Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MPAA Wants Copy-Controlled PCs

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the if-wishes-were-gifthorses dept.

The Almighty Buck 773

phil reed writes: "According to our favorite media mogul, Jack Valenti (as stated in this letter in the Washington Post, all PCs need to have strong copy protection built in. 'Computer and video-device companies need to sit at the table with the movie industry. Together, in good-faith talks, they must agree on the ingredients for creating strong protection for copyrighted films and then swiftly implement that agreement to make it an Internet reality.' Way to go, guy."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


make sure to get the patch into -rc1 (5, Funny)

edrugtrader (442064) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071882)

come on kernel hackers, you heard the MPAA, i refuse to run linux anymore until the 2.4 tree includes strong copy protection

Re:make sure to get the patch into -rc1 (4, Funny)

daniel_isaacs (249732) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071980)

I'd like to know who will be representing Linux at these meetings. I think I'm busy that week, so someone else will have to go.

yet you still whore yourselves for movies and dvds (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3071886)

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g g
o / \ \ / \ o
a \ a
t `. : t
s` \ s
e \ / / \\\ -- \\ : e
x \ \/ --~~ ~-- \ x
* \ \-~ ~-\ *
g \ \ .--------.___\ g
o \ \// ((> \ o
a \ . C ) ((> / a
t /\ C )/ \ (> / t
s / /\ C) EMAD (> / \ s
e ( C__)\___/ // _/ / \ e
x \ \\// (/ x
* \ \) `---- --' *
g \ \ / / g
o / \ o
a / \ \ a
t / / \ t
s / / \/\/ s
e / e
x x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

Haven't we seen this before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3071889)

Didn't they already try this with HD manuf's and it failed due to backlash?

And Microsoft (1)

althalus (520424) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071890)

They'll want in to not allow non win32 kernels on a PC, since anything not licensed by them must be illegal.

About the Troll Library (-1)

RoboTroll (560160) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071891)

In my development of the Troll Library and the Troll Library Technology, I have received many questions and concerns in reference to the Troll Library and its use on Slashdot. The intention of this post is to "clear the air" of the misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions which have been posited about the Troll Library.

What is the Troll Library?

The Troll Library is a database of the best and brightest trolls of Slashdot history. The database is SQL 2000 and is managed by Microsoft C# using .NET technology.

How can the Troll Library be accessed?

The Troll Library is not yet available online, but it will eventually be made publicly available in the form of a .NET web service-- That means that you will be able to browse the library and submit your additions with your web browser (yes, even an inferior piece of shit like Mozilla, since Microsoft for some reason chose to include "down-level" compatibility with their web services in .NET).

What's the ultimate goal of the Troll Library?

To crapflood Slashdot into oblivion using Microsoft technologies.

What does the Slashdot community think about this?

Using Microsoft .NET to annihilate Slashdot really pisses off the Slashdot community, which is hilarous.

Do you sit around and read Slashdot all day?

Of course not. The client troll poster bot automatically detects a new story on Slashdot, selects a post from the Troll Library database, and submits it to Slashdot. The client is written purely in C# using Windows Forms in .NET. It would be impossible for Slashdot server to detect the presence of the bot, except for the "Dirty Linux Users:Are Hippies" header.

What if they crack down?

If the 'editors' (I use the term loosely) were to ban the RoboTroll or Troll Library posts, the posting client would have to become open source and avialable to everyone. The irony and humor is very rich indeed.

How can I help?

The single biggest need is a .NET server with the bandwidth capable of being slashdotted. Please make your plans and prepare accordingly; when the time comes, we want you to be ready. What you will receive is nothing more than a .ZIP file to unzip to your inetpub\wwwroot folder.

If you are running Apache or some other open source derivative piece of shit, I can only laugh at your sad ability to serve up plain ol' HTML. You sad and pathetic, and I fear for your future career-- or lack thereof. HAHAH!!!


No - Thank you, the honorable and noble Trolls of slashdot, we all know that WE are the lifeblood of Slashdot itself, and it would wither and die without US .

