The MPAA's Lobbying-Fu is Stronger Than Yours 451
georgelazenby writes "The Frisco Chronicle reports: While the music industry has been clumsily bullying its way through the federal government, the movie industry has taken a more subtle -- and more effective -- approach. The MPAA has been lobbying individual state legislatures to pass laws reaching far beyond the original DMCA. The proposed laws would permit cable TV companies to 'limit subscribers to using only certain brands of VCRs and could ban TiVo in favor of their own proprietary PVR technologies.' According to one expert, the bills are 'tremendously open-ended and create theoretical and potential criminal liabilities for just about anybody on the planet.'"
Control (Score:4, Insightful)
How would something like this be enforced? House inspections?
Re:Control (Score:5, Insightful)
If the cable companies and the government made it illegal for TiVo to carry schedules for their cable programming, for example.
Yeah, I know it sounds ridiculous, but these things always do.
You are missing the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You are missing the point. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You are missing the point. (Score:2)
They just impose levies and tariffs.
Re:You are missing the point. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You are missing the point. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You are missing the point. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You are missing the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
It would appear that every human on the planet is set to suffer, because the average American doesn't *really* care about their freedom
Re:You are missing the point. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ayn Rand said it far better than I could, here: [angelfire.com]
On Demand House Inspections (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two futures:
1) Corporate IP dies and we move to a gift economy.
2) We have to be able to prove ownership every binary string we control on demand.
I vote for a gift economy.
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be up to individuals in the future to decide the value of and reward the creators of binary strings.
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:5, Insightful)
Any packaged string can always be resampled from analog and move out into the wild.
This sort of thing is of great interest to me [datafetish.com]. The issues here are actually twofold. First is that some generic idea of "content" can be represented by multiple bit streams. Never mind resampling; how many different ways are there to encode a specific song? The combinations of different bit rates, different encoders, and different formats is staggering. Somehow, all those series of ones and zeros are going to be assigned (in theory) to the copyright holder? Maybe, but consider . . .
The second part of the problem is that a series of ones and zeros is meaningless without context. The decoding algorithm comes into play. What do you do if your nice new piece of software just happens to tar+gzip (or in some other way get encoded) into something that can be decoded, in whole or in part, by some music software to an mp3 of the latest manufactured band? It's like the illegal prime [utm.edu]. Any laws that get passed regarding digital content without a lot of insight are going to leave things a real mess in the future.
The Coming IP Crash (Score:2)
Is it always going to be necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
What this is is an example of the age old rift between protectionism and advances in technology and more open markets. The paradigm of the IP creator being a full time "worker" who garners all his wage with producing those works has always changed over time. At one point only the royals were rich enough to "own" a painting, or to keep a court musician on the payroll, or to have "theater on demand". Only a few owned books, because of the monopoly of the royal religious scribes, who hand copied bibles etc.
Right now we are at a major crossroads again, as the technology already exists to make a large part of "IP" business obsolete. That's why they are pulling out all the stops, they right now can be replaced. So you then have to ask, which parts still require "protectionism".
I find this sort of amusing, moving in political circles where up into about two years ago, white collar workers were sneering at blue collar workers as their jobs got "outsourced" and "made redundant" by advances in technology and the markets. Myself being a blue collar worker noted that is was few and far between that I could see much support (on the web in forums) from much higher paid people than I, working in "still vibrant" economies such as IT/IP. I got laughed at, put down, told to STFU, that my "work" was buggy whip work that modernization and automation and the "free market" made obsolete, so tough luck. Now that THEIR paycheck is threatened, by outsourcing and automation,by improvements in technology, by the skills required to produce this sort of "product" becoming lower and easier, etc, they are crying foul, FOUL they say,they are "wondering how they will feed their families and pay their mortgage".
Well, same thing I kept getting told and keep getting told, at a retirement (or close enough) age, "learn a new skill, perhaps the old one isn't as relevant any more, keep up with the times, pull yourself up with your boot straps" and etc.
SUCKS to get told that doesn't it? Pretty easy to slam it out when it's someone else, isn't it, real easy? But it SUCKS to take it, doesn't it,. sucks to be honest, to actually SEE reality.
"IP" busy-ness and it's related side "jobs" as a full time "job" is rapidly being replaced with automation and ease-of-accomplisment.
GASP, OH NO!!! Geeks who type arcane symbols fall out of chairs all over, "artistes" swoon and get the economic vapors, middle man skimmers get red in the face, demand "laws, we say MORE,MORE, AND MORE LAWS!!! TO PROTECT....." Whatever. Whoops, you are demanding "protectioinism". wow.
