Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Encryption Security Your Rights Online

MPAA Committed To Fair Use and DRM 212

Posted by kdawson
from the crack-in-the-wall dept.
Doctor Jay writes "At a LexisNexis Conference on DRM this week, MPAA's Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers. 'In his speech to industry insiders at the posh Beverly Hills Four Seasons hotel, Glickman repeatedly stressed that DRM must be made to work without constricting consumers. The goal, he said, was "to make things simpler for the consumer," and he added that the movie studios were open to "a technology summit" featuring academics, IT companies, and content producers to work on the issues involved.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Committed To Fair Use and DRM

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:53AM (#18885871)
    You wouldn't be allowed to make a banana split, and you'd only be able to eat a slice banana with Kelloggs brand cereals.
    • And you would have to pay royalties every time you used the word banana.
      • by HAKdragon (193605)
        ..what if you'r using the word banana in a way that's unrelated to the fruit? - such as 'banana hammock'
    • by Hemogoblin (982564) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:05PM (#18887111)
      No, no, its more like a car that... ah, sod it.
    • by suv4x4 (956391)
      If the MPAA sold fruit .. You wouldn't be allowed to make a banana split, and you'd only be able to eat a slice banana with Kelloggs brand cereals.

      If MPAA sold fruit, I'd feed a banana in my DVD drive, and get out 100 bananas for free. You can clearly see the problem MPAA has to meet.

      Not defending their actions, but come on.
  • by faedle (114018) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:55AM (#18885889) Homepage Journal
    It's a shame that Sony's use of copy protection (that breaks even playback on standard licensed DVD players) means that at least one significant MPAA member disagrees... .. not to mention the recent actions against YouTube.
    • by ari_j (90255)
      Wait. What actions against YouTube are inconsistent with supporting fair use to the extent that the blurb (I didn't RTFA, and neither should you) discusses?
    • by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:11PM (#18886171)
      They don't know what the hell they are even talking about. Some salesman who is much better with people than I am has apparently told them that everything can be inter-operable AND have DRM. I have a feeling that this salesman works for MacroVision, and his absurd plan involves getting MacroVision installed on every device that a consumer would ever want to use.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by \\ (118555)
      Sony recalled the discs that recently came out and would not play on standard licensed players. Google around, you'll find the news.
    • by falsified (638041)
      Are you referring to that article from a couple weeks ago? They fixed that. It was accidental. (If you're referring to something else, gimme some linky love please.)
    • by shoptroll (544006)
      Which arm of Viacom are we talking about? Last time I checked there's a separate organization that handles protecting the TV shows... Or at least I thought so.
    • by transporter_ii (986545) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @02:08PM (#18888145) Homepage
      When a friend let me borrow a copy of Casino Royale and it wouldn't play on two different DVD players, I pulled out the DVD case liner notes looking for info on what I thought was obviously some new type of copy protection gone awry. Wrong. When I opened the liner, a subpoena to show up in court on a copyright-violation charge fell out, along with an offer to settle out of court for $3000.00 and a "no-postage necessary" envelope addressed to the MPAA.

      3000.00 down the drain. But not having to sit through Casino Royale ... priceless.

      Transporter_ii
  • by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot.kadin@x[ ].net ['oxy' in gap]> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:57AM (#18885945) Homepage Journal
    So, this means that he supports a removal of the onerous, no-Fair-Use, anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA?

    What's that, Mr Glickman? That's not what you meant at all?

    Oh, okay -- you support Fair Use, sort of, but only in some theoretical sense, because it's illegal to actually do, because of the laws you've purchased from those politicians who are perennially deep-throating the entertainment industry's collective cock?

    Talk is cheap; I'm not buying.
  • Oh Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rudy_wayne (414635) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:58AM (#18885957)
    "MPAA's Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers."