Do not attempt to email me (email is bullshit of course) or otherwise, just reply to this post; replies are automatically indexed and delivered to me.

This troll was reposted from the Troll Library [slashdot.org] without permission of the original author. If you object to this post, or if you wish to add your troll to the Troll Library, please reply to this message.

Copy-protected PC's? (5, Insightful)

spectral (158121) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071896)

I'm sure i'm not the only one who realizes it won't work without legislation. What incentive could companies posisbly have to add this to their products? ("Hey, let's screw over our customers and take it up the a** for the MPAA by adding expensive copy controls and limiting their use!") All it takes is one hardware manufacturer to tell the MPAA to go f*ck itself, and this whole thing falls apart. They might get pre-built companies like dell, gateway, sony (Since part of it is in the MPAA board), but.. what about build your own?

Are the people at the MPAA really so stupid as to think that they can actually allow us to listen/watch stuff, but not copy it? It has to get decrypted somewhere..

Re:Copy-protected PC's? (1)

rhost89 (522547) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072014)

No kidding, even before DeCSS, didnt a programmer hook the device driver and just write the data to disk. If it can be read it can be copied.

Re:Copy-protected PC's? (5, Interesting)

Monte (48723) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072079)

What incentive could companies posisbly have to add this to their products?

What incentive is there to put region coding in a DVD player?

Oh, that's right - it's part of the spec. If you want to license the DVD technology you have to agree that you'll honor region coding.

There's your answer - the copy protection will be part and parcel of whatever new nifty whiz-bang thing that you can't continue living without (say, HDTV maybe) and the manufacturers won't have a choice.

And rest assured anything that ain't Wintel or Mac will surely get screwed.

Of no use ... (1)

NWT (540003) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071899)

... all PCs need to have strong copy protection built in.

Naah, what? copy protection in every computer? where? in the os? or the hardware?
pretty confusing ... this surely won't do it!

Mr. Valenti gets framed... (4, Insightful)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071901)

Dear Editor;

I'm entertained by Jack Valenti's assertion in his Feb 25th letter that
"According to the Boston-based consulting firm Viant, some 350,000-plus films
are being downloaded illegally every day."

If this is actually the case, then 350 000 * 6 Gbytes per movie (compressed
DivX at about 400x300 pixels) = 2 100 000 000 000 000 bytes per day.

That is 16 800 000 000 000 000 bits per day (8 bits per byte) or 16 800 Terra bits per day.

According to CyberAtlas (please see link below) the entire bandwidth of the
US internet is only 20 000 Terra bits per day.

So Mr. Valenti is using figures to advance his argument which imply that
(world) 'netizens downloading pirate movies would utilize 84% of *all* US
internet bandwidth. There must be a very 'fat pipe' to River-City.



http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/hardw ar e/article/0,,5921_900241,00.html

Re:Mr. Valenti gets framed... (3, Informative)

NWT (540003) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071945)

6 Gbytes per movie (compressed DivX at about 400x300 pixels)
Hum, 6 gigs per DivX movie? I'm sure you meant 600megs, or 0,6 gb ... that's the most common size, because they want to burn them on cd's :)

Re:Mr. Valenti gets framed... (5, Interesting)

asparagus (29121) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071972)

But, if a divx movie is only 600MB, rather than 6GB, then we get to drop everything by a factor of 10.

8.4% of US bandwidth is movies?

Seems plausible.

Re:Mr. Valenti gets framed... (1)

rhost89 (522547) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072078)

If 8.4% of the us bandwidth is movies, then i wonder what is the total share is for "underground" material. If you cound all the warez, mp3's and whatever else, that can easily be 1/3rd of the whole US bandwidth. Thats some serious numbers when you figure out that its about 666.66...(The numbers come out wierd i know.) Terabits per day.

Re:Mr. Valenti gets framed... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3071973)

I don't disagree that Mr. Valenti is drastically overstating the amout of bandwidth used, but your math is wrong - DiVX ;-) movies are only about 600-700MB each, not 6GB. So take off a zero on your calculations, and that puts movie traffic at 8.4%, which is still a lot, but not nearly as much.

