Maybe then we can stop the tradgedy of the children of record company executives going hungry.

    We must always be vigilant and stop commiting these henious crimes against the companies who created music and merriment.
    • In a related story, art museum attendees were openly daring to remember what paintings looked like. Said featured Artist Franco Geroni "Just because they paid the ticket price, doesn't mean they're allowed to keep a copy in their brains like that! The nerve of some people..."
    • (New York, NY) Sheet Music Publishers call for national registration of musical instruments.

      "We find that users of musical instruments frequently reverse-engineer popular recordings and their underlying melodic and harmonic structures. This practice threatens the viability of sheet music sales and decreases royalties to artists," according to Fenster Johansen, IV, Assitant Senior Adjutant Vice President for Media Relations for a very very very obscure and virtually unfindable sheet music trade organization.

      "We also have reports that musicians who have learned a piece of music, often by just listening, will then teach other musicians 'the riff'. Some musicians will write down the melody in musical notation on a piece of paper. They call it 'by ear' and transposition, we call it sheet music theft networking."

      "We propose that all sales of music instruments be accompanied by a EULA in which the buyer promises to not learn any copyrighted musical compositions, except through purchase and study of that composition's legally sanctioned sheet music. Failing that we ask that legislation be enacted to tax the sales of instruments and these moneys be distributed to sheet music publishers as reimbursement for lost revenues."

      When asked about sales of synthesizer sound cards which can convert a personal computer to a musical instrument, Mr. Johansen added "while we have not taken an official position regarding this, we are developing technologies to block this form of sheet music theft. Essentially a personal computer synthesizer would match against a database of controlled compositions before playing any sequence of notes. In order for this to work properly, we believe that this form of rights management must be mandatorilly included in operating systems. We need to determine how much it will cost to get such protective legislation before we take an official position."

  • Mainstream (Score:4, Interesting)

    by blankmange ( 571591 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @08:25AM (#3378704)
    One of the earlier posts mentioned that Time needs to cover a story like this - and then it dawned on me how very true that is. The mainstream media have covered very little of the consumers' side of issues such as Fair Use, DCMA, or any other "us vs. them" issues, especially those involving their advertisers ... We will never see our side of the story covered by Time or on CNN because their paychecks are by the media/recording industry/producing industry. Unless we (the users/consumers) start making all kinds of noise about our rights and how we want to use music and digital media, nobody will hear a damn word except for the blather from politicians like Hollings or whats-her-name from the RIAA... mainstream media only reports what is important to their parent companies...
    • I did see some pieces about the DMCA and SSSCA (or whatever we're calling it now, perhaps DACPA - Disney Anti Computer Programming Act) in Newsweek
      • Yes, but what I am referring to is the slant that is taken -- I have seen multiple articles/reports on these issues, but they are always from the government's/industry's point of view; never from the user's standpoint...
    • AOL bought Time Warner, and it shows in the corporate strategy. Business 2.0 is owned by Warner Bros., part of AOL Time Warner. This article could appear in Time, ALSO owned by AOL Time Warner.

      Realize that AOL is a content and bandwidth player. They sell things online. They acquired Time Warner since their problem FOR YEARS had been a lack of content. Even Compuserve and Prodigy had internal content. Time Warner provides a wealth of content that AOL can sell through to their members.

      AOL wants to drive people onto their network and have them buy Time Warner content. MPAA/RIAA garbage that causes people to lose interest in doing so is not in their interest.

      Remember, AOL Time Warner has a great Internet distribution mechanism in place, AOL.

      AOL's unique position as a tech/content company puts them in the position of OFTEN being on our side. Nevermind that their network isn't for users like us, they are putting money into Linux servers (with likely Redhat support contracts), Mozilla (and AOL's use of Mozilla is going to force everyone into standards compliance), etc.

      We have a strange friend here...

      Alex

  • Retroactive loophole? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KlomDark ( 6370 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @08:28AM (#3378709) Homepage Journal
    This part of the article I found rather interesting, as far as the possible potential of using the new wording in the 95 year copyright act. This could really cost Disney a lot of money if we could find the right people (descendants of the original authors) to sue them.

