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!

MPAA Committed To Fair Use and DRM

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the crack-in-the-wall dept.

Movies 212

Doctor Jay writes "At a LexisNexis Conference on DRM this week, MPAA's Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers. 'In his speech to industry insiders at the posh Beverly Hills Four Seasons hotel, Glickman repeatedly stressed that DRM must be made to work without constricting consumers. The goal, he said, was "to make things simpler for the consumer," and he added that the movie studios were open to "a technology summit" featuring academics, IT companies, and content producers to work on the issues involved.'"

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

If the MPAA sold fruit (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18885871)

You wouldn't be allowed to make a banana split, and you'd only be able to eat a slice banana with Kelloggs brand cereals.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit (1, Funny)

andyh3930 (605873) | more than 7 years ago | (#18885895)

Damn... My Bullshit Detector has just exploded!

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit (1)

mfh (56) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886229)

You wouldn't be allowed to make a banana split, and you'd only be able to eat a slice banana with Kelloggs brand cereals.

That has to be the most insightful comment I have seen on Slashdot pertaining to the MPAA.

Hey doesn't an old lady in Iowa own the patent to the banana split and every movie after 1950 with the banana split in it will have to help keep her grand kids in fast cars, coke & hookers?

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit (1)

Godji (957148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886717)

Hey doesn't an old lady in Iowa own the patent to the banana split and every movie after 1950 with the banana split in it will have to help keep her grand kids in fast cars, coke & hookers?

That patent would have expired in 1970 anyway.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit (3, Insightful)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887069)

"That patent would have expired in 1970 anyway."

Not if her name was Mrs. Disney

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit (2, Interesting)

utopianfiat (774016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887503)

same way some guy owns the copyright to happy birthday.

Fair use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886631)

In my opinion, I should be able to share data freely. I should not be able to sell data if I don't own the "profitright," but giving it away freely with no profit motive should be allowed.

That is my idea of fair.

Re:Fair use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18887361)

What would be the movie studios' incentive to spend tens of millions on a movie when the first person to buy a copy would be able to give it away for free to everyone?

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886821)

And you would have to pay royalties every time you used the word banana.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886983)

No, just for public performances of the word "banana"*

*A public performance is any situation where the word may be seen or heard by one or more persons. By being born, you are agreeing to the following terms and conditions...

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit (4, Funny)

Hemogoblin (982564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887111)

No, no, its more like a car that... ah, sod it.

Re:If the MPAA sold fruit (1)

dingleberrie (545813) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887201)

That's because you could only open the banana using MPAA-licensed tools. You wouldn't be able to clone bananas or plant bananas to make new banana trees. Your new bananas take away potential sales of MPAA bananas. I think that this is also true of several Genetically Engineered crops (not the tools part).

Bananas *are* clones. (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887407)

Every banana you get at the store is a clone of the same Cavendish banana [wikipedia.org] . If there were to be a plague on bananas, they'd be extraordinarily susceptible. Of course, since bananas are the third most popular crop on the planet, we'd be in quite a world of shit, then.

DRM that doesn't constrict the user (2)

ultramkancool (827732) | more than 7 years ago | (#18885887)

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Re:DRM that doesn't constrict the user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886029)

Don't call him a nazi moron!!

Hahahaha!! the captcha is "monopoly"

We'll believe it when we see it. (5, Interesting)

faedle (114018) | more than 7 years ago | (#18885889)

It's a shame that Sony's use of copy protection (that breaks even playback on standard licensed DVD players) means that at least one significant MPAA member disagrees... .. not to mention the recent actions against YouTube.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it. (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886123)

Wait. What actions against YouTube are inconsistent with supporting fair use to the extent that the blurb (I didn't RTFA, and neither should you) discusses?

Re:We'll believe it when we see it. (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886171)

They don't know what the hell they are even talking about. Some salesman who is much better with people than I am has apparently told them that everything can be inter-operable AND have DRM. I have a feeling that this salesman works for MacroVision, and his absurd plan involves getting MacroVision installed on every device that a consumer would ever want to use.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it. (2, Informative)

\\ (118555) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886353)

Sony recalled the discs that recently came out and would not play on standard licensed players. Google around, you'll find the news.

