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!

Viacom Wants Industry Wide Copyright Filter

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the putting-a-lid-on-free-speech dept.

Businesses 248

slashqwerty writes "Unsatisfied with the proprietary copyright filter Google recently unveiled, Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman has called for an industry standard to filter copyrighted material. Mr. Dauman has the backing of Microsoft, Disney, and Universal. 'They reflect the fact that there ought to be a filtering system in place on the part of technology companies,' he noted. 'Most responsible companies have followed that path. What no one wants is a proprietary system that benefits one company. It is a big drain to a company like ours to have to deal with incompatible systems.' How would an industry standard impact freedom of speech and in particular censorship on the internet? How would it affect small, independent web sites?"

cancel ×

248 comments

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

Youtube (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21061945)

Has anybody been to youtube lately?
Almost every link to a video worth watching(with the rare educational exception) leads to "This video has been removed due to...."
Control is controlled by the need to control. The content providers will shoot themselves in the feet so many times that they won't have a leg to stand on.

Re:Youtube (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062007)

I just did a search for Daily Show clips and they were all there. Could you provide an example please?

Re:Youtube (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062059)

Sure. How about Drawn Together, another fine Viacom-owned program? Oh, and if I wanted to see a few-minute clip, then I'd just go to the official site. Wait, I found a decent clip -- and it's only a matter of time until that one is removed.

Re:Youtube (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062123)

Once again I looked at several with no notice. Why don't you just link to one as you seem to have a lot less trouble finding them.

Re:Youtube (0, Troll)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062199)

I seriously hope that your example of Drawn Together is supposed to be some kind of irony.

Re:Youtube (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062207)

Why? Its fair use and as such would be protected from this filter if it were to be published on a website that used the filter.

Re:Youtube (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062291)

Fair use? Like prior art? Declaring it is one thing, upholding it in court is another.

Re:Youtube (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062309)

Given its been produced for 4 years and is published worldwide, I somehow doubt its going to suddenly come under attack tomorrow.

Re:Youtube (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062381)

I was actually talking about his assertion that it is "another fine Viacom-owned program." But hey, if you like the show, I really don't care.

Re:Youtube (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062413)

Oh, heh. Yeah I'm not fond of the show myself.

Re:Youtube (-1, Offtopic)

deftcoder (1090261) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062459)

Get away from the terminal, man! You've posted 17 comments on /. in the last hour and a half. Jesus Christ.

Also, use a real distro like Debian or something if you insist on using Linux. ;)

Re:Youtube (5, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062063)

You are right, but I think we should help them.
Lets remove all pirated content everywhere.
No more illicit MS Windows, no more photoshop, no more movies, no more music.

Let them go out of business when they realise word of mouth is 99% of the battle.

Re:Youtube (3, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062075)

No more pirated Windows? That would give Linux the numbers it needs to be successful in the desktop market! ;)

Re:Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062105)

That will almost remove Windows from homes from most of the world, except maybe western Europe and USofA. Cool ;)

Re:Youtube (0)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062133)

No more pirated Windows? That would give Linux the numbers it needs to be successful in the desktop market!

Gee, thanks for spelling something out that was already spelled out in the post you were replying to, Captain Obvious. Where would we be without you?

Re:Youtube (1)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062193)

You will probably find most pirated copies of Windows users also have valid OEM licenses, they just choose to use the retail or MSDN or VLK edition. This will have little impact on the Windows market. It is when Windows is not TAXED on OEM hardware you will see an impact.

Re:Youtube (4, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062393)

You will probably find most pirated copies of Windows users also have valid OEM licenses, they just choose to use the retail or MSDN or VLK edition. This will have little impact on the Windows market. It is when Windows is not TAXED on OEM hardware you will see an impact.

No. Not by a long shot.

You will find that MANY pirated copies of windows (at least in the western hemisphere) are 'justified' in terms of I pirated XP because my last computer had OEM XP, it died, and the system restore disk wouldn't work on my new PC. Technically that is an infringing copy, as OEM versions are non-transferable to new units.