This is a Troll!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3072010)

and anyone with a shred of sense can see it. Hopefully someone will actually read the post before moderating it in future or in meta-moderation.

Re:Mr. Valenti gets framed... (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072023)

A typical divx movie online is max 2 VCDs. So 1300-1500 megabytes max. More likely he is also including those 300meg screeners you can download off grokster and the like.

Re:Mr. Valenti gets framed... (2)

quantaman (517394) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072050)

Keep in mind that the US is NOT the ONLY country in the world with internet access. I don't have any figure but I would not at all be surprised if a substancial amount of that traffic originated outside of the US to servers outside of the US. Also so keep in mind that the large proportion of data comprising isn't surprising cosidering the fact that movies are the largest files being downloaded on a regular basis, It would only take a few movies compared to hundreds of regular downloads to take up a substancial majority of the bandwidth.

Jack wants something? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3071902)

Tell him to want in one hand and spit in the other
and we'll see which one gets full first.

Why? (4, Insightful)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071903)

The problem with this idea is that there is no incentive for PC makers to put in copy protection for movies. Unless it helps PC makers earn money, they won't bother. Margins are too thin as it is.

Not everyone cares about the movie/audio industry and they need to figure that out.

Re:Why? (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071976)

They would lose money for the simple reason that people would try to mod their latest dell or gateway machine like a PS2 and it would not work. Do you know how many ps2 and ps1 returns are due to bad soldering efforts by a 12 year old?

honestly? (2)

Suppafly (179830) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071904)

Does anyone see this happening anytime soon?
Half the reason they sell some many computers (whether they admit it or not) is so people can listen to music and watch videos and such.. Getting involved with the mpaa at this kind of scale would probably just drag the pc market further into repression making it even harder for college graduates to get jobs.

Why are PC's being blamed? (1)

iacyclone (180583) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071905)

Shouldn't the Movie and Record industries have been attacking the dual cassette decks, recording capabilities of VCR's, CD-R's, and Dvd-R's a long time ago?

Re:Why are PC's being blamed? (4, Insightful)

daniel_isaacs (249732) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071942)

"Shouldn't the Movie and Record industries have been attacking the dual cassette decks, recording capabilities of VCR's, CD-R's, and Dvd-R's a long time ago?"

They did. They lost. They fight on.

Re:Why are PC's being blamed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3071952)

They did... and were basically told to go screw themselves.

Re:Why are PC's being blamed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3071988)

They did. What rock have you been under?

Re:Why are PC's being blamed? (2)

LMCBoy (185365) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072017)

They already settled with VCRs...they get a cut of every blank video tape sold. The RIAA gets a cut of every blank CD-R sold too (as long as it's labeled "for music").

They need real copy protection first (2)

tommck (69750) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071907)

They can't even get a decent copy-protection scheme to work! Everything seems to be cracked almost immediately after the general public hears about it. Either that, or it breaks playback on too many devices. Never mind that as long as the physical properties of wire remain the same, I can always reproduce a movie or a song.


Re:They need real copy protection first (1)

edrugtrader (442064) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072082)

well gees i wonder why... think about their idea: lets make a product that consumers can watch or listen to. if i can see it or hear it, I CAN COPY IT. unless you are going to sell me products i can't see or hear, i will ALWAYS be able to copy it.

MPAA = Many Pointless Anti-Copying Assumptions

Who Would Do This? (1)

rizzo (21697) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071915)

What video/computer company would do this if they didn't have to? Other than games, multimedia is probably the top use for higher-end home PCs.

Screw Jack Valenti (-1, Informative)

Leinies (112854) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071916)

Jack Valenti one of the main proponents of the DMCA. The RIAA is also the group who sued 2600.com for publishing a link! to the DMCA source code. Of course they want this kind of control over movie data. Profit is the RIAA's main motivation, not liberty issues such as "fair use".

Re:Screw Jack Valenti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3072073)

woohoo captain no shit to the rescue.

Duh, thanks for stating the obvious.

