Beta
×

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!

Predicting The End Of Digital Copying

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the we-control-the-vertical-we-control-the-horizontal dept.

Privacy 583

prostoalex writes: "Christian Science Monitor warns about approaching era of digital prohibition. With FCC requiring the use of copy prevention mechanisms in future generations of television sets, soon 'Americans may not be able to copy a song off a CD, watch a recorded DVD at a friend's house, or store a copy of a television show for more than a day'. Of course, no article on this topic can go without a mandatory quote from Jack Valenti, who points out: 'It is not legal to make a copy of a DVD now. Everything people are doing legally today, they'll be able to do legally tomorrow'."

cancel ×

583 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frist Pr0st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102033)

First post!!!

Not again! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102035)

My car won't start.

never has been (1, Redundant)

SlugLord (130081) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102040)

It never has been legal to make copies of copyrighted works except in special circumstances. It never will be. The fact is that now the laws are being enforced more strictly (and indeed over-enforced) because the potential for abuse is so great.

Re:never has been (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102114)

You don't know what you're talking about, and you don't know fair use law.

Special circumstances? How about consumers can make all the copies they want of copyrighted works under fair use law as long as it is for their own private, non-commercial use, plus other "special circumstances"

Re:never has been (1)

SlugLord (130081) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102139)

fair use is one of those special circumstances. Another is when you have written permission. I think educational institutions have some extra leeway, too.

Re:never has been (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102156)

What good is fair use when products produced for the consumer make a blanket prohibition against recording? I've not seen anythign from the **AA which states they plan to allow 10-15 second video clips to be recorded (arguably a comon fair use practice used in research). Instead, they plan to prohibit copying, period.

Re:never has been (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102117)

The point is that the "special circumstances" will now be made moot by technology which prohibits the practice at all. Want to include a 10 second clip of an SRV guitar riff in a music thesis paper discussing the late 20th century Jazz and Blues greats? Better make sure you have a late 20th century recording and playback device to work from, because in short order the products being produced for consumer use will prevent you from doing so.

Want to digitally remix recordings of artists for your own enjoyment? (Yes, some people actually find this fun and do it for sheer joy, not to pirate or sell or otherwise redistribute in violation of copyright) Too bad; so sad.

Look, no one is arguing that there aren't illegal or infringing uses for digital recording devices. The same types of abuses are possible with analog media as well. The point is that there ARE legitimate uses "special circumstances" to use your venacular which have been traditionally afforded to the general public. The **AA is attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the consumer will be the one to suffer as a result.

Re:never has been (5, Informative)

charnov (183495) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102129)

Since I was present at the Kinkos landmark fair-use trial and worked for the company through the courts remedy, I guess I am qualified in reporting that it is (Constitutionally) legal to make copies of just about anything under certain circumstances (including DVD's). One of those circumstances being to be able to make copies of things for personal use so long as no substantial financial harm to the copyright holder and no substantial gain to the copier (or others) occurs, eg. backups of your own purchased goods.

I DO make copies of my DVD's mr Valenti...and I will fight for my right to do so.

Anti-DMCA Candidates (3, Informative)

Drew_Arrowood (601229) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102252)

The way out is to support candidates who oppose the DMCA (we are looking for more). See the site of Tripp Helms [helmsforcongress.com] , who was profiled in Roll Call [rollcall.com] this week. Contribute through PayPal and help one of Coble's North Carolina buddies retire.

Re:never has been (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102171)

Hey, I was going to say that, but I couldnt post it in time because my modem disconnected thanks to my ISP's 2 hour limit. I should be able to sue someone for you posting a comment I was going to post, maybe you, maybe my ISP. It is quite sad that a case like that may actually be taken seriously by some people....

Re:never has been (3, Interesting)

SlugLord (130081) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102199)

perhaps "certain" would be a better word than "special," but my point remains the same. It's illegal to copy anything that's copyrighted and give it to your friend. It's illegal to copy something and give it to everybody in the universe

The problem with digital technology is that there is no degradation of quality and that makes the potential for abuse staggering. That is why the industries are overenforcing copyright laws and making silly new laws to try to protect their intellectual property. If people didn't abuse their ability to copy IP, there wouldn't be any laws against it, but if you provide people with a situation where there's very little stopping them from committing a crime and no immediate consequences, the vast majority will not care that it's immoral or illegal and the rest will simply forget because everybody else is doing it. The problem is not a legislative one, it's a moral one: "Thou shalt not steal." Not that hard and you don't have to be religious to see the social benefit of it. (I'm not religious, but I try to avoid theft and murder and adultery and the like)

Re:never has been (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102224)

The BENEFIT with digital technology is that there is no degradation of quality and that makes the potential for SHARING AND FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS staggering. That is why BLAH BLAH BLAH, I'M A PUSSYWHIPPED CORPORATE BITCH. adultery and the like)

Re:never has been (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102272)

If people didn't abuse their ability to copy IP, there wouldn't be any laws against it


Again you open your mouth, and again you know nothing of consequence. In or around 1980 (even before the betamax wars, and probably before you were born), Jack Valenti and the MPAA tried to ban VCRs. This was before widespread "theft", if you could call the vhs secondary market on a nyc street corner "widespread theft".

When MPAA efforts to ban the VCR failed, they then tried to institute a $50 "piracy tax" on individual blank cassettes, to be distributed to the entertainment industry.

Taking away fair use rights through drm flags and hardware features has nothing to do with "theft" of digital content. It has to do with charging consumers twice for a CD version and a Rio version of the same song, for a home version and a car version of the same song, for not being able to backup CDs and DVDs that scratch, thus forcing another purchase, and more. Listen.com is successfully competing with free P2P networks, and even Microsoft has admitted that they can compete against free (Ballmer on Linux).

Now go back into your MPAA office. Microsoft filled the message boards with FUD during the OS/2 wars, and MPAA is doing the same with lies today.

MAX PAYNE (XBOX) HELP!!!!!!!1 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102041)

Can someone help me with the nightmare level, where Max is going through the maze!