You will also find boatloads of people with XP Pro that 'upgraded' from their XP Home, and wouldn't pay the ridiculous retail upgrade price from one to the other. You'll also find people with an infringing copy of XP Home or Pro installed because the PC originally came with 98, 2000 or god forbid, ME.

I'd say its true that most of boxes out there are backed by a legit windows license, but most are not the version/edition that they are licensed for.

Yeah, there's people that have OEM Pro and installed VLK or MSDN edition to avoid activation hassles. (I myself was on an infringing VLK edition for a while, because my 'legit' was an original retail upgrade, while the VLK was a full version SP2... so it was FAR less hassle (no disk flipping, no activation, and hours of patches avoided.) When genuine advantage came out and got in my face and I got tired of hacking around it I reverted to the legit copy. Wasted half a day. (I couldn't just change the key because it rejected my legit original upgrade key.)

But in my experience that's a distinct minority, most people with XP Pro VLK/MSDN didn't actually have a legit version of XP Pro. They had a legit version of Windows XP Home, or an older version of windows... but not XP Pro.

Re:Youtube (3, Insightful)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062569)

The point is, if you eliminate these pirate copies they would NOT switch and the numbers of legitimate windows users would not increase.

Re:Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062149)

Almost every link to a video worth watching(with the rare educational exception)


Translation: "All of the illegally uploaded copyrighted material I want to watch for free (with the rare educational exception)"

"leads to "This video has been removed due to...."


Looks like Google is actually obeying the law - does that make them good or evil now?

Re:Youtube (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062157)

On the contrary, content providers existed before the internet & were doing well before the rise of the internet.
Content providers do not need the likes of YouTube etc to survive, however the adverse is not true, YouTube does not exist without content providers.

Re:Youtube (1)

grahammm (9083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062639)

Why does youtube need the 'conventional' content providers? Isn't it the 'purpose' of youtube (and similar) to allow members to upload and share their own content?

Re:Youtube (3, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062379)

> Control is controlled by the need to control. The content providers will shoot themselves in the feet so many times that they won't have a leg to
> stand on.

Control is controlled by the copyright owners. They own the copyright, so they have the moral and often the legal right to control access to the material. If Google wants to pay billions for a method of distributing copyrighted material then it has to enter into a contract with the copyright owners, otherwise it might prove to be something of an expensive mistake.

It's telling that you've conceded that `almost every link worth watching` is owned by someone. Don't you think that it's because it's been professionally produced by people whose business is to produce stuff that there's a market for? Sure, I'm sure every 10 years there'll be a Blair Witch or whatever, but I'm not sure I'd start a business on that basis.

Someone's going to have to break this gently to Google's shareholders!

Re:Youtube (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062455)

Control is controlled by the copyright owners. They own the copyright, so they have the moral and often the legal right to control access to the material.

I own this world. I put a flag in my backyard. Now I have the moral right to control access to it. I don't like what you're saying to people. Get off my planet.

What makes your statement more true than mine?

Re:Youtube (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062519)

>I own this world. I put a flag in my backyard. Now I have the moral right to control access to it. I don't like what you're saying to people. Get off my planet.

If that's what passes for rational thought in your brain, it's a damn good thing for you that there's an autonomic component to it.

Re:Youtube (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062561)

> I own this world. I put a flag in my backyard. Now I have the moral right to control access to it. I don't like what you're saying to people. Get
> off my planet.
> What makes your statement more true than mine?

The fact that you don't have the moral right to control access to the world because you've placed a flag on it somewhere, whereas I, as he creator of an original piece of work (for example a book or cd), have the moral right to assign ownership of the copyright to another body so that I get some money, and they exclusively own the reproduction, distribution and sale of it for some period of time.

Re:Youtube (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062599)

No, the correct answer is that neither of us have the moral right, and the only thing that would allow us to get away with the attempt is having enough people on our side.

