Disney Suggests Mandating DRM On All Media 433
Ethan Butterfield writes "Cory Doctorow posted this on his blog this morning. Essentially, Disney wants the FCC to regulate all devices capable of recording from any audio broadcasting medium or from the Internet."
Could this... (Score:5, Funny)
Mickey with a shotgun saying something about a "motherfucking IP infringer" comes to mind...
Re:Could this... (Score:5, Funny)
You can do that, as soon as you buy a DRM-enabled screwdriver to undo the DRM-enabled screws on the DRM-enabled case.
Re:Could this... (Score:2)
Re:Could this... (Score:5, Funny)
To the Mods (Score:2, Interesting)
More like +4 informative [slashdot.org]
Re:Could this... (Score:5, Funny)
That'd be license the DRM enabled screwdriver.
Re:Could this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Could this... (Score:5, Funny)
Hack the Mouse PC!
Boycott Disney movies (shouldn't be too hard - there isn't any nudity in them, right?)
Disney and Microsoft - up there with Exxon and Enron as the most disgusting companies on Earth.
Re:Could this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Good Luck. Maybe it's just because I'm getting older but I do remember when the Christian Coalition tried to boycott Disney because their film studios were producing non-family movies. (You are aware that Disney owns quite a few studios.) Well they tried to boycott everything Disney owned.
To make a long story short, they couldn't determine everything Disney had their hands in. The reason their boycott "worked" is because the Christian Coalition is big enough and generated enough publicity that Disney wanted to quiet them down. They in no way, shape or form impacted on Disney's bottom line. I'd even argue that the boycott didn't effectively impact Disney's reputation and that the only reason it worked was due to the culture at Disney which is adverse to anything which would call into question its family-friendly image.
So again good luck. The /. crowd isn't the CC in any aspect. Long ago, I boycotted DVDs because of CSS now I've got three players hooked up to the TVs, a NetFlix subscription, and DeCSS is still illegal. Sometimes I have to wonder if this is how it happened to the Flower* Power generation.
*Btw, fwiw, my handle isn't a 60's reference. I took this handle after a Disney character. The thought of being a cute little stinker online was too much to pass up. I eagerly await the C&D missive from our content owning and distributing Overlords.
Re:Could this... (Score:5, Interesting)
No. How it happened to the 'Flower Power' generation is that there was no Flower Power generation out of a very few small local areas, i.e. San Francisco. Most of the 'coopting' occured simultaneous with the development of the myth that there ever was a mass 'hippie' movement. The hype turned into the 'reality' by the time most people found out there was anything happening. By that point it was a marketing operation, i.e. 'hippie' carnies selling t-shirts at concerts. Same as it ever was, essentially.
clothes (Score:4, Funny)
I must have the director's cuts of some of those Disney movies, because I just got through watching The Jungle Book and there wasn't a stitch of clothing on that oh-so-friendly bear. Also, in Dumbo they try to draw your attention away from it but if you freezeframe it you see that the mouse doesn't have pants on, just a shirt...
Re:clothes (Score:3, Funny)
What were the censors thinking?
Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that voting with your dollars? Profiting from heinous acts is nearly as bad as commiting them.
Re:Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the poster isn't the one confusing cause and effect, you are.
If you build a prison, you have an interest in prisoners being produced to lock up.
If you pay someone else to build a prison, you have the same interest.
If you buy a prison, you have the same interest.
If you buy a portion of a prison, you have a (presumably diluted amount of) the same interest.
Divorcing ownership from management works well for liquidity, but do not pretend that somehow that divorce also provides absolution from the moral responsibility for the actions performed by the company of which you are buying ownership. If your dog bites someone, claiming that you co-own the dog, and anyway you don't and can't manage the dog's every move isn't a convincing argument for abdicating responsibility.
Unless you are willing to assert that prison builders would prefer to go out of business, and are simply acting from sad necessity thrust upon them, your logic does not hold. And if believe that is the case, I encourage you to post links to examples of the profits from prison-management going to any sort of effort, useful or not, to reduce the inmate population (other than clever new laws that lead to executions, which would technically fit the bill, but... you get the idea.)
