Salon Interview With Head Of MPAA

awaterl writes "Salon Magazine is featuring an interview with MPAA president Jack Valenti, who has never downloaded an MP3, but does 'have staff members who have.' An interesting interview that provides insight into the mind of an aging guy who is honestly doing what he believes to be right, but cannot see why others might consider him clueless. "

"Clueless?"

The man seems intelligent, well-spoken, and thoughtful. Just because you or I or the Andover editorial staff disagree with him is no reason to resort to character assassination. That's the argument ad hominem, it was discounted as invalid as long ago as the Greeks. Slashdot certainly should know better.

Mr. Valenti has a good head on his shoulders, and all SORTS of clues. It's just that his universe rests on different assumptions than this community's, assumptions about the superiority of propriety and profiteering over freedom and sharing. This man seems to be very clueful at working with these assumptions to come to conclusions that are clearly thought out, self-consistant, and intelligent. And totally disagreeable to this crowd.

If you want to change the man's mind, work on changing his assumptions.

If you want to call him names, feel free, but don't expect anything to come of it.

--

fscktv

Someone released an app Sunday called fscktv, which descrambles NTSC cable signals in software. It's a modified bttv kernel module. See the story [kuro5hin.org] on kuro5hin.org for more info. Is descrambling cable signals any different from swiping network signals and redistributing them? Whether you think the law is right or not, it seems like what iCraveTV is doing is illegal. Using this software cable descrambler in doubtless also illegal. And it seems pretty clear that even if the intent was not to illegally copy DVD's (which I actually kinda doubt, having seen some of the early announcements of DeCSS), decrypting them is also illegal, at least in the US.

So, all moral righteousness aside, how do people here defend their stance that all of these things should be legal? Basically, my question is, why shouldn't the MPAA have the right to use whatever boneheaded methods they want to prevent people from seeing their media?

--

Re:"Clueless?"

I agree with you on that, but that is not how he wants to come across. He seems to be saying that he is all for the spread of movies through the world, with no mention of the control they build into the system. Now we know better, but the average Joe looking at salon is only going to see a nice old man, trying to distribute movies to everyone, and some mean old hackers trying to copy his stuff and sell it themselves. That is distinctly NOT what this is about. But that is how it has been portrayed.

Finkployd

Re:something *I* don't understand

As self-contradictory as this is, I'll stab at it anyway. Reverse engineering is not illegal. And, you don't have to agree to the license to reverse engineer something.

But if the license says you can't reverse-engineer, then you are breaking the license if you do so. Now, different countries have different laws regarding whether a license can forbid reverse-engineering or not. I have no idea what laws Norway has on this. I can only assume that they are much more severe than in the US, since Johannsen was *arrested* and *jailed*. The same thing in the US would merit only a subpeona to a civil trial.

Be that as it may, I once argued that the wording of the GPL was not identical to how people used it. I got a stern reply from GNU that no matter what the GPL or the law said, ignoring the wishes of the author was extreme rudeness. In the case of DeCSS, Johannsen exercised extreme rudeness by reverse engineering DeCSS when he knew full well that the MPAA did not want him to do so.

About your point with QT... I believe that would all depend on how you interfaced with DeCSS. If you linked to some GPL'd libraries, then you'd be in big trouble. However, if you used a fork or a pipe...then you'd probably be ok. (IANAL)

RMS concurs for the most part. But that's beside the point. What if the GPL license were violated? What if I did statically or dynamically link DeCSS with Qt? What if, GNU forbid, I actually included DeCSS code in a non-GPL application? Why are we spending so much energy condemning the MPAA for trying to enforce their license when we would be the first to enforce a GPL violation?

Is it just because the MPAA is a corporation? Just because they are big? Just because they are not part of the tribe? What if the DVD encryptions were licensed from a small mom-and-pop shop instead? Would we condemn them for filing a lawsuit on Johannsen? If we would defend him in such a case, would we also defend the MPAA if they did exactly the same thing?