    What am I talking about? Notice the words I bolded in the bottom section - "and applied retroactively". If this 95 year extension is applied retroactively, then aren't quite a few Disney movies now based on works that had fallen into the public domain, but now possibly (due to the retroactive wording) would be considered to now actually be under retroactive copyright at the time they were 'pirated' by Disney? Thus making Disney's claims to things like The Jungle Book, Pinocchio and others, completely void, as they were stolen from people who are now protected by this retroactive copyright? How far back does this retroactive thing go?

    "Since 1960 the term of copyright -- originally 28 years -- has been extended 11 times, most recently from 75 to 95 years, and applied retroactively. It is ironic -- and deeply pertinent -- that when motion pictures themselves were fairly new, Hollywood dipped liberally into the public treasury it has since done so much to reduce. Many of Disney's classic children's movies were based on stories, like Pinocchio , on which any copyright claims had lapsed. Had the current law been in effect in 1939, David O. Selznick would have required permission from Emily Bronte's heirs to make his film of Wuthering Heights, a book written in 1847."

    • What am I talking about? Notice the words I bolded in the bottom section - "and applied retroactively". If this 95 year extension is applied retroactively, then aren't quite a few Disney movies now based on works that had fallen into the public domain, but now possibly (due to the retroactive wording) would be considered to now actually be under retroactive copyright at the time they were 'pirated' by Disney? Thus making Disney's claims to things like The Jungle Book, Pinocchio and others, completely void, as they were stolen from people who are now protected by this retroactive copyright? How far back does this retroactive thing go?

      Nice thought, however I think it is beyond belief that Hollywood's lawyers would have screwed up so badly and left a loophole this large. Particularly since they've gotten the copyright term extended 11 times. That's ELEVEN times in the past 40 years, folks!

      It just shines the light of truth on the elected class in the USA. The next time you hear some politician railing against the crud dumped on our society, just remember that those same politicians have aided and protected the same perpetrators through extended copyrights and other draconian acts. It's all a smokescreen, folks, designed to confuse and prevent you from seeing what is really happening.

    • When they say 'applied retroactively' they refer to any works that still have an active copyright and not just new works. So if something is about to move into the public domain and copyright is extended retroactively then this works copyright is extended, but something that has already passed into the public domain doesn't have it's copyright reinstated. If copyright is extended non-retroactively then only new copyrights benefit and old works wouldn't change their expiration date.

      Having a 95 year long copyright is rediculous! 75 is also way way way too long, there is no way copyright is now intended to reward creativity, it's now used for control. There is no way for an actual person to benefit for the full 95 years!

      anyone else notice that the recent change to 95 year long copyright from 75 years seems to be awful close to the 75th aniversary of disney??

  • My thoughts on reading this article (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Catiline ( 186878 ) <akrumbach@gmail.com> on Saturday April 20, 2002 @08:30AM (#3378712) Homepage Journal
    While reading this article, I stopped at one point and thought:

    If I go and buy a washing machine- pay all of the cost up front and it is 100% mine, once I've left the store (assuming the vendor isn't going to install it for me) they don't care what I do with it. I could never use it to wash clothes, just as a big drinking fountain, and nobody (except maybe those who saw me do so) would care.
    If I walk into a car dealership and buy a brand new Porche (or whatever)- again pay all of the cost upfront- the dealer doesn't care what I do with it. If I drive it home and disassemble it for parts, there's no issue someone else will take up with me (except the police when I try to drive said car on the roads after its' no longer street legal, ofcourse).

    So what does Hollywood really want? They can do the "we care" controls: as the article stated, streamed content alone could handle that. As of today, the technology exists to prevent consumers from working their will on Big Media's content even after it has arrived in the home. So why did the have the CBDPTA introduced? What has them so scared of even their own shadow they want DRM in every device, including handhelds too small for media and camcorders? What is the real point of the restrictive legislation?

    The only answer I can think of is very, very frightening. They realize that their billion-dolar studio lots could very easily be turned into housing subdivisions right now, because computer technology has advanced so far that anyone with a decent new machine and some rather easily obtained software & hardware can make movies to the same quality as they do, but at a far lesser cost. And no doubt, this keeps Eisner (& co) awake at night: I'm sure he knows the difference between Disney's Peter Pan and his Peter Pan 2 leave poor Walt doing 1 million RPMs in his cryogenic chamber.