    Really? In order to rip DVDs you must use software that by-passes the DVD copy protection. That is a violation of the DMCA -- a law that was pushed thru by the MPAA -- and anyone who has attempted to sell this sort of software (DVD Xcopy, etc) has been sued into oblivion by the MPAA.

    • Re:Oh Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by qbwiz (87077) * <john&baumanfamily,com> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:13PM (#18886217) Homepage
      No, that's the point. They want to add DRM to portable video players and home media servers, and they want to release software that respects adds that DRM when ripping. If they are the ones that license the DRM-full ripping software, then using that software to rip into those devices would be ok.

      As there isn't a unified DRM standard, they can't release that software yet, but if there some day will be, then they some day will release that software.
      • As there isn't a unified DRM standard, they can't release that software yet, but if there some day will be, then they some day will release that software.

        The universally accepted and demanded DRM scheme is a lack of digital restrictions. That's the standard they will use if they really mean what they say about fair use. There is nothing simple about them forcing restrictions on the industry and their customers and ultimately any restrictions limit your fair use rights by limiting what players you can u

      • Re:Oh Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by GreyPoopon (411036) <gpooponNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:25PM (#18886441)

        If they are the ones that license the DRM-full ripping software, then using that software to rip into those devices would be ok.

        More interestingly, some of his comments lead me to believe they want to provide "legal" ripping as a service because he starts talking about establishing prices, etc. I would have to say that the MPAA still doesn't get it, but they are just now beginning to realize that they will start losing their market if they don't clean up their act. This response is akin to Microsoft's response to the EU. "Let's see how little we can get away with, and delay as long as we possibly can."
      • by zappepcs (820751)
        And that is what we really should be afraid of. If any one group can control that many devices, have their DRM software installed everywhere, who is to stop them from using it to support government policies? Yes, that sounds like I regularly wear a tin foil hat, but with recent events and the government's record (any government) I would not want to install anything that would permit them to even have the possibility, never mind the actuality of spying on all that I do with my computer(s).

        I have come to the
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rudeboy1 (516023)
        I've been looking for a place to ask this lately...
            Given what this guy is saying (the MPAA drone), what is the legality of ripping Netflix movies because you "don't have time to watch them right away"?

            This is, of course, a completely hypothetical question...
        • Sounds almost like time shifting to me... Like a DVR you can get from your cable company. Almost.
        • by qbwiz (87077) *
          Well, that violates the DMCA, so it's illegal. QED.
        • what is the legality of ripping Netflix movies because you "don't have time to watch them right away"?
          Well, seeing as Netflix allows you to keep movies indefinitely, I think you'd have trouble convincing a court of that being your intent.
      • It's called "Trusted Computing". Look it up: it's built into Vista, and its primary focus is DRM. It's technically built reasonably well, and it requires specific hardware features built into recent Intel and AMD cpu's, or add-on chips. But the feature is not wildly expensive in hardware terms.
      • by HTH NE1 (675604)

        No, that's the point. They want to add DRM to portable video players and home media servers, and they want to release software that respects adds that DRM when ripping. If they are the ones that license the DRM-full ripping software, then using that software to rip into those devices would be ok.

        Exactly. They'll cross that bridge only after they've burned the existing free and open ones and built one of their own secure toll bridges.

        And clearly they're only talking about it now after losing to Kaleidescap

      • by yuna49 (905461)
        In the concluding paragraph, the author at Ars states:

        "Despite the lack of specificity, Glickman's speech marks a step forward for the MPAA, which says it is now committed to allowing content to play on any device, from any manufacturer."

        The operative phrase here seems to be "on any device, from any manufacturer." I think the real meaning emerges if we remove the comma. The MPAA represents businesses who want to sell content playable on devices built by manufacturers that have licensed this hypothetical D
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      No, you're not thinking like an MPAA executive.