Re:We'll believe it when we see it. (1)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886847)

Yes, when they got called on it they fixed the problem. But why was the problem created? Because they are trying to stomp all over fair use. They want dvds that can be 1) watched but cannot be 2) backed up. It was only because they screwed up (1). If they could find a way to satisfy (1) and (2); they'd be happy. So obviously they don't support fair use.

I suppose you think Sony was doing a really great thing when they released that rootkit uninstaller too?

Yup, time for a new tag... (1)

greppling (601175) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887007)

yeahright

Re:We'll believe it when we see it. (1)

falsified (638041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887021)

Are you referring to that article from a couple weeks ago? They fixed that. It was accidental. (If you're referring to something else, gimme some linky love please.)

Re:We'll believe it when we see it. (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887465)

Which arm of Viacom are we talking about? Last time I checked there's a separate organization that handles protecting the TV shows... Or at least I thought so.

So, Mr. Glickman ... (5, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18885945)

So, this means that he supports a removal of the onerous, no-Fair-Use, anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA?

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

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

Talk is cheap; I'm not buying.

Re:So, Mr. Glickman ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886033)

You had a good point until your mind wandered (once again) into the field of male-male fellatio.

Then you became just another whiney /fag.

Re:So, Mr. Glickman ... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886263)

Well, when you're talking about a whore, it's hard to get around identifying him as such. I mean, how to do have a conversation about Congress and NOT discuss the penises in their mouths or the cash in their wallets?

Pot, meet kettle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886857)

You had a good point until your mind wandered (once again) into the field of male-male fellatio.

Who said it's male-male fellatio? The GP never said anything about "politicians" [wikipedia.org] being male.

Whose mind is wandering, again?

Re:So, Mr. Glickman ... (1)

robbiethefett (1047640) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887115)

sweet, the MPAA has given me implied consent to rip dvds to my personal media center box... oh wait, i have Star Wars and Ghostbusters on VHS.. i'm screwed!

Oh Really? (5, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 7 years ago | (#18885957)

"MPAA's Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers."

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

Re:Oh Really? (4, Insightful)

qbwiz (87077) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886217)

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

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

Universal, Reasonable and Demanded DRM Standard (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886409)

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

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

Re:Oh Really? (4, Insightful)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886441)

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

More interestingly, some of his comments lead me to believe they want to provide "legal" ripping as a service because he starts talking about establishing prices, etc. I would have to say that the MPAA still doesn't get it, but they are just now beginning to realize that they will start losing their market if they don't clean up their act. This response is akin to Microsoft's response to the EU. "Let's see how little we can get away with, and delay as long as we possibly can."

Re:Oh Really? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886551)

And that is what we really should be afraid of. If any one group can control that many devices, have their DRM software installed everywhere, who is to stop them from using it to support government policies? Yes, that sounds like I regularly wear a tin foil hat, but with recent events and the government's record (any government) I would not want to install anything that would permit them to even have the possibility, never mind the actuality of spying on all that I do with my computer(s).

I have come to the conclusion that DRM, the DMCA, and all its look-alikes must be defeated for the security of society as a whole. The invasion of 'big brothers' into our homes and lives is not something that should be accepted regardless of what big business might lose their ability to remain big. It's not even about fair use anymore, it's about privacy and my right to control what the devices I own do. Sure, they can stop selling or renting content and I say go ahead, stop, give up. There will be 100s of people to take the place of the MPAA's members.

Re:Oh Really? (2, Insightful)

rudeboy1 (516023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886577)

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

    This is, of course, a completely hypothetical question...

Re:Oh Really? (1)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886641)

Sounds almost like time shifting to me... Like a DVR you can get from your cable company. Almost.

Re:Oh Really? (1)

qbwiz (87077) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886761)

Well, that violates the DMCA, so it's illegal. QED.

Re:Oh Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18887325)

That's an easy question, and has nothing to do with the DMCA. Copyright law as it stands has never allowed you to make copies of a protected work in your posession just to keep around. It's the same law that's always applied when you check out a book from the library -- feel free to read it as much as you want while you have it, and place-shift/format-shift all day, but keeping a copy after you've turned the book back in isn't remotely close to fair use.

Some people will go on about time-shifting of broadcast works, but that area of law has never applied to physically-distributed works.

Re:Oh Really? (1)

rudeboy1 (516023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887415)

I figured as much, but I thought I read somewhere that it was in smoe kind of legally murky territory, and was looking for clarification of both sides of the issue. Doesn't sound like there are 2 sides. Oh well.

