Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Broadcasters Want Cash For Media Shared At Home

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the gotta-get-it-where-you-can dept.

Media 426

marcellizot writes "What would you say if I told you that there are people out there that want to make sharing your media between devices over a home network illegal? According to Jim Burger, a Washington, D.C attorney who deals with piracy in the broadcasting industry, certain broadcasters want to do just that. Speaking in a recent podcast, Burger remarked that the broadcasting industry is keen to put controls on sharing media between devices even if those devices are on a home network and even if the sharing is strictly for personal use. When pressed as to why broadcasters would want to do this, Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right.'"

cancel ×

426 comments

specifics? (4, Interesting)

yagu (721525) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104857)

I read the referenced article, I fear listening to the 16 minute audio as I'm not entirely sure I have DRM clearance to do so, and do not want to be sued or accused of piracy.

That said, I'd be interested in more specifics on this. Does this mean potentially my Squeezebox from which I listen to my music stored on the mp3 server may no longer be a legal "share". Does that potentially mean mp3's on my samba share are no longer fair game on my XP box via WinAmp?

About a year or two ago I'd have accused people making these claims (that they're trying to do this) as ludicrously insane and paranoid. Today, I'm not so sure. I guess the most heartening thing to consider is these guys eventually cross that threshold where the consumer resentment goes from smoulder to explosion, and maybe the backlash settles it once and for all.

But then again, maybe not. I know people who pay more for bottled water price-per-gallon than gasoline... and they complain about the price of gasoline.

Re:specifics? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20104943)

Bottled water has been about the same price since most people started drinking it (last 5 years or so) before that, people simply didn't drink bottled water.
Gas prices were once much lower than they are now, i'm not that old, 26, and i recall gas being $0.85 a gallon, and i recall paying $3.80 last summer. Also, people tend to buy water when they buy groceries, so a change in one item or another doesn't make that large of a difference in price. If you used to remember filling up your car with a $10, and now it costs $50, you notice.

Re:specifics? (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105163)

Not to mention if you don't like the price of bottled water, your tap provides gallons for pennies.

Even if you don't drive and use a bicycle, you're still paying the extra energy costs passed down to consumers through the logistics chain.

Like comparing apples to cute orange flip-flops.

Re:specifics? (4, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105373)

Not to mention if you don't like the price of bottled water, your tap provides gallons for pennies.

and quite often that water comes from the tap anyway!

Re:specifics? (2, Informative)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105421)

"and quite often that water comes from the tap anyway!"

Quite often? MOST of the time. Dasani and Aquafine are both just bottled municipal tap water; they usually have higher bacteria counts than the tap they came from because the water sits stagnant in the bottle.

You're better off refilling the bottle than opening a "new" one that's been on the shelf for a month.

Re:specifics? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105019)

In the UK it's illegal to rip a CD so the Squeezebox is definitely not kosher. Not that that stops anybody.

Re:specifics? (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105543)

Run wires to speakers in another room and there is no charge.

Do this with a wireless replacement and there's a fee?

Shoot these bastards. Leave their bodies in the river.

Re:specifics? (1)

muindaur (925372) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105027)

But with these it will mostly be the sheeple that buys into it out of fear: reminds me of the circular prison concept with one guard that can see all the prisoners in the cells but the prisoners can't see him. Personally it won't stop me from doing those things as I am sure it won't stop most people on /. since they don't care one way or the other or like me feel it's my right since I purchased the music and will find ways around DRM like QTFairUse.

Pay per play is a great innovation. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105045)

Pay per play is the future of all media, both audio and video. Even software. This new technology of Pay Per Play will give the consumer the best value for their entertainment. Instead of having to pay for license to the IP forever, you only pay as much as you listen! This is obviously business responding to consumer demand. Write your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives in support for legislation to encourage this technology. This will help a lot of people. Just think about all the money our economy could gain? Remember, money is never gone, it just goes through the economy. So support this technology!

Re:Pay per play is a great innovation. (3, Insightful)

newgalactic (840363) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105139)

No

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105333)

Mod Parent Insightful.

The parent is right.

Re:specifics? (5, Interesting)

rossifer (581396) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105107)

Richard Stallman is a loon, but he's absolutely right [gnu.org] . The only mistake I can see is that he was optimistic on the schedule by 25 years or so.

