Shocker: Despicable Conduct From Disney 428
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Phil Lelyveld, (email) a Vice President for Disney, has written to the FCC to tell them to ignore Digital Consumer's comments on the Broadcast Flag issue. The Broadcast Flag is an inter-industry conspiracy to turn over the keys to general-purpose computing to Hollywood studio execs -- under this proposal, no one will be able to ship digital television technology (like DVD recorders and FireWire) without Hollywood's permission. Lelyveld wrote to the FCC -- who are taking comments on the proposal -- without mentioning his day-job, to tell them that Digital Consumer, a civil liberties groups with more than 40,000 members, is nothing more than a "two dot.com millionaires" working to create a world "where we are all artist/waiters." Joined the EFF Yet? (or is it time to renew?) Update: 12/06 14:55 GMT by M : Lelyveld is not a lawyer. Here's a summary of his background.
EFF (Score:2, Redundant)
Easy (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Lost Government (Score:5, Insightful)
We lost control when
1. Congress became a full time job
and
2. When it started costing Millions of Dollars to run for office.
When the Federal Government started, Congress was not a full time job. Representatives came to Washington to take care of business, then went back home to Represent. As time went on, being a Representative or Senator went from a service position to a full time job. While this may not seem to be a big issue, it has lead to career Congress People (I don't know any 100 year old Congress People *Strom-cough*, do you?).
The biggest problem today is the amount of money it takes to run for office. A Representative has to run every 2 years, so that means they must come up with Millions to run every even-numbered year. A Senator has it a little better, their term is 6 years, so they have more time to raise the Money.
The result of these costs is that to run for Congress, one must raise the funds to run campaigns. A major source of these funds are (surprise) major Corporations. Most Congress People are not going to do anything to upset those who have helped them get elected -- and since most Slashdotters do not have megabucks to donate, that means we are ignored.
Re:Lost Government (Score:4, Interesting)
- the Interstate Commerece Clause of the Constitution stopped being interpreted as giving the Federal Government control over trade between States only during the actual conduct of that trade, and started being interpreted as giving the Federal Government creation to destruction control over anything that might ever be involved in trade between the States; and
- the Supreme Court went along with it
This made the Federal Government hold a lot more power than it had been intended to have, and thus made it more attractive to have Congress as a career. It also increased competition for the seats, leading to the massive fund raising needed today.Scale back the reach of the Interstate Commerece Clause to where it had been intended, and you'll scale down the centralized powers of the Federal Government (redistributing them back to the States where they were intended) and those two issues you mentioned will pretty much go away.
Chris Beckenbach
Re:Lost Government: 17th Amendment (Score:3, Informative)
1. Congress became a full time job
and
2. When it started costing Millions of Dollars to run for office.
Also:
3. The passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.
The Constitution originally provided that:
Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
The 17th Amendment replaced this with:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
There was a reason why the House of Representitives was elected by the people and the Senate was chosen by the legislature. The reason was to establish a balance of power.
The members of the House of Repesentatives were to be elected by the public. It was expected that they would obtain election to office by making promises to the public, because that's how you get elected to office, plain and simple. The result, and problem, would be a steady increase in the duties, power and authority of the Federal Government at the expense of the power and authority of the State Governments, causing the State legislatures to become meaningless in the face of ever-increasing Federal power.
The Senate was supposed to act as a counterbalance. Because the Senate was selected by the State legislatures, the Senators were expected to represent the interests of the State legislatures, and act as a force opposing the expansion of Federal power. Senators didn't have to raise campaign funds and make campaign promises to appeal to the public -- instead they had to appeal to the State legislatures and promise to represent the interests of the States. That's why there were two Senators per state, as opposed to the proportional representation of the House. The design of the Senate was supposed to ensure that the interests of the state legislatures would be equally represented in the Federal Government, both amongst the states, and as a whole against the House.
This simple change to the Constitution destroyed the balance of power and over time has resulted in the mess that we have today.
Now, Senatorial candidates must raise millions of dollars, and make campaign promises directly to the public, just like House candidates. Therefore, both houses arrive in Washington with a mandate from their electors -- the public and corporate donors -- to expand the Federal government to fulfill the campaign promises that placed them in office.