Copying will be allowed, but taxed (3, Interesting)

bcilfone (144175) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102043)

You *cannot* prevent copying. You can't make it illegal and you can't prevent it technically.

I would however expect that we will see more **AA taxes such as the ones already in place on CD-R and radio broadcasts. 5% on your cable modem bill, 3% of your hard drive, 6% of your compactflash card.

If this money were actually distributed to all affected copyright holders and not just those that belong to the **AA, this wouldn't be the worst solution in the world.

Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102058)

amen to this, it's nearly impossible from stopping people from reverse engineering a technology. Anyone that thinks they can do so is nuts!

On the other hand the general public can be stopped.

Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (3, Insightful)

dgmartin98 (576409) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102107)

Here's my beef:

I agree with the absurdity of the proposal, and with any current levies. In my opinion, if the government plans on charging us fees on the 'assumption' that we're going to be breaking copyright laws, then in those cases IF and when we do break copyright laws, we should consider our debt as paid in full. Otherwise, if the record industry decides to sue someone on the basis of lost sales, we could easily point out that they received compensation for their music, in the form of a fee from the sale of the blank CDs.

So what if the gaming industry decides later this year that they want to get a piece of the pie, too? They'll be asking for their $1.23, or $2.27 for the lost sales of games, because someone copied a PC or Playstation game onto a CD. Then the literary world will get wind of the idea, and decide they want some $$ for their lost sales of e-texts, pdf documents, etc...

There are far more legitimate uses for CDs than there are illegitimate uses. And my guess is that the majority of CDs sold are for legitimate uses. Looking at my stack of CDs, I see some photo CDs that I made, dozens of backup CDs for my hard drive, a collection of MP3 CDs for music that I already own, software backup CDs, temporary storage CD-RWs, various document CDs, etc...

BTW, I think the record industry should pay the same levy on the blank CDs that they use for distributing their music to consumers. This would, in effect, take money from the smaller record labels, and distribute it to the largest label. They may whine, "But we're using these blank CDs to distribute our music for which we own the copyrights." Tough shit ! I want to buy some blank CDs to distribute to friends a set of photos for which I own the copyright!

And those RIOs.... how about someone just using them for storing music they already own, to listen to while they're out for a jog, or a bike ride, etc...

And don't get me started on the flash memory levies. What the hell !?!? The record industry wants me to pay them because I take use flash memory for my digital camera !?!? I don't own a stinkin' flash-based MP3 player!

Grrrrrr....

Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (3, Interesting)

andrews (12425) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102198)

Any time consumer owned hardware/software is part of the copy protection scheme, that scheme is doomed to failure. Reverse engineering is a highly advanced art and it's just going to get better. Ask DirecTV how many generations of access cards they've gone through trying to "secure" their signals. Each one was supposed to be unbreakable.

The goal for commercial content protection has to be to stay ahead of the curve just enough to assure current profitability. They realize that sooner or later the copy protection WILL be broken. It's inevitable, even if it's a hundred years from now (but more likely less than one year), that any copy protection will be defeated and the content plastered across the Internet. But that doesn't matter to THIS year's balance sheet.

What's going on with the RIAA, MPAA, Etc. is the industry trying to stay ahead of that curve any way they can. They don't have to stop everyone, just most everyone and they do that by making it just difficult enough that most people won't bother. Like insurance, it's a numbers game.

Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (2)

AntiNorm (155641) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102277)

If this money were actually distributed to all affected copyright holders

But here lies another problem: How do you determine what an "affected copyright holder" is? And how do you determine to what degree a particular copyright holder is affected?

Re:Copying will be allowed, but taxed (5, Insightful)

dslbrian (318993) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102300)

Thats a ridiculous proposal. Why should I pay tax to a -company- !?!?!

Companies don't fund the schools that my kids will go to, or pave the roads that I drive on. In fact those companies don't provide any -public- services at all. You have to pay for their products and services.

If I start an entertainment company, does that mean I can suddenly start collecting taxes?? Imagine the possibilities for corruption of such a system. Suppose a company collects a tax based on how many artists they sign. You can bet every name in the RIAA register would be signing every no-name retard on the planet to increase their portion of the pie.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in maintaining the RIAAs bottom line. If they can't find a real way to make money in the digital age then they should get another job just like everyone else...

It's a simple equasion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102049)

Content companies making money = people being put under draconian controls.
Not being put under controls = content companies all going bust. In a world where money is voice, the truth and the light, they will mostly likely get their way and annoying litte things like Linux and Xine will be banned.

screw this off (litterally) (5, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102059)

Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission approved regulations that would require television manufacturers to include anticopying technology in the next generation of televisions.

Did they also pass a law banning screwdrivers? 'Cause if not...I plan to use one to exclude anticopying technology in my next generation TV.

Re:screw this off (litterally) (1)

superpeach (110218) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102208)

What is next generation anyway? We have CRTs, LCD displays and projectors and probably some others already. To me next-gen sounds like 'some new technology'. Of course, that could mean any kind of new tech added to the TV, but the only thing I can think of right now that could be considered new for TVs is a DRM box that everything passes through. In which case, why would people (who know) want to buy them?

Re:screw this off (litterally) (3, Funny)

jsse (254124) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102226)

Did they also pass a law banning screwdrivers? 'Cause if not...I plan to use one to exclude anticopying technology in my next generation TV.

Nope, but I'm afraid you are in violation of DMCA in doing so.

In the process of removing the screws you need to turn each of those with a screwdriver n-turn anti-clockwise, where n is the exact number of turn the manufacturer has turned to put that screw in place. By reversing the process you are effectively doing reverse-engineering on it and violate the DMCA.

Re:screw this off (litterally) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102233)

Can anyone say mod chip? =)

Good to know.. (2)

sylvester (98418) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102062)

'Americans may not be able to copy a song off a CD, watch a recorded DVD at a friend's house, or store a copy of a television show for more than a day'

Guess that means they don't need any new laws. Which, in turn, means they can stop buying congress critters. I'm sure their accounting departments will be glad to hear that.