Re:specifics? (3, Insightful)

capt.Hij (318203) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105117)

I guess the most heartening thing to consider is these guys eventually cross that threshold where the consumer resentment goes from smoulder to explosion, and maybe the backlash settles it once and for all.

You should not underestimate people's ability to bow to these kinds of pressures. We live in a world where most people do not think twice about waiting for a dvd from netflix in the mail. Sneakernet as a way to deliver bits is alive and well.

I read the articles but did not listen to the mp3, and the articles had little information. The surprising thing though is the openness at which the real issue here is control. Some people are so bent on control that they fail to see the difference between information/ideas and physical things. Sadly we are still a long way from the day that people can produce and distribute their own media. There are a few people who are able to do it, but it seems that even those small gains are under constant attacks from a wide variety of powerful entities.

Re:specifics? (3, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105281)

what the mean is you record Tv with your Windows MCE. and watch it in your bedroom, You owe them $$$ for the privilege.

Personally, I'll pay them as soon as the Broadcast executives post youtube video of them actually removing their heads from their anus so they see the real world and not their fantasy world they create inside the colon.

Re:specifics? (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105299)

But then again, maybe not. I know people who pay more for bottled water price-per-gallon than gasoline... and they complain about the price of gasoline.
Yeah but you can't drink gasoline.

I guess these guys forgot about 'fair use'.

Re:specifics? (5, Funny)

rlp (11898) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105501)

Yeah but you can't drink gasoline

You can, you just can't do it twice.

And Microsoft patented a TV that watches you... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105305)

Slashdot apparently didn't run the article, and the same link had been sent in by the time I put it in the Firehose, but Microsoft patented some kind of TV that has biometric sensors to get information about who is watching the TV and to deliver targeted advertising. Of course, it would be simple to combine that with DRM schemes and force all kinds of weird licensing restrictions like those they're asking for here.

Was someone reading 1984 for "good" ideas again, or what? I wish the media middlemen would hurry up and die before they retard progress any more. They're no longer useful, but they have enough cash to buy obstructive laws.

Re:specifics? (4, Informative)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105309)

On the plus side- this issue PREVENTED a workable IP treaty between the EU and the United States, so it's not becoming law until that treaty can be rewritten.

OTOH- if this gets written into any sort of trade treaty, I will be fully justified in calling the writers of that treaty FREE TRAITORS.

Re:specifics? (0, Offtopic)

Himring (646324) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105343)

I know people who pay more for bottled water price-per-gallon than gasoline... and they complain about the price of gasoline.

I've heard the "your starbucks cappuccino costs more than a gallon of gas" argument before. What a load of bull. People don't NEED to drink coffee or bottled water. BUT PEOPLE NEED GASOLINE. And they need far more of it than a cup of coffee or bottle of water. What a privileged life you must live. The folks buying expensive water and coffee are not the folks really being hurt by the high gas prices. Just because someone with money complains, doesn't nullify the problem.

I helped a lady push her car to a nearby gas station recently. She was hoping to make it home on her last bit of gas. People like her have kids, minimum wage jobs and can't afford, hardly, food and housing. Gas prices are killing the low-income folks in this country. Where is her means of getting around cheaply, dependably?

Meanwhile, others are concerned about music and copyrights.

Odd place the U.S....

Re:specifics? (2, Interesting)

hopelessliar (575886) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105401)

AFAIK, it's already illegal to even format shift in the UK - therefore we're not even allowed to rip it, never mind stream it.

And this is news? (5, Insightful)

Ollabelle (980205) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104873)

I've always known the end-goal for all media companies is pay-per-play, every single time.

You Can't Do That On Television (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105011)

I've always known the end-goal for all media companies is pay-per-play, every single time.
TV Gunfighter: All right, pilgrim, give me yer dough. Lot's of it.
Kid watching TV: Mo-om! The pay-TV people want more money again!

Re:And this is news? (3, Insightful)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105173)

Actually their end goal is to charge everyone per second for every media playback, whistled/hummed tune, movie reference/quote, looking at a sign advertising their media, up to and including every personal thought about their media.

But for now they'll settle for this...total control of crappy, unimaginitive content doesn't happen overnight afterall...it takes many nights of boozing up senators, tropical vacations, and 4,000 sq. ft. summer homes before that can happen.