The best way to deal with the problems of the growth of Federal power and excessive influence of corporations in Senatorial campaigns would be to repeal the 17th Amendment, and return control of the Senate to the State legislatures where it was originally intended to reside as a counterbalance to the populist Federal expansionist tendencies of the popularly elected House of Representitives.
The results of the 17th Amendment serves as a powerful cautionary tale to those who would make seemingly "harmless" amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution was a brilliantly designed document, riddled with checks and balances. In this case, a simple and apparently harmless change, increasing public participation in government elections by providing for the popular election of Senators, has disrupted the balance of power, and resulted in the gigantic, ever-increasing Federal Government we have today.
Legal virgins? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, the stories I could tell...
Anyway, not revealing the bias (I wouldn't elevate it to "conflict of interest") is marginal. But the FCC should evaluate the comment on its own merits, which is garden-variety badmouthing
I second the endorsement of the EFF
Re:Legal virgins? (Score:5, Funny)
One is an ugly, scum sucking, despicable bottom-feeder and the other is a fish.
Re:Legal virgins? (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially when Disney/Fox/AOL-Time-Warner/etc have far more money than the EFF can rustle up. Don't get me wrong - the EFF is surely worthy of support - but you won't beat these guys at their own game.
Write letters to, or telephone, the FCC and tell them what you want. Get petitions signed and send them in. Explain clearly and eloquently why you want the opposite of our good buddy Phil. Venting of the spleen usually accomplishes very little to further your cause, and can often prejudice people against your argument.
Why the focus on Disney (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyways, just felt like saying that...
Re:Why the focus on Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
These lawyers aren't taking the initiative without direction. There have been numerous Disney lawyers doing this for the past thirty years.
Re:Why the focus on Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when does what a lawyer says have anything to do with what he believes?
-
Re:Why the focus on Disney (Score:3, Interesting)
Ethics aside indeed.
Re:Why the focus on Disney (Score:4, Funny)
Point well taken. All Disney lawyers are considered dispicable. That extra adjective is duplicative.
Re:Why the focus on Disney (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference is that those working for the EFF and ACLU are up front with who they represent.
This lawyers is "astroturfing", with the added twist of calling any contrary opinion "astroturf".
Re:Why the focus on Disney (Score:2)
As Lau Tzu says (Score:2)
Re:Why the focus on Disney (Score:2)
Well, Disney are a pretty evil company, with plenty of allegations of using child labour to create those lovable, huggable, cuddly Mickey Mouse toys. I guess by letting the crowd know who he works for, it becomes more obvious what an asshole this guy is likely to be...
Re:Why the focus on Disney (Score:4, Insightful)
The original posting poses a number of inner questions. Here are two:
"Should a lawyer use misrepresentation to convince an organ of the federal government that a group of powerful companies should have control over an information technology to protect and enhance their markets? Is this good for everyone?"
"Should one group of commercial concerns, owned by a tiny segment of the population--one percent? less?--enjoy the right to decide whether or not the general population (in the hundreds of millions) can buy an information technology?"
If the answer to either of these questions is, 'yes,' then the idea is despicable--something that any decent person should view with contempt.
If a Disney representative lied to an agency in an attempt to outlaw condoms because time spent having sex cost Disney market share, no one would be confused.
How about some proof? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about some proof? (Score:4, Informative)
Applicable Quote (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure who said it. But it sure does apply.
Also,
Same deal. I don't know who wrote it but it sure does apply
Re:Applicable Quote (Score:3, Informative)
That's Robert Heinlein. You should try reading Stranger in a strange land or The moon is a harsh mistress. Heinlein's books carry the same intensity as the quote you used. Iron Maiden wrote songs titled after about both Stranger in a strange land and 666 the number of the beast.
Re:Applicable Quote (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Applicable Quote (Score:5, Informative)
A judge in Robert Heinlein's short story Life-Line. It's part of the Future History series, and anthologised in various places, including The Man Who Sold The Moon. It's talking about a scientist who's created a machine that will tell you the precise moment of your death, and he gets sued by a bunch of life insurance companies, since by consulting him, people know exactly when to start investing in life insurance policies
(Oh, and the original doesn't appear to have the words for their private benefit at the end.)