It is no different from ANY other industry, nothing special or magical about anyone's "job" there. You never got handed a lifelong job/profit guarantee. Joe Bubba in the factiory doesn't have it, and is losing bigtime, told to "get with the program". Joe Farmer at the family farm is going through it. Where is it carved in stone that programmers and entertainment "artistes" and middle man "trader-skimmers" are guaranteed a full time job that "pays all the bills"?
Soon-perhaps- it will be possible for the end user-the consumer-to "program on demand" applications exactly like they want them. What then? Soon it will be possible to have huge amounts of "entertainments" created-not even copied but CREATED "on demand", cheaply and at the single consumer level. If anyone forgot, it was blacksmiths that "put themselves out of business". The metal workers did it to themselves. today, engineers are putting themselves out of business, as they concentrate on automation-even with their own jobs! When I was a kid, AUTOCAD did NOT exist.
Where do you draw the line on advances in technology? Should we still be paying scribes to hand copy books? At one time it was
Re:Is it always going to be necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)
My, you're pumped to the gills with pure gall...
Still, I get your argument, and even agree with it. Reasonably soon, "engineer" type jobs could be automated. Soon after that (about 30 years from know if AI advances the way I think it will) science and leadership positions. In about 40-50 years, there will be NO JOBS AT ALL that can't be done better and cheaper by a machine. So, how do we respond as a society?
I vote Citizen Salary. It's communistic, granted, but communism is the best fit in a society with unlimited wealth.
Re:Is it always going to be necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't. He made his living charging admission to the theater where he and others performed the plays he wrote.
Other people performed his plays; he didn't make a penny. He performed other people's plays (and ripped them off when writing his own) and didn't pay a penny.
The money he made getting a percentage of the tickets he then invested into real estate, which is where he made more money, though he was never really rich.
Lots of artists made their money by charging for their labor or their finished wares; not for the insubstantial work. Shakespeare pretty much always made his money through real property: even charging tickets was giving people permission to go onto the land owned by the theater company. Copyrights certainly didn't exist then.
At any point the general premise that authors enjoy no permanent privilege was right on the money. If the whole world would be better off without copyrights tomorrow, and this is certainly possible, then why bother having them?
Re:Is it always going to be necessary? (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? I can't imagine why you don't let everyone else in on your thorough knowledge of his history. Is the deer poaching story true?
As far as the rest of the world knows, Shakespeare more or less appeared on the London scene suddenly sometime around 1592, with his popular Henry VI. Henslowe had been performing it. The theaters shut down on account of plague pretty much through the beginning of 1593 through spring of 1594; Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to support himself with the stage, so he worked on Venus and Adonis which was basically supported through patronage. He also probably was writing sonnets around this time.
The way that Shakespeare finally made his fortune though was that as the playing companies reassembled in London, he became a shareholder in the newly formed Lord Chamberlain's Men (so named because their patron was Lord Hunsdon, who was the Chamberlain of Queen Elizabeth). Though he was a minor shareholder (fitting, given that he hadn't invested as much as others), he got a cut of the profits made from EVERY performance. He still acted in the plays, and fortunately for him, the L.C.M. became very popular. But bear in mind that they were a repertoire company.
Due to various problems with their landlord and their neighbors, the L.C.M. found themselves needing a new playhouse. So they dismantled their favored one, The Theatre, hauled it across the river, and rebuilt it as The Globe. The Globe was owned by a group of investors: the Burbages, and five of the L.C.M. including Shakespeare. The Burbages paid half the lease and took a half share, and the actors paid the other half of the lease and took the other half share. Thus Shakespeare got 10% of the profits from ANYTHING performed there. This money was then invested in real estate back in his hometown of Stratford.
He _did_ sell the plays he wrote to the acting company, that's true. But his pay for that was, again, based on attendance. Playwrights got a share of the admissions paid. And that was payment basically for his labor. It could not be expected repeatedly, and why should it? There weren't any copyrights. And other actors would sit in the audience, memorize the lines, or get ahold of copies of the script, and put on their own performances without paying a penny.
Frankly, I'd imagine that Shakespeare made more money as an actor than he did as a playwright. And it's certain that he made more money as an investor than he did as a playwright either.
Creators have perpetual rights to their creations. Our society seizes works after a time "to promote science and the useful arts."
Well you're just the stupidest person alive.
Riddle me this: Where in the Constitution does it say that copyrights MUST be granted?
Never mind, I'll answer for you, since you're such a moron. It doesn't say that. It gives Congress the POWER to grant them, but doesn't require any action to be taken. It is like the power to declare war, or raise taxes, or establish a post office; it is something that may be done, or not, at Congress' whim.