Which gets to the really relevant question. What is in it for the rest of us if we enforce the arbitrary copying rules that you like so much, and are we REALLY on your side at all, or have we just not quite woken up enough to realize that we have a choice about it.

Re:Youtube (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062687)

> No, the correct answer is that neither of us have the moral right, and the only thing that would allow us to get away with the attempt is having
> enough people on our side.

What does the number of people on your side have to do with morals? The Nazi party was voted into power and had immoral policies - unless you contest that point too.

> Which gets to the really relevant question. What is in it for the rest of us if we enforce the arbitrary copying rules that you like so much, and
> are we REALLY on your side at all, or have we just not quite woken up enough to realize that we have a choice about it.

You'd have to clarify what you mean by `we` first, I suppose, to say nothing of defining what exactly is arbitrary about the copying rules. You have a choice to alter the legal landscape, certainly, if not the moral one. The point of copyright laws is to protect the creators of them such that they have an interest in producing more of them, on the grounds that it's in the public's interest for there to be a range of songs, books etc to consume. In the absence of laws which protect the creators' works, what do you suggest? You think the sort of shit you're going to be left with on YouTube should all professionally produced, copyrighted work is removed from YouTube helps bolster your case, or mine?

Sure, there's a lot of great stuff out there which is free from copyright - take Negativland, for instance. But I listen to a lot of contemporary classical music, for instance, and I'm not sure who's going to pay for the rehearsals and recordings of orchestras if it was legal to just copy it. Even in the case of long out of copyright works from hundreds of years ago for string quartet (ie no conductors, minimal recording technology required), if the performances aren't to be protected then what's in it for the performers to go to the effort of recording it?

Re:Youtube (1)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062617)

Ultimately? Social compacts backed up by force. Nobody will notice if they disregard your "ownership" of the world. But they will get their asses sued if they ignore copyright. If you want your ownership of the world to be taken seriously, start investing in a big army.

Re:Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062521)

They own the copyright, so they have the moral and often the legal right to control access to the material.
The may have a legal right to control reproduction of the material; they do not have a moral one. In fact, they have a moral obligation to waive their copyright.

Re:Youtube (0, Flamebait)

bursch-X (458146) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062631)

In fact, they have a moral obligation to waive their copyright.


Why? Because RMS and the freetards say so?

What's the point? (2, Insightful)

fgaliegue (1137441) | more than 6 years ago | (#21061967)

I really don't get it. So, they want to filter out content so that no one sees any copyrighted material anywhere on the net. What next? Sue movie theaters for displaying trailers of films you didn't pay to see in the first place?

Heck, if you don't even get a preview/prelisten of the movies/songs you are interested in in the first place, how do you know whether you'll want to buy them later? And they still wonder why their revenue is on the decline?

These guys should get a clue from RadioHead.

Re:What's the point? (2, Insightful)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062019)

What next? Sue movie theaters for displaying trailers of films you didn't pay to see in the first place?
Wha? I don't get this "next step" of yours. If a theater was showing trailers without permission you can bet your ass there'd be trouble. However movie theaters don['t do that. Instead they get paid to show the ads. This makes no sense.

Heck, if you don't even get a preview/prelisten of the movies/songs you are interested in in the first place, how do you know whether you'll want to buy them later? And they still wonder why their revenue is on the decline?

These guys should get a clue from RadioHead.
Exactly. The free market decides who wins and loses. If society rules this filter too draconian they'll move to content that isn't protected by the filter.

Re:What's the point? (1)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062117)

It's like with Radiohead. Although people could've downloaded their music for free from webpage they chose bittorent.
Why? Simple - inertia. Same as with Windows, people hate it but they just got used to it. It's too hard to change the habits.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062155)

> If society rules this filter too draconian they'll move to content that isn't protected by the filter.

no they won't; the filter will be made compulsory (actually, to be precise, people who don't use it will be ruled "negligent" and fined or arrested for aiding copyright infringment: this is great since there will be no need to involve democratic representatives and pay their usual "consulting fees"). You will have no alternatives.

