Death By DMCA 414
Dino writes "There's a good article in the IEEE Spectrum, titled 'Death by DMCA', which talks about how whole classes of devices were eliminated, and how others won't even see the light of day as a result of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One example is ReplayTV's TiVo-like devices which featured sharing capabilities, along with automatic ad skipping; the company was sued to bankruptcy, and the reincarnated device supported neither sharing nor ad skipping."
Seriously... (Score:2, Interesting)
...when is somebody going to call the RIAA and MPAA out on RICO charges?
Either that, or disband them by force - let them be first against the wall when the revolution comes!
When the masses awaken, corporations will listen (Score:4, Interesting)
For the moment, DRM and all of its related ridiculousness is the concern of geeks. We're the ones who are informed about the problems with DRM and the slippery slope that it's sent us down.
If things continue to get worse (and there's no reason to believe they won't), it will get to the point where the general public will no longer line XYZ Company's pockets. And when you hit the bottom line, you suddenly start speaking that company's language.
This is why DRM will work (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the choice, the customer would buy the "better" product. The "better" product, for the customer, would of course be the one that offers him more liberty.
Now, devices that do that will vanish from the market because their companies are sued into oblivion. Result: Only crap can survive.
The customer is left out of the loop, as the deciding mechanism which items should survive on the market, which is actually his responsibility and role in a free market.
Free trade is dead. Welcome to the world of
GeekPAC (Score:5, Interesting)
The late great Mancur Olson (Score:5, Interesting)
We are looking at a classic example of this. Consider those who profit from the DMCA. Olson's insight was that it is in their interests to impose costs on society as a whole which are many times, maybe 100s of times, greater than what they themselves receive, as long as what they receive is more than they otherwise would.
Let interest groups carry on behaving like this for year after year, and gradually the costs imposed on society become so great that economic growth slows or stops totally.
Then, only a dramatic structural change, abolition of the accretions, will help. The good news is, it helps dramatically.
In an ideal world, the various Federal Agencies would counterbalance such interests, because they, being nominated by people elected on a broader basis, will have it in their interests to represent the country as a whole. However, special interests are ingenious and find ways through, and this only works by fits and starts.
It can be done. Thatcher did it in the UK. Democracies can do it, when they see the need. This is the good news, the bad news is, it has to get pretty bad first!
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say that there's plenty of room for other means of revenue. Product placement in show, micropayments, paying to download the show ala iTunes, not giving their actors a million a show, dvd sales of the series, etc. There are lots of revenue streams that the station currently makes money on; they just need to enhance a couple and stop spending so extravagantly and they'll be just fine.
We need to stop worrying about them, and they need to start worrying about other content usurping their marketplace. In the future, their actors will likely be paid less and they will likely make less money. But that's a direct result of us having more to occupy our free time. That's business, and they need to plan for it, not try to legislate it out of existence. But so far, they're winning with the legislation so they're going to keep pushing it.
Actually, the legislation is a very bold move to prevent other content from usurping their marketshare, and what we're reading on slashdot is the natural backlash to their effots. They've made their decision, and are going to try to execute their gameplan regardless of criticism because billions are at stake here. We need to vote with our votes, because nothing else will work. They have way too much money and influence currently to vote with our wallet or our voices. They're going after the legislators, and so far they're winning them over.
I miss the times Microsoft was the top bad guy (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft still is evil, and I know that they happily jumped into the DRM wagon too. But when I compare today's news with the past I get a chill. Our rights are being ripped in a astonishing fast pace, and hollywood is suceeding in making things that even Microsoft never dreamed off.
The sad part is that they are likely to succeed; The average people don't understand the ramifications of those laws, and when they question their representatives, they are easily convinced by some crappy explanation in the line that this kind of laws helps to prevent terrorism, or save americans jobs or something like that.
But the truth is that RIAA are a threat to capitalism and free market. They are blocking inovation, subverting the law, and turning law-abiding citizens into criminals without they even knowing that.
We have to stop them. Know! Maybe it's time for another Boston Tea's party.
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane (Score:5, Interesting)
Give Me Flexibility or Make Me a Criminal (Score:2, Interesting)
As a consumer I prefer flexibility. The more options I have for using a purchase the more likely I am to buy it. In what other industry exists the mentality that the more restrictions that are placed on products the better off the industry will be? Imagine if you could only buy a particular brand and style of shoes to go with a particular brand and style of suit or a particular brand and size of nails to use with a particular make of hammer.