The first act, of 1790, only granted copyrights to Americans. If they were alive. And applied for a copyright. And only if it was for a book or a map.
Everyone else -- foreigners, dead authors, people who created but didn't apply for a copyright, people who weren't authors or cartographers (e.g. painters, sculptors, musicians, architects, etc.) -- could kindly go to hell.
They had no rights to their creation. And they certainly had no perpetual rights; that's madness.
And nothing was ever seized. The author could, at best go from having NO rights, to having ONLY those rights granted to him by the government, to having no rights again on account of his artifical rights coming with an expiration date attached.
Think of it
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:5, Interesting)
I download a fair few things - Macgyver, old eighties cartoons that are impossible to find, Buffy and Angel episodes and Futurama. Why? Because I can't watch most of them.
I own Buffy seasons 1-4 on DVD, I want Angel as soon as I can afford it, and Buffy season 5. I'm waiting for some bright soul to realise that releasing the Mysterious Cities of Gold on DVD with English audio would be really smart, I'll still buy stuff. However, if I can't find something or watch it, then I will obtain it through other means.
I see the future as containing significantly more DRM, but also not a complete absolutism. People will cheat - they will always have friends who can obtain something, but it will be so much easier to obtain something legally, rather than trying to find an obscure film on Kazaa - you'll be able to select it in the same way that the iTunes library works, possibly even better. And when these systems fall down, piracy will fill in the cracks. Much like today.
The only really massive downsides is that this might really limit the difference between the theatrical release of a film and when it appears on DVD/Interest stores. But I think that all of the industries will adapt - they've done it before.
iTunes network protocol (Score:2)
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:3, Informative)
I'm waiting for some bright soul to realise that releasing the Mysterious Cities of Gold on DVD with English audio would be really smart
not quite what you're after but close. I bought this for some friends, still haven't watched it yet though. I really should.
http://www.medvale.demon.co.uk/gold.htm
dave
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:2)
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:2)
It's copyright infringement, not theft.
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:4, Informative)
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:2)
"Wrapping it up in a mumbo-jumbo euphemism ("copyright infringement") is part of the problem. It's not as bad if we use six syllables to describe it, right? Kinda like the old George Carlin bit about how "shell-shock" became "battle fatigue" which became "post traumatic stress disorder." Fuck that; it's "shell-shock." Throwing more syllables at it doesn't change it."
Shell shock, battle fatigue, and post traumatic stress disorders are VERY different things; sometimes we have to use more than
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:2)
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not weighing in an opinion on whether illegal copying is right or wrong, but your argument has problems.
However, if the seller doesn't want to sell me a copy, I'll just steal it instead.
The MPAA/RIAA justify their losses due to piracy by implying that each copy represents a lost sale. In your widget scenario, you have lost a widget. If the widget were data (and was not secret), then you have lost nothing at all from somebody copying. You can't even use the MPAA's argument of losing a sale, because
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:On Demand House Inspections (Score:5, Insightful)
The culture isn't going to shift until people such as yourself stop referring to simple copyright violation as such a heinous crime as theft.
In society, when a law is ignored en masse, it shows a flaw in the system. For exmaple, take speed limits. They never prevented a fast driver from causing an accident (don't believe me? Check your newspaper for the next high-speed deadly street racing collision -- only a driver's judgement prevents accidents), and it would take draconian measures to the point of absurdity for the law to be successful.
Or, for example, take the fact that time shifting was illegal in the US prior to the BetaMax ruling. The fact it was illegal made no difference to anyone commiting the crime.
Some would suggest increasing punishments will stop people from commiting the crimes. Current drug laws prove this is a fallacy. The fact that downloading an MP3 makes you vulnerable to 5 years of pound-me-in-the-ass penetentiary rather than the few days it really should be (if jail is needed) hasn't made any difference. Does a night in the slammer stop a drunk from drinking? Does losing a job stop a barfight? Do satellite raids and cease and desist letters keep pirated TV off the streets? Does risking your marriage keep people from visiting whores?
No.
Most of the time people follow their own rules in a free society, despite whatever the laws state, unless they feel sure to be caught (draconian society, usually) or that the consequences are so extreme the risk isn't worth it (I suppose a minimum death penalty for certain crimes without any option for parole fits in here, because most lifers never thought they'd be there for life). Fortunately, the vast majority of people are adverse to physical harming each other, and wouldn't dare steal anything much more than some pens from work (and does the possibility of losing your job and spending the night in jail make you want to stop?)
Patch the flaw and regrow the economy. It's about time. Artists deserve so much more for their hard work than what today's failed laws give them.