We are spending way too much time bad mouthing corporations, and not nearly enough time trying to get the DMCA repealed.

Let the MPAA try to control content!

I udnerstand that the MPAA is trying to secure the rights to it's content. Unfortunateley, I don't think their content is worth much. Take my situation: I live in Europe, have 25+ cable channels, most of which are filled with b-grade movies most of the day. Every once in a while someone schedules a decent movie (this is seldom enough that I'm almost convinced that this only happens by accident) but most the time it's bad movies mixed with Jerry Springer and game shows. The MPAA can control this stuff as much as it wants because I don't really want it.

Of course they are fighting a loosing battle: just look at what technology did to music. You can today, at a reasonable expense (that is, if you're on a decent computer geek salary) buy recording equipment which will allow you to put your music on CD with a decent sound. Not professional studio-quality sound, but good enough. Well the same thing will happen to the movie business and once it does, their monopoly on the means of productions (my, I sound socialist today :-) ) will evaporate. And once that happens, their content will dramatically decrease in value.

I think the internet could well have the effect of splintering society and removing the dominance of the current media mogules. Once that happens, there will be nothing left for them to control because the market will be too fragmented. Now if we could only make this concept clear to the 99% of the population who are not geeks ...

Re:fscktv

As people from Canada keep on telling Americans, it's not illegal in Canada to rebroadcast a broadcast signal as long as it's live & unmodified. It's no different to a cable TV company doing the exact same thing except over their private network.

Unhobbled? Yeah, right....

"The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world," says Valenti

"I did not have sex with that woman," says Clinton.

The latter statement is -- let's be polite and call it "contraindicated" -- by the DNA evidence. The former statement is similarly contraindicated by the region-coding crippleware which protects, not intellecutal property, but market cartelization.
/.

Re:Everyone Seems To Be Missing The Point

It's those who use it to mass produce illegal DVDs (in the same manner that some illegal outfits mass produce counterfeit MS software), that is the real problem.

Yes, and if the MPAA went after them, instead of erecting artificial barriers to reading legally purchased DVDs, they would have a legitimate case.
/.

Pirating is easy... not

Man, I had NO IDEA that you could pirate a DVD and INSTANTLY send it to 6-BILLION people all around the world... INSTANTLY

Man, I must have one REAL slow connection.

And when did everyone on the planet get connected?

This man's lies need to be corrected.

Re:fscktv

It would clearly be illegal to use a software descrambler to view content that you had not paid for. However, suppose that I've paid my subscription fees to the cable company for the content? Is it then illegal for me to use a software descrambler? I can imagine an almost infinite variety of fair-use possibilities for software like this.

Here is one example for possible uses. I could have a Linux box at home that acts as a VCR, saving selected TV shows as MPEG streams. I then transfer them to my laptop so that I can watch them on the plane or during a daily train commute. Since some of the things I want to watch are scrambled, it's necessary to use the software descrambler. Is this illegal? Does it benefit anybody for this to be illegal? Certainly not the consumer.

Similar examples are possible to think up with DVD. Suppose I buy one of the new ultra-light laptops which don't have DVD drives. It seems perfectly legitimate that I should be able to copy the contents of a DVD that I own onto the harddrive of a laptop, allowing me to watch my legally purchased movie on the plane or whatever. This is quite feasable. Sony, for example, makes a laptop with a 12GB hard drive and a 500MHz processor, but no DVD or floppy drive. However, the MPAA seems to think that this is a crime.

Here another example from the not-so-distant future. Suppose I buy a DVD-Audio disc since I now have a DVD-Audio player in my house. I also have a CD-R. It would be perfectly legitimate for me to rip the MPEG stream off of the DVD-Audio disc and convert it to a redbook format and burn a CD to play in the car. This is clearly an example of fair use. After all, I'm allowed copy a CD so that I can keep a copy in the car. Why shouldn't I be allowed to copy a DVD-Audio disc?