The Who: "We're Not Gonna Take It" (2, Insightful)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105483)

Actually their end goal is to charge everyone per second for every media playback, whistled/hummed tune, movie reference/quote, looking at a sign advertising their media, up to and including every personal thought about their media.
So put in your earplugs, put on your eyeshades, you know where to put the cork.

Re:And this is news? (2, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105563)

Whatever. Let them come up with their insane schemes.

I stopped buying DVDs and CDs years ago once they made their intentions clear.

Anyone wonder why the thepiratebay.org makes $9,000,000 a year even though they don't sell anything?

The idiots who control the media would probably make us pay per eyeball per frame of video if they could.

Fuck them, I'm not going to support their lobby by funding them in any way.

broadcasters want cash (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104877)

they don't care how they get it.

I have paid for that right. (4, Insightful)

loteck (533317) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104879)

I paid for that right when I made the initial purchase.

Maybe you didn't... (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105091)

What I would like to see is certain terms very, very clearly defined.

For example, you should not be allowed to hijack domains and call yourself an ISP. You can still hijack domains and sell some sort of service, but you shouldn't be able to call it Internet service.

You should not be allowed to sell a CD with any kind of copy protection (let alone rootkits) and call it a CD. You can still sell them, but they should include a fairly large disclaimer to the effect of "This is not a CD." Ditto for DVDs with any copy protection beyond CSS, especially deliberately breaking the spec to where it won't even play on your own players (I'm looking at you again, Sony) -- you could call it a movie, but not a DVD, and it should be very clear that it is not intended to be able to play in DVD players.

And you should not be able to sell media that has its fair use restricted and call it "selling" -- indeed, you must make it very clear that the customer is renting the media.

At least if we had a clear definition of terms, I could buy a movie and know it will play on anything.

As it is, they don't even need additional legislation to make this work. All they need is what they already have -- DRM + DMCA. They can use DRM to prevent you from copying the media around your house, and the DMCA will make it illegal to crack that DRM, even if you have the right to copy the media around your house.

Re:Maybe you didn't... (4, Insightful)

mosch (204) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105249)

You can still sell them, but they should include a fairly large disclaimer to the effect of "This is not a CD."

This is not a CD, it's a MegaDisc! MegaDisc gives you the hot new music video, footage from the concert Live in Moscow, and behind the scenes footage showing you a day in the life of the artist!

So don't settle for a CD, when you can have a MegaDisc!

No You Didn't (3, Insightful)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105157)

The media conglomerates are training consumers otherwise.

The whole point behind those stupid trailers in front of DVD's, stupid FBI warning and RIAA lawsuits is to instill fear.

They want you to believe *they* are the ultimate authority. So far, it's working great.

Re:No You Didn't (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105339)

Those stupid freaking "unskippable" trailers are the reason I ditched my PS2 for playing DVD's and bought a proper Apex DVD player that ignored that crap.

Re:No You Didn't (4, Interesting)

dc29A (636871) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105349)

They want you to believe *they* are the ultimate authority. So far, it's working great.
I have a few computer illiterate friends, who don't know what the fudge is DRM (nor do they care), they got 10x as much illegally downloaded stuff as I do. I was shocked to see one of my friends who can barely turn on a computer having over 1TB of videos (non pr0n unfortunately). The other has over 20k songs downloaded. My sister has a shitty dialup internet connection, every time she comes over to my place she brings her laptop and leeches music off the net. A gamer friend of mine has about 100+ PS2 games and a modded PS2.

I have not met a computer illiterate person who gives a shit about copyrights. For many, they don't even think it's illegal to download. After all, plenty of ISP ads are along the line: download music and movies at blazing speeds!

Re:I have paid for that right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105337)

That's what you think. The time has come to think again (and read small print on your purchased "goods").

OTOH, it is not your fault. You have been fraudulently led into conclusion that you will "own" something if you pay, by their misleading marketing practices. Your owner's right ends on having physical possession of a media, box and paper. Everything else, informational content, had never been sold, only its existence tolerated (for some money in exchange) on YOUR media or paper booklet.

IMHO, each music CD or movie DVD should have large warning (like those health-risk warnings on cigarette packages) stickers on them: "WARNING: PAYING FOR THIS WILL NOT MAKE YOU THE OWNER! SOME OF YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE EXPRESSLY REMOVED." Similar warning marquee should run over the screen whenever a trailer for a film is broadcast.