Re:What's the point? (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062195)

actually, to be precise, people who don't use it will be ruled "negligent" and fined or arrested for aiding copyright infringment: this is great since there will be no need to involve democratic representatives and pay their usual "consulting fees"
You misunderstand. There is content all [webscription.net] over [reallifecomics.com] the [digitaltrouble.com] internet [swreality.net] that wouldn't be protected by this filter. Anyone could easily move to these content producers and enjoy their work and support them in not being overprotective with their copyright.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062601)

You misunderstand. Just because there is free content doesn't mean that anyone is lobbying for the rights of people publishing and using it.

If the MAFIAA get their way, linux will be verboten and only systems with inherent copyright enforcement mechanisms will be considered legally acceptable. It isn't about the content, it's about 100% deployment of the "filter" aka DRM systems that will be a drag on us all.

Re:What's the point? (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062587)

"Exactly. The free market decides who wins and loses."

Man, I'm going to have to start calling you free-market-sees-all-knows-all guys a bunch of religious nuts from now on.

If they had a working filter and people were circumventing it, the RIAA/MPAA would definitely try to make it a legal requirement to be used everywhere. You must fight politically for your freedoms or lose them.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062093)

Virtually every document, video, audio track, or what not can claim some sort of copyright, including those you may make yourself, so the goal here is overreaching and thus unworkable. It makes as much sense as trying to legislate, say, the second law of thermodynamics.

The real solution, as many have slowly come to realize, is to revise copyright law to adapt it to the 21st century. In particular, "fair use" should be elevated from a mere defense against claims of copyright infringement to a codified right, so that that the big media companies don't waste their time issuing take-down threats to grandmothers whose video of a grandchild happens to have someones' music playing in the background (washington post [washingtonpost.com] )

Lawsuits claiming copyright infringement should focus on (or be limited to) those cases in which monetary loss can be proved, not merely hypothesized.

Re:What's the point? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062171)

They don't want a filter on every copyrighted document. They want a system which allows them to declare which files are published in violation of their copyright, and they want it to be a standardized (and automated) system so that they don't have to look for contact information, craft letters and wait while the letters are read and acted upon. They want a switch that allows them to turn off publications because talking to people takes longer and costs them too much.

The tech industry's interest is very similar because they must act upon DMCA notices and without a common system, doing it manually costs them a lot of money too. Now that the big players have established themselves, doubtlessly benefitting from the slow DMCA process, they can make it harder for new competitors with a standard that excludes them from that beneficial first wave of illicit content.

Re:What's the point? (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062141)

So, they want to filter out content so that no one sees any copyrighted material anywhere on the net.

Given that everything you create is copyrighted (including things explicitly written for display on the web), not displaying anything copyrighted would basically mean completely emptying the web. Yes, this post is copyrighted (through the simple fact that I wrote it just now), and therefore disallowing any copyrighted stuff on the net would mean it couldn't be displayed.

Sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21061979)

What companies like this forget ss that they're not the most important thing on the internet.

Frankly, they need less of a say about what goes on online, not more. The internet was never designed to be their bitch where people can only do what the various media and entertainment companies want.

Time and money should be spent on developing the internet not turning it into some media-company run advertising network.

Re:Sigh. (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062051)

Frankly, they need less of a say about what goes on online, not more. The internet was never designed to be their bitch where people can only do what the various media and entertainment companies want.
Nice strawman. However if the entertainment and media companies decided that people couldn't post on any forums except their own, they wouldn't be able to stop us. All their doing is controlling a small portion of people's activities based on copyright law which the constitution gives Congress the ability to create. In my opinion the law is currently unconstitutional but I'd rather see people work towards copyright reform rather then create an anarchist society where people do whatever they want. It certainly isn't unreasonable for media companies to seek to protect their copyright under the law.