    What the big Hollywood studios fear the most from technology isn't piracy (or at least, that isn't their main concern right now); I am rather certain they wake up each morning, wondering what they're going to do to keep their trust alive when everyone with a camera and a PC can be a movie studio. I think they believe they've gone this far by buying up all of the big talent in both producers and actors, and I don't see why they're so worried that some amatuers might up stage them (after all, Blair Witch didn't do all that well, did it? Only grossed a few millions, not the hundred millions of the blockbusters.)

    • Not so long ago, I would have agreed with you. However, having been in the computer industry for over 20 years -- primarily computer games -- has taught me there's still a huge gap between what one guy can bash out in his garage, and "studio quality" stuff.

      Put simply, creating a computer game these days is unbelievably expensive. The sheer amount of work required to build maps, draw textures, create FMV cutscenes, score and record music, and write the software occupies the full time of a couple dozen people for upwards of two years. Occasionally you get a Tetris out of nowhere, but that's sadly very rare.

      By extension, creating a "studio-quality" movie will continue to require a lot of production staff and infrastructure. So Hollywood does not yet need to worry about the next Spielberg creating a blockbuster in his garage (and if one does, they can simply buy him/her out).

      One thing the Internet might do is break the current logjam of banality and lack of imagination shown by most screenplays these days. But until every home has 3Mb/sec, effective distribution will remain in the hands of big players.

      Schwab

      • But as George Lucas proved, it only takes one serious money-making product, a good contract that gives you a major cut of the intake (note I didn't say "profits") so you've got your nest egg, and the desire to start your own production house, and suddenly you're out from under the existing big studio system (read: MPAA).

        What happens when it becomes *easier* for small producers to make this transition?? The MPAA "loses" -- those revenue streams are now out of their control. Most folk here are probably too young to remember, but there were major screams from Hollywood when Lucas decided he didn't need them anymore. (Of course by now he's become one of them, but that's beside the point.)

        There ARE small filmmakers out there who have the potential to accomplish this, but if they're technologically prevented from doing so (such as by draconian DRM requirements), they're locked into the MPAA Way, which of course is exactly the MPAA's desired result. "Either you play with our ball on our field by our rules, or you don't play at all."

        It's an exact parallel with the music artists who are eschewing RIAA methods in favour of doing their own small distributions. As technology advances, this becomes more and more practical. Nowadays a garage band can afford to produce a master and press a few hundred CDs, and they'll make more money selling those CDs at live shows or over the net than they'd ever make in a lifetime of RIAA bondage. Twenty years ago, this would have been impossible, simply due to the high cost of the required professional production equipment.

        It's no different in the film industry, it's just a matter of the scale involved (it takes more people, and more different types of expertise, to make an original film, as compared to making an original music CD).

        BTW, the **AA and its minions should perhaps read http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm, which has some hard figures regarding how free downloads significantly *enhanced* sales.

    • Re:My thoughts on reading this article (Score:4, Interesting)

      by GospelHead821 ( 466923 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @10:21AM (#3378998)

      Your comparrison of entertainment media to a washing machine or to a Porsche is erroneous. Allow me to explain. If you purchase a washing machine, you may rightfully allow anybody to use it, that you wish, as often as you wish. There is a finite limit to the number of people who can use your washing machine. The same goes for a Porsche. If you buy a CD, and immediately rip an mp3 of it, which you then make available on the net, the "finite limit" to the number of people who can use that mp3 is the number of computer users with access to the internet. And furthermore, because the mp3 is readily reproducable, it may be used by many of them all at once.


      In my eyes, it's easy to sympathize with both sides of the conflict. On one hand, I agree that obtaining music without paying for it just because the technology to do so is available is theft. Is it right to use a cable descrambler or coin-sized slugs to buy things from vending machines? And if the providers of cable television or of vending machines design technologies to prevent you from doing so, are they violating your rights?


