Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media United States Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney Suggests Mandating DRM On All Media

Comments Filter:
  • by Tuxedo Jack ( 648130 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:22PM (#9909857) Homepage
    Could this possibly tie in with their crappy newly-released PCs? I'd love to get one of those and tear it apart to see what DRM they've put in.

    Mickey with a shotgun saying something about a "motherfucking IP infringer" comes to mind...
    • by danamania ( 540950 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:27PM (#9909883)
      Could this possibly tie in with their crappy newly-released PCs? I'd love to get one of those and tear it apart to see what DRM they've put in.

      You can do that, as soon as you buy a DRM-enabled screwdriver to undo the DRM-enabled screws on the DRM-enabled case.
    • by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:53PM (#9910014) Homepage
      Right On!

      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)

        by Flower ( 31351 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @06:06PM (#9910674) Homepage
        Boycott Disney movies

        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)

          by Halfbaked Plan ( 769830 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @09:38PM (#9911451)
          Sometimes I have to wonder if this is how it happened to the Flower* Power generation.

          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)

        by sacrilicious ( 316896 ) <qbgfynfu.opt@recursor.net> on Saturday August 07, 2004 @09:14PM (#9911367) Homepage
        Boycott Disney movies (shouldn't be too hard - there isn't any nudity in them, right?)

        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...

  • by kaltkalt ( 620110 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:23PM (#9909858)
    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. Buy prison stock now.
    • by dTaylorSingletary ( 448723 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:08PM (#9910072) Homepage
      > Buy prison stock now.

      Isn't that voting with your dollars? Profiting from heinous acts is nearly as bad as commiting them.
    • Actually, if you're going to invest in anything solely because of this news (not recommended), repair service business is it. Old-school non-DRM equipment will become gold if a doomsday scenarios plays out.
    • 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

  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jb.hl.com ( 782137 ) <joe@joe-ba l d win.net> on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:23PM (#9909863) Homepage Journal
    Tape recorders are a nono? How about wax cylinders? Punch cards?

    Very, very vague.
    • Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)

      by jejagua ( 738519 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:30PM (#9909896)
      Up next: DRM for your brain. Maybe now I can get rid of all those silly TV theme songs constantly playing in my head.
      • Duh. They don't want to get rid of them, they just want the DRM to auto-deduct $9.99 per insanity-inducing thought loops of the song.

        Wait til you see your bank balance the month after the UHF seinfeld/friends marathon...
    • Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Valar ( 167606 )
      If you actually read the filing (which apparently even Doctorow didn't do) their proposal covers digital radio only. Not that that isn't ridiculous anyway...
    • Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)

      The main problem the industry has with recording devices is lossless copying (or close to), not tape recording. That's why we didn't have this problem 10 years ago. Obviously, the argument suggested by the article refers to that kind of copying, while the parent seems to try to push the argument to its illogical limit.

      Don't get me wrong though, I hate this DRM stuff.
  • In other news.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by josh3736 ( 745265 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:24PM (#9909868) Homepage
    Disney also suggests copyright be extended to an indefinite amount of time.

    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.

    • by adjuster ( 61096 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @05:38PM (#9910535) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @07:23PM (#9911008) Homepage Journal
        Meanwhile, works that are not economically viable to be "sold" by the "owners" simply become unavailable, ...

        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.

        • Look, I hate the copyright insanity as much as anyone, but I don't think that's a solution--it's simply too abuseable.

          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)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:25PM (#9909870) Homepage Journal
    That's the ultimate goal from all these 'media conglomerates', has been for some time.. I don't know why people haven't seen it coming...

    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)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      Can't be done.

      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.

      • Yes, I realize the end points must be analog, but I was meaning more of the storage/transmission stages.

        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
  • So when will the copyright police be round to collect all the non-DRM equipment?