Re:Oh Really? (2, Insightful)

CharlesDonHall (214468) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886495)

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

"Ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers" should be translated as: "Ripping DVDs to files with 'interoperable DRM', which can be played on a single system after connecting to the internet and getting an authorization code. The authorization code will cost $4.95 if you can somehow prove you're the original owner of the DVD. If you can't prove you're the original owner then we'll assume you borrowed it from somebody and the authorization code will cost $29.95." The MPAA is perfectly fine with all of that.

Re:Oh Really? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887167)

go see ANYDVD (the product). they're in the west indies and it seems they are escaping the long arm of the MPAA?

love the product. I own a legal copy. heh - a legal copy that is meant to do 'illegal' things, which ends up restoring the rights you started out with, years ago. somehow, it seems fitting.

What they don't understand is that (5, Insightful)

Daishiman (698845) | more than 7 years ago | (#18885969)

DRM and Fair Use are mutually incompatible terms.

Re:What they don't understand is that (2, Insightful)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886309)

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

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

Re:What they don't understand is that (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887209)

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

Re:What they don't understand is that (1)

Shohat (959481) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887441)

That's just an empty slogan. Tell me why Digital Rights Management can't include Fair Use by design ?

Contradiction in terms (4, Insightful)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18885981)

Ok so they want to:

"to make things simpler for the consumer"

and they feel that

"DRM must be made to work without constricting consumers"

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

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

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

I wouldn't give good odds on them getting this through their skulls any time soon....

Many (or "all so far") != All (2, Interesting)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887031)

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

Since its well known that DRM does not prevent piracy then the only purpose DRM can possibly have is restricting customers.
The point of the purest concept of DRM is, "To constrict users to their legal uses."

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

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

Even more ironically, the MPAA and RIAA were some of the first to condemn P2P because "Its well known that P2P does not promote legal fair use. The only purpose P2P can possibly have is piracy." We laugh at them for their narrowmindedness on Slashdot, we lament how they can attempt to destroy a technology simply because many or most of its users do bad things with it, we scoff at how they don't really understand the full picture, then we turn around and do exactly the same thing.

Re:Contradiction in terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18887305)

You need to define these terms before saying the conflict. Consumer is one who purchases the license to use the product, not the consumer's friends who want a copy of the product.

If there was a way to brand video with a limited-user license, and create something to reconfigure the video for other devices while keeping the branding intact, MPAA would be happy, it seems. Something transparent like tying an iPod to a certain computer and using iTunes as the conduit to transfer media. As it stands, you can give any of your friends the CD you bought / stole / burnt and they can re-copy it on their own computer and copy it to their own iPod, creating a new brand on the reconfigured (compressed and branded) audio. But think of a time when you could insert a DVD-type thing into your computer, where the software registers your computer as sole / initial owner of the use license, allowing you to transparently copy the movie onto your video player. In copying, the video is marked again, limiting use to your computer and your video player, which can only connect to your computer. To the end user, this is easy, and the end user can't pass the DVD-type thing to his or her friends to view / copy at will.

Of course, slashdotters aren't your typical end user, with their "weird" systems running "non-typical" operating systems, or realizing they can alter / make / find software that will ignore / work around the limitations of the media and media players. iPods can be copied anywhere, with the right software or know-how. DVDs can be ripped, with the right software and know-how. But will there be something that will be Digital Rights Management Made Easy(TM)? It sounds like this might be the next attempt.

Easier? (4, Insightful)

shoolz (752000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18885991)

Exactly how is DRM intended to "to make things simpler for the consumer", when the very purpose of DRM is to prevent the consumer from doing things he/she paid good money to be allowed to do?

Re:Easier? (0, Redundant)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886115)

They mean, it makes it simpler for the consumer to hate the MPAA.

You got it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886245)

The very purpose of DRM is to prevent the consumer from *giving copies* to other people (which you are NOT allowed to do according to copyright). The rest is collateral damage. By "make things simpler for the consumer" they mean eliminating the collateral damage so that law-abiding citizen don't notice a thing.

There's only one way to do this... (3, Insightful)

dteichman2 (841599) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886001)

To set up a DRM system that allows a copy of the protected media to be displayed anywhere, but still protected, you'd need a unified media platform at the hardware level. It's not only insane, it's scary. It's like Trusted Computing, but with everything: TVs, portable devices, media servers, etc.