      "Ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers" should be translated as: "Ripping DVDs to files with 'interoperable DRM', which can be played on a single system after connecting to the internet and getting an authorization code. The authorization code will cost $4.95 if you can somehow prove you're the original owner of the DVD. If you can't prove you're the original owner then we'll assume you borrowed it from somebody and the authorization co
    • go see ANYDVD (the product). they're in the west indies and it seems they are escaping the long arm of the MPAA?

      love the product. I own a legal copy. heh - a legal copy that is meant to do 'illegal' things, which ends up restoring the rights you started out with, years ago. somehow, it seems fitting.
    • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday April 26, 2007 @01:55PM (#18887945) Homepage Journal
      `(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

      While companies are abusing it, it really does allow for fair use circumvention.

      then this:

                                (1) CIRCUMVENTION PERMITTED- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title, if--

                                          `(A) the technological measure, or the work it protects, contains the capability of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information reflecting the online activities of a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected;

                                          `(B) in the normal course of its operation, the technological measure, or the work it protects, collects or disseminates personally identifying information about the person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, without providing conspicuous notice of such collection or dissemination to such person, and without providing such person with the capability to prevent or restrict such collection or dissemination;

                                          `(C) the act of circumvention has the sole effect of identifying and disabling the capability described in subparagraph (A), and has no other effect on the ability of any person to gain access to any work; and

                                          `(D) the act of circumvention is carried out solely for the purpose of preventing the collection or dissemination of personally identifying information about a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, and is not in violation of any other law.

      So, for example, When MS embedded information gathering into their file, they were no longer protected by anti-circumvention.

      And if the copyright holder gives you permission to circumvent.

      The problems with the DMCA are:
      a) more subtle then most people relize
      b) abused by companies
      c) To open ended.

  • by Daishiman (698845) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:58AM (#18885969)
    DRM and Fair Use are mutually incompatible terms.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      DRM and Fair Use are mutually incompatible terms.

      I'm sure the MPAA understand that just fine. That's why Dan Glickman is happy to come out in support of Fair Use, knowing full well that it's been made impossible to implement it without breaking the law thanks to DMCA & DRM.

      What they're counting on is that the audience don't understand that the two are mutually exclusive. That way to the ignorant listener the MPAA is fighting those evil pirates to protect us consumers from their evil ways. Cue applause and shouts of "God bless you Dan Glickman!" etc.

    • Not necessarily. I would be totally cool if (with the purchase of my DVD) it came with software to rip it in a format that suits my DRM enabled media player best. This means that only I can use it, I can't use it to distribute to the whole world. I'm totally fine with that because it fits in with the idea of Fair Use (because I still get to use it the way I want) and they still 'feel' better that it has some form of DRM on it. That's a win-win to me.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aaarrrgggh (9205)

        Not necessarily. I would be totally cool if (with the purchase of my DVD) it came with software to rip it in a format that suits my DRM enabled media player best. This means that only I can use it, I can't use it to distribute to the whole world. I'm totally fine with that because it fits in with the idea of Fair Use (because I still get to use it the way I want) and they still 'feel' better that it has some form of DRM on it. That's a win-win to me.

        ...that is, until you have some player or device that isn

  • by simm1701 (835424) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @11:59AM (#18885981)
    Ok so they want to:

    "to make things simpler for the consumer"

    and they feel that

    "DRM must be made to work without constricting consumers"

    Isn't the point of DRM to constrict customers? The only way not to do so is to not have DRM.

    Since its well known that DRM does not prevent piracy then the only purpose DRM can possibly have is restricting customers.

    For those in the RIAA that failed logic 101 then you can not constrict customers if and only if you do not have DRM

    I wouldn't give good odds on them getting this through their skulls any time soon....
    • Isn't the point of DRM to constrict customers? The only way not to do so is to not have DRM.

      Since its well known that DRM does not prevent piracy then the only purpose DRM can possibly have is restricting customers.

      The point of the purest concept of DRM is, "To constrict users to their legal uses."