    Will there be public executions of people who build their own crystal sets to listen to AM radio?
    • No Radio (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nurb432 ( 527695 )
      Once the FCC mandates that all radio signals are digital, like they are with TV, you can make crystal radios all day long and listen to fuzz.... Doubt anyone will care..
  • It will happen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Barbarian ( 9467 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:26PM (#9909879)
    If you don't think that disney can get the government to change something so important, google around for "Mickey Mouse copyright act"
    • Re:It will happen (Score:5, Informative)

      by josh3736 ( 745265 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:29PM (#9909893) Homepage
      That would be the Sonny Bono Copytight Term Extension Act [wikipedia.org] you're refering to, which Disney lobbied hard for.

      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)

        by jefu ( 53450 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:36PM (#9909935) Homepage Journal
        I'd be willing to bet that when the copyright is up for expiration Disney will lobby for yet another extension (say 100 years) and Congress will be well paid off to approve it. It will undoubtedly be challenged, but when it hits the Supreme Court, the Supreme Idiots In Robes will say its all ok as the time renewal is still finite (which seems to have been the reason they approved the last extension). Of course, Disney should really lobby for a 100,000 year extension on copyright as that too would still be finite and thus ok.
        • Re:Mickey Mouse (Score:2, Insightful)

          by natrius ( 642724 )
          The Supreme Court isn't to blame for this. The judiciary only serves to interpret laws, and in the case of the Supreme Court, the Constitution. Even if they didn't agree with the law (I didn't read the justices' opinions on the case so I'm not sure), it's constitutional. Legislators are supposed to be the ones writing laws that represent their constituents. That's the weak link in the chain you should be focusing on.

          Has anyone found a way to harness the energy of our founding fathers rolling in their grav
  • Does that mean that my brain is a recording device and I can't use it?
  • nice! (Score:5, Funny)

    by sometwo ( 53041 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:31PM (#9909906)
    Then we won't be able to listen to Disney music?

    Bring it on!

  • by Ignorant Aardvark ( 632408 ) <cydeweys.gmail@com> on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:31PM (#9909908) Homepage Journal
    As highly as it would like to think its own influence is, I don't think Disney is capable of forcing the entire tech sector to follow their restrictive standards. I've personally written some of my own content to DVD; would I be mandated to include DRM because of Disney's bought-and-paid-for laws? Worse yet, I bet there would be either an explicit or hidden licensing cost to Disney or whoever for the DRM technology. Whatever happened to free speech? If I want to put something of my own creation, isn't that protected free speech? What can Disney possibly have to do with me, my content, my DVD burner, and the friends I give my content to?

    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?
    • by Veridium ( 752431 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:41PM (#9909954) Homepage
      I don't think Disney cares if your typical /.er can crack it. I think they just want to make it difficult for the typical consuming sheep. At least at first.

      Consuming sheep not to be confused with these dangerous and intelligent creatures:
      http://www.geocities.com/sheepagainsthumans/ [geocities.com]
      • by Alan Cox ( 27532 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:29PM (#9910173) Homepage
        I don't think Piracy is the real concern here. It's all these irritating people who are avoiding the goal of the media oligarchs to control *all* media, all content, all music.

        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

  • Honestly.

    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!

    .
  • by Valar ( 167606 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:31PM (#9909910)
    Because despite what he says in his blog FM radio is _not_ covered by what Disney asking for. Is it still too much? IMHO. XM Radio and Sirius both already have DRM, if I recall correctly, though you can still make an analog recording (and always will be able to). I could be wrong though, because I only have XM in my car, so it doesn't have any kind of tape outputs or anything. As far as internet radio, they should give up hope of regulating it all. As always, there is the fact that the internet is international. Also, there's nothing stopping you from setting up your own internet radio station, without DRM (other than maybe a couple of FCC regulations if Disney gets their way). Not that they would be able to find you without expending a tremendous amount of resources anyway.
    • "I could be wrong though, because I only have XM in my car, so it doesn't have any kind of tape outputs or anything. "

      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
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:34PM (#9909920)
    Essentially, Disney wants the FCC to regulate all devices capable of recording from any audio broadcasting medium or from the Internet.

    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.
  • by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:34PM (#9909924) Homepage Journal
    Our right to make a recording of broadcast content is defined as 'timeshifting' -- the concept that we should be able to record for later consumption a program that we would otherwise miss.

    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.