(Point being, this is as transparent as usual for Valenti. The things implied by this quote don't bear out at all.)

-Rob

Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 54 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102064)


I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 54 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102088)

Apparently, he committed suicide when he read a post on slashdot that said he was dead, and therefore wanted to make sure the post was true.

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 54 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102294)

Your post on Stephen King appeared on Slashdot about 24 hours ago. What's wrong with you? Is this some mental deficiency you have? It's really stupid. Didn't momma give you enough attention today? Grow up. Imagine links to this bull on your resume when you enter the workforce in about ten or twenty years.

Class? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102071)

"It is not legal to make a copy of a DVD now. Everything people are doing legally today, they'll be able to do legally tomorrow."

So why do we need more laws covering this? Anyone? Anyone?

But were doing out best (2)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102073)

'It is not legal to make a copy of a DVD now. Everything people are doing legally today, they'll be able to do legally tomorrow'

But we will be working our butts off to have most of the things you are doing today classified as illegal.

Of course we'll be making small changes as not to conflict with the constitution.

What about TVs not made in the U.S.? (3, Insightful)

paladin_tom (533027) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102075)

From the article,

Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission approved regulations that would require television manufacturers to include anticopying technology in the next generation of televisions. The technology would identify programs that broadcasters do not want consumers to copy without first paying a fee.

So what's stopping companies from countries other than the US from making a copy-protected version of their hardware for the US market, and a non-copy-protected version (possibly at a higher price) for the non-US market?

Sure, companies don't like having to support multiple products, but I'll bet there'd be a market for this. Wouldn't the FCC's new regulation just push American companies out of this market?

Re:What about TVs not made in the U.S.? (1)

xactoguy (555443) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102170)

Yes, and computers as well... for us here in Canada, it is still legal [neil.eton.ca] to copy a CD, even if it is a friend's, as long as you only use it for private use... still legal [neil.eton.ca] are they planning to create computers that are only anti-copying enabled in the US ( and possibly the EU... now that they are getting a variant of the DMCA ) and have that anti-copying feature disabled everywhere else?

Re:What about TVs not made in the U.S.? (1)

xactoguy (555443) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102196)

Crap... sorry about that... ignore the second link =D

Re:What about TVs not made in the U.S.? (1)

I Love this Company! (547598) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102203)

But wouldn't importing a non-copy protected TV violate the DMCA? After all, it would be circumventing copyright protection. Just another reason to oppose the DMCA, as if we needed any more...

Re:What about TVs not made in the U.S.? (1)

paladin_tom (533027) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102232)

But wouldn't importing a non-copy protected TV violate the DMCA?

Uh, I wasn't talking about Americans importing these things... that, my friend, is your problem. :)

Re:What about TVs not made in the U.S.? (1)

superpeach (110218) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102228)

Sure, companies don't like having to support multiple products, but I'll bet there'd be a market for this.
Isn't it illegal for normal people to import/export weapons? I guess they would just get classed as weapons of digital piracy.

TVs are not made in the U.S. (2, Interesting)

Kelmenson (592104) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102298)

And they haven't been here for ages. IIRC, Zenith was the last brand to manufacture here, and I think they stopped at least a decade ago.

Re:What about TVs not made in the U.S.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102304)

What about TVs not made in the U.S.?

You mean, "any TVs"

Hrm... (5, Interesting)

RomSteady (533144) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102076)

My question is this: there is nothing legally wrong with space-shifting my CD collection, so what is legally wrong with space-shifting my DVD collection?

I copy my CD's to MP3 format and take those into work so that I won't have my CD's stolen. I do the same with my DVD's, except I convert them to Windows Media 8 format.

As long as you own a copy of the video in question, aren't you basically doing what is already legal to do with CD's? (Aside from the whole DMCA riff, which is OK, because I have several region-free DVD's.)

I'm not talking about distributing those copies. That is, of course, illegal as hell. I'm talking about using a copy of your own item for personal use.

Re:Hrm... (1)

Troller Durden (253387) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102135)

Check the laws. You actually do NOT have the right to 'space-shift' CDs. You can make a CD-to-CD copy for backup purposes, but CD-to-other-format, be it tape, minidisc, mp3, or whatever, is not allowed. That is considering creating a 'derivative work'.

Fucked up, but true.

EFF Case Analysis (4, Interesting)

RomSteady (533144) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102164)

This [eff.org] is the EFF's analysis of the SonicBlue case.

A quote:
"The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user's hard drive." In its reasoning, the court stated that this type of format conversion falls within the personal use right of consumers to make analog or digital recordings of copyrighted music for private, noncommercial use. According to the ruling, "Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act."

So again, my question: what is so fundamentally different between DVD's and CD's that I can space-shift one legally, but not the other?

Re:Hrm... (1)

tgma (584406) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102230)

But wouldn't this make Apple's iPod illegal, as well as other MP3 players. As far as I can see, they explicitly encourage you to take your legal CDs, and burn them as MP3s to use them on the iPod. Apple included a sticker on the first iPod which said that it was not to be used to violate copyright, but I understood that this was about giving MP3s to other people, not listening to your legally purchased CDs on another medium. I assume that their lawyers, and those of the other producers of MP3 players, have a defense prepared. Anyway, the point here is not really about the illegality of copying. The issue for the industry lobby is that they are dealing with an act that many people can do, and which few people consider to be criminal. As a general rule, society has laws to protect the majority from the antisocial behaviour of the minority. But in this case, the "minority" IS the majority, and society does not see a lot wrong with what they are doing. So the industry groups are fighting a losing battle, just as they did against cassettes and video players. Technology gives them a few new weapons to enforce the laws that the industry groups want, but it also gives great weapons to their opponents.

Re:Hrm... (2)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102181)

My question is this: there is nothing legally wrong with space-shifting my CD collection, so what is legally wrong with space-shifting my DVD collection?