And, part of the patch is to note that people are much more likely to treat others nicely if they're treated well. It's a two way street, and laws like these proposals put 10 ft. sinkholes in that street.
Re:Control (Score:2)
Re:Control (Score:3, Interesting)
Too numerous to list here, but they include electronic countermeasures disigned to knock-out any equipment that they didn't manufacture, as well as seizing the records of companies selling any devices which could potentially be used for illegial purposes, and automatically sending out bills to those who made purchases from those companies.
America: "Land of the Free" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:America: "Land of the Free" (Score:4, Funny)
ObRIAA-bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
the kind of digital piracy that has put the recording industry on the ropes.
The recording industry put themselves on the ropes. Piracy is just a convenient bogeyman when management has to explain falling sales.
Piracy (Score:2)
Re:ObRIAA-bashing (Score:2, Insightful)
Sigh. I know I really shouldn't feed the trolls, but...
"They tried to sell a product for the highest price the market would bear. People stole what they wanted instead of buying it or doing without.
If people are going to alternative sources, then the market is not bearing the price.
This is entirely the fault of the industry. Greedy bastards, always wanting me to pay for stuff."
I have no problem with them wanting me to pay for stuff. I will-- and do-- gladly pay for music. But the RIAA consistently
Re:ObRIAA-bashing (Score:3, Informative)
Can you seriously argue that it's not? We're talking about a 14% drop in worldwide sales corresponding EXACTLY with the existence of first Napster and then the other stuff that bubbled up in its wake. FOURTEEN PERCENT. That's HUGE, that's WAY beyond anything that could be attributed to periodic fluctuations in discretionary spending.
I call b
Re:"+5?" (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, you are an economics expert
No, I'm not, but Forrester Research [forrester.com] is. I'm not a market analyst either, but American Demographic [slashdot.org] is, along with Jupiter Research and Greenfield Online, who they used as sources.
Of course, if we're looking for contributing factors, then let's add that while Napster downloads were falling while it was on its deathbed, music sales were mirroring it [sfgate.com]. I'm no economics expert, but I'd think that if Napster was significantly contributing to the music industry's slump, th
Receiving eye color must also be... (Score:5, Interesting)
The future: "Sorry Honey, we have to drive another 46 miles... this gas station doesn't serve our brand of car"
Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
>are 'tremendously open-ended and create
>theoretical and potential criminal liabilities
>for just about anybody on the planet.'"
What planet? Planet America? US laws sure don't reach us in Europe.
Laws are a disease (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Laws are a disease (Score:5, Informative)
I would choose to politely disagree. Look at Canada as an example: We are right next to the US, but do we see any effect from these laws? The DMCA certainly doesn't apply here, and when was the last time you heard of a Canadian being prosecuted for copyright violations?
This is not limited to technical issues either. If one were to look at the current issues (I was just reading about this on MSN last night, in fact, although I don't believe it was carried on the US msn site): The US has stated that they will impose sanctions against Canada if we decriminalise marijuana...of course, those sanctions would be in violation of NAFTA and the US would have to repeal them shortly after they were put in place. In short, US law simply does not apply in Canada. In fact, not even US moral standards apply in Canada. Should these laws be passed, I doubt that Rogers, Shaw or Cogeco (the three largest cable providers in Canada) would even consider adopting these stances. Canada is a much more liberal country and does not fall into the jurisdiction of US law.
Re:Laws are a disease (Score:5, Informative)
While it does seem that the DMCA hasn't polluted Canada's legal system yet, it is far from a closed issue. Canada has a stiff media levy, and is considering upping the rate [slashdot.org]. Moreover, this levy is specifically intended as a levy for making private copies of the music a consumer has already purchased, trampling the notion of archival copies (not to mention fining people for backing up their own data on CDR).
Here's the proposed "Private Copying" legislation. [cb-cda.gc.ca]
The CCFDA is working with Industry and Heritage Canada to stop the newly purposed levy that would see the cost of a pack of 100 blank CD soar 181 per cent. Currently, a pack of 100 blank CDs includes a levy of $21 on a retail price that averages $50. If the Canadian Private Copying Collective's (CPCC) proposal is approved, this levy could average $59 per pack at an average retail price of $88 plus tax, said Diane Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada.
Re:Laws are a disease (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't even stop there. The United States government uses propaganda tactics to make what they're doing look legal to the
Re:Laws are a disease (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Laws are a disease (Score:2, Informative)
(If you don't know the background story, the US put tariffs on European steel, saying that it's subsidized and whatnot. The WTO found that it wasn't, the US was wrong, and European countries are now allowed to sue the US for billions. One story is here [indiatimes.com].)