  • by sglider ( 648795 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:35PM (#9909927) Homepage Journal
    I've been following this for a while, and until now I haven't said much, instead I've had the thought that since they own the copyright, it's their right to ask the FCC to do this. Until now.

    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.
    • Bear in mind that this is also simply the first step in the larger plan. It isn't just about piracy, it is about being to control media. In effect they are aiming for a world where you need to purchase a license from a corporation in order to to be allowed to use content generation technology and storage media of any kind.

      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.
  • by Quiberon ( 633716 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:40PM (#9909951) Journal
    Well, yes, but remember that copyright applies to anything that is created/creative; and the creator may license the creation as he or she sees fit. DRM had better respect that. As for me, I shall try and persuade my children to license anything they create (until they turn professional) under an open licence such as Creative Commons. I'm sure they will prefer the potential exposure their work will receive. Give it a few years, and the Disneys of this world will be snowed under by people whose work is equally good because of this newfound ability to share.
  • Go Disney (Score:5, Insightful)

    by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @03:42PM (#9909959)

    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)

      by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <john DOT oyler AT comcast DOT net> on Saturday August 07, 2004 @05:01PM (#9910360) Journal
      That's what the government mandated copyright awareness education is for. Brainwash the gullible while children, and even the non-gullible will feel nervous, guilty and alone when failing to be good little sheepsumers.

      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)

    by chcorey ( 801648 )
    I find it hard to believe that this will happen but maybe I'm just being naive. Can anyone explain to me how the FCC is going to regulate the entire world? Heck the RIAA (or Canadian version) hasn't stopped file sharing in Canada and its unclear whether or not it is illegal to so in Canada. Won't other countries continue to make devices that can record audio broadcasts and/or from the Internet? Sure they can make feeds that require a special player to play but there is nothing stopping a person from rec
    • What *IS* illegal in Canada is unauthorized distribution of copies of copyrighted content, regardless of how it is distributed.

      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

  • Yeah, that's right, what of consumer choice?

    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????
  • ... we could enlighten the world.
  • .. DRM is now officially a buzzword.
  • Right (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord Apathy ( 584315 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:02PM (#9910052)

    I believe when I say, "Fuck That", I speak for all of us.

  • is not about stopping illegal recording. I suspect that it is about stopping recordings except where the labels give you permission. That would exclude indis from being able to publish. I am guessing that the cost of obtaining a license to allow media to be record will cost a huge chunk of change. In light of RIAA and MPAA now being in control of ex-republicans congressmen, I am guessing that they will be able to push this through.
  • by adjuster ( 61096 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:08PM (#9910078) Homepage Journal

    ...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.

  • by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:10PM (#9910082) Homepage Journal
    given that their best work is usually their most derivative work.

    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."

    • Yup, Lion King is actally a rip-off too.
      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]
    • You're mixing public domain and private sources there -- things like 101 Dalmatians and The Sword in the Stone were based on novels that were still under copyright -- there's nothing hypocritical about Disney using sources like that -- they paid up the copyright holders. What's hypocritical is the use of public domain resources like Snow White, Cinderella, etc, while preventing Mickey from becoming public domain
  • by Ohreally_factor ( 593551 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:15PM (#9910111) Journal
    Deregulation seems to only work one way, in favor of the major corporate interests that the FCC is supposed to protect us from. Instead, in this environment of deregulation, which allows more and more power to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, we see who is going to be regulated: the consumer!

    Thank you, my fellow Republicans, for blindly following ideology as if it were holy writ.
  • by yagu ( 721525 ) <yayagu&gmail,com> on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:18PM (#9910128) Journal

    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....)

  • by adjuster ( 61096 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:20PM (#9910133) Homepage Journal

    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:

    1. Get DRM legally mandated in all new analog and digital recording devices
    2. Make it illegal, punishible by heavy fines or prison, to tamper with DRM technolgoies (think Stallman's "Right to Read")
    3. Make it illegal to own or use non-DRM-equipped devices. Or better still, wait for a new standard (digital television, higher-density formats, etc) to usher in the new wave of DRM-only devices
    4. "Educate" the public about the necessity for "intellectual property" law to stay the way it is (e.g. "this is how it's always been") and discouragement self-publishing ("All MP3's are illegal...", etc)
    5. Use their lobby to help in the effort to "harmonize" intellectual property law around the world

    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.