Re:I guess this is a case where... (Score:3, Interesting)
Any parellels between that and the DMCA/Hollings bill are surely a coincidence, right?
--Dave
Re:Applicable Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
The same could be said about oil and munitions.
But one can at least say, however the market chooses to remunerate them.As a tech-savy musician, I saw Napster coming way ... uh ... back in the day. I also know a lot of roadies, audio techs and graphics people that get a lot less work lately. Music was over valued, now it's going to be undervalued. If you build castles made of sand, don't complain about the tide
Today I saw a promo on TV about guys who had big time tech jobs and were now delivering pizza. Internet skills were over valued, now they're going to be undervalued. How many programmers does the world need? Labor is always devalued systematically, and US and Euro tech workers are now going to compete more and more with an entire world of poorer people
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemoller
Another Applicable Quote (Score:5, Interesting)
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.
Re:Slightly OT (Score:4, Insightful)
Get a perspective, please
But the poem does put it into perspective. If we wait until we are personally concerned, it may be much too late. ( I personally do not care about off-color Disney movies
Re:Applicable Quote (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no shortage of music (though, of course not audio recordings) dating from before the record industry so I am certain that music and other entertainment arts would survive (in a changed form) the demise of the current record and movie industries.
Re:Applicable Quote (Score:2, Informative)
Lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
But consider the alternative; if we don't keep lawyers busy they become politicians. *shudder*
Re:Lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, gotta love 'em. In fact, you have to love them. Actually, we are under a specific and legally-binding obligation to love them, with severe penalties for alienation of affection.
Re:Lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
I agree with this statement. 98% of sleazy lawyers make the whole profession look bad!
A world of artists. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a good thing.
Re:A world of artists. (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, to be fair to the USA, the independent movie scene is getting better quality-wise and funding wise. The future is bright for the artistic film scene.
Re:A world of artists. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A world of artists.... Oh God no! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A world of artists. (Score:4, Insightful)
What's so great about Hollywood blockbusters? 99% of them suck too. All they do with the extra money is put it into special effects. Almost zero thought goes into the plot or anything else. In fact, if the writers put any thought into the script, the hollywood execs can't understand it and force the writer or director to take it out.
Look at the tv series Andromeda. At first it was a resonably decent series, then they fired the writer and Kevin Sorbo took over. Now it just looks like a poorly done 50's sci-fi serial with modern special effects. Bad acting, bad directing, and bad plots.
The comrade comment is funny. Are you really trying to say a world without the entertainment cartel would be like communism? The cartel companies are the ones who are communists. They conquer every industry that is able to distribute their "content" and try to force out any competition out of the market. Then they funnel money from organizations who make "digital audio recording devices and media." So if you buy a CD burner or blank CD--even if you only use them to burn data you have a legal right to--such as computer backups, your own original creations, and music that you are licensed to copy (look up Licence Art Libre [artlibre.org] and the Open Audio [eff.org] licenses)--you still pay money to the cartel. They take away your rights and put money that belongs to others in their pockets. Sure sounds like communism to me.
They have legal measures they can take, but they don't want to. I remember when the Napster story came out, and they said they wouldn't prosecuted the "fans" who were "sharing" their works (the copyright infringers), but they would sue universities for giving internet access to their students and those creating communications software (innocent third parties). If they would have taken action against the copyright infringers, 90% of them would have stopped their illegal actions. If they would have left innocent third parties alone and not be unjustly trying to take control of the internet / computers / distribution methods, I wouldn't be so pissed off at them.
Re:A world of artists. (Score:3)
You don't have to spend 24 hours a day and 7 days a week working on art to be an artist. Many people do it in their free time to entertain themselves. Instead of picking their nose or watching tv/movies.