The idea of the forestry being subsidized is just the US government's excuse.
Re:Laws are a disease (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
For the rest of us out here in the rest of the world (outside the USA), the reach of American corporate interests is pretty amazing.
Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Walters said a flood of Canadian pot moving south becomes an American problem, meaning increased border patrols.
Increased border patrols? Moreso than they already are, what with the terrorist attacks and general threats that the US always seems to be coming up with, I don't see how they could increase border patrols, or even security at border crossings!
If we were sending toxic substances to your young people, you would be and should be upset.
Now this begs the point be made of what a toxic substance is. THC bonds naturally to receptors found in the brain--a perfect fit. Other drugs (the more 'serious' drugs) do not fit perfectly with the genetic structure of the human body, but pot does.
If the American government wants to, they can certainly exert pressure on other governments into changing their laws
Again, this is untrue. When was the last time that Canada changed their laws, simply because the US wanted them to? Canada is a free country and our Government (which, unlike the Bush administration was elected) is fully able to hold their own in any battle with the US government. Right now International sentiment is against the US, particularly the Bush administration, and I don't think that the US gov't has any effect on Canadian laws, be it either digital media laws or drug laws.
Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. (Score:3, Funny)
(which, unlike the Bush administration was elected)
Dubya is currently enjoying his second term as U.S. President, after being re-elected in the 2002 presidential election. While the legality of the 2000 election is dubious, I haven't heard anyone seriously question the 2002 one.
Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. (Score:3, Informative)
2002 did not feature a presidential election. The presidential election cycle is 4 years, so the next one is in 2004. Bush is still in his first term.
The House has elections every two years, and the Senators have a six year election cycle (but are 'staggered' so that 1/3 of the Senate is in an election cycle every two years). Perhaps you meant that the reasonably strong Republican showing in the 20
Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. (Score:5, Funny)
Ahem... you must have missed the memo...
;)
neurostarCountries are no longer 'occupied'. The correct (newspeak) term is 'liberated'.
Thank you for your compliance^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hunderstanding
Re:Doesn't sound like an 'expert' to me.. (Score:2)
If Syria doesn't behave, we might have to "liberate their asses".
Good for the MPAA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good for the MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
The end of the MPAA or the end of the Tivo? There are only 650,000 Tivo subscribers. Cutting off part of their market could easily kill the company (especially if a cable monopoly decides to standardize on the lowest common denominator, and bans Tivos even in states where Tivos are still legal, just because a big chunk of their cable network is in a Tivo-illegal state.) You don't want them to be hogtied until someone overturns the law in court - they might be bankrupt by then. Best thing to do is preemptively fight (for example, the SonicBlue subscribers preemptively sued the studios for the right to use ReplayTV units to timeshift and share shows.)
Don't let the enemy define where and when you fight - you must be the one to control the battlefield.
Diversity of the **AAs (Score:4, Interesting)
The RIAA is doing a loud, "hey, look, we're gonna erase files and crash your computer" thing, whereas the MPAA is going around quietly passing bills without any press releases or announcements. Wonder which one will be more successful... from the sounds of it, the MPAA has already had a fair amount of success, having their "super-DMCA" laws passed in 6 states and pending in five more. It certainly seems a more proactive approach than the RIAA, but I don't think either will end up working in the end, since MPAA's plans are basically monopolising (you can ONLY use THESE) and the RIAA's plans are basically hacking (you aren't allowed to have these files! DELETE DELETE DELETE)
Hats off to them... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hats off to them... (Score:2)
I agree that it isn't all that common yet, but I don't think you understand why that is.
CDs are coppied profusely because a fair quality copy only takes up about 64MB, and that is for $20 worth of music. DVD quality movies are around 10X larger, yet good DVDs can cost as little as $10 (after they've bee
Re:Hats off to them... (Score:2)
Re:Hats off to them... (Score:2)
No, as it turns out, the teeny-bopperes of america still go to the mall on wekkends, and tney gotta spend that dough somewhere.
Once upon a time, the teeny booppers will all buy macs,. and learn how easy it is, and ***GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER*** but until then, they can still get tholse little sixteen year old9s (www.ageofconsent.com) to flirt with the cashiers at the Sam Goody and it's a done deal.
The collateral dam
Everybody on the planet? (Score:2, Insightful)
Last I heard, US law didn't apply outside US borders. Officially. After all, that's what makes it necessary to hold small boys - sorry, al Queda terrorists - at Guantanamo Bay, safely outside US jurisdiction.