Time and money should be spent on developing the internet not turning it into some media-company run advertising network.
Yes because without this no-one will be able to post independent entertainment or do any number of non-entertainment activities, right?

on anarchy (1)

essence (812715) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062085)

..rather then create an anarchist society where people do whatever they want..
As an anarchist, i have to respond to this. Anarchy does not mean people can do whatever they want. It means they can do whatever they want so long as that action does not stop other people from doing what they want. There is a massive difference between the two.

Please, get a clue and stop spreading the FUD about anarchists.

Re:on anarchy (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062139)

So if I want to make a living from the works I've created who wins in an anarchist society? Me or those that want to access my content for free forcing me to get a second job with NO hope of making a living from my work that they clearly enjoy?

Re:on anarchy (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062253)

I want to make a living filing bug reports for Debian, posting on slashdot, and doing other things I do in the normal course of my day. Why should I be forced to get a second job because I have no hope of making a living from my work that others clearly enjoy?

Essentially you are arguing that you have some abstract right to make a living from your creative works. If I can't make enough money at something I feel like doing, why is it that I can't demand laws to keep cash flowing in my direction? Maybe I don't think it's particularly fair that slashdot makes money off my posts, money I never see. Maybe I'll lobby for a copyright law change that rewards the posters a part of slashdot's revenue. It's only fair, right?

Perhaps it's time we recognize that simply making creative works and distributing them is thought of as a means of supporting oneself. Certainly posting here isn't a career. Why is it that making music is? I have friends who play music in bars and clubs. They don't make enough money doing it, so they have other jobs to support themselves. You seem to be saying it's somehow unfair that they need a real job because their music making isn't cutting it.

Re:on anarchy (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062279)

I want to make a living filing bug reports for Debian, posting on slashdot, and doing other things I do in the normal course of my day. Why should I be forced to get a second job because I have no hope of making a living from my work that others clearly enjoy?
Fortunately here at the USofA you have the ability to try. In a society where there is no copyright protection you don't have the ability to try.

If I can't make enough money at something I feel like doing, why is it that I can't demand laws to keep cash flowing in my direction?
You seem to misunderstand copyright law. A copyright holder can't demand cash keep flowing to him, he can only demand that for a limited number of years he have a monopoly on publishing his work as granted by the Constitution. Piracy is, funnily enough, unconstitutional.

Why is it that making music is?
Because the constitution says it is, and we as a society also say it is. It is believed that the amount of quality creative works developed would decrease dramatically without copyright. This is one belief I believe in.

You seem to be saying it's somehow unfair that they need a real job because their music making isn't cutting it.
No I say its unfair that they have a 0% chance at making a living from their music. No matter how dreadful it is, they currently have a greater than 0% chance at making a living from their music. As someone who enjoys the entertainment offered by copyrighted content, I would hate to see copyright law abolished.

Re:on anarchy (1)

essence (812715) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062373)

Quite a challenging question. Thankyou.

I guess simply, those who pirate your works are violating your wishes to be paid for the property you are selling. The pirates are breaking the state of anarchy.

However, the issue of digital content is bigger than this. What about the people who would not pay for your work anyway, and only download it because they can (which I believe is most people) ? What kind of ethic is it to hoard something that is infinitely reproducible, denying it from those that simply can not make the money to pay?

Finally. I don't see such a thing as an 'anarchist society'. Rather, anarchy is a principle, an ideal which we can tend towards. It's not a state which will stay fixed. People try new things which can upset the balance. Getting back to the example at hand. On the whole, millions of people may have their lives enhanced by downloading the works which one person pirated from you. You may suffer, but many others benefit. Not ideal, you lose in this situation. Perhaps we can be more holistic in our analysis - how can we setup a system where people have food on the table, a roof over their head and be able to work on the art/craft of their choice....and give it to the world for free if its digital.

Re:on anarchy (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062407)

However, the issue of digital content is bigger than this. What about the people who would not pay for your work anyway, and only download it because they can (which I believe is most people) ? What kind of ethic is it to hoard something that is infinitely reproducible, denying it from those that simply can not make the money to pay?
This is where the "anarchist" ideal seems to break down. Whose desire is more important? A difficult question.