      Admittedly, every implementation so far has been a poor one, overstepping from constricting to legal rights in to outright diminishing those rights. But just because every implementation so far has been bad, that doesn't mean the core concept is exclusively bad.

      Take moulds. Prior to the 1920s, most people would have said, "It is well known mould does nothing for us. The only purpose mould can possibly have is making us sick

      • by PitaBred (632671)
        Troll much?

        It's not that we don't understand what DRM does. We understand it better than anyone. And DRM's ONLY REASON FOR EXISTING is to limit use. That's all it does. We're not talking "legitimate" vs "illegitimate" use, as that varies from place to place, we're talking completely artificial limitations on use because someone decided it should be so. There aren't any benefits to consumers, society as a whole, anyone except the people who create the DRM and try to confuse other people into thinking th
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Hatta (162192)
        Admittedly, every implementation so far has been a poor one, overstepping from constricting to legal rights in to outright diminishing those rights. But just because every implementation so far has been bad, that doesn't mean the core concept is exclusively bad.

        No, it doesn't follow logically, but the core concept behind DRM *is* bad. DRM is just encryption. In encryption, you want to get a message from A to B without C reading it. In DRM B and C are the same person. DRM is fundamentally flawed technolo
      • by exi1ed0ne (647852)

        Take moulds. Prior to the 1920s, most people would have said, "It is well known mould does nothing for us. The only purpose mould can possibly have is making us sick." Then along comes Fleming who shows the right mould can be used to kill all kinds of bacteria. The same has been said of viruses - which we're learning to harness now, and even bacteria.

        I just don't buy that analogy. Harnessing previously "bad" things as you mention above have a benefit for the end user. DRM adds no value for the end consumer of the movie or song.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jimicus (737525)
      "DRM must be made to work without constricting consumers"

      Isn't the point of DRM to constrict customers? The only way not to do so is to not have DRM.


      Technically correct. But this is the MPAA and they've got an answer to everything.

      In this case, their answer is for every fair-use they consider "reasonable", they'll license a product which can do it. Such as a licensed DVD-ripping box which allows you to rip your DVDs but stores the movies in some encrypted form so you can watch them fine but copying them b
  • Easier? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shoolz (752000) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:00PM (#18885991) Homepage
    Exactly how is DRM intended to "to make things simpler for the consumer", when the very purpose of DRM is to prevent the consumer from doing things he/she paid good money to be allowed to do?
  • by dteichman2 (841599) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:01PM (#18886001) Homepage
    To set up a DRM system that allows a copy of the protected media to be displayed anywhere, but still protected, you'd need a unified media platform at the hardware level. It's not only insane, it's scary. It's like Trusted Computing, but with everything: TVs, portable devices, media servers, etc.

    This would be the END of fair use.

    "Sure, you can make a copy of that movie, but with these restrictions and only on these devices."

    I'd sooner stick with the current system of breakable DRM ;)
    • HDMI. And they already built it and put it into use. DX10 respects it, HD TV's respect it, HD DVD/Blu-ray players REQUIRE it to get full resolution, etc. Once they fully turn it on, you won't be able to watch a movie without "approved" hardware. And millions will buy it, because just like a pork bill that no one wants, when it is piggybacked onto something good (1080p, 8 channel uncompressed audio on a single cable) people will take the good with the bad.
  • DRM & Consumers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Paulrothrock (685079) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:01PM (#18886011) Homepage Journal

    The problem with DRM is that you're trying to limit access to the very same people who are trying to buy access to the media. DRM will not work if the methods for acquiring or viewing this media are not easy. Right now, it's easier for me to fly BT Airways to watch unedited, newly released episodes of Dr. Who or Torchwood in a timely manner than it is for me to obtain them through legal means. I would buy the content if I could, but I can't, so I'm a criminal for being a fan of a show. And I'm sure Australian fans of Battlestar Galactica or Heroes feel the same way. The only reason we're unable to watch legitimate versions of our favorite shows is because of outdated licensing agreements.