Legally speaking, things are different, in terms of actionable responsibility (tort claims, etc.) following from ownership of public firms. As I don't believe there are many who will advance the notion that our current legal regime is the embodiment of perfect moral authority, I don't feel the need to defend the contrast. I'm referring to moral responsibility in this post.
Re:Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:3, Funny)
First, the logical fallacy: you treat the decision to invest in prison stock as a binary choice, with the operative decision variable being your family's well being. Leaving aside the assumed perfect knowledge ("If you know for a fact that"), the choice is not a binary; you could invest in: prisons, starting a business, a drug habit, a house ... Attempting to pick the right option is extremely
Re:Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that it is clearly against public policy for private entities to own and operate prisons. This is one of the very,
Re:Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:3, Interesting)
Which unfortunately means that they can do all sorts of otherwise unacceptable things simply by invoking the fact that it's "for the national good". The folks working for the government bureacracies in the Stalinist USSR certainly seemed to be doing a lot of "good" for the country. I realize that the US is not like that (yet). My point is that what the bureacracy is "ostensibly" for often has little bear
Re:Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, I'm not surprised that it's Disney who made the official proposal. I give it 10 years before DRM violation arrests are second behind drug possession arrests.
How the fuck is this Funny? Prison populations for DRM-related and "intellectual property" related offenses aren't going to reach the proportions the poster indicates in 10 years, but they are going to be a serious component of the prison population. You're fucking deluding yourself if you think that, 10 years from now, you're going
Re:Only a matter of time before it happens (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws can be ignored. The RIAA may try to "educate" all they way, but they can not undo what is already an established fact: People accept minor violations of copyright law. Laws can nor change what is socially acceptable.
It has not one thing to do with what is socially acceptable. Smoking pot is socially acceptable-- go open a pot-based business. Relegating the changes that need to be made to "intellectual property" law to shady back-alley dealings eliminates legitimate business opportunities. Using ill
Re:Where can I buy prison stock? (Score:2)
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Very, very vague.
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)
Wait til you see your bank balance the month after the UHF seinfeld/friends marathon...
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
To quote the FCC: [fcc.gov] "Although the CSS copy protection system for DVDs has been 'hacked' and circumvention software is available on the Internet, DVDs remain a viable distribution platform for content owners. 46 The CSS content protection system serves as an adequate 'speed bump' for most consumers, allowing the continued flow of content to the DVD platform.
By the FFC's definition DVD storage media is a "Distribution platform"!
The FCC has decided that their power is no longer restricted to regulating broadcasters. The FCC has decided they have the power to regulate receivers and even storage media, and to make any hardware and devices ILLEGAL unless they enforce FCC mandated DRM systems.
Yes, this amounts to a back-door attempt to impose the Hollings bill, also known as SSSCA, also known as CBDTPA. Now known as the TV Broadcast Flag and potentially expanding into a Radio Flag and mandatory DRM systems for ALL audio and video devices.
Welcome to the United States of XXAAmerica.
-
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
I really hope someone does exactly that. However don't overlook the fact that not only are you going up against the government, you'd be opposed by the entire legal might of media-corporate America. MPAA, RIAA, BSA, broadcasters, all of the major sports leagues, and god-knows who else.
And even if you win, then you've got an entire second round when the FCC and everyone else petitions congress to GRAN
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Plenty of greedy, spoon fed kids growing up right now that will carry on the crap we have to put up with. Instead of a president who says "yes I smoked pot, but I didn't inhale", we'll have a president that says "yes, I downloaded, but I didn't listen to the mp3".
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
Don't get me wrong though, I hate this DRM stuff.
In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, as we all know, once something falls into the public domain, no one will want to keep it around anymore and it will forever be lost.
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney also suggests copyright be extended to an indefinite amount of time.
It's this kind of stuff that should make all of us look up and see what's going on. We are facing a serious cultural dilemma, as a people. Our "intellectual property" system is creating a climate that allows works to disappear forever, and creates no legal alternative.
Corporations "own" the works, and the works remain "protected" by copyright. Meanwhile, works that are not economically viable to be "sold" by the "owners" simply become unavailable, however the "protection" of copyright makes it illegal for individuals to simply reproduce these works themselves. Today it's acetate films rotting in vaults, and books that have "fallen out of print" on acidic paper. Tomorrow it will be video and audio "locked up" in encryption algorithms that may well be trivilly easy to break, but are legally protected.