The reality is that copyright is a misnomer. It is not about copying, it's about distribution. It is also not a right, it's a temporary privledge granted by the government. It is also not absolute. There are many things which we are allowed to to with copyrighted material under fair use provisions. One example is to tape things using a VCR. Using a VCR to shift our viewing of a program temporally is a recognized fair-use. That doesn't mean I have the right to re-distribute what I've taped. But, I can use it myself. Another example is copying a music recording for personal use. It is a recognized fair-use for me to make a copy of a tape, CD, or LP to keep in my car. I don't have to buy a second copy, I'm allowed to make one.

The question isn't really whether or not the MPAA or whomever is allowed to use boneheaded techniques to control access. The question is whether or not it should be illegal for use to bypass said boneheaded measures in order to enable a legitimate fair use of content that we have legally purchased.

No boomer, but scared of Norwegian teenager

If this man flew 51 missions in WW2, he's no baby boomer (usually considered the cohorts born 1946-1965). More like one of their parents, most likely born before 1927.

Regardless, he seems scared of being implicated with the arrest of the Norwegian teenager who authord DeCSS (Johanssen?). Most of his replies were evasive, as is customary among PHBs. But that one wasn't. I infer he's feeling some heat.

Re:Unhobbled? Yeah, right....

Valenti:
> > "The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world,"

SteveB:
> "I did not have sex with that woman," says Clinton.

I think you picked the wrong Clinton quote. Clinton's memorable "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" would be more appropriate.

Valenti's definition of "freely and unhobbled" is based on axioms so wholly different than ours that he comes across as being clueless to us.

To us, content is content - a movie on film or a movie as a bitstream are the same thing. There's no difference between buying a DVD and playing it in a dedicated DVD player, or using DeCSS and playing it on our Linux boxen. We've "paid for our content" (the physical disc upon which the bitstream resides), and can view it using whatever mechanism we see fit. The medium upon which it resides or the source from which it's transmitted are immaterial.

Valenti doesn't see it that way - there are two types of content in his world; blessed content whose distribution and use is under his control, and unblessed content, which must be stamped out. The NFL/SuperBowl analogy was a good one -- to the MPAA (and in music, to the RIAA), content that moves without the rituals of payment and licencing is Bad Content, and must be eliminated. Content that moves after someone pays for it is Good Content, and (the unstated assumption in his argument) only Good Content should be able to "move freely and unhobbled". Of course, any movement beyond what's prescribed by the licensing restrictions renders it into Bad Content. (See the earlier Slashdot thread on "Is SDMI a consumer nightmare", and the discussion of domains through which a user is allowed to move files.)

To us, that's hogwash - "freely" and "unhobbled" are meaningless if they mean "only through Valenti's distribution channels". What's "freedom" if it's only "freedom to agree with Valenti's view of the world"? But to an MPAA exec, "through approved distribution channels where our sales reps have sold ad time or licencing rights" are the only imaginable ways in which content can be distributed. Anything outside of that ceases to be "Good Content", and must therefore - a priori be "piracy" and worthy only of extermination.

Valenti's not as clueless as he looks - he's merely arguing from an axiom set that's wholly alien to us.

It's a bit like the old Zen koan: the man who meditated on the ox for a year, asked to leave his room, replying "But my horns won't fit through the door". Valenti's notions of "free and unhobbled" are circumscribed by the licensing/distribution restrictions of his own making. I have no doubt that he's being sincere when he says "free and unhobbled" - but just like Clinton, it depends on what the words mean to him.

Re:Questions for Jack Valenti

Why then, do you charge different prices in different countries?

Because of different distribution costs in those countries. Different markets have different markups because each market has it's own distribution system which requires different markups so that the people along that distribution chain can be paid for their work.

(This is the standard reason given by most hardware manufacturers as to why PCs cost about 50% more in certain parts of the world than in others.)

Region codes exist on DVDs in order to prevent retail marketers from circumventing their own internal distribution model. That is, the distributors that the studios deal with to distribute materials around the world pretty much demanded that some sort of region code be added so that the distributors can maintain their effective market position, rather than be bypassed by the store fronts who could otherwise buy the materials from a distributor in another country and save money.