      On the other hand, Hollywood wishes not only to control possible theft of content, but also the precise form in which we receive the content. I don't think that they are not within their rights to do this, but obviously, as a consumer myself, I don't appreciate content holders failing to provide content in the form I prefer (mp3, for example) because they are ignorant and paranoid. If every song currently on my playlist were available for download at a fair price, I would gladly bust out my credit card and pay for the music (assuming I didn't already own a tape or CD with the song on it). However, content providers are so mistrustful (perhaps with good reason; I really don't know) of consumers, they're unwilling, to a large extent, to do this. Perhaps the solution to this quandry is, in addition to informing our congress-critters of our opinion in these matters, so that we aren't shafted, legally, we should also consider informing content-holders, by mail or by petition, of how we feel about this matter. I suspect if Disney were to have tangible evidence of how many people there are who would be willing to pay a fair price for a professionally-designed digital copy of one of their movies, they might soften toward the idea of not giving their customers (who are not pirates) the shaft.

      • A finite number of people who can use it? How would you explain radio stations? Any number of people can tune into the music. And play this music at work, which also may be considered a "public exhibition." I don't see the entertainment industry attempting to squelch that behavior, yet they promote it. They want maximum users.

        Unless it has to deal with technology. The entertainment industry wants total control how we are to view any multimedia experience, even the means to create our own. Smells like a monopoly brewwing to me.
      • In my eyes, it's easy to sympathize with both sides of the conflict. On one hand, I agree that obtaining music without paying for it just because the technology to do so is available is theft. Is it right to use a cable descrambler or coin-sized slugs to buy things from vending machines? And if the providers of cable television or of vending machines design technologies to prevent you from doing so, are they violating your rights?

        On the otherhand, we see a sort of ideological war here. I'm not going to say who's right and whose wrong, but let us consider for a moment.

        The music piracy came about supposedly because the prices for CDs are outrageously high, and a lot of the content is garbage. Therefore people did not believe that spending their money on the music was appropriate.

        Now, people are going to consume music, no one is just going to stop using music. And some of the music is in demand and is not considered garbage. So here comes the Napster systems. Here hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens are given the opportunity (and take the oportunity) to knowingly break the law, invest their money in online distribution and download the content which they want. In essense, the comsumers have voted with their money. They have stopped funnling money into an industry which is overcharging them and have instead funnled it into an emerging (albeit currently ilegal) industry. AND they have done this with enough force to get someone's attention. With extensive anti-piracy laws and the DMCA, the content industries are trying very hard to make it impossible for you to vote with your money. If you can't send your money to another form of content distribution except the ones that the industry approves, you have lost your ability to vote with your money.

        Now let's see how this would play out with your vending machine example. Currently, consumers think that the price of candy in a vending machine is reasonable and it is not worth the effort to break the glass and steal the candy. However, if the price of candy in the machines suddenly went up to $6 a Snikers, there would be a sharp increase in the demand for metal slugs and crowbars. And the theft of candy would go up markedly. Consumers are not going to stop buying candy, they are just going to obtain it in new ways. In the consumer's eyes, it is cheaper AND and more efficient use of their resources to steal the candy (music) than it is to pay for it.

        At heart we are all law abiding citizens (as proven by the fact that depite my ability to go online and download movies, I still pay $8.25 a ticket). If the industry want's to stop piracy, they need to start cutting back the price. And if that means not paying the actors and the producers as much, well, then that's what has to be done.
        • Not that I agree with the ability of content holders to increase prices unchecked, but I still don't think it's inherrently wrong for them to seek to prevent theft of their content by technological means. To continue the vending machine analogy, if vending machine companies found it more cost effective to reinforce the glass and to strengthen the locks and hinges of the machine, to prevent people from stealing their six-dollar candy bars, would they be doing something wrong? Not at all! They are rightful to charge whatever they wish for their product and the market should adjust accordingly. In this manner, a vending machine relies on the honour system. The seller asks that you will kindly not break open his machine and steal the candy. Granted, part of the opportunity cost of stealing a candy bar is incurring the risk of punishment; if people are willing to face charges for doing so, they are also, economically speaking, within their rights. However, if the seller finds it economically feasible to protect his product from theft by reinforcing the vending machine, he may be wise to sell it at $6 per bar. After all, the seller's profit is maximized at the point where his willingness to produce at a certain price matches the market's willingness to purchase at a certain price. We can debate all day whether it is right for the company to sell at this price, but speaking from the standpoint of business ethics, so long as it is legal, a business must, ethically, seek the greatest possible benefit for its shareholders.
          • I see where you're going, but you miss one vital part. What the content industry is doing is essentialy the same thing as M&M Mars (or whoever puts out snikers) saying to the vending machine companies. "The glass on your machines is too easy to break, make the glass thinker, reenforce the locks oh, and don't raise the price of using and having the machine, you have to swallow the costs."