    So make the content easy to get no matter where in the world the viewer happens to be, and make it easy to view on any device, and you won't need DRM. People want things to be convenient, and they'll only pay for it if it's convenient. People will always steal content, with or without DRM. So the best way to ensure you get paying customers isn't to make DRM easier, but to eliminate it and make paying for the content easier. Most people don't want to be crooks.

    • Be careful! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twitter (104583) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:28PM (#18886511) Homepage Journal

      People will always steal content, with or without DRM.

      Making a copy of something is not "stealing".

      Of course, I agree with everything you say about eliminating digital restrictions and how that's what the industry really needs to do. Thanks for the down under perspective of licensing issues.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        "Making a copy of something is not "stealing"."

        Of course it isn't but realize what the results of making that statement are.

        Customer: I didn't steal that movie, I copied it for/from a friend. Copying isn't stealing.
        MPAA: Right. Copyright violation. Now we can sue for $100,000 for each time you copied it.
        Customer: But isn't the movie only worth $20?
        MPAA: Sure. But you said you didn't steal it, right? So it's a copyright violation.
      • by dedazo (737510)

        Making a copy of something is not "stealing".

        No, making a copy of something and selling 50,000 copies of it (or putting it on a P2P network for 5 million people to download) is a crime.

        Let's call it how it is, shall we? The MAFIAA is not worried about people asserting their fair use rights and making a copy of a DVD for backup purposes. I do that all the time. What they're worried about is the guy that makes a copy of the DVD, removes the protection and then puts the recompressed ISO file on the PirateB

        • by geekoid (135745)
          "No, making a copy of something and selling 50,000 copies of it (or putting it on a P2P network for 5 million people to download) is a crime."

          YES!! But it is not stealing. People seem to thing that when soneone says 'it's not stealing' there saying 'it's not a crime' which is not true.

          And if that 20 year old can do it, why can't the MPAA?
          In fact, I would wager that most people would rather down'oad from a legitimate site they trust, then from some warez site. I think iTunes backs that up.
          • by dedazo (737510)
            So it's a crime, but we can't call it "stealing". OK, and this helps how?

            And if that 20 year old can do it, why can't the MPAA? In fact, I would wager that most people would rather down'oad from a legitimate site they trust, then from some warez site

            Absolutely. The problem is that the *AA and friends have not gotten and probably will never get the fact that their stranglehold on the packaging and distribution of content is about to die a painful death. If they had anticipated that in the early 90s and ad

        • It is not a crime. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by twitter (104583)

          One of my many fans [slashdot.org] misses the point, as usual:

          making a copy of something and selling 50,000 copies of it (or putting it on a P2P network for 5 million people to download) is a crime.

          Selling 50,000 coppies of someone else's work is civil not a criminal violation. The neither the person's work or reputation is destroyed by your actions, nor is the public harmed. You may have cost the author money and they can sue you for it, but this is not a crime.

          Sharing something is even less of a crime. Only publ

      • Making a copy of something is not "stealing".

        its a NEW thing that needs better definition.

        its not an either/or. this binary thinking is what is causing so many problems. the old laws fail, horribly, in the digital age. you cannot apply laws that were made when people had wooden teeth (!) to the world we live in, today.

        making a bit image of some electronic file does NOT cause any kind of real money loss to the 'owner'. there is no less inventory, no shipping charges, no cost involved at all. in fact, if
    • by Gonarat (177568) *

      I really don't see why all TV shows aren't released Globally at this point? Why does the TV and movie industry insist on living in the past when it was possible to delay a series or movie as long as desired when that obviously doesn't work any more? It may had made sense at one time to wait for a better price before releasing a series to another market, but with the BT and other P2P networks, it is too easy to bypass the bureaucracy, even if it is not strictly legal to do so.

      The quicker the entertainment

    • by Kjella (173770)
      [Talk of TV shows] So make the content easy to get no matter where in the world the viewer happens to be, and make it easy to view on any device, and you won't need DRM. People want things to be convenient, and they'll only pay for it if it's convenient.