Everything that the entertainment industry is suggesting is causing me to think more and more about what my options will be for circumventing restrictions so that I may "enjoy" music and video in the manner I desire. It scares me when I stop to think that I am trying to devise ways to break the law.
Be that as it may I have no doubt that as greater restrictions are placed on what I legally acquire in both media and electronics I will buy fewer legitimate products and put my resources elsewhere.
Re:Proof we are not capitalist (Score:2, Interesting)
Suffocate them (Score:4, Interesting)
Forget it. It doesn't work. One thing works: stop buying and suffocate them. They are nothing without money. Money gave them power, no money, no power.
There's a mountain of evidence anyone could easily understand about how MPAA and RIAA make our life worse and are detrimental to our society.
We need people with marketing experience to help us pick out the major pain points MPAA/RIAA have created in the last years and bring them to the society in an easy to understand manner.
We need to spread the information to the casual folks so they know, and stop funding MPAA/RIAA, by not buying their products. We have to clearly point out the companies behind MPAA/RIAA, they should not be left anonymous.
I'm willing to participate if someone can organise a campaign with web dev/graphics & print design. Yup, I'm actually willing to do something. Anyone else?
Media company's own greed spawned the devices (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Non-U.S.'ers not safe either (Score:5, Interesting)
Way to go, police.
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane (Score:0, Interesting)
STOP GIVING THEM MONEY (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, I have no confidence in PAC's, lobbyist, or letter writing campaigns. They (MPAA members) need to feel some pain.
If you buy a CD, DVD, or go to a movie you are supporting these bastards. Just stop, and tell everyone you know that you've done so.
For myself, until BOTH the DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension are repealed, they'll not get a dime from me; I will cost them money at every opportunity. I'm not interested in giving money to PAC's or lobbyist. I'm interested in seeing a real backlash against Hollywood for BRIBING my elected representatives into passing these laws in the first place. Success can be claimed only when Hollywood "itself" cries mercy and asks Congress to repeal these laws.
Alternative Business Model (Score:3, Interesting)
How to translate this into the US system? Well, let's start with PBS, as that is the only public broadcasting service the US has. To be on-par, PBS would need to eliminate the sponsorship system, eliminate the adverts, get better backing from Government, broaden the content, improve the quality of productions to modern cinematic standards (documentaries shouldn't have the 1930s Pathe Newsreel feel to them), and carry out independent work (history should not be read from a textbook, and news should not be read from AP bulletins).
Next come the existing openly subscriber channels and pay-per-view. These should, really, be reaping the full cost of everything (plus profit) from the material they sell. If they don't, then the material is either grossly undervalued or grossly inferior. People are generally happy to pay for things that are worth the cost to them, so either the pricing is incorrect or the material is. Or both.
Finally, the "free" advert-laden channels. In the end, adverts cost the producers of the advertised material money. This money will end up being added to the cost of goods. Since the cost of material doesn't depend on who is paying for it, this will work out to be comparable to any of the subscriber channel costs. Only, you're paying for it whether you watch those channels or not! It's a tax on goods, going through the corporations rather than through Government, but it's still a tax. Since it is a tax, why not have it collected by the people collecting taxes anyway? It won't change how much you end up paying for your cost of living, but it will add about 15-20 minutes of material to every show, increasing the value of watching them.
(If you're going to pay $X extra because of an invisible sales tax created by advertising, it makes no difference to you in your overall costs if - instead - those same goods were $X cheaper and you had an $X flat tax to cover broadcasting in that area. $X - $X = 0.)
Actually, that's not totally correct. Those in adverts get paid royalties for every time the advert is shown. This costs the advertisers more, which they'll defray by making you pay for it by more expensive goods. This will not be exactly the same as the increase in production costs by making shows 15 minutes longer. In some cases, the cost of the adverts will be more. In other cases, the cost of the shows will be more. You would need to quantify this, to prove conclusively that the BBC model of the license fee would work in these cases. My suspicion is that you'll find that the license fee is indeed the superior model, but in either case, the difference has to be insignificant as none of the other costs for those channels is going to vary.
(You asked for an alternative model. You didn't ask for one Americans would stomach. I know perfectly well that even if every household in America saved hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year from a license model, and even if it meant program quality skyrocketted far beyond the wildest imaginings of anyone alive today, you'd be risking an armed uprising before Americans would consider a new overt tax from Government, no matter how covertly they were being taxed by corporations already.)