Nothing. Valenti just pulled that out of his elderly ass.

Re:Hrm... (1)

KMitchell (223623) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102253)

The whole issue is over the "don't copy me" flag(s) that they want to create. Right now there's nothing in the CD that explicitly limits your ability to space shift. Step one is to add some metadata that limits your ability to do something (record, play, whatever). Pretty much an expanded notion of region coding, but more flexible in the sorts of rights that would be permitted/restricted.

Step two is to legislate that every device that anyone would want to use for digital media legally has to respect the flag(s). Nothing wrong with space shifting... as long as the "locked to single player" bit isn't set. Of course all the "new" media that you "buy", download and receive via cable, OTA, DBS (whatever) will all be flagged for whatever "rights" you are "granted" as the licensee. You own nothing.

Fair Use-->Pay-per-view. Sigh.

The sky is not falling.. (2)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102078)

More has always been accomplished under prohibition than not. Enterprising young 'uns will always be a step ahead.

Besides Jack, you can't live forever.....

Re:The sky is not falling.. (2, Insightful)

SlugLord (130081) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102243)

speaking of Prohibition (yes I know I'm taking it out of context), To the best of my recollection, alcohol is legal again. Why? Oh sure some of it had to do with the public interest in ending Prohibition, but more had to do with the fact that they simply couldn't stop it. What did they do instead? Tax it. Fair enough.

Forget TV's (0)

gearheadsmp (569823) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102085)

What good will copy protection do on TV's if it's not implimented in computer TV cards? Even if implimented in PCI TV cards, it could probably be circumvented.

Hey Jack! (2)

loraksus (171574) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102089)

And everything that people are illegally doing today, they will be doing tomorow, same goes for whatever you and your whored congresscritters decide is illegal tomorow.
Get with the fucking program.

Al Capone anyone? (1)

T-Kir (597145) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102090)

So who would become the digital world's equivalent of Al Capone then?

Re:Al Capone anyone? (2, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102173)

er...AI C4p0n3?

This sucks! (2)

nfras (313241) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102099)

If my kids are watching a DVD in the living room and I record my show on the DVD recorder in my study I won't be able to watch it on the DVD player in the living room.
This is insane nonsense. The truth is that most people won't realise that they are being butt-fucked until it is too late.

Valenti's quote should read "Grab the Vaseline and bend over, here comes the MPAA."

Huh? (1)

SlugLord (130081) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102101)

From the article, about mandatory inclusion of copy protection in devices: Such protections, proponents say, would give Hollywood an incentive to offer more entertainment in digital format, thereby spurring consumers' adoption of such technologies as high-definition TV and broadband services.

First of all, the only two things "hollywood" doesn't offer in digital format are some movies and HDTV. HDTV will be mandated (or so the FCC claims) in 2007. I'd say that's enough incentive. Movies aren't always offered in digital format because the projectors are redonkulously expensive and therefore most projectors are analog. Copying of movie reels is virtually nonexistant and would be very very easy to track if it were a common practice (they advertise 3 screens, they only bought 2 reels.... you can even have a bot check the listings online).

Perhaps I missed something, but it seems to me that requiring copyright protection in devices is (in addition to expensive and futile) not an incentive for new material.

Blame the Jews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102105)

Jews control the media. It's a known fact that they want control over everyone who isnt a Jew. Best place for them to start is in our own living rooms...

God help us all (who arent Jewish that is).

of course... (1)

acehole (174372) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102111)

'It is not legal to make a copy of a DVD now. Everything people are doing legally today, they'll be able to do legally tomorrow'.

Sure, after they make sure that the legal things they dont like today, are'nt made legal tomorrow.

Christian SCIENTISTS!!! We can't trust them (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102118)

We can't trust this article. It comes from the CHRISTIAN science monitor. Christian scientist is a contradiction in terms. This article is probably a covert attempt to get us to believe creationism is true by appealing to geeks. We must fight this!

Re:Christian SCIENTISTS!!! We can't trust them (3, Informative)

Big_Breaker (190457) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102175)

Regardless of the religious organizations fanasty beliefs the Christian Science Monitor has a long tradition of "agnostic" reporting.

Re:Christian SCIENTISTS!!! We can't trust them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102246)

I agree completely, The CSM is extremely reputable for objective reporting, even in cases where the news was not very Christian.

Why? (0)

nsideops (579890) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102120)

Why is it illegal to make copies of dvds? I've allways tried to understand this. I might have a problem taking my collection of Sopranos dvds to a friends house, especially if there are alot of people there. Things do happen, and since I bought them in the first place, why am I not allowed to make a "safty" copy? They have never really been able to explain this. Soon I will be buying the third season of The Sopranos wich will bring the whole set to approximatelly $240. Thats a lot of money to just "loose". Is it illegal to allow someone else to view dvds that I purchased? Even if they may never watch them or get interested any other way? I've found this to be particuarlly suited to anime. Most people usually wouldn't even think about giving anime a try untill they see one. And most of the good ones are still pretty hard to get ahold of, which means they are expensive imports>>>More money you just don't want to be luging around everywhere.

CD copying Televisions? (1)

xactoguy (555443) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102123)

Wow... I never knew that you could use a Television to record CDs in the first place... I must ge me one of those =D

No prevention... (2, Insightful)

jlrowe (69115) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102125)

Laws do not prevent crime. They merely provide punishment for those who disregard them. And if they are *stupid* laws, it is a virtual guarantee they will be disregarded.

Laws also mean nothing to the 'good' citizen. That citizen would behave properly whether the law existed or not, providing it is a proper and just law.

Not does the law mean anything to the criminal. He will break them ( or rather, do what he wants )whether or not they exist.

Again I say, that laws merely define a punishment. They do *not* control behaviour.

Re:No prevention... (1)

SlugLord (130081) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102273)

They do not prevent crime, but they do provide some disincentive to it... One may not have any particular moral issue with a certain law, but yet obey it because he doesn't want to be punished. People who break laws are those who don't care about the sentence or think they can get out of punishment (generally because they think they won't get caught).