      There's just a small problem with that arguments. Pirates are offering a service that's not only higher resolution and quicker to market (for US HDTV broadcasts vs EU SDTV broadcasts), but it's also ad free, gratis, convienient and permanent. If a TV series
      • I use iTunes like TiVo. If I miss an episode of a show, I can buy that episode for two dollars. Granted, I could find a torrent for the show and download it, but it's much more convenient for me to simply pay the two bucks.

        I've also done a cost analysis for my video content. At current prices, which is $2 per episode and $20-$30 per season, it's cost-competitive to buy my content from iTunes. I'm willing to pay that because it's convenient, and while there is DRM it's not too obtrusive. (However, this does

  • by debest (471937) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:03PM (#18886049)
    Unless there has been a tremendous upheaval and changes within the MPAA that we haven't heard about, there is *no way* that they genuinely want this. It is obvious that the media industry's desire is for control of the consumers' viewing and listening habits, and permitting "fair use" in the manner described is not what they have in mind. All evidence of their actions for the past 20 years or more points to the contrary.

    I think that this is just a feel-good press release statement to publicly demonstrate that they are the good guys, but in the end they will act in their own best interests, not their customers'.
    • Specifically.. it's lip service for the technically unsavvy made under the misleading proposition than DRM can be applied without walling off the ability to change the format of said dvd so it will fit into your desired portable device.

      In other words, it's to mislead joe sixpack and "series of tubes" stevens into believing that:
      A - Their proposed "idea" of "nonrestrictive" digital restriction is possible
      B - The growing outcry and movement against DRM is unreasonable
      C - They are "reasonable" in trying to rea
  • by Applekid (993327) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:04PM (#18886061)
    So, who picked this guy to be the successor to Jack Valenti who once famously said: "If you need a backup copy of a DVD you can go out and buy another one." Was it Valenti who choose/endorse the succesor, or did the board vote him in?

    So back then the voice of the MPAA was just blowing smoke?
    • by Rolgar (556636)
      Glickman was a Congressman from Kansas, who probably got the job for helping pass some DRM-friendly legislation through Congress.
      • Glickman was a Congressman from Kansas, who probably got the job for helping pass some DRM-friendly legislation through Congress.

        In between those gigs, he was Secretary of Agriculture under the Clinton Administration. I have no idea how that helped him land the MPAA job.

  • How can the same guy that want to intentionally encrypt these movies talk about intentions to make things simple for the customer? :-S
  • and statements like glickman's cheapen it even further every day
  • by psmears (629712) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:07PM (#18886107)
    The KKK announced their commitment to Civil Rights and lynchings...
  • Similarly, I am deeply committed to both virginity and fucking my brains out. Woot!
  • by eboot (697478) on Thursday April 26, 2007 @12:15PM (#18886259)
    Basically they have invented a sort of physical key and lock device that will be sold with all future content. Each DVD will come with a Dual Immutable Content Kernal that you will have to place inside a peripheral that attaches to your DVD/Blu Ray/ HD DVD player. The peripheral is call the Asynchronous Security System and is a revolutionary device. Trust me, this is the future of DRM, where everytime you watch a movie you will have to put their D.I.C.K inside your A.S.S.
    • But I think the real question is "how much will I have to pay per A.S.S. insertion?"

      Some places charge a lot for that...
  • IANAL, but doesn't a public announcement of your position kind of make it hard for you to sue someone who acts in accordance with it? Estoppel, or something like that? I mean, it would seem that he just gave explicit permission for citizens to use DeCSS and similar tools in order to format-shift their purchases.

    • I was wondering about that.

      Then again, this guy does not represent the govt... Perhaps he is only stating that the RIAA won't prosecute in civil courts [since they've already gotten the federal laws on their side]?