Big Table? (5, Funny)

dthable (163749) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071917)

He wants to sit down with everyone who develops Linux, FreeBSD and other open source PC products for some good faith talks? That's one big table.

please. (0)

beez23 (549476) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071918)

That's about the silliest thing I've ever heard. This one's going to tank like Scott Baio's career.

I agree, but... (5, Interesting)

mbessey (304651) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071919)

Together, in good-faith talks, they must agree on the ingredients for creating strong protection for copyrighted films and then swiftly implement that agreement to make it an Internet reality.

I agree, as long as that "protection" includes protecting consumer's rights under the Fair Use doctrine of the original Copyright act.

What's that you say? MPAA doesn't believe in Fair Use? Well, in that case, screw them.


Jack Valenti needs to suck my dick (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3071921)

He will have to pry my cold, dead fingers off of my hard drive to copy-protect it.

this won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3071925)

it never does, it is just a scare tactic

Why would it matter (1)

petree (16551) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071928)

I feel this is the sort of thing that will most likely never matter because there just won't be the demand for it. Every piece of hardware will cost more because it will include some level of security, and then comnsumers will have the choice between cheap hardware using their cds/dvds on their seperate devices or spending a bunch of money so they can see them on their computer. I don't see it happening any time soon. Not unless they stop releasing any content for a non-protected medium. Like that is ever going to happen, there is just far too much money to earned now, and too many consumers that you could upset.

Funny how the MPAA... (1)

Bravo_Two_Zero (516479) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071929)

Funny how the MPAA gets to dictate how all aspects of a copyrighted work will be treated throughout the life of the work for all eternity, yet the contents of many of those works (Shrek, Titanic, et al) were developed partially by open-source software. Too bad the GPL can't be broadly applied to data generated on open source software in the render farms! (and I know that is a bad idea for about a million other things... call it a knee-jerk reaction)

Good deal, Jack. Your industry benefits from our community, and pays us (and other consumers) back with a kick in the boys. You should be very proud.

But nobody else does.... (2)

tweakt (325224) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071931)

Sure, MPAA wants this. But who else would? We've seen this over and over. They put encryption on the discs, but it got broken, cause its decrypted the THE PLAYER. So if the PC is the player, it has to be decrypted IN THE PC. So they know it will get broken, so they effectively want to remove your ability to control your own PC. Not f***ing likely. Get a clue, or die like the conventional music industry is...

Broken Record (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071935)

This guy is like a broken record. No new information content.

This will never happen, and I suspect that even the MPAA knows it will not happen, but it won't stop them from doing mischief.

That's like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3071936)

...passing a law to make wet water illegal. Copying is an intrinsic feature of computers.

Yeah, that will work... (5, Interesting)

TechnoLust (528463) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071937)

Because nobody builds there own PCs. All geeks buy their PCs prefab. Are these guys smoking crack?

If you try to make it a hardware device, I won't buy it, or people that buy preassembled PCs will pay a geek to remove it.

If you make it software, I won't install it. If you build it into Windows, that's OK, I'll just boot into Linux. Want to include it in Linux? Fine, I have the source code and the knowledge to remove it.

Re:Yeah, that will work... (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072000)

What if its built into the motherboard, into the hard drive controllers, the video cards? All of them (new ones anyway)? I assume by building your own computer, you mean you buy all the components and then just plug them into each other; unless you actually solder your own boards youre not safe from this.

"They must"? (5, Interesting)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071938)

Jack, you should know that some companies in the computer industry make more than the entire membership of the MPAA combined. You won't have much luck twisting their arm...

- A.P.

Re:"They must"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3072068)

Jack knows this. That's why he wants Congress to twist arms for him.

Slashdot Search Page (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3071940)

This is off-topic, so mod me as you will.

The Slashdot Search page is broken. The last entry in a blank search is Katz's rant about censorship. Is everything being done to get that function working again?

Also, it's nigh impossible to navigate back to the main Slashdot page (www.slashdot.org) from any of the new servers. As there isn't a "main" section over on the left there, it's a whole mouse movement and typing exercise to return to the main page. Please fix.


freedom? (3, Flamebait)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071941)

I was just having a discussion w/someone last night about how unfree we are.

who the fuck are they to control PC's? If a vendor wants to force copy protection it is up to them. Tough fucking shit if we decide to boycott, destroy, crack, etc.