            Disney, Fox and the others who are seriously pushing this stuff are claiming that the tech companies, and companies such as AOL/TW and Sony don't push for this because they are making money regardless of who wins. And guess what, they're right. In fact, they will make more money if the pirates win. Why should the tech companies want to raise production costs, thus rasing the price of their products, and sell less? The harder and more expensive the equipment is, the less people will buy it. It's bad business to push the copy protection.

            In the senario above, the Vending machine manufacturer is going to tell M&M to go fuck off because the more machines that get broken into, the more new machines have to be bought. If M&M is going to want more security they'll have to pay for it themselves.

            If Disney and Fox want to reduce piracy, they have to start changing their business models. Maybe they'll have to start selling the materials like Sony does. Or maybe they just need to cut back on some of their prices.
      • If you buy a CD, and immediately rip an mp3 of it, which you then make available on the net, the "finite limit" to the number of people who can use that mp3 is the number of computer users with access to the internet. And furthermore, because the mp3 is readily reproducable, it may be used by many of them all at once.

        Not entirely true... assuming that the mp3 is about 4 MB and you are on a 500 kbps pipe, under perfect conditions, it would take roughly one minute to copy the mp3 from one PC to another. That's 60 copies/hour or 144 copies/day. At that rate it would take a long time to copy it to "all the computers in the world".

        What you're saying sounds like big media propaganda. Bandwidth, disk space, and cpu cycles are all "finite" resources, especially in the scope of an individual. One person cannot rip a CD and get an mp3 to "all the computers in the world". It would take a massive coordinated effort to achieve that. And each of those computers would have to have a user on it who would rather obtain the mp3 through these means using his or her own resources than pay the record industry for a physical CD.

        A mass of individuals using their own time and resources to obtain an item in the format they want instead of paying an illegal cartel a monstrous tax for a product they don't want... this is a bad thing?
        • You're right that it would take a massive, coordinated effort. In fact, when used for distribution of any sort of information, be it a news article or an illegal copy of a piece of music, that's exactly what the internet is. Suppose I copy that piece of music to one other computer every minute. But also assume that half of the people I spawn also copy the music to one other computer every minute, and that half of each . In two minutes, there are two people distributing music. In four minutes, there are four. In six, eight. It grows exponentially. No, it's not finite, but it grows very fast. Supposing the model I just described, that song will be in distribution by more than 4 billion people (and will be in the hands of twice that many people) in a little more than an hour (32 iterations, 2 minutes per iteration).

    • Re:My thoughts on reading this article (Score:5, Insightful)

      by imadork ( 226897 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @10:42AM (#3379070) Homepage
      What the big Hollywood studios fear the most from technology isn't piracy (or at least, that isn't their main concern right now); I am rather certain they wake up each morning, wondering what they're going to do to keep their trust alive when everyone with a camera and a PC can be a movie studio.

      I think you almost have it.

      What is the "job" of the executives of these content companies? To keep the stock price up.

      How do they keep their stock price up? Keep the company growing at a decent clip.

      How can you keep the company growing if your business model is solely based on producing and distributing other people's content? Make sure that creators of content have no other options for production and distribution.

      I don't think that Hollywood studios are afraid that garage directors will put them out of business. I do think they're afraid that the next Great American Director will be able to edit the next Great American film on his Powerbook, stream it himself on the Internet, and not have to use their distribution system to get known. There will be many other content creators that do use the studios. But their oligopoly will be broken, and their will be more competition. At least, you won't be able to see the next Great American Movie in theaters, and more people will associate the Internet with movies.

      This won't put Hollyood out of business. But it will erode their control over the content distribution of the process, which will lead to reduced profits and no growth. Which, from the Executives' perspective, is just as bad.

      • I do think they're afraid that the next Great American Director will be able to edit the next Great American film on his Powerbook, stream it himself on the Internet, and not have to use their distribution system to get known.