Corporations are doing what corporations are supposed to do-- returning value for shareholders. We can debate globaliation and corporatization and the like all day long-- but not here. The change needs to come by way of changes to "intellectual property" law. Laws are made for the good of society, not for the good of corporations, per se. As a society, we all need to become informed about these issues and work to address them. It may not be glamorous, but it's necessary.
I know there are people who agree [junklight.com] with [lessig.org] me [ilaw.com.au], but I have no idea how to get the idea out to the public, where the real changes can happen.
Licensing your own work with trendy licenses like Creative Commons or GPL isn't the answer. Violating current "intellectual property" law to show "civil disobedience" isn't the answer. Doing nothing most certainly isn't the answer. The answer is to get the average person involved.
I fear that most people are already too far gone. Most poor bastards don't have enough independent thought left to even think that it's possible to question a notion like "A creator should receive economic compensation every time their work is copied". People simply think that the current system is "just the way it is", and their hobbled minds aren't flexible enough to even comprehend that things could be different.
The message I'd love to get out to the street is this: When you download an MP3 or a movie, you're not hurting the artists or creators-- you're hurting their PUBLISHER. When you buy a CD or software, you're not helping the artists or creators, you're helping the PUBLISHER. Publishers are a scourge upon us-- a plague of leeches. If we can get the public behind new models of economic compensation (or old ones-- live music has been around for millenia), we can break the publisher's grip on our "intellectual property" system, and start to have a reasonable hope of preserving a record of our culture.
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)
A simple solution to this problem has been proposed: Any work not available from the copyright owner for a year or more should lose its copyright and become public domain.
This would quickly end the lockup of unprofitable works. It would also probably eliminate the fear of eternal copyright. Such copyright would require that the owner make the works available at all times, or lose their copyright.
This has been especially suggested for software. In this case, the rule should be that if the owner doesn't provide support for the software, it becomes public domain. Think of all the great pre-bloat versions of useful programs that would become available.
Of course, we'd have to worry about someone like Disney saying "Sure, I'll sell you a DVD of that. Just give me a check for $1,000,000."
We'd probably need a "reasonable price" clause in the legislation.
Re:In other news.... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's easy, really, especially if you control enough of the media--don't print any books. Then, when they've been out of print long enough that the author loses copyright, gobble them up & don't give the creator a dime.
Now then, personally, I'd like to see copyrights changed to a FIXED term. E.G. You have x years to publish it that we'll give you for an unpublished manuscript, and y
Ban analog (Score:5, Interesting)
Once its *all* digital, they have extra weight behind them both in the legal/government and technological arenas. Even helps squash competition by charging exurbanite fees to join the 'official drm bandwagon' and have your media playable...
That final day IS coming....And it will be the last day I will be considered a 'media consumer'.
Re:Ban analog (Score:3, Insightful)
All human perception is done through analog systems, and the brain itself is an analog instrument, so all media requires an analog component somewhere along the line simply to enable it to be perceived. If they ban analog, they eliminate the ability for human beings to perceive it. Analog cannot be banned.
Not the end-points (Score:2)
If the 'rest' is 100% digital + drm, and they disallow recording from untrusted sources ( i.e. analog ports, or un-keyed digital to prevent you from whipping up your own A/D set ) then they have practically banned analog..
Sure, there will be some cases that you *need* a microphone, but dont expect that to be on 'conusmer grade' components..My little MD player is like that now.. it only records via dig
if wishes were fishes. (Score:2)
Will there be public executions of people who build their own crystal sets to listen to AM radio?
No Radio (Score:3, Insightful)
It will happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It will happen (Score:5, Informative)
This led to it being called the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act," which is essentially what it is.
I can't wait for next time MM's copyright is up for expiration....
Mickey Mouse (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mickey Mouse (Score:2, Insightful)
Has anyone found a way to harness the energy of our founding fathers rolling in their grav
I've got this song running in my head (Score:2)
nice! (Score:5, Funny)
Bring it on!
Disney is off its rocker (Score:5, Insightful)
And one more thing. DRM is a joke. With the state of current DRM anyone can crack DRM by downloading a simple program such as DVD Decrypter. You don't have to know anything at all about encryption. Assuming DRM gets better in the future, which is debatable, it may be harder for the individual to crack the protection, but there will always be the hardcore hackers who hack the video and upload it to a P2P network for all to share. Assuming DRM gets so restrictive that it cannot be cracked, what can you possibly do to stop people from pointing video cameras at a monitor or TV screen in their own home?