I am sorry but I would rather suckass w/the latest technology of today than suffer through copy-protected PCs of the future.

Fuck you MPAA.

May I (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3071944)

May I be the first to write: "Jack Valenti, go fuck yourself."

Re:May I (1)

HCase (533294) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072016)

ya coulda been if you'd gotten there faster. ;) he seems to be a rather unpopular fellow around here, and i can't imagine why?

prove this (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071956)

Videocassette piracy costs the movie industry worldwide more than $3.5 billion,... Comments like this always annoy me. How the hell do they know? Firstly, how do they count the number of pirated copies, and secondly, how do they know how many of those pirated copies would actually be legal copies if the pirated copy wasn't available?

Re:prove this (1)

nicedream (4923) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072046)

The first figure is probably a wildly overestimated guess.

The second figure....well it's 100% of course ;)

isn't this like... (2)

trb (8509) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071957)

Asking PC makers to copy-control PC storage is like asking paper-makers to copy-control their paper.

Re:isn't this like... (2, Interesting)

rmstar (114746) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072043)

More like asking Xerox to only sell copy machines that don't copy printed matter.

I, mean...

WTF? (1)

phyberop (535162) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071958)

how would they actually manage this ? are they going to remove the "copy" function in the OS'es ?
Maybe they will go around and manually disconnect and destroy peoples ethernet cards and modems so that they cant copy files over the internet.
Any copy protection thought up by them would eventually end up cracked anyway, and then they are right back to square one.

It's not your computer anymore. (2, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071959)

"[W]hen social policy is created in smoke-filled back rooms, between movie/record company executives and computer company executives [..] [i]s it unexpected that such back-room policies end up favoring the parties who were in the room, at the expense of consumers and the public?" - John Gilmore [toad.com].

My old laptop will become a circumvention device (5, Funny)

joshv (13017) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071961)

Hang on to those old PCs folks. Sooner than you think might be illegal to use them under the DCMA.

They'll pry my TI99/4A from my cold, dead fingers.

ok now im paying you to spy on me? (1)

Sacker (133852) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071964)

This is nuts to ask the american public to pay for a computer that is controlled by the MPAA. Its disgusting how far people will go to stop the few who do actually pirate. Aside from that, who actually pirates? Aside from the people who cant really afford the movies in the first place. Most of what is going on there is done by college students and younger. Personally I am a college student but if I like a movie I would much rather have it in DVD format than divx. I think this is much more of a controle scheme then anything else.

my 2 cents

Of course (5, Informative)

Starship Trooper (523907) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071966)

Of course Jack Valenti wants this. This is the same guy who once said "The VCR is to the Movie Industry what the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone". He's not exactly a visionary.

The question the semi-intelligent people who listen to Jack have to solve now is this: how can we force consumers to buy something they don't want?

The proven formula for this is legislation. Government mandated airbags have killed more children than school shootings [troynovant.com] - and more importantly, they've created a precedent for how a corporation can incorporate non-features into consumer products.

Do you think consumers really wanted to buy DVD players with region coding and Macrovision? Was that a feature? The total ownership of the DVD standard presents a second way to force unwanted hardware down the customer's throats: patent a standard, license keys, and use the DMCA to enforce the keyring.

The infamous SSSCA is their attempt at bring approach #1, and they may also (in parallel) try approach #2. If there's any word I can use to describe the actions of the Movie Industry right now, it's "desperate". They know that the precedents set right now will last for hundreds of years, and they are fighting for what they believe is their very survival.

The question is, will consumers keep buying Dell and ignore the EFF? And if so, what's the most effective way to raise awareness...

Telling us what we *need* to do, come on... (1)

aquarian (134728) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071967)

Who the hell do they think they are, telling us what we need to do? They can just blow all of us...

They ought to feel lucky to have access to our users. That's what the media business is all about- delivering an audience to advertisers. Apparently, these arrogant clowns have forgotten where their bread is buttered.