King Canute solved a lot. (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem to remember that Canute commanded the tides to stop and have taken that as an example of a ruler out of touch with reality. The folks who think it is their job to stifle technological progress in order to preserve their employer's profits may be disconnected from reality. (However there is more than one reality - I cite the leadership of North Korea, Iran, and Cuba as examples)
But back to the misremembered monarch. In a nutshell, Canute had a bunch of fawning sycophants that irritated the hell out of him. He manuvered them into asserting that he was such a powerful King that he could command the tides to stop and the tides wouild obey him. In the time it takes you to say "Beach Blanket Bondage", he had those little twits staked out on the beach at low tide. He commanded the tides to stop. I do not recall if he sent condolences to the surviving family members or not. More likely he would have had them removed from the gene pool as well - it would be the only prudent thing to do.
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Non-U.S.'ers not safe either (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right about that-- it's the U.S. industries at fault. If we can stop them (from pushing our government to doing their bidding as well), the U.S. as a whole wouldn't be to blame. I'm a US citizen and I don't like the RIAA and MPAA at all either. There really aren't that many of us here that want the RIAA and MPAA too.
RIAA sued under RICO (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7767 [p2pnet.net]
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6445 [p2pnet.net]
Here are their names (Score:5, Interesting)
"In an attempt to put an end to all that, Hollywood has drafted the Digital Transition Content Security Act, introduced as H.R. 4569 in December 2005 by Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). This legislation, better known as the Analog Hole Bill, would impose a design mandate on any "analog video input device that converts into digital form an analog video signal.""
The RIAA is urging the FCC and Congress to impose design restrictions on any future HD Radio recorders to stave off a successful new mutation: a digital hard disk recorder that allows easy and flexible archiving of radio broadcasts. As similar devices have appeared for satellite radio, the recording industry has also begun pushing for legislation to restrict them, such as S. 2644, the Platform Equity and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music (PERFORM) Act of 2006, introduced by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Cal.).
Hollywood lobbyists actually convinced the FCC to impose broadcast flag regulations in 2003, but a U.S. Court of Appeals found that the Commission lacked the authority to regulate the internal workings of televisions. Hollywood is now asking Congress to give the FCC that legal authority by passing the Audio Broadcast Flag Licensing Act of 2006, sponsored by Rep. Michael Ferguson (R-N.J.)."
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, the thing about trade is that it only works when both parties are getting a good deal. Trade works because commodities have different values to different people. If my time is worth less to me and more to them, and the entertainment they can provide is worth more to me than it is to them, then this is a good trade and everyone is happy. The problem is that it isn't.
Is 40 minutes of entertainment really worth 20 minutes of your time? Possibly if you're on minimum wage, and even then it would be a close-run thing. A decade ago, (in the UK) it was much closer to 10 minutes or my time for 50 minutes of entertainment, which was a significantly better deal. Even then, I much preferred watching the BBC channels that didn't have adverts.
A couple of weeks ago, my TV broke. Since then, I have not bothered getting it fixed. The only thing I watch these days is Doctor Who (and I have enough friends that also watch it that I can watch it with them if I don't have a TV).
I have, effectively, withdrawn from this trade. If the media producers wish to tempt me back, they need to make a better offer. Fortunately, they have. I can rent DVDs of most shows I would watch very cheaply. If I could do this over the Internet for the same (or a lower) price, then that would be even better.
Re:GeekPAC (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Non-U.S.'ers not safe either (Score:1, Interesting)
If you are in a band and are considering signing with a major label, make SURE that you retain a) all copyrights b) your band (and corporate) name c) all publishing rights and c) you only grant them a very limited license (limited in time and form of media) for distribution. Give the label NO other rights or you will be fucked.
Re:Non-U.S.'ers not safe either (Score:3, Interesting)
Their response will be to try to outlaw that particular client and clients like it, and impose DRM technology on every user to enforce the law. How well that turns out might be a decisive moment for the future of culture, I suspect.
Optimism (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Alternative Business Model (Score:3, Interesting)
No, there's the small difference that Coke and Pepsi can't put me in jail if I opt not to pay the "tax" by buying generic soft drinks instead.
And if you think the US has a contentious political climate now, just wait until you put politicians in charge of all the funding for popular entertainment.
Theft? (Score:2, Interesting)
What about closing your eyes and covering your ears during the ads? Can I be called a thief for that?
And isn't theft (agains us this time) to put ads in 50% of cable TV time, which we are already paying for?!?!?
Thanks for the audience. I'll be here all the week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.