    • by junklight ( 183583 ) <mark@NosPAm.junklight.com> on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:33PM (#9910191) Homepage
      Good to see someone gets it.

      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)
    • Perhaps, perhaps...I understand what you are saying, but I wonder...If what you are talking about came to pass, what would happen? If media was locked down that tight, and nobody could listen/watch anything without being nickel and dimed to death (Or if I know the RIAA, raped outright) who would buy media? People do not like being told what to do with items they've paid for. Remember the TurboTax revolt? How well do copy-protected CD's fly in the States? And now that Norton Antivirus has included produ
  • by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:25PM (#9910156)
    I mean, I don't want to be on Disney's bad side, and since the scope so easily records waveforms, I guess I'm going to need a firmware upgrade or something.
  • Not going to work (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:26PM (#9910159) Journal
    There are three main approaches to implementing DRM:

    * 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)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:36PM (#9910206) Homepage Journal
    DRM requires network. Otherwise it loses all its strength (if it can be done just by local hardware, it can be done by local (my) software.)

    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.
  • by A nonymous Coward ( 7548 ) * on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:51PM (#9910300)
    Then Disney wouldn't have been able to steal also many movie plots from Rudyard Kipling and the Grimm Brothers and Hans Christian Anderson.
  • Disney Magic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @04:57PM (#9910339) Homepage
    I remember when I was a kid Disney was about immagination, about pushing the technology envelope, that the future was a better place and it was a fun place to work. Not anymore.

    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.

  • by MntlChaos ( 602380 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @05:16PM (#9910441)
    Back in the Soviet Union, they had extreme security for anything that could be used for duplication of information, lest it be used for spreading subversive information. Now Disney wants the same thing, except that the claimed reason is different. The ability to quickly and easily spread information as far and wide as possible is what has allowed our society to get as far as it has. Now they want DRM technologies so that information flow would be restricted. This is about as far from progress as a proposed law can get
  • GCC as "piracy tool" (Score:3, Informative)

    by argent ( 18001 ) <peter&slashdot,2006,taronga,com> on Saturday August 07, 2004 @06:11PM (#9910690) Homepage Journal
    How far are these people willing to go? The only way they can stop people from writing applications that don't bother to obey DRM is to make compilers illegal.
  • by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @06:11PM (#9910693)
    Its about controll.
    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)

    by jgabby ( 158126 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @06:50PM (#9910874) Journal
    While the FCC is asking the question about copy protection for digital broadcast radio, as it stands they do not really have the authority to actually mandate any copy protection for it. I'm pretty sure that those in charge are aware of that as well.

    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.
  • by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @07:25PM (#9911011) Journal
    LRM is a Legal Rights Management system designed to control legal rights given to corporations for the protection of humanity. The system will allow corporations to exist and to run business under fair-trade conduct but will prevent them from stealing the rights of others. LRM will also provide mechanisms to control corporations for the purpose of new and exciting business methods such as limited time models and restricted mergers. under the *IT TACA DA PISS Act, LRM will be mandatory for all registered corporations. The following is a brief guide to the key features of the proposed LRM:

    - 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.
  • by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @09:08PM (#9911341)
    Have you got your Listener's License? [theafternow.com]

    Listen and heed. It's coming, unless we stop it.
  • by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @11:30PM (#9911839)
    They should put brain implants into every newborn child, and all adults should be required by law to get the same implant within the next six months, or suffer the penalty of death by removal of the head.

    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.

  • by Zareste ( 761710 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @01:34AM (#9912118) Homepage
    ...is that Disney was one of the VERY FIRST to LITERALLY circumvent copyright law in order to keep their Mickey Mouse in their possession for longer than the law says they can. This is what REAL copyright circumvention is. The perfect example of why the rules don't apply to the gigantic conglomerates, but the rest of us can all go to Hell.
  • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @08:12AM (#9912883)
    Disney - pay tax and we may listen to you.

I THINK MAN INVENTED THE CAR by instinct. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...