This would be the END of fair use.

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

I'd sooner stick with the current system of breakable DRM ;)

And it is called... (2)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887397)

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

DRM & Consumers (5, Insightful)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886011)

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

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

Be careful! (4, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886511)

People will always steal content, with or without DRM.

Making a copy of something is not "stealing".

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

stealing and end results (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886897)

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

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

Customer: I didn't steal that movie, I copied it for/from a friend. Copying isn't stealing.
MPAA: Right. Copyright violation. Now we can sue for $100,000 for each time you copied it.
Customer: But isn't the movie only worth $20?
MPAA: Sure. But you said you didn't steal it, right? So it's a copyright violation.
                      Now we can treat you like we would any other billion dollar business that infringes.
Customer: Crap.

Of course the real problem is the copyright laws and the grossly disproportionate fines associated with what essentially amounts to getting a copy of a movie for free and prosecuting the general public with laws that are designed for businesses.

In the case of a consumer, making a copy is closer to being "stealing" than it is to being "copyright infringement" (at least in terms of how it should be prosecuted, etc. -- "copying" here as I use it refers to taking / making a copy of something you haven't bought yourself).

Re:Be careful! (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887451)

Making a copy of something is not "stealing".

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

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

Seriously, is it that hard to understand that? The grandmothers and dads on food stamps that get sucked into the "enforcement" lawsuits are unfortunate and should not be happening, but they are a result of the overall effort by the content owners - Slashdot doesn't normally publish the plight of the 20-year old who was found running a warez FTP with half a million high-quality MP3s and making a tidy profit from them.

Re:DRM & Consumers (1)

Gonarat (177568) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886719)

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

The quicker the entertainment industry accepts the way things are and competes in the real world, the better off they will be. The RIAA has fought the battle against p2p for over eight years now, and things are just getting worse for them. THe MPAA has some time -- movie downloads are bigger (especially HD) and one still cannot beat the bandwidth of Netflix or the local rental store. Forget DRM and work on making your product easy to get and easy to use. IMHO P2P is not really free, there is a cost (time and bandwidth) to get stuff off of BT or any other p2p service. Give me an cheap, timely, easy, and DRM-free way to get that new episode of Doctor Who, and I won't need p2p. Continue down the current road, and p2p will still be the best value.

Dialog simply validates that they have a say (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886041)

By creating the atmosphere of a "summit", it puts them on a conceptually equal footing with technology companies and consumers, when in fact, they are not. They can choose not to produce, but if they produce, they have no choice - Fair Use exists. Debating details about Fair Use is irrelevant, and can only result in some diminished definition of the same.

It's called "lip service" (3, Interesting)

debest (471937) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886049)

Unless there has been a tremendous upheaval and changes within the MPAA that we haven't heard about, there is *no way* that they genuinely want this. It is obvious that the media industry's desire is for control of the consumers' viewing and listening habits, and permitting "fair use" in the manner described is not what they have in mind. All evidence of their actions for the past 20 years or more points to the contrary.

I think that this is just a feel-good press release statement to publicly demonstrate that they are the good guys, but in the end they will act in their own best interests, not their customers'.

specifically, "lip service" for technically unsavy (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887139)

Specifically.. it's lip service for the technically unsavvy made under the misleading proposition than DRM can be applied without walling off the ability to change the format of said dvd so it will fit into your desired portable device.

In other words, it's to mislead joe sixpack and "series of tubes" stevens into believing that:
A - Their proposed "idea" of "nonrestrictive" digital restriction is possible
B - The growing outcry and movement against DRM is unreasonable
C - They are "reasonable" in trying to reach a "compromise" by continuing to push DRM.

another implicit message is "bear with us while we, in our cognitive dissonance, attempt to do the impossible at your expense"

The Shoulders of "Giants" (3, Informative)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886061)

So, who picked this guy to be the successor to Jack Valenti who once famously said: "If you need a backup copy of a DVD you can go out and buy another one." Was it Valenti who choose/endorse the succesor, or did the board vote him in?

So back then the voice of the MPAA was just blowing smoke?

Re:The Shoulders of "Giants" (1)

Rolgar (556636) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886807)

Glickman was a Congressman from Kansas, who probably got the job for helping pass some DRM-friendly legislation through Congress.