Re:I have paid for that right. (1)

Himring (646324) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105387)

Rockefeller was worth 1/42 of the GNP of the U.S. at his prime. In an interview he was asked if he had enough money and he answered, "no." When asked how much more he needed he replied:

"Just a little more...."

Duh (4, Insightful)

Trigun (685027) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104885)

If they could get away with it, they would make you pay for content you don't even watch, but have the ability to.

Crooks, fighting to uphold a dying business model, and squeeze every penny out of it the entire way.

Re:Duh (5, Insightful)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104921)

If they could get away with it, they would make you pay for content you don't even watch, but have the ability to.
They're called premium channels.

Re:Duh (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105355)

Actually, that's regular cable TV...think of all the channels you have that you don't watch (ie every shopping channel). That's why I only watch TV shows I can download from Xbox Live. I only pay for exactly what I want.

Interestingly enough, there are services that exist now like the one in TFA. The Urge service built into Windows Media Player 11 is $10 a month if you only listen to the songs on your computer or $15 if you want to copy them to a PlaysForSure device or stream to an Xbox. Putting aside the more-than-occasional slowness of WMP 11, the service is pretty good for discovering lots of new music and instantly having on hand the entire catalogues of any group your girlfriend might want to listen to at the moment.

Re:Duh (2, Informative)

doit3d (936293) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105259)

They already do. I have 5 "home shopping" type channels, 4 religious based channels, and 10 "sports" channels I am forced to pay for but never watch. Charter calls it expanded basic in my area, and it costs me $56 a month. Just so I could History and Discovery channels. On top of that, I have 8 local channels, which are OTA (free to pick up with an aerial) that I am forced to pay for and forced to have in the package. I call it rape.

Re:Duh (1)

halbert (714394) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105361)

They already do. It's called cable TV. ;-)

Seat license (1)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104899)

Ever hear of it?

Yeah... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105199)

It's when your face is my seat, and you get to lick my balls. Next!

Congrats broadcasters (1)

subl33t (739983) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104917)

This is how you kill your own business. Drive more customers to the internet.

isnt this about 25 years too late? (5, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104925)

If they don't want us to have the rights to content, why are they selling us the content on a disk? Does no one see how dumb this is? The summary makes it sound like they want me to pay 5 more dollars or something to take a DVD upstairs and play it vs. downstairs... there is just no chance people will pay it. Movie tickets are an example of a license to view that doesn't include a physical copy of the content, so I refuse to believe they don't know they're selling you your own copy of the content.

More like 10 years too late (5, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105197)

I say that because 11 years ago, we got the DMCA, which already gives them this ability.

Essentially, all they have to do to make it illegal to share around your house is to implement DRM which prevents you from doing that. Since it's illegal to circumvent DRM, you're fucked.

And this does, in fact, prevent you from exercising your fair use rights, and, indeed, even the rights inherent in purchasing a physical disk (or a download, even).

I'd love to see it go to court, though. If anyone from the media industry is reading this, I dare you to sue me for playing my movies on Linux, or even ripping and time-shifting a rental. Come on, make my day. Who knows? Maybe it would end in new legislation banishing DRM at all, unless it allows all forms of fair use.

Re:More like 10 years too late (2, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105407)

Hmm, moving the content between devices seems like a clear cut use for the interoperability exemption in the DMCA. Of course the problem with a law like the DMCA is that if you are ever accused of violating it your are presumed guilty until you spend enough money to prove your innocence.

Re:isnt this about 25 years too late? (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105551)

>there is just no chance people will pay it.

Not happily, they won't. But once they own a DVD upstairs and another one downstairs, and there exist A: encryption mechanisms for making transfer difficult and B: laws making it illegal to break the encryption, then most of them will pay it. Those who don't will go gallivanting off to the Internet to download already hacked material transcoded to an always-playable format, which is why the industry is aggressively pursuing C: sueing everyone in sight for downloading. coz, see, here's the thing: people who aren't actually involved or actively reading about the filesharing suits don't remember or know if those suits are successful. All they know is that filesharing is dangerous, and buying a second copy of some bad movie so you can watch it upstairs and downstairs both is insurance to prevent getting your financial kneecaps broken by Uncle Disney's goons.

Non-electronic example? (2, Insightful)

hellsDisciple (889830) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104939)

Would you pay for the privilage of bringing a CD into your 'unlicensed' bath room to listen to?