And the total number of arrests in Hong Kong would be?

They're working with the PRC in order to raise awareness of copyright issues in Hong Kong. However, the MPAA does not control China, and so negotiations are necessarly on-going.

And your reply to the prosecutor who said they did it at your request would be?

The prosecutor was made aware of the violation of copyright law. But the MPAA doesn't control the Noregian government or their prosecutors; they can only lodge a complaint.

So you do agree that once you've bought the DVD drive and the DVD disk, you have the right to use whatever tools you want to view it on a Linux computer?

Of course. However, you do not have the right to distribute those tools, or to repurpose those tools to violate studio's intellectual property rights by copying the tracks off the DVD for potential redistribution across the 'net.

One thing that Mr. Valenti does get is the explosive nature of bandwidth over the Internet. That is, while now it is impractical to download a 10gb movie file, tomorrow better compression technology and higher bandwidths will make it trivial to do. Just as 10 years ago, the thought of storing one record album for playback on your computer was seen as completely impractical--while now, people are routinely storing dozens of CDs on their hard disk for convenient playback.

I personally see a time in the near future where downloading a movie over the net will be nearly as fast as downloading a picture is today. And when that happens--when it is possible to download "Star Wars" off the 'net in a few minutes--either some form of infrastructure needs to be in place to protect the intellectual property rights of studios, or "Star Wars" will make the top "MPEGWAREZ.COM" download for 30 weeks running.

So I personally suspect if you ask the MPAA the above question about Linux, that they'd respond that as soon as they get a request from a closed-source developer who will develop a DVD player for Linux gives them a viable request to build such a beast, they'll gladly license the CSS algorithms. And I suspect given the flap over Linux, they'll even do it at a discount, just so they can prevent the open-source community from producing tools that could be easily repurposed for piracy.

And don't give me the "we won't repurpose the code" bit--remember, the biggest strength in the open source community is it's biggest weakness: that when source is open and free, programmers are able to reuse the code for whatever purpose strikes their fancy.

Final Question: You can even ask the audience or call a friend. Has anyone ever sucessfully used DeCSS to copy a DVD movie to another PC and then play it back?

http://www.dvd-copy.com [dvd-copy.com]

Duh.

You know, if you are going to ask hardball questions, try to ask questions that are more hardball than this. Because most of these questions have already been asked and answered elsewhere.

Personally I think that the MPAA has a problem. And I personally think their approach to solving this problem is the wrong approach. Alienating the very technical community they will need in the future to help them maximize the value of their properties is not a good thing to do.

And personally I don't agree with some of the answers I gave above: using technology to protect monopolies is just plain wrong IMHO. But in industries where technology can be used to protect distribution monopolies, it's being used. And that includes country codes in digital media such as Sega games and DVD movies.

Questions for Jack Valenti

""The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world."
Why then, do you charge different prices in different countries?
Ummm...

"And in the last several years, we have been intentionally, seriously and energetically concerned with combating theft of our intellectual property."
And the total number of arrests in Hong Kong would be?
Ummm...

What about the arrest of Jon Johansen, the Norwegian teenager partly responsible for DeCSS: did the MPAA have anything to do with it?
That was done by Norwegian prosecutors. We were not involved in that.
And your reply to the prosecutor who said they did it at your request would be?
Ummm...

So what constitutes fair use of a DVD in your eyes -- besides simply buying a DVD and using one of the MPAA's authorized players?
Any use by which you buy it at a price.
So you do agree that once you've bought the DVD drive and the DVD disk, you have the right to use whatever tools you want to view it on a Linux computer?
Ummm...

Final Question: You can even ask the audience or call a friend. Has anyone ever sucessfully used DeCSS to copy a DVD movie to another PC and then play it back?
Ummm...

well, that was a fun show, any comments from the audience?

"Is it true that when President Kennedy was gunned down, Valenti was six cars behind him."
Yes.
Now that's an alibi. Oh well, so much for that theory...

-----