        It almost sounds as if you're talking about George Lucas. Lucas owns his own film company - Lucasfilm. He owns his own effects company - ILM. He owns his own sound company - THX. He isn't beholden to any studio or consumer, IIRC. Heck he even said that he made Phantom Menace for himself and not really for others. That explains why it's such an awful movie. He didn't care what others thought. Anyway, he can deal directly with each theater or whatever and doesn't have to deal with the studios unless he's trying to deal with studio owned movie theaters.

        Yeah, I guess they'd be afraid that other directors would go his way too.

    • Your ideas use the concept of extrapolation. Well, i'm sorry to pop your bubble, by the analogy doesn't work for good not "washing machine" like. These include cars, houses, dolls and everything that has a high variable cost "material" cost.

      I don't agree with the Disney's crusade, but you must grant him that people all arround the globe are listening to music and movies of all kinds which they haven't paid for. In the other hand, i do not see many people driving Porche's and doing their laundry for free. At least, not near where i live.

      So fo me the point is more a practical and ethical one. Is it fair to have to spend $20 on a record and not be able to use it the way you like, and that the author only gets like $1 from me? IT IS NOT.

      Untill they don't solve that real issue (ie: another way of selling music), then the thing is not settled. In the end, what we are seeing is fight against people and record labels ( say Content Controlers). Labels want to control the content as much as posible. The golden years beign the CD era before CDRs arrived. People want to use their music and pay directly to the authors, and once they paid for the MUSIC (not the media), then they can use it anywhere they like (car, mp3 player, CD or karaoke).

  • Who need’s em? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Xamdam_us ( 524194 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @09:17AM (#3378842) Homepage
    I for on have just about given up on the Movie, TV, and Record industry. When I was in High School I used to watch a lot of TV, buy lots of CD's and go to the Movies.

    Now I'm hard pressed to find anything worth my time to watch or hear. All the big Networks seem to rush to make copies of the crap that the one of their competitors made. The recoding industry keeps pushing crap out onto the market. The Movie industry keeps pushing out crap.

    For the past five or six years I've just about completely stopped watching TV or buying CD's. I rarely even go to see a movie in theaters now.

    As far as I'm concerned the only thing that will hurt me is the crippling of technology that will come from the Disney bill.

    I can live with out the media companies. Can they live with out the consumer?

  • They sold me a hammer, I hit someone on the head. Hammers are bad. Ban hammers regardless of the effects to builders.

    Not to mention gun mfrs...

    • I definitely agree that manufacturers shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of how they use their equipment. Not should governments regulate equipment. It like Steve Jobs said it isn't their fault if customers use their iPods for piracy, because their primary purpose is not piracy, it that's of a portable listening device. Same deal with VCRS, the only reason that aren't illegal is that their primary purpose isn't to infringe copyrights.

      For that reason I disagree with comparing this to firearms, which some/many people believe shouldn't be banned/regulated. Unlike the iPod, the primary of firearms is not to entertain, but to kill things be it people or animals.

  • The war goes on... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by potnoodle ( 571291 )
    Looking for a political alternative ? Maybe we, the "knowledgeable few" should start acting responsibly, and above all in a united manner against the corporate enemies of progress. By progress I'm talking about the free exchange of cultural "goods" worldwide so that even the poorest can - enjoy/learn from - all these massive resources that come from those of us who have access to permanent links to the Net. It doesn't mean that new content will disappear, it means that those who can afford it, share it! The middleman has to go and that is why he is fighting tooth and nail to keep his privileges through legislation that he is trying to get passed thanks to money-based lobbying. I am no commie retard but it is about time that we, the tech heads, took over some of the power whose abuses we are always complaining about! Of course they wield big bucks and, as they say, money talks. The only way around this is to encourage (inform!) artists to refuse any arrangement with the middleman, and make sure they are appropriately rewarded. Rewards nearly always come in the form of royalties on sales. What are we waiting for to create an independant paypal-like micro-payment system based on what people actually "consume" ? You can bet the major pigs are busy trying to make sure they set it up first and then lock us into it. Nothing can change if you don't start by BOYCOTTING these companies. For me, this doesn't mean punishing yourself and your friends by not going to see the latest movie in a theatre, but getting more out of what is already spreading through alternative networks (and which is what you really want, not what some marketing asshole has decided to let us see). Not starving the creators of content, but pushing them to realise their own responsibility in the current situation. Digital Rights Management ! HAH ! How many times do I have to pay for something before I have the right to download a copy of it in a different format because the medium has changed ?
  • The movie execs aren't scared 'cause they think that users can make movies as good as them. That is babble to them. Remember, these are the people that think "Tom Cruise's Face in any movie"=="money in the bank" To them the height of their art is when Independence Day made over 300 mil in US box office, and over 150 mil in rentals. Not the fact that Clerks was a good movie (though it was). To them Clerks wasn't even a almost-movie.