I wish a judge would stop their bullshit campaign! (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104941)

Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'.

I already did, with my taxes. I have fair-use rights that trump the media industries desire to make money.

Discussion over.

Re:I wish a judge would stop their bullshit campai (2, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105257)

I already did, with my taxes.
You should have just said: "I already have those rights." As long as people think that they only have access to rights as long as they pay for access[1] and/or pay through taxes,[2] we've already lost. Rights are not commodities to be purchased.

[1] E.g. You don't have to buy a copy of content to exercise fair-use, like excerpts, etc.

[2] You don't have to pay taxes to have rights. Children, people who are unemployed, homemakers, and many other classes of people may not pay taxes but still have these rights.

Re:I wish a judge would stop their bullshit campai (1)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105547)

[2] You don't have to pay taxes to have rights. Children, people who are unemployed, homemakers, and many other classes of people may not pay taxes but still have these rights.

No, but you do have to have someone willing and able to uphold those rights. They're called the military and/or police, and taxes pay for those organizations. While certain individuals may not pay, someone does.

Or you can try and uphold them yourself, but I'm guessing the guys that pay for the military and police have more firepower than you. "Rights" don't mean anything if you can't uphold them.

Everything boils down to force: either the threat or actual use.

If nobody's actually trying to attack you it doesn't mean you're safe; it just means you don't have anyone attacking you (kind of like computer security).

Re:I wish a judge would stop their bullshit campai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105297)

Unfortunately that's our decision, not yours.

-- Your Humble Public Servants

Losing customers (4, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104965)

I'm meeting more and more people who are shunning traditional TV and audio content--the very content that is being proposed to be locked down in TFA. The rush away from such content will become a stampede if such controls are enacted. Imagine not being allowed to record your favorite show in your living room while you're at work and then play it in your exercise room when you get home. The sheer lunacy of it will turn consumers off extremely quickly and therefore these companies will lose even more money. But they are far too short-sighted to realize this, so we will all suffer. Well, except for book publishers, who will see sales soar as we revert to earlier (and fully portable) media forms.

Re:Losing customers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105133)

Listen up, sizzle chest: The people you meet at comic book conventions or lan parties do not represent the general populace. The public in general will swallow this like the cum guzzling idiots they are. Oh, wait, the people you meet at lan parties and comic book conventions actually do represent the general public. Don't believe me? Add up your bills for the last month. How much did you pay for a land phone, cell phone, your dumbass WOW account, cable, internet, and what ever other e-crap you buy ever month?

Re:Losing customers (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105227)

Even the proles are already used to the idea of recording something off of TV and then playing it back any time they like on any compatable device they like. This power did not come to them by way of the Almighty Ubergeeky Tivo and it's clones. This power was in their hands 20 years ago when VCRs were widely available.

Make this about the World Series or the SuperBowl and the proles will infact revolt. You just have to figure out where the line is and what they actually care about.

Re:Losing customers (1)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105357)

This power did not come to them by way of the Almighty Ubergeeky Tivo and it's clones.

Heh, I should have included Tivo in the list of e-crap people seem happy to shell out for each month. Slashbots whine incessently about pay per play all the while paying for play month in, month out.

Re:Losing customers (3, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105437)

This is why everyone should take note of the file-sharing debate. Though many people do not support the plight of the file-sharers (after all, they just want to watch content for free, don't they? cheap bastards!), I think what the file-sharers are going through is really a preview of what the "fair use" crowd is going to have to deal with a few years later, and what the general public will have to deal with a few years after that.

Right now the file-sharers are experiencing technical and legal roadblocks to doing what they want to do. The media companies are trying to expand this war, year by year, to include activities that were previously legal. (As Lawrence Lessig puts it, previously most actions related to media were presumptively legal... in a digital age we're now seeing most actions being presumptively illegal.) So whereas laws and technological restrictions may have been originally intended to stop file-sharing (and other "bad stuff") they will inevitably be expanded by the media companies to include things like "fair use" and other things which were previously presumptively allowed (listening to a purchased recording more than once... using the same copy of a recording in your home CD player and in your car...). These things are not even "fair use"... there was no name given to them because they were so obviously allowed! (But not anymore!)

Year by year it will get worse. You may not be breaking the law today... but don't worry, you'll be breaking the law soon enough... and it will cost you money to be "legit."