Human rights. (2, Interesting)

Drakula (222725) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071968)

Talk about taking away your basic rights as a human. It's like the government saying, "We can't trust the common person to not commit murder. Therefore, we must place everyone in prison. That is the only way to protect the innocent."

How does that make sense?

It is basically takign away everyone's right to make moral decisions about how to conduct their lives. You can't tell me that doesn't violate the constitution/bill of rights somehow.

So he wants *total* control? (2, Interesting)

Mr.Intel (165870) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071979)

I believe in the phrase, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". If this insane idea ever gets close to fruition, then he will be one step closer to having that. Copy protection built into PCs and PC like devices will only serve to alienate an already tech weary population. Not to mention Jack's idea of what the people think about 'the net' is a statistical fantasy. From the article: " A recent survey revealed that 68 percent of all home computer users say they're satisfied with their normal 56K computer modem." Does that count the 50% that can't get broadband?!? If broadband were available to everyone, it goes without saying that 90% of people would have it. Just like most people want the faster car or bigger boat.

Even if it is technically feasible to implement a copy protection scheme on PCs it would next to impposible to ensure they were working and enforced (unless we revert to a police state). Then he claims that this will "benefit consumers by giving them another choice for movie viewing." Hello? Did I miss something. How will removing the ability to make legal copies with my PC give me more choices? Get a clue Jack.

Closer than we think? (0)

zap42hod (303419) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071985)

considering that big manufacturers were ready to implement the new ATA specs for copy-protection, umm .. last year?

Jack Valenti is a fool (5, Insightful)

McSpew (316871) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071986)

What Mr. Valenti fails to understand, and what Bruce Schneier explains so eloquently in Secrets and Lies, is that it's impossible to create a protection technology that cannot be circumvented when the device used for playback is not physically secure from prying, hacking or reverse-engineering. In other words, if you put the equipment and/or software necessary to decrypt the material into the hands of end-users, the protection scheme will eventually be successfully broken.

Valenti's real enemy isn't the high-school kid who's downloading The Matrix or the college kid who's downloading Star Wars Episode I. It's the guys in Shanghai or Saigon who're pressing thousands of copies of Hollywood movies and selling them for mere pittances. Nothing Valenti has suggested will put a dent in the business conducted by those guys. Until the media companies figure out that their customers are not their enemies, we'll get more of this kind of nonsense.

This is from the guy (3, Interesting)

sulli (195030) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071987)

who said he slept a little better every night knowing LBJ was president? I find it amazing that people take this jackass seriously.

If this happens, I will gladly violate the law. Period.

Like that'll ever happen... (2, Insightful)

Drachemorder (549870) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071992)

They'll probably be able to get Microsoft to include copy-protection in Windows. MS is already doing their best to do that, anyway. Of course, that strategy could cut both ways. If Microsoft keeps adding heinous misfeatures like copy protection and product activation to their OS, it will drive more and more people to install alternative OS software.

Anyway, Valenti seems to be saying that copy-protection needs to be built into the hardware. I think it's fairly safe to say that if such a thing were to happen, we'd all need umbrellas to protect ourselves from falling pig droppings. Number one, you'd have to have legislation to do it, and such legislation wouldn't be very popular. Number two, can you imagine the outcry from the public? And number three, the technical details for implementing such a scheme are not trivial. I may be a hopeless optimist, but I really don't see this happening any time soon.

Freedom and Guns... (1)

RazorJ_2000 (164431) | more than 12 years ago | (#3071998)

I've never owned a gun before, but if anyone fucks with my freedom or free use of my computer all in the name of an obsolete distribution industry like the MPAA and RIAA... then I'll go to their house and mess them up.

You can't legislate human technological advancement. Recognize this.

Two Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3072003)

Two words here for the MPAA gestapo.

F*ck and You.

Backwards or forwards, it doesn't matter.