Re:A world of artists. (Score:3, Funny)
Where, oh where, is this substantiated? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I dislike the MPAA as much as the next guy, but still, this is pretty unjournalistic. Even submitted by an AC? With email on the frontpage of
--
Right here... (Score:5, Informative)
Mod parent up. (Score:2)
Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
Just think...if just half of their effort that was spent on influencing government regulations were focused on truly making artistic/good movies, think of the truly creative products they could come up with, isntead of rehashing old ideas. Especially with Disney's latest movie, which did rather horrible at the movies. I can see why.
Surprise, surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
So who's surprised that a big company like Disney is sending some fucking lawyer to do clandestine dirty work for them in the name of profit?
Re:Surprise, surprise (Score:2)
HMM...
hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Yes, but they are both in prison for fraud. [google.com]
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Nope, not anymore. But there were when the story was posted.
-
Lelyveld's comments (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the text:
OH MY GOD (Score:2)
What is this crap? Score -100; Improvidently Posted Article
Re:Lelyveld's comments (Score:2)
It's not quite the same as the original link implied it to be either, but still pretty bad.
I think the best thing to do is continue to vote with your wallets. Like the whole Paladium thing, no technology like this will be approved if EVERY congress-critter knows that ALL the people in their districts will not be buying it.
They'll get this information from the lobbyists from Good-guys and Comp-USA.....business get's the picture pretty fast. There's also no way that all the players necessary to make this happen are gonna hold together against determined consumer resistance, somebody is gonna crack in the face of "lackluster sales."
Just don't buy it....ever!...under any circumstances......
DON'T SELL OUT TO MILLIONAIRES (Score:5, Interesting)
That would also do well as an anti-Disney, RIAA, MPAA etc. slogan.
Re:Lelyveld's comments (Score:5, Interesting)
Now everything makes sense! In our Capitalist society, everything that's Free is Devoid of Value. DigitalConsumer.com is "nothing more than a free website", after all. People who offer something for free can't possibly have an intelligent opinion, or else they'd be using their intelligence to make more money!
I hope we all appreciate the humor in criticizing a site which claims to represent "consumers" for being free (and not offering something overpriced for consumers to spend money on...)
He's being honest, you know. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can read his comments via this link (Score:3, Informative)
it's in PDF Format
Re:You can read his comments via this link (Score:2)
Guess not.
Where did Lelyveld say this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, Google has (as of yet) no mention [google.com] of the phrase "where we are all artist/waiters."
Are we supposed to believe that the story submitter a whistleblower of some kind? Or what?
joke, son.. (Score:3, Funny)
Waiter!!!
Here it is... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where did Lelyveld say this? (Score:3, Informative)
Interestingly, Google has (as of yet) no mention [google.com] of the phrase "where we are all artist/waiters."
Google indexes web pages only once a month. So getting no hits on google does not mean a thing. Lelyveld's comments are here [fcc.gov].
That said, it is highly irresponsible of the editors to post the article without a link to the lawyer's writing but instead a mailto: to his email.
Re:Where did Lelyveld say this? (Score:5, Funny)
Luckily for us, news.google is much better then a montly update. Try the same query with google's news engine, I promise you will find the phrase "where we are all artist/waiters." :)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22where+we+ar e+all+artist%2Fwaiters.%22 [google.com]
There, happy now?
grrrr!!! (Score:2)
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but for christ sake this is absolutely rediculious, why are we letting the enterainment industry push us around? We as an industry (computers) are *way* bigger then them.
look in the mirror (Score:4, Insightful)
dollars (Score:3)
MS makes a tasty 480% profit on their software.... EMI gets more than 80% of the profit from each CD. It really isn't that hard to detect the bad guys in this create/buy/sell/profit/pirate game. clue---the consumer is down on the list.
Re:dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
The major houses have no qualms about taking advantage of any artist they sign. None.
Anyone that imagines I can cause pain to a recording artist by duplicating his/her CD at home needs to study the economics of the recording industry just a bit closer. I worked in that industry just long enough to decide there was nothing glamorous about the way signed artists are treated.
My point is this...the houses make a profit any way they can. I make a statement any way I can. One of us can sleep at night.