Stock up now... (2, Interesting)

tinrobot (314936) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102134)

I guess I should hang on to my TVs, stereos, and other various analog/digital devices that allow me to copy audio and video today -- and oh, by the way, will most likely allow me to copy audio and video tomorrow.

On another point, I'm not sure if fewer features will be a big selling point for the electronics manufacturers - "sorry, sir, the ability to record was phased out with last years model." If there's a demand, someone will supply it.

Oh, but it is legal. (2)

SecurityGuy (217807) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102138)

Fair use, remember? I may not be able to legally make a copy of a DVD and give it to someone else, although some congresscritters have made noise that perhaps it is. I certainly can make a copy of my own for backup purposes. Having just bought my first CD in years, I fully intend to do so. I also have lots of CDs which have degraded over the years (scratches, cracks, etc). I'm entirely within my rights to make copies to protect the money I've spent.


Of course the obligatory shot at the RIAA's stupidity is in order. I'll drop $30-$50 for a book without thinking about it. I've spent less than $14 (exactly one CD for $13 and change) in the last 4 or so years on music (and pirated none) because the RIAA places their profit over their customers' rights. Ya make yer choices, you suffer the consequences.

BULLSHIT (0, Offtopic)

tweakt (325224) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102140)

bbbb uu uu ll ll sssss hh hh iiii tttttt bb bb uu uu ll ll ss hh hh ii tt bbbb uu uu ll ll sss hh hh ii tt bb bb uu uu ll ll ss hhhhhh ii tt bb bb uu uu ll ll s s hh hh ii tt bbbb uuuu lllll lllll sssss hh hh iiii tt

So much for my SuperDrive (3, Insightful)

myov (177946) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102142)

It is not legal to make a copy of a DVD now

Since when? I can't use my SuperDrive to copy the content that I create on my own?

Valenti is a liar. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102143)

"It is not legal to make a copy of a DVD now. Everything people are doing legally today, they'll be able to do legally tomorrow," says Valenti.

Umm, actually, shit-for-brains, despite your consistent propaganda to the contrary it IS, in fact, perfectly legal to make a copy of a DVD.

Sell the copy? No. Give a copy away free to anyone who asks for it? Probably not. MAKE the copy in the first place? LEGAL.

"It is not legal to make a copy of a DVD now" is a flat-out lie. Someone in the mainstream media needs to call him on this crap.

My Prediction ... (0)

bizitch (546406) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102154)

Lots of money and effort will be spent. Big scarry complicated laws will be drafted and passed. Jack Valenti will die with that big goofy grin on his face intact thinking that they have one the war against piracy.

Prices will begin to drop on HDTV product and consumers will begin to quickly adopt and embrace and spend billions on this new panacea of digital bliss.

But what everyone (except /.'rs) fails to realize is that the gauntlet will have been thrown - and every hacker on earth will be seeking out the holy grail of cracking that mother f'ing encryption of whatever standard thingy they come up with.

And it won't take long before we are right back where we started from - free.

Yeah right, Jack! (2, Insightful)

serutan (259622) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102155)

This is the same guy who proclaimed a couple months ago that television viewers who don't watch commercials are guilty of stealing programming. Sure, I'll believe whatever he says about DRM.

Don't watch tv. Don't buy music.

Re:Yeah right, Jack! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102257)

Actually that was Ted Turner who said that.

Incorrect attribution (3, Informative)

diaphanous (1806) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102258)

The claim [eff.org] that skipping commercials is stealing was made by by Jamie Kellner, CEO of Turner broadcasting>

~Phillip

*Shrug* (4, Insightful)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102158)

Too bad they won't supply my demand for music in MP3 format.

Re:*Shrug* (2, Insightful)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102276)

Well, there are plenty of artists and bands who are selling thier music in mp3 format. The problem is you are not hearing or interested in those artists because they aren't on MTV or hyped in magazines (which they mostly own).

Hence, the point never ever has been of demand and supply. When you have advertisment and product differentiation, there is no point talking about demand and supply. You either buy ("you favorite band or musicians")'s CD or live a miserable life without it. There's no substitue product.

Pathetic (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102160)

Copy protection never hurts anyone but the inocent. Right now I have a nonworking vcr under my normal one, just because I need it as a connection to watch macrovision enabled dvds on my ancient tv. Meanwhile if I just downloaded s/vcd rips instead of buying dvds I'd have no problem watching them at all.

Re:Pathetic (0)

Zapper (68283) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102299)

Not having experienced macrovision I'm now sure that I don't want to.
That's a real screwed up situation.
No doubt tomorrows display devices will fix the problem :-/

The digital world exposes flaws in copyright (5, Interesting)

Dr. Awktagon (233360) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102161)

The interesting (and disturbing) thing is that this stuff was never legal to begin with.

Copying a CD, making a mix disc for your girlfriend, having a group of people watch one copy of a videotape, loaning CDs to friends, these are all legally fuzzy.

These things have been going since the beginning of consumer recording devices. I have stacks of home-copied tapes and Apple II games from my high school days. But not until the internet have the Media Corporations been able to actually *see* the data flying around. And not until the internet have they even considered the idea of *monitoring* your recording devices.

So to them, this is great. Now they can finally fully and completely enforce all those laws that were drafted in the phonograph era and patched here and there whenever a new technology comes out.

But to the rest of us, it shows just how much power copyright law gives the copyright holder.

What to do? Well the obvious thing is to never ever buy anything from those corps again. And avoid new technology until the appropriate "DeCSS-esque" hack is available (no matter what the article says, the technology will be cracked and the information will be relatively easy to find). That way you can always remain in control of your own possessions. I don't see any other solution. The government believes "copyright" and "capitalism" go hand-in-hand, even though too strong copyright is decidedly anti-freedom and anti-capitalistic.