On a more serious note, this seems part of a trend that will eventually block off access for ordinary people to the unregulated internet. Nice to know that the States are learning from Beijing.
DVD's schemes SUCK (Score:5, Interesting)
My ass. It makes it a way for me to have to sit through a FBI warning, and as is the case from some of the newer DVD's to have to watch trailers, (read commercials). I dont want that in something I have bought, or rented.
So what can a legal owner or renter of a DVD do? Play it with Linux? Yeah, but then I break the law.
These folks gotta get with the program (pun intended) I want to watch the damn movie!
As an aside: I have not been to a movie theatre in 5 years and I am not about to go anytime soon. When all of them became tiny little multiplexes I just couldn't enjoy it anymore.
Screw you MPAA.
Have you joined EFF yet? (Score:5, Informative)
Check out their State-Level "Super DMCA" Initiatives Archive [eff.org]
Read about the legislation (Score:5, Informative)
While I like the article, it doesn't link to anything for the reader to make their own comparison.
The EFF has a Super-DMCA archive [eff.org], with analyses, the templates the MPAA gives to state legislatures, and info on the individual states.
The MPAA has an anti-piracy [mpaa.org] statement, and press releases relating to legislation [mpaa.org] , but I was unable to find anything specifically discussing these particular laws after a brief search.
I talked about this... (Score:3, Funny)
http://slashdot.org/~mraymer/journal/ [slashdot.org]
This is just another example... (Score:4, Insightful)
For example: way back in 97 people were using IRC and Hotline and FTP to trade music, and it was under the radar to the mainstream. Then Napster comes along and the RIAA takes notice, and a staggering number of news stories announces to the public that it's possible to trade music online. The RIAA was the reason for the popularity of napster. And inderectly they are also responsible for the rise in popularity of trading movies on the net because of the migration to morpheus after napster's demise.
Lobbying groups like the RIAA and the MPAA are doing a great service to the cause of piracy.
I wonder why they don't see that.
In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA also plans to sue a little girl in Beaverton Oregon for recording, "Mary had a Little Lamb".
Re:In other news.... (Score:2, Informative)
This is closer to the truth than you think. ASCAP tried to sue scouting organizations for using campfire songs without permission of the copyright holder. No kidding.
the biggest problem with the new laws is... (Score:2, Informative)
For example, is the modem on my desk the "origin/destination of the communications"?
Is it the port/motherboard/other hardware in the computer? Is it the drivers, network dll files & TCP/IP stack? Is it the internet clients (like Mozilla or Trillian for example)?
Welcome... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Welcome... (Score:2)
Re:Welcome... (Score:2)
*knock knock* (Score:2, Funny)
AMERICA THE DISGUSTING by temporarily anon cowie (Score:5, Interesting)
Please dont ruin the world and freedom for the rest of us.
Re:AMERICA THE DISGUSTING by temporarily anon cowi (Score:3, Interesting)
That doesn't, of course, mean that they're right about everything. They certainly aren't, but they're also not in the minority. Pretending that they've stolen the popular will, or unfairly snatched an election (th
Mainstream attention is an unfortunate necessity (Score:5, Insightful)
It is unfortunate that things have to go this way, but until this silliness is brought home-- literally-- the masses can't get behind any effort to put a stop to it.
Does the DMCA make life difficult or inconvenient for your family or non-technical friends? Probably not. Not in a way that they notice or associate with anything in particular. Not being able to rip music CDs may impact a reasonable chunk of the voting public, but no critical mass there.
Wait until your parents want to Tivo their favorite TV show or a movie on a premium station that they pay extra for, but they find out that not only can they not record that show or movie, but in fact the Tivo is not really functional at all anymore... and maybe their VCR doesn't record everything they want, either.
When voters are effected by this stuff, and when they are effected enough so that they get angry, matters like this will suddenly get the attention they deserve. So long as lobbyists and campaign contributors are the only ones making noise, there won't be anything reasonable coming out of our politicians.
At least FCC Chairman Michael Powell likes his Tivo [wired.com], so maybe there will be some advocacy there. Maybe.
The New Millineum same as the Old Millineum (Score:5, Interesting)
Fast forward back to today.
We are on the precipace of a technological dark age.
Basic freedoms are being summarily dismissed when it comes to anything "technological" under the guise of "Intellectual Property and Copywrite Protection" as well as "Security Considerations"
Think I'm paranoid?
Maybe, but here's a couple quick comparisons:
1600AD: All one has to do is cry " Witch!!" and the accused was immediately persecuted.
2003AD: All one has to say is "MP3 Pirate!!!" And that person is immediately subject to persecution.