Re:dollars (Score:2)
Re:look in the mirror (Score:3, Insightful)
and everytime you pirate a cd/game/movie you enjoy you are essentially telling it's creators to go back to busing tables.
No, it's like not saying anything to them at all. They have no idea you ever did it.
What would be better would be to support their compeditors. Then again, that might be like supporting US politicians; no one wants any of them because they're all dirty.(I'm from the U.S. So I'm allowed to make that analogy.)
The problem is that the current legislation is good for all content creators (and terrible for consumers). The big guys get our money, and we get to pay more of it. Therefore, it's not hard to convince our distracted (oblivious?) government entities that the consumers crying for this to end are nothing more than common theves trying to preserve their black market for bootleg movies.
The really sad thing is such piracy situations actually occur, and then lawers use the scam as an excuse to pull their own scam to help make more money on top the the billions they already take in.
Can you sue for "unfairness to consumers"?
Re:grrrr!!! (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that doesn't hold true. The entertainment industry has grown *dependant* on computers, but absolutely DWARFS the tech industry for overall profitability.
People like computers. Take them away, and they complain. People (believe they) NEED "bread and circuses", however. Take the circuses away, and expect all-out rioting in the streets.
Not sending email to grandma and access to endless free porn, vs actually having to spend time with people in a (gasp!) *interactive* manner? How barbaric.
I agree with what I perceive as your point, though. Hollywood can't screw us (the general "us") without our (the specific computer-related "us") help. But it only takes a few traitors to all of humanity to screw the rest of us. And offer enough money, and *someone* will do the job even against their morals.
Sad, but true. We just have to keep fighting for sanity, and when things look bleak, take some solace in the fact that anything they come up with, we can get around.
Digital Slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) You can't buy a cd/dvd/firewire product w/o permission.
(2) Taxi drivers have to pay royalty if their passengers listen to radio.
(3) New audio cds which will not work on standard audio equipment, but only on PCs with security locks.
(4) The DMCA which just abt doesnt let you comment/work on any digital product.
(5) Billing Kazaa users - no small amounts either
(6) MP3 compression usage now demands a royalty fee.(br) These people seem to be forgetting that they exist because of us, the customers. And they are trying to upset those very people that help them stay in business. These guys are trying to push us into a corner and will probably start charging us for the air we breathe... soon. It disgusts me, and OPEN SOURCE makes all the more sense to me. Looks like there is gonna be a war... on intellectual property and rights.. soon.
Re:Digital Slaves (Score:2)
The only problem is whether or not the "reforms" they use to bludgeon the rest of the world into accepting ever more restrictive products are codified into permanant land-mines, which will serve to destroy fair use - or any use, for that matter. We know those music divisions are going under. They know it. We might as well act preemptively and:
#1. Get a law passed to enforce mandatory licensing.
#2. Restrict the length of copyright to lifetime of the creator, plus 25 years, or 75 years for a corporation.
That way, the industry lawyers are tied up trying to undo our legislation, rather than the other way around.
Re:Digital Slaves (Score:2)
Well, there is a war, not between intellectual property per se, but the misappropriation thereof, and our rights.
Re:Digital Slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
Interest groups, that's all it is. These businesses are interest groups with a hell of a lot of money to get the government to see things their way. There are barely any interest groups for consumers. Do you know why?
People just want to bitch a little and that's it. It takes the average Joe/Jane too much time to get active; they would rather sit down and surf, watch TV, or even just vegetate rather than driving somewhere for a meeting or to even write a damn letter. I bet more than half the people here will bitch all they want, mod people up or down-but writing a letter takes too much time. This is where abrasive idealists like Stallman come in trying to rally up the masses and get moving. If you look at it we are an interest group here, how many people are here? I'm sure there are enough to really get some things done if we just banded together and tried it out, hell we can see how fast we can bring down a web site after the article is posted, just imagine if we did this on a constant basis.
Ring-ring-ring-ring.....OH crap I'm late for work.....clunk!
Re:Digital Slaves (Score:2)
Indeed it does. One of the tennants of political science theory (rational choice theory iirc) is that being active in the political process, as a rule, gains you nothing. It isn't rational . Your one vote doesn't count, your one letter doesn't count, you don't have much influence, if any, on politics. And, for that matter, politics on the whole doesn't effect your daily life enough to make it rational to participate and, for all intents and purposes, waste your time.