Re:Disney is off its rocker (Score:5, Insightful)
Consuming sheep not to be confused with these dangerous and intelligent creatures:
http://www.geocities.com/sheepagainsthumans/ [geocities.com]
Disney is very smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Once only the RIAA can manufacture music that can be played they can finally crush all those troublesome musicians, artists, actors and film directors because there will be nowhere else to go, there will be no alternative music available in the USA.
It is the same play that was made by threatening CD manufacturers with lawsuits for aiding and abetting that was used to make it harder for small businesses to get CD music manufactured, and which backfired only because the CD writer became cheap.
The media companies wish the printing press to be a monopoly granted by government (to them of course). It worked in the USSR why shouldn't it work in the USSA
No big surprise (Score:2)
Today, it seems, if any recording/playback device is digital in nature, someone, somewhere wants to control/regulate it. At least he's being somewhat open about his feelings - a position we know the industry has wanted for some time.
It'll leave the masses being controlled (more than they are now, that is) and the informed doing "illegal" backup/sharing in the closet, out of fear of (no pun inteded) Mickey-Mouse prosecutions.
No, No, Pluto! That's not a Bone!
.
Doctorow apparently can't read... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doctorow apparently can't read... (Score:2)
Let's see, you state that we will always be able to make analog recordings from our radios, but your radio actually doesn't let you do that. I'd like to know if you think you can get golden eggs out of your refrigerator, well, *your* refrigerator doesn't seem to have any, but you're absolutely sure the rest of us will always be able to get them?
If the "content providers" had their way, you
Re:Doctorow apparently can't read... (Score:3, Informative)
You still have the microphone route, but there have been some absurd (but serious) discussion of laws to make such microphones and recording hardware illegal unless they have embedded DRM-detection circuitry to kill any such attempt at recording. "Plugging the analog hole" they call it. Fscking nutjobs, but nutjobs that apparently have the political clout to g
So, time to exercise free speech rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
The real question is, what are they going to do when people publish plans to build "unencumbered" devices themselves on the net? Not straight circumvention devices, but devices that don't care about corporate idiocies, "to play free music" say. What will they do? go after the people who made the plans? go after the sites harboring proposing said plans for download? I can see that happen, given how hard it is to find decss.c these days <sarcasm>.
Seriously, these corporate dinosaurs really need to reinvent themselves with regard to revenue models. All these copyright laws, DRM chips, strong-arming and scare tactics,... from them make me think of a falling man grasping on straws. They may eventually bring file-sharing under control, but it'll be a triumph of corporate will against natural human behaviours.
Re:So, time to exercise free speech rights? (Score:2)
Something to consider... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the fact that we are able to rewatch recorded programs is a happy coincidence of the fact that DRM or self-destructing media have not been practical schemes to date. I suspect our legislators and courts would at least entertain the concept that if it's broadcast once you can timeshift it and consume it only once, as you're effectively getting the same service as you'd get by viewing it during broadcast (with the added feature of skipping commercials).
Disney's trying to get a bigger slice of the pie, of course, but there's nothing inherently wrong with what they're trying to do. If you have a problem I suggest contacting your representatives and electronics/software manufacturers.
Re:Something to consider... (Score:3, Insightful)
They're scared... and they're rich. (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC and other regulatory commissions are there to two do things, the first being make sure that the public interest is taken care of (since they are a by-product of a democratic republic), and the second is otherwise regulate until #1 is met. In this end, they regulate the airwaves, but they've never regulated the technology, only what it can do. For example, you can't make a remote control that operates on the same frequency as other products, and you can't show a nipple on television. What you are allowed to do, however, is to record music and television shows for private use (not public use). Where Disney and other companies miss the mark is that they believe that their customers are inherently bad, and to that end, they should prevent people from taking away from their business venue, and they sincerely believe that they are right by asking the FCC to stop allowing devices to record broadcasts. Disney and other companies must work within the established guidelines set out by the FCC, and what we are witnessing is their attempts to change that landscape to maximize their profits, and minimize piracy. Unfortunatly when they do that, they minimize fair use rights.