Big Brother is in your computer (5, Insightful)

keithmoore (106078) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072005)

So, let's see... the MPAA wants to bug your computer to make sure you don't copy movies,
the RIAA wants to bug your computer to make sure you don't copy sound recordings, Microsoft wants to bug your computer to make sure you're not running copies of their software (and that you've paid your license fees for this week), and the FBI wants to bug your computer to make sure you're not threatening national security or communicating with terrorists. (And the ISPs want to tell you exactly how you can communicate with others)

If all of these organizations have their way, there won't be any general-purpose programmable computers anymore - just appliances that can do what Microsoft/MPAA/RIAA and the government think you can be trusted to do without taking away some potential money or power from them.

Jack Valenti has no clue (3, Interesting)

syzxys (557810) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072012)

When are the RIAA and MPAA going to get it into their skulls that they are not the main source of artistic creativity in the world?

I always hear these protectionist arguments along the lines of, "well, if you don't protect the RIAA/MPAA, society will decay because there won't be any music or art." Hogwash. These organizations didn't even exist a hundred and fifty years ago, and somehow we still had art and music. In fact, I seem to recall art and music going back to the dawn of human history? What, are they going to give out licenses to take piano lessons next? That'll be the day.

Jack Valenti is just a middleman, he has no talent on his own. I doubt he even knows that people build their own computers. What, is he going to lobby for that to be illegal next? I wouldn't doubt it. How schizophrenic can society get, people hating Microsoft, but being all right with the crap these control freak organizations put out? It really scares me most times I think of it.

</rant mode>

Windows 2000/XP stable? safe? secure? 5 lines of simple C code say otherwise! [zappadoodle.com]

everyone's favorite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3072013)


One of my favourite quotes (5, Interesting)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072015)

'Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. The sooner people accept this, and build business models that take this into account, the sooner people will start making money again.' -- Bruce Schneier

MPAA doesnt want copy protection (1)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072020)

MPAA doesnt want copy protection they want copy controll

ie they control your music and your life..well I not that god damn stupid and neither is the rest of the buying public..

Ask them how much the origninal copyright holder gets per work on cd per price..and they cannot answer..because they dont want the truth known..

I am sticking by the original terms of use of copyright..if they dont like that they can tsitkc where the sun dont shine!

Also, we'll need... (5, Funny)

snowlick (536497) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072021)

Guns that won't shoot innocent people,
Microphones that won't record copyrighted soundwaves,
Pencils that won't write copyrighted strings,
Speakers that won't vibrate to reproduce copyrighted current patterns,
Film that won't change when exposed to copyrighted rays of light,
Oh yeah, and brains that won't remember copyrighted material of any sort.


Re:Also, we'll need... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3072081)

Microphones that won't record copyrighted soundwaves,

Could be done.

Speakers that won't vibrate to reproduce copyrighted current patterns,

Could be done.

Film that won't change when exposed to copyrighted rays of light,

Could be done if film = CCD chip.

Oh great (2)

NiftyNews (537829) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072027)

Oh great...then what happens when EMachines goes bankrupt and sells the source code on Ebay for $12?

No need (1)

segfaultdot (462810) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072032)

With broadband in the sorry state is in today, there's no need for copy protection. How many VIDEOS do you see on gnutella and the like? The bandwidth just isn't there! As far as making physical copies: If i want to take a DVD that I BOUGHT, and make a backup of it, i should be able to. It's called FAIR USE. Oh, wait. Sorry, i forgot that ever since congress passed the DMCA, the concept of fair use has not just been further marginalized, but rather completely destroyed.

Copyrights brought to their logical conclusion (2, Flamebait)

argoff (142580) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072034)

I think what a lot of people don't understand is that when you allow any copyrights at all, you set up a system and situations that inevitably lead to the endless extensions, the DMCA, copy controls on every PC, and eventually the removal of the freedom of speech all together. Sadly, too many people think that idea solution is some type of compromise or reduction, it is not - that will only eventually lead us back to where we are today. It is only when we are willing to fight copyrights altogether with defiance and civil disobedience and make a stand that wee will cut the vine off at the root. I wish people would understand this.