What you are looking for, and a lot of people, is when it starts effecting peoples lives enough that it becomes rational, and therefore productive, to actually participate in the political process. When a group of self declared nerds won't take the time the participate - i.e. isn't productive enough for their time - why would the general populace care?
Re:Digital Slaves (Score:2)
But that right there is the whole thought of it all, most people are naturally pessimistic and believe their vote does not count, and in an American typical electoral system it make's it even more so the fact, but if they band together those 3000 all of a sudden can have a united voice which is more than there is now. But say one of those decides to quit, you left with 2999, big deal right? Well slow leak that and in one month you can have 1000 left. Besides being active for something just takes a few minutes, like the couple of minutes to read this, people just chose to do something else. It comes down to choice-and most people choose to bitch rather than make a difference. As a matter of fact that's what I'm doing right now, bitching about other people bitching when I could be writing another letter.
Ciao.
Please don't underestimate the public. Its silly. (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever thought that the public may not have the same issues as you do? I mean, there are a lot of more important issues in the world short of copyright infringement and the DMCA. I mean there is a whole world out there. You pessimists really think that the public is going to rush out and do all the things these lawmakers and their ridiculous rules tell us to do?
Simply put, most families are a tight rope act. Most people don't have the time to do much besides keeping that ship afloat.
Good luck. Most people have a heavy job responsibility, and a kid or two. It takes all of their time. AND I MEAN ALL OF IT. So the next time you think that the public doesn't care about issues, watch the ratings for the nightly news, Bill O'Reily, and CNN.
Don't assume they are idiots. It is not a crime to be a conservative or a liberal. It is not an assumption of someone's stupidity because they don't know DMCA rules implicitly. The public is not brilliant, but here in America, it is not dumb enough to believe everything it hears on TV, or from some corporate attorney.
Although many of you very vocal, very young ctivist types think we are all losers and you alone can save the world, TRUST ME ON THIS ONE: You will soon see the truth about all of this.
The public truly knows which end wags the dog, and who all of the bastards really are. Go ahead, take away all of our rights, see what happens in America.
Re:Please don't underestimate the public. Its sill (Score:4, Insightful)
So who do they actually poll? Is it a truly diverse crowd? Then again do you see any other news besides those, and please don't tell me that FOX is a good news source, they are the WWF of News.
Don't assume they are idiots
Never have I made such an assumption. Ones choice of lifestyle does not qualify them as an idiot.
And yes your are totally correct about saying many people are having a hard time trying to make ends meet, but then I see so many people running up credit cards, renting lots of movies, drinking with the friends, and so much more so there must be some money and time somewhere. But I believe that you point about not having time to care is absolutely true. Everyone decides what gets their time and attention. My point was that a lot of people claim they don't even have five minute to write an email, but they have a couple of our to go out with friends or family. I was not saying to rip your life apart and totally dedicate to a cause that is just plain useless, instead just take five minutes here or there and write a letter read sometime, voice you opinion at the right place. Just to make a little change takes a little change not one dramatic change for a week or a month and then revert back.
My intention here was not to offend anyone, even though I obviously have, but just to make people realize that all the time they are spending complaining on the phone, to friends, to newsgroups, and where ever else; they could focus that energy directly towards the cause of their frustrations.
Re:Digital Slaves (Score:2)
(1) You can't buy a cd/dvd/firewire product w/o permission.
(2) Taxi drivers have to pay royalty if their passengers listen to radio.
(3) New audio cds which will not work on standard audio equipment, but only on PCs with security locks.
(4) The DMCA which just abt doesnt let you comment/work on any digital product.
(5) Billing Kazaa users - no small amounts either
(6) MP3 compression usage now demands a royalty fee.
It isn't all bad news... Consider:
(1) No one's passed a law enforcing your #1 yet... just having hearings.
(2) You can have a quiet cab ride in Finland.
(3) You can download music and do away with physical media altogether.