Re:They're scared... and they're rich. (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, pay them to exercise your right to free speech. In countries, such as Canada, with fees payed to private interests attached to media this is already effectively happening.
Rights for everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
Go Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
I applaud this move. The sooner all this nonsense becomes unbearable, the sooner (educated) consumers will tell the media companies to take their DRM and shove it.
Re:Go Disney (Score:4, Interesting)
Just yesterday on slashdot, some ijit was telling me how I can't simply have my own morals, but that morality comes from the laws themselves! WTF? I mean, he was serious, non-trolling, and suggested I was obligated to follow that law until overturned.
If congress passed a law that no one was allowed to feed babies, would he let his kid wither away, while fervently trying to get the law overturned? I'm sure he would ignore something *that* absurd. But take something that's only slightly less absurd, remove the "life-or-death" consequences (well, not entirely... IP prevents poor african nations from making cheap generic anti-AIDS drugs) and people act like God handed the damn law to Moses on a stone tablet. Fuck that. With the "No Feeding Babies Act" not only would you ignore it, you'd not even bother to try to get it overturned. Working in a system so corrupt and devoid of reason, there'd be no point, right?
Someone explain to me why that is different from the situation we're now in?
Umm I'm not so sure (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Umm I'm not so sure (Score:2)
The problem with filesharing is that it's virtually impossible to police -- people use it to break the law and just don't care. It's a lot like speeding in some respects... a lot of times, if people don't see any cops around, they just go ahead and speed. It just doesn't matter that it's against the law because the speeder doesn't see anything _really_ wrong with it. Should spe
And of consumer choice? (Score:2)
Is FOSS and all other freely distributed media all the sudden non existant or somehow not included in consumer choice?
If the markets are really going to tell the story then what should it say in the even more and more consumers move towards that which needs to regulation?
I guess maybe its a vote for "none of the above"???
But what of the tax payer monies spent on such, if the majority doesn't need or want it?
for the people, by the people????
If Walt Disney was an armatuer (Score:2)
In other news.. (Score:2)
Right (Score:5, Funny)
I believe when I say, "Fuck That", I speak for all of us.
The real reason... (Score:2)
Publishers are scared... (Score:3, Insightful)
...and they're going to use their lobby to do incredibly stupid shit like this. They see the writing on the wall, and they know that they only way that can stave off the death of their industry is thru legislation.
This is yet another sign that the publishing industry is running scared, and grasping at straws. They are utterly afraid of the public discovering that publishers aren't really needed anymore, and that they are simply useless middlemen.
I find Disney's copyright stance highyly ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
From Lessig's book Free Culture [free-culture.cc]:
"Indeed, the catalog of Disney work drawing upon the work of others is astonishing when set together: Snow White (1937), Fantasia (1940), Pinocchio (1940), Dumbo (1941), Bambi (1942), /Song of the South (1946), Cinderella (1950), Alice in Wonderland (1951), /Robin Hood (1952), Peter Pan (1953), Lady and the Tramp (1955), Mulan (1998), Sleeping Beauty (1959), 101 Dalmatians (1961), The Sword in the Stone (1963), and The Jungle Book (1967)--not to mention a recent example that we should perhaps quickly forget, Treasure Planet (2003). In all of these cases, Disney (or Disney, Inc.) ripped creativity from the culture around him, mixed that creativity with his own extraordinary talent, and then burned that mix into the soul of his culture. Rip, mix, and burn."
Don't forget "Lion King" = "Kimba the White Lion"? (Score:3, Informative)
They compied almost all from (in the asian are popular and well-known) Tezuka's "Kimba the White Lion"
That alone would not be that bad, but Disney simply refuses to acknowledge the deed. A simple "based upon the works of" or "inspired by" would have acknowledged the original creators work, and cost Disney only about... nothing.