We need a model for production and distribution that gets away from this insane control and this slippery slope towards paying for every single minute fraction of "media" every single time we experience it. We need to look towards supporting creative commons, and actively reducing the scope of copyright. It should be possible to create a system where content creators are rewarded, but where the audience is not burdened. File sharing and payment to artists are not mutually exclusive.

Unless, of course, you like paying more and more for less and less.

In other news (3, Funny)

drhamad (868567) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104967)

In other news, paper companies want you to pay a fee if you reuse their paper.

Re:In other news (1)

ktappe (747125) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105013)

In other news, paper companies want you to pay a fee if you reuse their paper.
And/or book publishers want you to re-buy the book instead of giving it to your spouse when you're done reading it.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105161)

when you're done reading it.
I was elected to lead, not to read!

Re:In other news (1)

griffjon (14945) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105175)

...and the media companies also want to levy a per-inch moving charge on rolling TV and AV equipment carts by applying an odometer to the wheels...

Have you read the EULA for Charmin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105181)

One wipe per section, no fold-overs, and no sharing even if the neighboring stall runs out and they ask nicely!

now way out (1)

7macaw (933316) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104981)

Came to say that the simple solution would be not listening/watching their stuff, but then I thought their next step would be introducing the implied usage. If you are alive, you've got to pay for 3 new albums (1 if you're deaf) and 1 DVD release every month. If you have more two computers at home this means you're sharing, that would be $0.99 per share or $19.99/mo flat fee.

so... (1)

pedramnavid (1069694) | more than 6 years ago | (#20104999)

I'm guessing media doesn't support Linux.

write letters! (1)

drukawski (1083675) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105003)

I'm so angry I could almost tell the neighbor I am stealing cable from to write a letter to his provider!!!

Home Box Office* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105035)

* Home Not Included

Well, I'm as polite as possible when I say to them (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105037)

Go fuck yourself!

You have to get closer to the average idea of what a consumer should be able to do, not further away. If you continue to make these outrageous claims, there's a good chance that you can't even hold your more reasonable points.

if you outlaw ... only outlaws will ... (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105039)

Stuff like this makes me not even care about the rules anymore. When you make it easier for your customers to get your product illegally, than legally, guess what happens? Yeah. Either the media industry is full of idiots, or someone needs to put their lawyers and spokespeople on a leash and shut them up.

What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105049)

What if I happen to glance at my TVs reflection in a mirror. Does that count?

Re:What if... (4, Funny)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105377)

No, but it does mean that you're TV isn't a vampire.

in order for that to be true (4, Insightful)

NynexNinja (379583) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105055)

first you would have to dismantle the fair use doctrine in the copyright act...unfortunately for them, sharing copyrighted material between devices at home currently is considered fair use... you paid for the material once already -- its going to be hard for them to prove that paying over and over and over for an audio music file is reasonable... I'm sure if you had to pay for repeat broadcasts of television shows, people would probably stop watching television...

Uh oh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105059)

I wonder what DRM scheme is used on that ancient Internet protocol that is not to be mentioned?

It's not just broadcasters (3, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105061)

I want $1 from everyone who does this too. And I have just as much right to it as they do.

they want you to pay for that right (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105145)

>>When pressed as to why broadcasters would want to do this, Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'."

Of course they want it.

Will we let them have it?

Re:they want you to pay for that right (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105531)

Will we let them have it?

yes, I'll let them have it. directly between the eyes.

I wouldn't care (1)

SaberTaylor (150915) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105213)

Let them do whatever they want with artists who have signed to their subsidiaries. Artists don't have to sign the same old contracts any more now that the Internet exists, so let economics figure it out.

I have the feeling that this would be like the Canadian blank CD-r tax. Money goes to the RIAA despite the existence of non-RIAA bands.

Absurd Scenarios (5, Insightful)

smackenzie (912024) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105243)

First, many of us already are kind of doing this with the premium iTunes music. I pay $1.29 so I can listen to a song on my laptop, my iMac at home, my home office PC and my computer at work -- without worrying whether I've gone over the five computer limit because I keep changing my home office PC and have to reauthorize.

Second, if I buy a song online to listen to in my home office, are they going to charge me to upload it to my media center PC in the living room? Now, what if I install a second set of speakers from my home office into my living room? Does that count? What's the difference?