(4) You could move to Finland
(5) gnutella is free (and better)!
(6) Two words: Ogg Vorbis.
What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, maybe if this guy was screwing his dog, or locking his children in his basement, or running a spam operating out of his garage, I could understand calling it "despicable conduct". But what is this guy doing, really, other than his job?
Is this somehow unexpected?
View from the other trench (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem faced by the EFF and like organizations will be convincing the public that they are not a bunch of .mp3-trading IP thieves. They are up against the deep, deep pockets of the entertainment industry, and faced with a credulous public which, as a rule, follows blindly along with the flashiest commercials (or most effective marketing campaign, as we were taught in b-school). I sincerely hope the EFF will be able to put a responsible face on digital copying and fair use issues, and will not end up looking like amoral war3z kidd33z
Re:View from the other trench (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I am getting the sense that Slashdot is becoming more and more dominated by mp3 traders who spout empty slogans like "Information wants to be free" or "Oh, I don't like the cost of CDs, so it's perfectly OK for me to copy them and share them with all my friends".
The problem with these kinds of people is that it is obvious that such people are really not concerned with the people who make the music in question; they are only concerned about getting the fruit of those people's labor at the lowest possible cost.
When comments like this [slashdot.org] get moderated down, I know too many people who blindly support self-serving file trading and have no consideration for the people who actually make the music are becoming moderators.
Let me put my position out there: I am opposed to any type of software piracy. I think Microsoft software costs too much, so I use Linux. I think most CDs cost too much, so I go over to mp3.com [mp3.com] or buy the RAP CD [hoohahrecords.com] ($15, 4 CDs full of music) instead of buying mainstream music. I think most movies and TV suck, so I only watch movies or TV as a social gathering. Instead, I hang out with college students or go online.
Yes, I am opposed to legislated technological solutions because they make anyone with a digital recorder guilty. The RIAA's efforts of 15 years ago, which created the HRRA, killed the DAT audio format. I am sure that the RIAA, unfrettered, would destroy the PC revolution.
- Sam
Re:View from the other trench (Score:3, Insightful)
You make some good points, and, even though I disagree with your fundamentals, they are honest.
However, there is one aspect that's often disregarded; it's that of quashing competition from free/sources using legal means.
Exactly the alternatives you subscribe to, such as using free software and buying non-mainstream music, are fundamentally threatened by commercial moves to technically and legally regulate how we consume information.
I realize that this is taking the slippery slope argument ad absurdum, but I can easily see something like broadcast flags (among other legally mandated means of content regulation/control on hardware devices--imagine that!) eventually leading to a world where I am prevented from consuming exactly those alternatives.
No, I do not own a DVD player, yes, I run FreeBSD, yes, I buy (mainly older and used) CDs--but what if I'm no longer allowed/able to access my entertainment because, say, new CD copy protection breaks my old bookshelf system, my PC doesn't work with my cable modem provider anymore because they require access to check my OS, and my (little-used) TV doesn't let me access even broadcast shows anymore because (a) free TV has been forced into some sort of content protection scheme which doesn't work on my old box?
Great prospects..
Re:View from the other trench (Score:3, Insightful)
That's entirely true about me. I'm not concerned either with the people who make clothes, cars, food, etc, my only concern is getting those products and services at the lowest possible cost.
On the other hand, artists aren't concerned about us, either. Their only concern is selling the fruits of their labor at the highest possible price. The problem with "piracy" and DRM comes from this conflict: artists and media companies value the artists' creations more than the public does.
I have met a few musicians, I have had music lessons from professional musicians. I paid for those lessons. I agree that musicians are entitled to earn a living, like any other worker. However, I have never met a published musician who was poor. And the richest artists, who sell more records, are exactly those whose work is most pirated. The bottom line is that "pirating" music works more as advertising for the artist than as stealing music.
Re:View from the other trench (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the best quote I've heard in some time!
So the flag is not a barrier to those that are doing the hard-core copyright infringement, but only impeeding on fair use by average consumers.
I'd like to see MasterLock try to get away with that! "Sure this new lock of ours can be opened in 2 seconds with no effort, but most people won't even TRY to open it."