Tired Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102165)

Where is the shortage? How can the old tired model of price being tied scarcity be retained?


Easy: Legislate it. We'll just pass some laws to set or guarantee the price of things like movies and hell, even software, and then we'll be fine. Right?


It doesn't seem sustainable to me. I don't really have a solution for changing our economic model, but it seems we need to be thinking more and making fewer laws. What happens to the US when the Chinese offer all our IP for free? Download from your friendly neighboorhood Chinese satellite. (apologies to Sterling)


The cliche about information wanting to be free is close. It's more like "People want information to be free. They realize there's no reason to pay for something that can be made millions of times over with almost no cost." Trying to cover up this sentiment with band-aid legislation won't address the problem. We won't take too many artificial controls for too long (I hope). And what about those metaphorical Chinese satellites?


I think it was someone like Tacitus that said something like: The republic with the most laws is the most corrupt.

Concerns about Technicalities and PBS (4, Insightful)

Mirell (459881) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102176)

Seeing as the sheer stupidity of the basics of this proposal, I wanted to bring up a point that no one may have thought about before...

The article states that some Television manufacturers might include anti-"theft" copy prevention systems, to deter users from recording shows on the TV. What makes me wonder about this, is what about such things as "Cable in the Classroom", a public service for the education of elementary students. I have seen it used quite often in public schools. (Whether or not the usefulness of this program is worthwhile, that is left out of this discussion)

You also have other stations such as PBS, and at times school districts and colleges may have their own channels. As a few college radio stations do around where I live in Arkansas, everything they broadcast is part of the NPR (National Public Radio) program, or locally done programming, which is all in the public domain.

An arguement can be said from people that such things as books and movies which have entered the public domain (Silent films, ne?), you still have to pay for the cost of publication, even if it is only $.75 for the Dover book version of Plato's works.

But the point is that such things as PBS, et cetera, are broadcasting free of charge, as a public service, and intend for you to be able to record these shows, for either your own children, school, et cetera. Therefore, would the television industry require them to use some encoded stream on the SAP to allow the television to record these shows? Or would it just ignore this altogether and basically say Screw you, PBS.

Just thought it would be an interesting viewpoint on this issue...

Read my post... (2)

silentbozo (542534) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102238)

regarding public domain material and accessibility.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=38224&cid=4095 027 [slashdot.org]

In a nutshell I argue current interpretation and enforcement of copyright has to be reexamined in the context of the intent of copyright (which is a GRANT to the originator by power of law for benefit of the greater society, not an inherent right to be exploited to the detriment of greater society.)

Yes, I'm karma whoring, damnit!

Jack Valenti is wrong (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102188)

It is completely legal to copy a DVD. You just need media that doesn't have the CSS ring zeroed out.

As long as you copy the encryption along with the data, there is no law broken. You have in no way bypassed the encryption, it is still there.

Its unbelieveable that a man who thinks he knows so much about copyright law can be beaten by a lowly slashdot reader. Some "digital revolution" leader he is.

He should pick up a DVD burner sometime and learn about the technology he is trying to destroy.

Actually... WHO CARES? (2)

tweakt (325224) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102197)

...this will be pretty damn funny. I'm not really that worried since I know whatever they try will ultimately fail. There *IS* no perfectly secure system... haven't there been enough examples yet?

My only really paranoid fear is all this crap will eventually lead to the entire US as a Police state. Yeah ok, so thats a little extreme. But either they will just fuckin' give up already, or they will keep getting laws passed till you need to have goveremnt issued DRM compliant occular implants so you are deported from the country.

Legality (2)

Louis Savain (65843) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102209)

Jack Valenti: Everything people are doing legally today, they'll be able to do legally tomorrow

There is a flip side to this coin. Most of the things people are doing illegally today, they were able to do legally yesterday.

The solution is simple: repeal the freedom-destroying laws and put a moratorium of new ones and most people will be law-abiding citizens. An added benefit is that there will be fewer blood-sucking lawyers. Add more freedom-destroying laws to the hundreds of thousands of laws already on the books, and help create a growing criminal society.

And Then Jack Valenti Will Have Lost (3, Interesting)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102211)

And once they remove all the things that make digital media useful, live plays and shows will enjoy a resurgance. Digital media will have become just as short-lived and expensive as a live show and taking in a play will be a welcome escape from the constant barrage of advertising that you are already increasingly subjected to in digital media. The MPAA and RIAA will take their declining bank accounts as proof that more laws need to be passed to prohibit digital piracy and the less convienent they make the use of the digital media, the more customers they will lose.

Jews behind movement to restrict Your rights (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102212)

Have you ever noticed how the Jews are at the forefront of those trying to restrict our rights?

Know your enemy. Study this list of Jews trying to destroy your freedom:

  • Rosen
  • Coble
  • Berman
  • Eisner
  • Redstone
The Jews never create anything. They are the parasites who wedge themselves between the producer and the consumer. The Jew takes a slice of every pie that passes by. What the Jew hates is that the Internet is cutting him off from his host. The artists can now distribute directly to their fans. The Internet has made the Jew irrelevant. So the Jew tries to buy the politician to do his bidding. The Jew tries to get bought politicians to pass bogus regulations in order to maintain Jew hegemony over the consumer.

Listen and learn about the Jew in this mp3 [natvan.com] .

Learn the Truth about the Jew [natvan.com]

Completely legal to copy a DVD (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102213)

Under fair use laws, what Jack Valenti and his cronies at the entertainment cartels are trying to change through "drm" legislation, it is legal for you to copy vhs cassettes, cd-roms, dvd discs of movies and music.

For the specifics, go to NYFairUse.org [nyfairuse.org] and learn what right you have, and what Jack Valenti, Sony, AOL Time Warner, Microsoft, Vivendi, and many others in the entertainment cartel and digital camps promoting drm are trying to ban. And find out what your legislators position on the issue is, then call them, and let them know you'll be voting on this issue this November.