You may suffer, but many others benefit. Not ideal, you lose in this situation. Perhaps we can be more holistic in our analysis - how can we setup a system where people have food on the table, a roof over their head and be able to work on the art/craft of their choice....and give it to the world for free if its digital.
It would/should be based on how many different people access the content (download it in the case of internet based content). As if a person was only provided enough to eat and sleep, why shouldn't that person have the ability to own a television? Or have broadband internet? Or have the ability to live in a life of luxury? In the current market we allow people the opportunity to have these things, but not the guarantee and an "anarchist setup" would have to do the same. Otherwise how would it be fair to only have a limited amount of belongings and experiences?

Re:Sigh. (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062655)

My objection isn't to the use of a filter for copyrighted material, rather the implication that the copyright holders should be able to band together and mandate the use of a particular filtering technology.

From the summary:

It is a big drain to a company like ours to have to deal with incompatible systems.

It might be a big drain to them, but if internet sites provide their own means of filtering (thus complying with the letter and the spirit of the law), then working with those various systems is just the cost of doing business in a free market.

The company I code for has to integrate with many CRM and WFM applications, and it's often a custom integration for each customer.

That's fine - keeps me in work, but it ups the cost to my employer.

Now if we could mandate that every customer had to use SAP, say, then I'd have relatively little to do all day and could spend even more time on /. arguing with the friends of the **AA.

:P

Re:Sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062077)

The internet was never designed to be their bitch where people can only do what the various media and entertainment companies want.

The internet was never designed for your ill-formed rants, either, but... well, here we are.

Onoes, soon they'll be (-1, Offtopic)

Null Nihils (965047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21061989)

"in ur internets filtrin ur conection."

But only for copyright, not for other things, like talking about the ****&%$#@~ [NO CARRIER]

It shouldn't (1, Redundant)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21061991)

An industry wide copyright filter shouldn't affect small and independent websites unless its embedded into the OS or browser. If it is then companies selling such crippled products should be forced to disclose it first. As for it being built into websites, I see no problem with that provided they have fair use exceptions. After all, people SHOULDN'T be providing copyrighted content except under fair use laws. Although companies should only institute systems that take into account their local laws, so these situations [slashdot.org] do not occur.

If a system didn't incorporate one of those conditions, then I would not patron any website that utilized it. The DMCA, for all its flaws, is good in that if someone erroneously issues a DMCA takedown notice and the host complies (safest course of action). The person who originally put it up can issue their own DMCA notice to have it rehosted and there is nothing the "copyright owner" can do execpt take the person to court. In these situations the DMCA (when its not abused and its the duty of webhosts to make sure they haven't been sent a clearly abusive DMCA takedown notice) is good in that it has checks and balances. Any industry wide copyright filter should have their own checks and balances, in my opinion in the form of my first paragraph.

Re:It shouldn't (1)

smallfeet (609452) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062255)

Well you know they could try and build it into the routers. I am not sure how they plan to determine if content is copyrighted or not, but it would seem to me to always be easy to circumvent. If they go too far with the filtering, then freedom of speech would kick in and the system would get downgraded to uselessness.

They could also get the providers to force web sites to run the filtering software or not allow them access the the internet. This would have major freedom of speech implications and would most likely be killed by the provides.

Re:It shouldn't (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062589)

An industry wide copyright filter shouldn't affect small and independent websites unless its embedded into the OS or browser.

Oh no, it won't be in either. It'll be in the computer's hardware (BIOS?) and will be required to be active for the programs that the OS is able to run to function. I have mentioned before that we will come to a time where the Internet as we know it will no longer exist in the way we see it now. There will be the "Trusted Computing" Internet where these low-jacked computers will communicate and there will be the "Hacker/Hobbyist" Internet where custom built machines, not running the majority OS, will connect to.

Guess which one your banking, newspapers, search engines, most of your friends, jobs, etc will operate on?