Link (Score:2)
Email I sent to phil (Score:4, Interesting)
In reference to your email archived here
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?n
regarding your remarks about DigitalConsumer:
[quote] They represent nothing more than a free website.[/quote]
vast majority of websites are free. CNN is a free website for example. So is NY Times and BBC. Heck, even the FCC is a free website. If by free you mean non-profit, I can't see what there is too demean about that. Of course, I see the point you're trying to get at. You'd like everything to be corporate/controlled by big business and nuts to the little guy, or in your words "sustainable". If all REAL PEOPLE wanted what you want, why does Disney et al have to fight so hard (and underhandedly) to get their legislation passed?
[quote] We do not want to live in the world DigitalConsumer.dot is trying to create for us, where we are all artist/waiters [/quote]
so...the site is run by 2
DON'T SELL OUT TO LAWYERS WHO NEGLECT TO MENTION THEY REPRESENT VAST CORPORATE INTERESTS!
his email (Score:5, Funny)
Look! He admits it! (Score:5, Informative)
Don't sell out to millionaires (Score:2)
We do not want to live in the world where we are all artist/waiters... the copyright lawyers would never get tipped!
--a former artist/waiter
its a changing world (Score:4, Insightful)
learn to cope with the new world they will die.
Laissez Faire (Score:4, Interesting)
Shocker? Hope you're joking. (Score:2)
Personally, I don't understand why the government feels the need to interfere with the market in this way. They already interfere TOO much. While it certainly doesn't sit well with me that big corps want to promote this sort of thing, it pisses me off even more that the government is even considering regulating it.
It's not the Broadcast Flag, it's VCR POISON. (Score:4, Insightful)
Broadcast is good, right? And the flag is GREAT! So, the Broadcast Flag sounds all nice and wonderful. You have to be technically aware to realize what it is:
VCR Poison. One swallow of tainted material, and everything dies.
The FCC is being asked to mandate that every VCR dutifully swallow any poison sent by a content provider. To refuse the poison would carry large fines and possibly jailtime. And the poison is cheap! The only cost would be a single switch:
Kill VCRs? ( ) Yes ( ) No
It's Just That Simple.
It's not "The Broadcast Flag". It's VCR Poison, and the FCC is deciding whether or not to allow it. This is still a democracy, folks -- what do YOU want?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
The last day for FCC comments is TODAY! (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to submit your opinion to the FCC on this matter, and have them read and consider it, today is your last chance.
The digitalconsumer web page for sending comments is here. [digitalconsumer.org]
This is the submission I just filed this morning (Score:4, Insightful)
What I felt like emailing to Phil but didn't (Score:4, Funny)
I wanted to write in support of your efforts to silence the little people and crush their rights and lives under your corporate bootheel. You are doing a fine job in helping to create more misery on Earth and I so enjoy seeing that.
To give you further incentive to continue your good work, I wanted to let you know that when the time is right, I have a special reward for you here in my own land of fun. I can assure you it is far more interesting than that Disneyland park you use to coerce the children into making their parents give away money that could have been used to educate them better. I have some very special attractions lined up for you and some of my best personal servants lined up to service you upon your arrival.
So keep fighting the good fight and don't let those miserable little louts get the upper hand. Remember that you are earning a most delightful place at my feet when your time comes.
Sincerely,
The Devil
Re:Oh Sweet Mother of God (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh Sweet Mother of God (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously, you couldn't have picked another verb???
Re:Don't be fooled by those on the payroll! (Score:2)
(Oh, did I just get trolled?)
How can you support such an opinion? Where are the facts? What is the evidence? I think Slashdot culture is still the reigning thought here but that's not to say the "FUD" speakers don't often have something important to say... especially when it's worded well.
But think of it this way: Read the responses to the opinions you don't like and learn better to reverse or refute the statements made by others -- you'll become a better debater this way. Further, you might just be able to train yourself in delivering an opinion that makes a difference somewhere.
Don't hate the opposition, respect them and appreciate them for making you stronger.
Re:WAITERS??? (Score:3, Funny)