Re:The Shoulders of "Giants" (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887493)

Glickman was a Congressman from Kansas, who probably got the job for helping pass some DRM-friendly legislation through Congress.

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

What?? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886079)

How can the same guy that want to intentionally encrypt these movies talk about intentions to make things simple for the customer? :-S

talk is cheap (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886093)

and statements like glickman's cheapen it even further every day

In other news... (4, Funny)

psmears (629712) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886107)

The KKK announced their commitment to Civil Rights and lynchings...

Re:In other news... (0, Redundant)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887093)

Microsoft is committed to interoperability and transparency. The RIAA is committed to diversity in music. Haliburton is committed to creating American jobs. Lawrence Lessig is committed to increasing copyright terms. The FSF is committed to DRM. Karl Marx is committed to capitalism. George Bush is committed to getting out of the war. The NRA is committed to stricter gun control. The Pirate Bay is committed to eliminating file sharing. ect...

Awesome (1)

Grashnak (1003791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886127)

Similarly, I am deeply committed to both virginity and fucking my brains out. Woot!

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886549)

Sooo... You're committed to your right hand then?

mod do3N (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886137)

"make things simpler for the consumer"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886175)

*cough* bullshit! *cough*

Digging Their Own Grave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886239)

I never thought I'd live to see the headline of "MPAA to Star in Own Snuff Film" but, well, here we are.

Fair Use Protected (5, Funny)

eboot (697478) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886259)

Basically they have invented a sort of physical key and lock device that will be sold with all future content. Each DVD will come with a Dual Immutable Content Kernal that you will have to place inside a peripheral that attaches to your DVD/Blu Ray/ HD DVD player. The peripheral is call the Asynchronous Security System and is a revolutionary device. Trust me, this is the future of DRM, where everytime you watch a movie you will have to put their D.I.C.K inside your A.S.S.

Re:Fair Use Protected (1)

PenguinGuy (307634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886597)

That's an awesome post...completely shows the MPAA's thoughts about us.

Is that legally binding? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886287)

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

Perhaps not (1)

woolio (927141) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886529)

I was wondering about that.

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

On an related note, it didn't matter that the airlines ticket counter representative said it would be okay for me to carry my luggage on the plane. TSA thought it was too big and forced me to check it in. By the book, I think TSA trumps airline employees. Is digital content any different?

Article is mis-titled (1)

xjimhb (234034) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886335)

The article title should read "MPAA (and spokesman Dan Glickman) should ***BE COMMITED*** "

Here's the important part! (1)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886381)

The MPAA does recognize that progress on DRM needs to be made soon, or impatient consumers will increasingly turn to unauthorized sources for content.(emphasis mine)
Unlike Jack Valenti, this guy seems to see the writing on the wall.

I buy DVDs because I like the high quality, and trust the techs hired to transfer the film to disc much better than I trust myself to burn a copy of a DVD. I have burned copies of DVDs that were not available for purchase. I have bought "bootleg" DVDs but not in any great numbers because I did NOT enjoy watching some moron get up in the front row to get popcorn in the middle of the movie.

However, with the recent FSCK-up by Sony, AGAIN, I must admit I'm wondering if I will just rent their DVDs in the future or just buy bootlegs. Then there is the additional problem with all those damned advertisements stopping me from watching my movie.

I don't have a problem buying DVDs. I DO have a problem if the studios make it a problem!

He's fine with it? (1)

boyfaceddog (788041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886385)

I guess he's fine with consumers NOT being able to rip DVDs for personal use, too.

Now that the cards are delt, Call. (1)

csmacd (221163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886433)

If you are sincere, then publish a statement that will release circumvention software from prosecution.

While you're at it, go ahead and state for the record that fair use will not be prosecuted, including, but not limited to, parody, short clips posted to the internet, ripping for media servers, etc.

Magic (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886447)

...they recognize that consumers should be able to use legitimate video material on any item in the house, including home networks.
I guess the pretty pink DRM unicorns will be carrying all this content around and will determine if any device is actually mine or someone else's.

Basic conflict (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886519)

The problem is that what the movie companies would be happy with people doing is what maybe 50% of the people want to do. The rest want to share with the world and ensure a single copy of a DVD is sold, period.

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

What the movie companies wouldn't mind is if you took the movie in some manner that it could not be shared and put it on a portable device. Not really possible today, because once you can move it, it isn't protected against being shared with the world.