Re:It shouldn't (4, Insightful)

jc42 (318812) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062649)

I have mentioned before that we will come to a time where the Internet as we know it will no longer exist in the way we see it now. There will be the "Trusted Computing" Internet where these low-jacked computers will communicate and there will be the "Hacker/Hobbyist" Internet where custom built machines, not running the majority OS, will connect to. Guess which one your banking, newspapers, search engines, most of your friends, jobs, etc will operate on?

Actually, this sort of thing happened back in the 1980s, when we had a lot of commercial networks, controlled by the corporations, each one in use by only a small set of corporate customers. Then news got out about this other network called the "Internet", built on government projects by a flock of "hackers", and not controlled by anyone.

It's pretty clear which one people decided to use.

So now the corporate world is hard at work bringing the Internet to heel, with strict corporate controls on what you and I can see or do. If they succeed, your scenario will happen once again. And as the Internet becomes as unusable as all those other networks back in the 1980s, people will slowly move to the network that actually works.

Re:It shouldn't (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062653)

After all, people SHOULDN'T be providing copyrighted content except under fair use laws.

This view is all well and good, but (1) fair use is not a right backed by a law, it's a doctrine (it's essentially a recognized loophole or accepted defense), and (2) the four factors governing what is fair use and what is not fair use are purposely vague, so as to require a reasonable legal debate (read: lawsuit) of each and every instance of purported fair/unfair usage of copyrighted content. Fair Use cannot be encoded into a machine.

Really, Really Bad Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062003)

Okay, the copyright cartel wants to "protect" (read: extort consumers for every cent they're worth) their content, and they want the tech industry to do it for them. What does the tech industry get out of it? As long as DMCA takedowns are properly followed, theres very little risk of a lawsuit hitting them that would stand a snowballs chance in hell, so this idea just seems pointelss to me.

Further, if for some reason the industry gives in and creates a universal copyright filter that can be applied to most major routers and backbones on the US portion of the net, how long until our good buddies at the justice department start to demand that other filters be put into place besides copyright ones?

If you build the system, they will misuse it. Its not needed, and it would just lead to more stupidity.

Here's another spin (2, Interesting)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062069)

No the copyright holders want to get compensation for people accessing their content as the United States Constitution allows them to. A major player of the software industry has stepped forward to sell their services, which will funnily enough also be protected under copyright law (just as Linux is).

What does the tech industry get out of it?
The ability to willingly limit what can be posted on their website for the price of no longer having to manually stop their users from breaking the law.

how long until our good buddies at the justice department start to demand that other filters be put into place besides copyright ones?
That's irrelevant. What matters is how long until we get off our asses and take back Congress. I'm also open to suggestions on how to do this, although one thing I'm doing is voting the next election. Will you at least do that much?

Re:Here's another spin (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062447)

No the copyright holders want to get compensation for people accessing their content as the United States Constitution allows them to.
You have noticed the kinds of laws that they lobby for, right? Since when do they give a damn what the Constitution says?

I'm also open to suggestions on how to do this, although one thing I'm doing is voting the next election. Will you at least do that much?
I vote, but there's not much chance of that making a difference. They've got the congressional districts so rigged that it's usually a foregone conclusion as to who is going to win. You can vote for the president, but the only people that get to discuss copyright law with the president's people are the ones that shell out the money to get the attention. They tell congress that the sky is falling and that we need more laws and a longer copyright term, and congress salutes and gets right to work on that.

These people are scumbag. (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062015)

These people (Viacom and their ilk) are the worst of the worst as far as I can see. They want to control everything. They want to control how they think, what we say, what we can do. If they don't control it, they want it banned. These people are horrible.

What I must ask, where are efforts to fight these people? Do you realize these people hate the Internet? They will stop at nothing to dismantle the Internet.

So don't buy their crap (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062189)

Nobody is forcing you to watch their stuff, to read their stuff, to listen to their stuff.

You are paying them. You are supporting them. You are encouraging them. You are to blame.