More info here: http://www.kimbawlion.com/rant2.htm [kimbawlion.com]
Re:I find Disney's copyright stance highyly ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I find Disney's copyright stance highyly ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the pieces, Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps (in the prehistoric section) was still under copyright, and Disney paid both Stravinsky and his publisher. Stravinsky later claimed that Disney threatened to violate his copyright if he didn't take what was offered, because the copyright was Russian, and the US and USSR weren't officially recognizing each others' copyrights at the time. (He al
Deregulation is a crock (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you, my fellow Republicans, for blindly following ideology as if it were holy writ.
the model has changed. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think copywrite has a place and protection of art has a place also, but at some time the business model just has to change. Once the medium has become so ubiquitous it seems it is going to be hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It is SO easy for distribution of music, video, etc., and any attempt to shut that down will either: be too hard; be too confusing for the mass market consumer; or some mix.
Part of the ability for the artists, the people who create the artists, and the people who owned the artists, to own the marketplace relied heavily on the ability to control the media. With the explosion of media options, control is barely doable, and if doable is going to be way unreasonable.
So, the shift in the business model will be a sea change (a sea++ change?). And while the grubby money mungers at the top have always been able to be filthy rich with their controls and sleezy contracts now they will have to settle for less control, more flexible contracts with artists, and ultimately less wealth. They'll be dragged kicking and screaming, but eventually that's where I see the marketplace going.
(case in point: Grateful Dead completely bypassing the record industry, and basically cutting CD's live and in person at their concerts.... and encouraging fans to make copies....)
Posters are missing the agenda... (Score:5, Insightful)
All these posts saying "If it can be heard, it can be copied" and the ilk are missing the point. The publishing industry's agenda for perpetuating their needless existance is something like:
It's not going to matter if it can be copied-- simply the act of having the capability to copy will be illegal. If you don't have all DRM-compliant devices, or if you tamper with your DRM-compliant devices, you'll be charged and trucked off to prison.
We need a revolution in "intellectual propery", and we need it quickly. Too many people already fail to understand that the system is a social contract, and the terms of that contract are negotiable by the people-- not dictated by the corporations.
It is no stretch to think that, if they could get it, the DRM helmet [oreillynet.com] is their ultimate goal.
Re:Posters are missing the agenda... (Score:4, Interesting)
The key thing that needs to be realized is that the current situation CANNOT continue. The "piracy" of filesharing is not the basis for an economy of information which is what we need. (DRM is not a basis for it either).
Check out the Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] for an attempt to make things like fair use an explicit right rather than an implicit one under current law. Ultimately we will need some sort of change.
This also has some really far reaching consequnces. I am involved in Web archiving - these DRM laws may prevent us as a culture from archiving our history. Which quite simply means we will not exist in history. I don't know about you but one of the things that motivates me is that I am contributing to something bigger than myself or my peers (or at least attempting to)
Re:Posters are missing the agenda... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where can I buy a DRM oscilloscope? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not going to work (Score:5, Interesting)
* Disable use on systems after a leak and redistribution. Generally done with some kind of watermarking scheme. Never going to happen. Watermarking is a cute research idea, but it turns out that efficient compression (eliminating data that isn't visually/aurally important) eliminates the same set of data that watermarks need to play with. There are a host of other problems as well -- generally, if someone can detect a watermark, they can remove it. Caught a bit of interest early on, pretty much went away.
* Stop redistribution after a leak. The RIAA/MPAA are still working on this, but it's ultimately a doomeed effort. Computers and networks were made to copy data.
* Try to prevent the inital copy from leaking. Never going to happen. There are too many places for an initial leak to come from with any kind of widely-distributed data. There's a hybrid approach using this and watermarks to identify initial leaks followed by legal action against the source of the leak. This doesn't even work against small-scale distribution systems like screener DVDs -- it will *not* work for a large-scale system.
That's not so bad. It just means that the econonmy of our society is changing once again. Attempts to keep the rules from shifting and the econonmy from adjusting are as useless as the feudal lords trying to keep merchants from becoming the new powerful class.
Please note... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it mean all DVD players, home cinemas, tape recorders, walkmans, discmans, pocket MP3 players and all that is supposed to be networked? And what about computers, say I pay for modem, do I have to pay for 1.5h long distance call if I want to view 1.5h DVD movie?
Either they are very stupid or VERY greedy.
How about we add DRM to paper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney Magic (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing magic about Disney these days is their almost bottomless capacity for greed. Their products are unimaginative, formulaic and their theme parks are little better than entertainment sweat shops. Disney lawyers suing day care centers for having the audacity to paint one of their characters on a wall, DRM, the Bono Act. The list gets rather lengthy.