1632AD: Galileo's The Dialogue Concerning the Chief World Systems was printed -- The ideas in this book leads to his arrest/trail/imprisonment
2001AD: Dmitry Sklyarov arrested for writing software that was alleged to violate the DMCA
Ironic ain't it
US and the world (Score:2, Insightful)
My problem is that now that the US has officially told the rest of the world you do what we say or else (not that it was much different previously, just a bit more hidden), we find that our governments are doing whatever the US wants. Now I didn't vote for the US government so why do they g
You WILL care (Score:2)
The freedoms lost here will trickle to other countries that still have them, and similar laws will be passed there..
Once you set a precedent in one place, its easier to do the same ( or worse ) elsewhere.
"one world order" is the goal remember...
Damnit... (Score:3, Interesting)
I was going to say that as someone in the EU, it wouldn't criminilise me....but then I rememebered how all those bad laws are slowly trickling down to the rest of the world. DCMA->EUCD etc.
Just goes to show what kind of influence you can excert when you spend 40-50% of your national budget on defence^H^H^Hoffense, even when most of your policies aren't well thought out or even just plain wrong.
Well if VA and other states can do this ... then.. (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I really wish the RIAA and MPAA would SERIOUSLY crack down on and even make REWARD laws to police departments is Flea Markets. My local flea markets are FULL of people selling knockoffs and CDRs of both movies and say 50 cent/Eminem. And yes these people ARE different than file sharers because they are PURPOSELY trying to make money off of someone else's work. They are NOT sharing it without financial gain as "napster/kazaa users do".
Rather than privacy intrusive laws like the article mentions and really even as DMCA is, I wish states would consider the battle more local and leave the organizations out of it. Instead, be more concerned for the taxable commerce in their state.
I have always been concerned when the corporate world feels like they have the right to justice on their own without the law. Cable companies, Music companies, Movie companies (most are all 3) are beginning to be able to carry out vigilante justice on the public.
Legal rights to own a radar detector & MP3's (Score:3, Insightful)
2) You should be able to have it because the GOVERNMENT does NOT own the road (taxpayers do) and they certainly don't own your car. They also do not have the right without warrant (probable cause) to interfere with or search your car. (Just because a police officer isn't searching your car, rather an electronic "detector", it is STILL an illegal search.
3)Most radar I know I of that ar
Re:Well if VA and other states can do this ... the (Score:3, Insightful)
In any event, you're falling for the old "you must justify this behavior" fallacy. In a free
New MPAA-RIAA-Microsoft intiative. (Score:3, Informative)
ebay to replace congress. (Score:2, Funny)
Guess who won't vote Republican next election (Score:2)
Re:Guess who won't vote Republican next election (Score:3, Insightful)
Throwing your vote away? Since when was this a popularity contest. I appreciate your efforts to learn about who it is you are actually voting for, but this diarhea of the mouth about 'throwing away your vote' is total garbage and just by using the phrase you show how little you are actually thinking about your ability to vote.
Stop sounding like a whiney loser who expects their vote to not accomplish anything anyway, if you plan on carrying around that attitude please refrain from posting anymore. Theres a
Game Consoles and Linux PCs (Score:2)
Worst-case scenario (Score:5, Interesting)
Joking aside, the disrespect these organizations (and their backers) show for their consumers is astounding. This bunker mentality is resulting in an unnecessary war which both the recording/movie industries and consumers will lose. The industries will lose because people will stop buying their products. The consumers will lose due to the laws restricting their legal rights.
Move over government, this is the century of the mega-corp.
-Thomas
Re:Worst-case scenario (Score:3, Funny)
TN law not from MPAA? Or is the rep duped? (Score:5, Informative)
After sending forward the EFF's letter, as well as one of my own through physical mail, I got an E-mail message from Rob Briley, the TN House rep supporting the TN law. He said that those who opposed the law hadn't read the amendment, and that terrible amounts of misinformation were being spread about it. (I wrote back telling him that even with his amendment, I really didn't want that law.) In particular, he said that he had never been contacted by the MPAA, and wondered why people thought that.
Given that this TN law is like the others and coming at the same time, I'm suspicious. It's possible that this just happened to come up on its own and be similar. More likely, though, Briley was contacted by somebody trying to get him to push this law. It's possible Briley is just lying to me, but it's also entirely plausible that Briely doesn't even know he's being used as a pawn of the MPAA.