      On an related note, it didn't matter that the airlines ticket counter representative said it would be okay for me to carry my luggage on the plane. TSA thought it was too big and forced me to check it in. By the book, I think TSA trumps airline employees. Is digital content any different?
  • The article title should read "MPAA (and spokesman Dan Glickman) should ***BE COMMITED*** "

  • The MPAA does recognize that progress on DRM needs to be made soon, or impatient consumers will increasingly turn to unauthorized sources for content.(emphasis mine)

    Unlike Jack Valenti, this guy seems to see the writing on the wall.

    I buy DVDs because I like the high quality, and trust the techs hired to transfer the film to disc much better than I trust myself to burn a copy of a DVD. I have burned copies of DVDs that were not available for purchase. I have bought "bootleg" DVDs but not in any great num

  • I guess he's fine with consumers NOT being able to rip DVDs for personal use, too.
  • ...they recognize that consumers should be able to use legitimate video material on any item in the house, including home networks.
    I guess the pretty pink DRM unicorns will be carrying all this content around and will determine if any device is actually mine or someone else's.
  • The problem is that what the movie companies would be happy with people doing is what maybe 50% of the people want to do. The rest want to share with the world and ensure a single copy of a DVD is sold, period.

    You see, to enable format-shifting you need to be able to access the digital content in an unrestricted manner. So that means you can make it into a different format, upload it and share it with the world.

    What the movie companies wouldn't mind is if you took the movie in some manner that it could no
  • he added that the movie studios were open to "a technology summit" featuring academics, IT companies, and content producers to work on the issues involved.'"

    This is a nice sounding think tank to solve issues. But what he is really saying is, "We (The companies, programmers, ane movie Execs that have helped us to get to this point) are going to get together and do what we want even more and NOT get any input from the consumers and users of the content that we want to control."

  • Just as Jesse James was committed to redistribution of wealth while loving railroads and banks.
  • MPAA's Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers.
    (See subject.)
  • The goal, he said, was "to make things simpler for the consumer,"

    Gee, thanks for the thought, Dan, but thanks to the DMCA your organization pushed through, we can't rip DVDs without breaking the law (not because of copyright, but because of the need to circumvent CSS).

    Clearly, therefore, this reprehensible action you describe, "ripping DVDs", simply must not occur. And we don't want it to occur, of course, because it would cut into your profits.

    So, as much as we appreciate the thought, please take y
  • ...is that they'll simply leave the PC itself out of the equation. This idea was a thought that came to me as I read about the GF8500/8600s 100% hardware acceleration [nvidia.com] of H.264, if they're doing all the processing why involve the CPU as a trusted party at all? Just have the Blu-Ray / HD-DVD player negotiate a key directly with the graphics card, while the CPU only shuffles encrypted data like an Internet node in a SSH connection. That means there'd be no need for trusted software, an open source linux player
  • This is a joke? /me checks calendar - it's not April 1st. It just feels like it.
  • What's the difference between an encryption system and a DRM system?

    An encryption system is a way to deliver information securely, even through the hands of thieves.

    A DRM system is a way to cut out the middleman, and deliver information securely into the hands of thieves //directly//.

    -

    Confusing the thief for the customer is why DRM will never work.
    Confusing the customer for the thief is why DRM will never sell.
  • Seems to me that they are beginning to see the mess they have made. This is damage control. I think the idea here is to offer to give a little before a lot more is taken away.

    Are they offering to document DMCA exceptions to the public?
  • or is it improper, even on /., to use profanity on the front page?
  • >> Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers.

    Yeah of course because they already see DVD as a dead format. The reason DVD is a dead format is that they were obliged to kill it on purpose because the protection was broken by us consumers in order to rip DVDs.

    Now ask Dan Glickman how the MPAA feel about consumers ripping HD-DVD or Blu-Ray at the full HD res. that we already paid for. I can guarantee he won't give the same

To do nothing is to be nothing.

Working...