For a NYC based organization that promotes Linux use, Fair Use rights, freeing Dimitry, and many other issues important to the community, see NYLXS.com [nylxs.com] and if you are from the area, drop in at our next installfest or in-service demo, or CUNY Linux demo, or our boat cruise around Manhattan on August 24th, or join us in Washington DC at our next protest against drm [newsforge.com] , and attacks on our fair use rights.

Hmm anyone still have records(LPs)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102214)

I was thinking of something, what happens when the CD and DVD become obsolete? When CD and DVD players are no longer options for whatever mode of transport is popular at that period of time? Currently, this is the same dillema record (LP) owners are facing. Less record players are being manufactured, and soon none will. The answer has been to use cd burning software to copy the recording to the newer, non-obsolete format. This, in all respects of the word, is engaging in "Fair Use" and is completely legal. Now, as to my earlier question, how will I be able to do that [legally] 20 years down the line if they've totally locked down copying? Not very much, by the looks of things.

See what people need to do is to start writing *real* letters to your state representatives (esp. Democrats). Why should they listen? Well, despite what they would have you believe, frankly they are up against a tough race this Novemeber. They are literally going to need every vote they can get. Sure they get money from the studios, but that ain't crap if they don't get the votes. Just state that you'll vote green (or whatever or not at all) if they continue to legislate away fair use. The more people who do this, the more pressure will be applied until they cave in. There are two keys to doing this effectively:

1)Use snail mail, it is proven that hard copies are taken more seriously then e-mails.

2)Stick to the facts, but be firm on where you stand.

3)Give an example or two on how these laws would affect jow blow down the street who isn't technical in any respect of the word.

This only takes 20 minutes max to do, so I encourage anyone to give it a shot. What do you have to loose?

Petition Your Congresscritter for TOTAL PPV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4102219)

Here's the idea:

It's obvious from this proposal and what the MPAA wants that they intend to prevent copying of any sort.

Fight that by demanding ALL television be complete PPV. Why should you pay for a service when you aren't using it? Doesn't make sense, does it? They want it both ways, the assurance of subscription-based fees AND preventing you from copying. So...they want to charge you when you AREN'T using their products!!!

Another thing: When you contact your congresscritter, please don't use the example of backing up "your" DVDs. That's too hot. The better way to fight this is to come in from the side. Talk about how you won't be able to create and distribute YOUR OWN creations which include home video of your family. Show some outrage at that. Talk about how this is a willing, purposeful campaign by the MPAA and others to prevent anyone other than the big studios from being able to create and dsitribute imagery. See the difference? THAT is the glaringly big opportunity to prevent a digital lockout.

Solution: Pool money to commission a product/proje (1)

aaron_pet (530223) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102220)

If I can't time shift media, and or have a physical area in witch all of the data is mine to do with as I please (including transfer to somebody elses physical possession)...

I would not be able to have free thought, and would fight to protect myself from tyranny.

I don't want to fight--I think we can compete with the tirants by by producing our own networks to distribute information. The problems arrive when somebody claims a fundimental aspect of life as their intelectual property.

I believe that if one made a design that is adopted as a normal part of life, we should compensate that person. As soon as it is required to do so, I will withdraw my support of it, and seek alternatives.

Lets pay people for their work, insight is cheap, marketing is cheap... working them together + other aspects is tough.

Don't be afraid to pay someone well for doing a good job... but then what happens when that person is already well compensated?
Possibly invest(give a gift) to that person to create more works...
Possibly give money to somebody else.
How do we know if somebody is already well compensated?... Good accounting...
how do we get good accounting... voluntary loss of lots of privacy...
Isn't that bad? ... yes... but... If our privacy is lost to everybody instead of the big brothers, it will take away the advantage from big brother.

I'd like your comments,
alpeterson@wsu.edu

I predict.... (1)

ferrocene (203243) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102229)

the end of his analog company.

Of course.... (2)

Lonath (249354) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102236)

J. Valenti: Everything people are doing legally today, they'll be able to do legally tomorrow'

Hmm... He conspicuously failed to address the day after tomorrow and all subsequent days.

4-600,000 film downloads a day? (2, Interesting)

upper (373) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102239)

From the article:

According to Viant, a Boston-based market-research firm, 400,000 to 600,000 films are illegally downloaded from the Internet each day.

How many broadband users are there worldwide? I believe I've heard numbers around 10 million. Does the typical broadband user download a full-length movie every 3 weeks? Or are most movie downloads in a very-low-quality format that is plausible to download over at 56K?

I suspect BS.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... (1)

shr3k (451065) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102245)

Such protections, proponents say, would give Hollywood an incentive to offer more entertainment in digital format, thereby spurring consumers' adoption of such technologies as high-definition TV and broadband services

What? Does this mean that they'll put even more shit on TV? Ooooh boy...

Copyright and money printing (2, Interesting)

Advocadus Diaboli (323784) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102251)

I live in Germany. Also here the entertainment industry is very much concerned about illegal copies of their material.

So recently a sort of law passed that says that manufacturers have to pay 6 Euro for every CD writer they sell because there is the possibility that this device is used for illegal actions.

Practically that means, that I as the customer have to pay a penalty for not doing anything illegal. I'm not able to purchase a CD writer for my downloaded ISO images of a Linux distribution or for making backup copies without paying the penalty for illegal copying.

In acient history there was a motto "in dubio pro reo" that means that you can't put a penalty on somebody if you are not totally sure that he's guilty. Nowadays it looks like its enough that the entertainment industry complains a lot about illegal copies and that its not controllable what a man does with his CD writer and so they are enabled to charge every user for illegal copies without any evidence that he really does it. Its like they got permission to print their own money.

I wonder when its time to send the male part of the population to jail since they all are carrying the tool with them that could be used to rape somebody...

For me that means that I will get my 6 Euros back by NOT buying CDs any more. After around 1000 CDs the entertainment industry convinced me that I'm probably a bad guy and that they don't want to make any more business with me.