What if I have it on a removable drive that I then bring from room to room and listen to the music on it on different computers? Charge me for that? What if I just walk from room to room with an iPod? Music in the office, music in the kitchen? What's the difference? Obviously, I can argue the fine points here, but that is just it. The various gray scenarios are absurd...

I should be able to buy music and listen to it (me and anyone within earshot) in any fashion, on any machine, no matter where I am.

'because they want you to pay for that right' (1)

Caste11an (898046) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105265)

No, they want you to pay for that privilege. Too bad for them it's a right that carries with it implicit freedoms.

They can take my freedoms when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.

I have 2 Choices (4, Interesting)

Gonarat (177568) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105273)

If this happens, I have 2 choices -- either ignore the new laws or cut back/eliminate the consumption of media. I only have so much money available per month for entertainment, and with the cost of fuel and everything else going up (but not my salary), entertainment will be the first to go. I can live just fine without big Media -- there are still books, and that big room with the real high blue ceiling that I can reach through my front and back doors.

If big media wins, they lose. I (and many others on this planet) cannot just create more money every time someone wants more $ for the same or less service and/or product.

GREEDY PEOPLE SUCK (1)

mnslinky (1105103) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105275)

I hate greedy people. This is what it all really boils down to. The pirates are greedy by wanting to keep their money and avoid paying a fair price, whereas the broadcasters are greedy in that they want to scrape every penny out of something they can. IMHO, the consumer has already paid for the content, either through CATV/SATV fees or watching advertisements.

As I said, greedy people suck.

Over the air? (1)

onecheapgeek (964280) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105279)

"At present this situation falls under the Fair Use exemption of the Copyright Act in the US. Broadcasters are claiming however that sharing media between devices over the air constitutes a grey area that needs to be more strictly controlled to fight piracy."

So if I don't use wireless, it isn't going over the air, right? Or will the air the sound or video travels through to reach me count as over the air?

It was so much better when hardware people owned.. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105285)

The whole concept of seperating content from the hardware has just turned the content people into utter savages. Watching TV at home? You have to pay twice to see the ballgame. That's ridiculous.

Is there no limit to the greed these people have?

Can they even sleep with themselves?

Re:It was so much better when hardware people owne (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105545)

Can they even sleep with themselves?

Actually no, they sleep with incredibly sexy, supermodel blondes, because these guys are loaded with cash, and as you probably are well aware, most middle-aged super-wealthy usually have some kind of 20-something ultra-attractive, but vapid eye-candy in the passenger seat of the convertible Corvette.

And no, I'm not bitter at all.
....

Re:It was so much better when hardware people owne (1)

xmarkd400x (1120317) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105553)

Can they even sleep with themselves?
Probably, because they can certainly fuck themselves.

As long as Congress is owned by criminals then (0, Flamebait)

zymano (581466) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105287)

this will continue.

As long as all you sit on your ass and don't don't become vocal to your locally bribed congressman, nothing will change.

What happend to FAIR USE (3, Interesting)

Nonillion (266505) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105289)

"According to Jim Burger, a Washington, D.C attorney who deals with piracy in the broadcasting industry, certain broadcasters want to do just that."

What part of 'FUCK OFF' don't you understand. We already pay a 'piracy tax' on all blank media, pay way too much for music as it is, and now you want me to pay for sharing my music on my internal LAN? Uh, I seem to remember something called "Fair Use".

Our response as tech savvy consumers (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105319)

Our response, as tech-savvy consumers, must be several fold:
  • We must stop buying this media at home. I'm just about ready to cancel my cable subscription over this kind of abuse.
  • We must work hard to seek out alternative media outlets that want to foster our rights, rather than abuse them for profit.
  • We must work to reform the campaign finance rules that allow Congress to be bribed into allowing such horrendous abuses of their constituencies.

If we do not do these things, then we have no right to complain about the rampant abuse of the consumer. After all, if we don't care enough to take these steps, who will?

Whhhhyyyy?!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105323)

It really makes you wonder why piracy is such a problem.... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............

Want cash for vewing... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105327)

Pay per-view for everything, everytime, is the goal.