    Sorry for the Kevin Smith movie reference, for those who don't know what Clerks is(it was his first movie made on a 20k budget, and quite a good one at that).

    Hollywood, unfortunatly for us(the consumers), got a rude awakening at napster. They saw a brief glance at the future for the brief moment of time napster was around. Consumers actually empowered to do whatever they wanted to with property they bought. The napster for the movie industry will now, unfortunatly, never happen. We won't be able to point our fingers at how a low budget picture got a huge box office gross 3 weeks in because people previewed on the "movie version" of napster.

    Before most movie execs prolly thought of computers as word processors that could play solitare. Now they know what they are really capable of, and we should be afraid. Even if this bill doesn't get passed, Hollywood will likey follow it up with something very much like it, only perhaps they might give M$ more money next time, to get them on their side. A lobbying force such as M$ and Hollywood together should be feared, as tech industry people will be much more hesitiant to speak up to them. And remember M$ also likes to employ good lawyers to do nothing, just so M$ won't have to fight them in court. I can think of very little that they wouldn't do, if they were to cut the right deal with Hollywood.

    Everyday Hollywood wakes up and asks itself if the Napster for Movies has started, and everyday it doesn't happen, and they have more time to plan how to take our rights away.

  • The Business 2.0 article is the best I have seen about this subject.

    Business people are the greatest friends of business. However, they are also often the greatest enemies of business.

  • From the Poll (Score:3, Funny)

    by Odinson ( 4523 ) on Saturday April 20, 2002 @11:24AM (#3379227) Homepage Journal
    I read the poll like this.

    • 83% percent of people do not own media stocks, or are more concerned with the perfromance of their tech stocks.
    • 14% of people own media stocks and think people who own tech stocks smell.
    • 2% of people don't know what stock is.

    :)

  • Zero Effect (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I love the way the article doesn't quite come right out and say that these laws won't do a damn thing...

    """
    ... A Beautiful Mind, Black Hawk Down, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring were just a few of the current commercial films available for free download.

    Where do the pirates get recent mainstream releases? Some may have been ripped from DVDs... Others are made from master prints... [or] aiming a digital camcorder at a cinema screen
    """

    Except that none of those films are out on DVD. So they all had to be ripped from a source external to the computer. (Like a camcorder.)

    Of course, the ironic thing about Eisner being annoyed with digital copying is Neal Stephenson's "In The Beginning Was The Command Line" which states quite simply that if Disney understood exactly what an OS was used for, they'd instantly produce one that would obliterate Microsoft in the consumer market...
  • Hollywood (the studios) don't produce content, they control it. A few "content people" like to think they're on top but people like Spielberg are small time next to the likes of Eisner and Valenti.
  • Forgetting for the moment that no evidence exists to show that the current levels of piracy are actually hurting the industry's bottom line, I still can't believe some of the FUD they sling:

    Boston-based Internet research firm Viant puts the daily worldwide number of unauthorized movie downloads at 350,000.

    Where the hell does that come from? Even a highly compressed divix rip is about 500mb. I've never downloaded one for that reason. If this statistic is to be believed, there are hundereds of thousands of broadband users doing nothing but downloading rips 24/7.

    Really, this is just unbelievable. Reminds me of the "research" the plaintiffs did in the original DeCSS case. IIRC they wrote in the brief how it was "simple and easy" to pirate a DVD with divx and that the average home-user could turn to piracy with no headache. Under cross-examination, it came out that they actually had to hire two consultants for their case study and it took them 2 days.

    These people are dispicable. Collectively they are the microsoft of culture: a corpulent oligarcy pumping out mediocre to poor products and fighting like mad to keep their control over the creation and distribution of content.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close