I'm afraid it'd affect other area too (2)

jsse (254124) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102263)

It's perfectly legal to backup your software as long as you own a license of it don't distribute it. With their logic computer software should make no exception and we must beg the vendors for replacement when you lost your own copy, which would at least take a week. It'd be awkward if your life/business depends on it. :/

as price rises, consumption will fall (2)

Wansu (846) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102271)


The economy is in bad shape. Lots of people are out of work. As such, they have fewer dollars to spend on non-essential items like entertainment. If the price of entertainment goes up, they'll consume less. So, Jack Valenti may get his way. But it probably won't be the outcome he wants. He should be careful what he asks for. He might just get it.

"Innocents in a jungle"??? (2)

mcfiddish (35360) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102275)


According to Viant, a Boston-based market-research firm, 400,000 to 600,000 films are illegally downloaded from the Internet each day. "[These films] are innocents in a jungle, ready to be ambushed by anyone," says Jack Valenti

This from the man who makes fun of anyone who says "information wants to be free".

No timeshifting == no more TV (3, Interesting)

FlyerFanNC (112562) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102284)

I'm not about to rearrange my schedule for my favorite TV shows. I hope the TV broadcasters understand that if they make it illegal, or at the very least a pain in the ass, to record shows a la Tivo, then I will be watching very little TV in the future. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.

DRM is Theft (3, Interesting)

MrBrklyn (4775) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102285)

NY Fair Use [nyfairuse.org] and NYLXS [nylxs.com] have worked really hard at preventing this. Your COngressman in Town this week!!! Pay a visit with your lug to the office this week. We have to keep hammering it just like that, line for line on these arguements, just as they are laid out.

Jack Valenti and July 17th, Washington DC, Department of Commercie DRM Workshop:

"A little Demagogary Never Hurt anyone"

Jack agian in 1982: "The VCR is to Movies like the Boston Strangler to Young Women"

Ruben Safir: President of NYLXS and Co-Founder of NY Fair Use August 2002:

"Jack Valanti is to Private Ownership and Property as the Boston Strangler to the VCR"

Jack Valenti again at the DRM Workshop:

"If this body connot find a way to agree to find a way which will protect private property from Theft then we'll just have to go to Congress and get it done"

Ruben Safir at the Press Conference after the Workshop:

"I completely agree with Jack Valenti. Congress has to step in and protect our private property from theft. It's my damn disk, my damn computer. If someone breaks into my home and steals my computer and my DVD's, who calls the cops and files the police report?

Me or Universal Pictures?

DRM is Theft. Congress must pass a law which will protect the property of every owner of a computer and purchaser of Digital Information by outlawing anything which prevents the full enjoyment of their property. We don't need prior aproval of Warner Brothers, Jack Valenti, or Barry Sorkin to use our computers to augment our enjoyment of our property. There is no forced contract to a cash sale. Forcing a contract on the public which they didn't negotiate as equal partners is a form of slavery no free citizen can put up with.

That's why we propose a New Fair Use Bill, one which guarantees that Copyright is secondary to the Constitutional Right of Security in ones Home and with one's pocessions. Because Copyright is secondary to my property rights in my home and Congress has to make it clear.

If anyone should be forced into a license, then Bertleson should be forced to License to Listen.com. That's why we gave them the limited exclussive Monopoly in the first place, to make sure the material is published. If they don't want to publish, too bad, make them do it anyway or strip them of their Monopoly.

How can we can we continue to expect to maintain a free society if we can't accumulate, copy and archive on our digital systems and information. How are we expected to be able to publish from annotated facts, with references to the original works when everything on the internet can expire or disapear. We have to be able to copy to archive. It's essential to our politcal speech, or for that matter our abilty to have party music mixed to our own enjoyment on Saturday Night."

Recording technology will always exist... (1)

van der Rohe (460708) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102290)

...because new records/movies will continue to be made. Valenti/Rosen/et all know this, which is why everything they have to say is pure hot air.
My digital audio gear is high end, but that's because I make music. If I needed to, however, I could copy the hell out of everything. Furthermore, I'll be able to do this for the rest of my life, because no manufacturer of high-end audio gear will ever manufacture that gear with copy protection.
Media gets copied as it's being created. And as long as there are tools that can copy it at that stage, those same tools will be able to copy it at other stages as well.

Anti-piracy is not the real goal of these laws! (2)

Dr_Marvin_Monroe (550052) | more than 12 years ago | (#4102296)

I especially like how Congress has started making the adoption of Digital Television and Broadband the stated goal of this legislation. This angle of the debate doesn't get talked about too much, and I think that this is more interesting than the simple "piracy" rant we hear daily out of the MPAA and RIAA. From the article:

Such protections, proponents say, would give Hollywood an incentive to offer more entertainment in digital format, thereby spurring consumers' adoption of such technologies as high-definition TV and broadband services.

WHY? Why should they give a f*%k if consumers are buying new digital televisions and getting broadband? What does that really have to do with the economy? The way they talk about it, it was as if this were THE ANSWER to all of our economic problems....yeah, I can just hear the fat bastards and their groveling, whiney lobbyists now....

"How can we turn the American public into even greater couch potatos and better consumers at the same time...we need to have a
fast pipe into their homes so that we can sell them even more "George Forman grills"! We need to make it so they CAN'T turn it off! We need an avenue to push even MORE commercials!"

But don't even think about creating your own content though...that's forbidden in the "Acceptable Use Policy" for most broadband providers (no servers, and if you post on their hosted machines, you give them all rights to the content). They only want you to consume, not compete. Most AUP's only allow information to travel ONE direction....from the marketeers to you.

But don't answer yet, if you liked broadband policies, you are gonna love "Digital Convergence"... when your computer is prevented from doing anything usefull (like running software that you wrote and/or compiled yourself) and is morphed into a constant movie trailer machine....that you can never fast forward through!

The way things are going now, I'm not going to be purchasing a "NEW DIGITAL TELEVISION" and I hope that others don't either! Keep your old set! Stay analog!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?