Scumbags

Re:Want cash for vewing... (1)

webrunner (108849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105455)

The goal is even worse than that.. sports companies, for instance, want pay-per-hear-about. They've claimed copyright on stats and descriptions of events, before.

never thought id say this but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20105353)

you can pry my VCR tape from my cold dead hand!

i dig it (1)

nege (263655) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105359)

I agree with copyright holders. Shame on you slashdot people! Wont you think of the children? How else will dodgy old men be able to get addicted to pain medication and molest little boys if they dont have a right to be given a penny every time you hear part of that one song that that britney spears person wrote as you are walking down the street and you hear a bit of it playing from some ghetto-wannabe persons ride? I say we allow the RIAA access to our homes and allow them to crash little kids birthday parties with guns blazing to mow people down for singing happy birthday. I think that makes sense, and stick with me here for a minute people - if we allow them to come and arrest us for inadvertently being exposed to content, then we can ALL sleep better at night knowing we have nothing to hide!!

Fair Use (1)

SailorSpork (1080153) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105371)

It's just saying what businesses want, which is more money for less effort. It's an extension of the bad taste "fair use" leaves in their mouths and the continued actions being taken against it. The first CD that comes out that won't allow iTunes to fling it to an iPod will sell as many copies as Paris Hilton's album.

wireless only (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105375)

"Broadcasters are claiming however that sharing media between devices over the air constitutes a grey area that needs to be more strictly controlled to fight piracy."

Well this sounds like it applies to WIRELESS networks but NOT to WIRED networks.
So, I'm good.

Please (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105409)

Please, invest a lot of money trying to prevent us from doing so. I guaren-fucking-tee you that the hackers of the world will spend a lot less breaking whatever protection you put on it, and I guaren-fucking-tee you again that the regular citizens of the US that want to share their music to themselves at home will do so.

Nothing you say or do can stop them. Even if you passed a law saying people would be put to death for it, most people still would.

So please. Spend your money and time trying to stop us. Its just proving what we knew all along.

Where did this idea come from? (2, Insightful)

TheWoozle (984500) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105443)

Whenever I hear a scheme like this, I wonder where these people got the idea that copyright gives them the right to tell people how they can use the copyrighted work after they've sold them the copy.
AFAIK, there's no law preventing me from purchasing a book then using a magnifying glass or opaque projector to read it. Why do they think that copyright for music or movies prevents me from using different technology to access the paid-for content?

I'm sure they would like that. (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105461)

I'd like a share of royalties every time I recommend a movie. Can I have that?

hm whatever (1)

UPZ (947916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105475)

Unethical? sure. Illegal? probably not.

Anyway now more the reason to watch less programming...

Flexible Video On Demand - Forever (1)

Proudrooster (580120) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105491)

What a silly, greedy lawyer. Hey, I am willing to give up all my little black boxes at home which record, timeshift, and stream, as long as there as a service that will (flexibly) host/record all my favorite shows and let me play them back anytime I want. I am even willing to give up my monthly cable bill. Just plug me in to the giant VOD (Video on Demand) server and let me watch whatever, whenever (flexibly).

And while you are at it, get me movies, the top 250 from You Tube, the best International and Indie films, Net Flix, and give it to me streamed, HI-DEF, 1080i, low-def, ipod size, or even burned on a DVD-R. I am sick of all the care and feeding of black boxes and wires, just make it happen.

My advice, instead of racking your tiny little lawyer brain on ways to complicate everyones existence and meddle in areas where you don't have a clue, why not get the MBA's and Techies together and see if they can come up with a VOD business model that works. If it works well and is reasonably priced I think all the other problems will melt away. If you don't believe me, just ask Steve Jobs. MOD (Music on Demand) seems to be working out pretty well for Apple, I think they just hit 3 billion songs.

In other news, Toy Makers want to limit the amount of rooms and vehicles which your children's toys can be enjoyed in. If a toy is used in more than 2 rooms, a duplicate toy should be purchased. If a toy is used in a vehicle a special mobility license must be purchased for the toy. If your child's toys are shared with other children this is a violation of the toy license. When you look at this is a different context..... :)

You know that burrito you ate yesterday? (1)

sizzzzlerz (714878) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105507)

The one that you kept tasting all night?

Well, Burritos R Us wants more money each time it comes back up.

Article is a bit fuzzy... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 6 years ago | (#20105565)

By the term "your media" are they referring to media that you paid for and put on your computer (but you don't really own, apparently... you just have a license to listen to or watch, so the possessive pronoun is a misnomer), or are they including media and other works that you yourself created?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...