Gotta love this country.
tndigitalfreedom.org has an account of several people showing up at a senate commitee hearing on the law. It was clear that most of the sentaors simply didn't understand the implication of the law... and they were relying on a cable industry guy to interpret it for them. When they learned that perhaps there were other things to worry about, they delayed passing the law out of committee. The alarming thing about this is that even though the senators showed a desire to do the right thing once they learned of worries, it does mean that it would have just rubber stamped through if the tndigitialfreedom people hadn't showed up. In other words, our state legislatures are probably passing laws they don't understand all the time, just because whatever industry lobbyist is interpreting it for them makes them feel all warm and fuzzy about it.
Great, huh?
-Rob
Is our democracy is falling apart? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad J00 J00 (Score:4, Interesting)
Your cable provider sends a notice to all of its customers. It says that due to recent changes in local legislation that only Dell GX150 Desktop machines can be used with their cable internet service. All other equipment is no longer authorized to connect to the internet via the cable service. This then qualifies all non Dell GX150 devices that are communicating with the cable network as "unauthorized"[1]. Depending on how the courts interpret the law - this could make all "unauthorized communications devices"[1] (non-GX150), "unlawful access devices"[1]. A user in possession of an unlawful access device could then be prosecuted under this law for using a system that is not a Dell GX150.
Certainly that is an extreme example though not completely implausible under the current stipulations in the law. It would be useful though to examine a more realistic scenario:
The law is passed in your state legislature - but there are no apparent changes in policy with your service provider (the aforementioned cable provider). In the coming months and years after the law is passed, the MPAA and RIAA find out that there is a "malicious" user illegally "swapping" large amounts of "unlicensed" music in the form of MP3's over the cable provider's network. The RIAA and MPAA approach the cable provider about this user and threaten legal action against the cable company if it does not terminate the user's connectivity. The cable company, would have an easy time under this law finding "unauthorized" devices that are connected to their network,. There are provisions that make it a "crime to "receive
The real problem with this law is the broad terminology used and the fact that it can be so easily used to deny ANYONE communications services. The term "communications device" can mean anything. The dictionary definition of the term "device" could be argued to include network protocols as a "device for communicating", or even software that you have written that uses a network provided by someone else. The ambiguous terms defined in most of the versions of this law such as "communications devices" are dangerous for end users because they leave so much open for definition and interpretation. They are designed to target end users, so that the creators and proponents of this bill may engage users in direct or indirect legal action. An area where individuals are not well equipped to defend themselves.
These scenarios listed here are just the beginning - the implications of this facet of the law are not limited to just the Music industry or consumers. They apply to communications everywhere.
The simple matter of it is - this law is an "Exploit". The MPAA and RIAA are implementing the law and variations of it in the state legislatures because they are lower profile areas where legislators are less cognoscente of the implications of this bill. As a result this law will/has already grant the RIAA/MPAA the ability to influence those who do not have significant legal clout to do as they would see fit. Though, the MPAA and RIAA are only the most immediate concerns - the broad and general definitions laid out in this law can be used by any entity to deny communications services to an individual or organization. Fred von Lohmann speaks of transferring law enforcement from public to private hands, this is exactly that. Though, law enforcement is the exclusive domain of the Government. This law bypasses our legal system and allows other parties to prosecute under the guise of a "law". The only reason this can happen is that the state legislators have and insufficient understanding of the implications of s
Re:frisco (Score:2)
And was the frisco kid a friend of yours?
Instering lots of blank linoie byecuause me yseigis too opppenfinseige
Re:frisco (Score:2)
Yeah, right. I saw video of you alleged "peaceniks" whaling on people, breaking windows, and throwing projectiles at riot police during those antiwar protests a few weeks ago.
~Philly
To keep this post on topic: FUCK THE MPAA. Jack Valenti, take your stinking hands off my TiVo, you damn dirty ape!
Re:You can have my TiVo... (Score:5, Interesting)
They'll treat PVR owners like criminals (look at law-abiding gun owners for examples of how your basic rights can be abused), and unless you can come up with enough money to buy a law keeping them from sticking it to you, you're going to have to take it. Or else, become a criminal, and hide your PVR in your basement...
I find it ironic that there's a Ad Council spot with a bunch of parishoners holding church services in somebody's basement because they're afraid they'll be arrested, and then afterwards a little blurb about how we should be thankful for freedom of religion. At the rate our rights are getting bought out by the corporations (who although are legal entities, aren't even voting citizens, damnit) freedom of religion is probably all we'll have left - and that's if we're lucky.
What I'm really saying.... (Score:2)
I just don't bother watching the majority of what gets churned-out these days. If needs must, I watch an older film
Incidentally, I wonder why my last post got modded as 'Offtopic'? - Is it because it was mildly anti-corporate-america? - Does slashdot now have corporate moderators?