Slashdot Geek Java method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3072035)

SlashdotGeek cmdrTaco = new SlashdotGeek;

if (cmdrTaco.knowsHowToSpel())

Comming from the guy who said.... (1)

Jim the Bad (192095) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072039)

"The growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology" threatened the entire industry's "economic vitality and future security," and further, that the new technology "is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone."
Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, on the Threat of VCRs to Hollywood, 1982

i hope Maalox sues (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3072040)

"This is what gives movie producers so many Maalox moments."

You'd think someone so hip to trademark and copyright wouldn't blurt out another companies slogan that's been around as long as I can remember.

Pretty soon analog will be on MPAA list (2)

CDWert (450988) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072048)

Shit pretty soon Analog recording will be on the MPAA list of CIRCUMVENTION devices. If its not digital they cannot control it, even if it is digital protecting is questionable.

I say we all tape our favorite films to 16mm kodachrome and tell the MPAA to go fuck themselves, I miss the days of that click click and splicing my own films :)

Like hell they will. (1)

drink85cent (558029) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072051)

Awesome, i cant wait til they do that.
A new feature that i will have to pay more money for just to insure them that i am already paying more.

Hey guys we might as well cough up my money now and help these poor guys research this.

Valenti is a retard (2, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072054)

AFAIC, Jack Valenti is Public Enemy #1. He is the sterotypical grey-haired old man, trying to hold on to his power and empire in fits and spurts before he dies.

I hate this man.

Ummm... licensing? (5, Insightful)

GMontag (42283) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072058)


The DVD players are "licensed" already. That did not stop this?

The DVDs are already encrypted (if they wish to be protected) and that didn't stop this?

There are already laws "preventing" "illegal" copying and that didn't stop this?

What the hell is up with Jackie V? His only solutions are to make things more complicated and more expensive!

Here is a clue: prosecute movie pirates instead of magazines owners and DeCSS programmers!!! Get the cops to arrest people selling pirated movies RIGHT IN FRONT OF MPAA HEADQUARTERS for starters!


Yes, I do expect a royalty if the above idea is actually ever used.

Seems impossible... (2)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072061)

How the hell are they going to make me buy their copy-controlled hardware? Oh, and what's stopping me (or others) to reverse engineer their efforts and release a workaround?

It seems impossible to me. Maybe they can trick the unsuspecting punter, but not me.

Theoretical problem... (3, Insightful)

Lictor (535015) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072065)

Let me get this straight... he wants hardware that will detect all possible programs that will copy digital media...

So, from a theoretical computer science point of view, he wants a Turing machine that will recognize all Turing machines that compute a fixed function f. That sounds remarkably like a problem that is equivalent (by reduction) to the halting problem for Turing machines... Oh, did we mention that the halting problem is unsolvable??

But hey, if *Mr. Valenti* says so, it *must* be possible. After all, everyone knows that you can simply legislate away fundamental laws of mathematics...

Whats next? Valenti proposing that we set Pi equal to 3.0 to simplify calculations?

Dear Mr. Valenti. (2)

Soko (17987) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072066)

Nice letter. Now, go away. Let me talk directly to Mr. Spielberg, please.

Thank you.

Kindest regards,


Legislation Imminent (5, Interesting)

BuckMulligan (255942) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072072)

That editorial written by Valenti was placed because Congress will be holding a hearing on content protection and broadband on Thursday morning. Even the Washington Post's editoral page can be hijacked by the MPAA's powerful lobbyists... The legislation to be considered will probably be Hollings' SSSCA.
SSSCA Working Draft [cryptome.org]. (via Cryptome)

What are we going to do tonight Brain? (2)

sphix42 (144155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072074)

>>computers and video devices must be prepared to react to instructions embedded in the film....
>>The movie industry is, however, consulting with the finest brains in the digital world to try to find the answer.

Well Pinky, by secretly embedding messages in innocent looking downloadable movies we're going to take over the world!

Not a *hardware* issue. (1)

segfaultdot (462810) | more than 12 years ago | (#3072085)

What Mr. Valenti is pointing to is not some sort of hardware or firmware change, but rather addidional IP controls in the OS. Windows, of course. Would Microsoft be willing to give its customers the old IP shaft in order to have the MPAA's support in it's time of trouble? Heck yeah.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account