The real answer is (a) nobody buy any DVDs any more or go to theaters and (b) download everything. Sales drop to near zero and it takes 10 minutes to find the latest stuff on web sites worldwide. Movies become 90-minute ads for embedded products and advertising picks up where the ticket and DVD sales left off.

Ad-Supported Movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18887035)

"Movies become 90-minute ads for embedded products and advertising picks up where the ticket and DVD sales left off."

And movies subsequently loose all artistic value and die a horrible death.

Think tank (1)

flogger (524072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886571)

he added that the movie studios were open to "a technology summit" featuring academics, IT companies, and content producers to work on the issues involved.'"
This is a nice sounding think tank to solve issues. But what he is really saying is, "We (The companies, programmers, ane movie Execs that have helped us to get to this point) are going to get together and do what we want even more and NOT get any input from the consumers and users of the content that we want to control."

Comming to their senses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18886575)

Nobody usurps control of my hardware or software for DRM, that's the end of the discussion. P2P is a great distribution mechanism and a business opportunity the studios and record labels have been foolish not to turn to their advantage. Some form of protection as a deterrent (eg: scrambled content and license key) I don't have a problem with. It has to be priced correctly and made more convenient than hacking the key. Most of us are essentially on the side of the entertainment industry, we want it to be commercially viable for them to continue producing stuff.

I for one hope the tech community and RIAA/MPAA openly work towards a method of ensuring renumeration for rights owners - without subsidizing freeloading assholes.

Of course he is in favour (1)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886721)

Just as Jesse James was committed to redistribution of wealth while loving railroads and banks.

DeCSS (1)

brufar (926802) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886805)

So he's saying we can play legally purchased, store bought DVD's on our Linux boxes right ? I mean that should be covered under fair use....
If you can legally circumvent DRM under the fair-use provision to make a COPY of a DVD as a 'backup', then circumventing that same DRM to simply playback a movie should be a non-issue

Wow. What's their position on the sky being blue? (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886855)

MPAA's Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers.
(See subject.)

Dan Glickman, Oxymoron (1)

Lambchops3 (1089151) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886919)

Geroge Orwell called this double speak. Why whould anyone believe anything these guys say. Yet another ex-politician, still lying to us. Why should he change, just cause it is out of office.

Re:Dan Glickman, Oxymoron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18887067)

No, Mr. Orwell called it newspeak.

Re:Dan Glickman, Oxymoron (1)

user24 (854467) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887123)

actually, orwell either spoke of "doublethink" or "newspeak", but not "double speak".
I can't see how either is related to this, though. Suggest you read 1984 before crying Orwell.

Re:Dan Glickman, Oxymoron (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887531)

Hear Hear.

It may be lying, but that isn't Orwell exactly what Orwell was talking about.

I doubt even 1/3 of the people who talk abuot Orwell actually bothered to read the book.
Since this is /., they probably read the cover blurb and figured that was enough to get the jist of it. ;)

No thank you. (1)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#18886965)

The goal, he said, was "to make things simpler for the consumer,"

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

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

So, as much as we appreciate the thought, please take your visions of ubiquitous DRM and shove them straight up to your appendix.

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18887057)

Chinese government committed to Free speech and shooting dissidents.
American government committed to freedom, legal random phone tapping and strict gamabling controls.

I'm sure there are better examples....

That's fine talk... (1)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887149)

"Dan Glickman announced that the MPAA was fine with consumers ripping DVDs for portable video players and home media servers."

But didn't the MPAA sue the maker of a piece of hardware that was designed to store and play ripped DVDs? I seem to remember an article about it right here on slashdot.

I think I hear double speak...

And in other news... (1)

bgt421 (1006945) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887151)

And in other news:

Microsoft loves Open Source! [slashdot.org]

...Hell freezing over, anyone?

If that's the case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18887213)

Why not give us the tools to make personal backups?

Uhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18887463)

So, which one is it?

CSS Kaleidescape case...... (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 7 years ago | (#18887499)

I seem to remember a recent lawsuit where the CSS people sued Kaleidescape, and lost, for enabling their devices to rip DVDs to disk, separating the watchable copy from the physical disk. That was a media server.

Now that the CSS lost the Kaleidescape case, the MPAA now thinks its ok to rip DVDs to disk on a media server.....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?