A greedy, ugly, disgusting company.
The Corporate State. The Worker's State (Score:5, Insightful)
GCC as "piracy tool" (Score:3, Informative)
its NOT about piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Big Media wants to make it such that devices that play non-DRM media are illegal.
This would mean that if you wanted to create content (music, movies, probobly also Software if companies like M$ get in on the act), you need to pay big $$$ to Big Media to do so (and since they have a monopoly, they can, if they dont like the content you want to create, refuse to licence to you period).
What I want to know is why the big Technology companies (who have the most to loose from this action) dont get together and fight back...
Companies like ATI, NVIDIA, Intel, AMD, IBM and others. Not to mention companies built around "free software" like RedHat. As well as organizations like the EFF and FSF. If these groups got together to fight Big Media... (remember, the technology industry is BIGGER than the media industry in terms of total $$$)
If needs be, use their own dirty tricks against them (back-door "secret" payments to congress etc)
Although on the other hand, I suspect that there is some reason I havent thought of as to why opposing this would actually be bad rather than good for the tech companies
No authority (Score:3, Interesting)
The only reason the broadcast flag for TV happened was because Congress gave the FCC broadened authority to move the DTV transition. That expanded authority is missing for digital radio, and will likely never happen.
So, calls for the FCC to mandate DRM will not likely work, and if the FCC tries, it would probably be killed by a court appeal. Watch Congress - that's where anything important will happen.
Add amendments, sign my bill, (Score:3, Interesting)
- Limited Time Models:
Corporations will be allowed to use business models for a limited time only determined by public vote. For example, the distribution and sale of plastic disks containing digitally encoded video and audio maybe restricted by public vote to a time of (for example) 1 year. After this time the corporation or corporations would be forbidden from practising this business model.
- Restricted Mergers:
The number of mergers or 'buy outs' a corporation will be permitted to perform would be determined and hard coded into this legislation. After the allowed number of mergers a corporation would have to be liquidated (the assets rewarded to the tax payer) and rebuilt to regain its allowance.
- Fair-trade Conduct:
A democratic process will exist for the regulation of all corporate entities. Voting by the general population will determine rules by which corporations must follow. Such rules could include the restriction of DRM technology in products that are deemed 'aggressive' by the voters and the clear labelling or banning of products that attempt to tamper with the parameters of existing playback devices (such tampering if not clearly labelled may be deemed criminal intrusion of a remote computer system). Flaws in products may also require clear labelling including the lack of security measures deemed vital at the time of production.
- The restriction of 'tools' for the purpose of by-passing LRM
Lawyers, Head-quarter Relocation, Campaign Contributions, 'Politicians', Sponsored School Education Programmes and 'Remakes' will be banned, their use, trafficking, sale, possession and discussion will be offences subject to fines of up to $10,000,000,000 (which will be rewarded to the tax payer) or 2 years corporate suspension (from a tall building).
*IT TACA DA PISS Act:
It Takes Ages Creating A Decent Anagram Politicians IMFO Should Stop.
DRM on all recording equipment (Score:3)
Listen and heed. It's coming, unless we stop it.
What they should REALLY do. (Score:3)
These implants would detect when you have a song stuck in your head, and on each such occasion, cause the appropriate sum of money to be transferred from your bank account to that of the appropriate copyright holder. For your convenience, the same implant could also be used to detect thoughtcrime, using rules similar to those in spam filtering software. Matching one of these rules would be considered an automatic conviction under the law, with no due process, no investigation, no arrest, and no trial. The implant would simply cut off the flow of blood to the brain. This feature would, of course, be utilized by the primary feature of the implant, in that if your bank account runs out of money and you get a song stuck in your head, the flow of blood will be cut off.
Because the brain is one of the most prevalent devices out there that can record audio.
The greatest irony.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct reply from the FCC (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mickey (Score:4, Funny)
Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:but if I record off my friend's stereo system.. (Score:2)
I don't think your friend will lend you his stereo.
Re:Golden Age of Capitalism (Score:2)
Or are they going to worry more about less important things like wars and health care?
Face it, unless it trips the general populous (sp?) it'll just never show up on a big enough radar. I wouldn't describe it as rolling over.
Re:Golden Age of Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)