You want to stop them?

Stop watching their films. Stop reading their newspapers and magazines. Stop watching their TV shows. Stop listening to their music. Boycott them.

If you're not willing to do that, well you can go fuck off, I'm not interested in what you have to say.

Re:So don't buy their crap (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062217)

You are paying them. You are supporting them. You are encouraging them. You are to blame.
Many posts here at slashdot would indicate that the first point isn't always true.

Disaster strikes (4, Funny)

nagora (177841) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062017)

As this year's television pilots are automatically blocked because they're blatent rehashes of old ideas. Not to mention the Flintstones being blocked for being a violation of The Honeymooners' IP.

TWW

All content is copyrighted (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062025)

Hold on a minute. Isn't *all* content copyright protected?. I mean everything that gets written down, recorded, or whatever, is instantly protected. Why should content belonging to one set of businesses have any sort of special protection above and beyond anyone else's content?

Re:All content is copyrighted (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062109)

Because these businesses have entered a mutually beneficial agreement with each other to institute a system that protects their collective copyright. Why should you be guaranteed a position in this collective agreement? This is the United States of America still isn't it? Where people can control who they associate as per the Constitution? Or has the first amendment been repealed while I wasn't looking?

Re:All content is copyrighted (2, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062111)

Hold on a minute. Isn't *all* content copyright protected?

No.

Hey, while we are at it..... (1)

Rahga (13479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062029)

It's grossly irresponsible for the modern internet to circulate e-mail without deploying an industry-wide standard spam filtering system. If everybody uses the same spam filtering system, and it was a global standard, then we wouldn't have to worry about unpredictable mail delivery problems. It's just common sense.

While we are at it, it's high time that flying ponies were standardized across all little girl's bedrooms. There is absolutely no reason why some of them should be pink, while others are purple and painted with stars. This reflects economic inequality among these young humans, and we should fix it immediately.

Standards are great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062037)

I think standards are great. It will make things easier across the board, whether your intentions are good or bad.
Technically, since there is only one standard to support.
Legally, since if you implement the standard, you will get some sort of legal protection in return (ie if copyrighted material gets through anyway).
Civil rights advocates have fewer targets to critique.
Politicians have fewer targets to corrupt. ...crap

That being said, the guy making the statement sounds like one of those management types that isn't fully technically "aware". He is accusing Google's failure to create an adequate anti-piracy filter is a case of laziness. Maybe it's because its a difficult problem? An automated piracy detector? Has that ever been done before?

Disclaimer: I own some Viacom stock. ...crap

How long? (1)

Ghostalker474 (1022885) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062043)

...until someone cracks it. They did the same thing with DVD's and thanks to DeCSS, movies these days are barely considered encrypted. Then we're gonna enter a whole new era of non-backwards compatibility, frivolously lawsuits, and more angry customers.

2600 Cop Chip (1)

Shadow_139 (707786) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062045)

Does anybody else remember the article in an old 2600 about the proposed mandatory cop filtering chip what would stop the device from recording or taking a picture of anything that was copyrighted?

I want a pony. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062087)

And I want Viacom to buy me one and keep paying for it. Why should Viacom get a copyright filter if I can't have a pony?

What is this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062099)

When does my company get to make up rules and then have other companies enforce it for free?

Re:What is this... (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062161)

Who said anything about others enforcing it for free? At the very least the other companies will be saving money from having to devote man hours to going through DMCA notices. The real people who should be blamed here are those that issue takedown notices illegally and those who post copyrighted content onto other people's websites illegally without permission of the website owner.

Idiotic ideas like this... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062119)

...demonstrate to me how desperate the content industry is to get the toothpaste back in the tube or Pandora's box to shut. Sorry, guys, but your content is out there on digital media, and given the nature of humans, there's no way you're going to keep it from being spread around. Digital piracy is too easy to accomplish, and rather than adapt to a business model that might incorporate easy distribution and sharing of digital content, they get all offended and feel it's necessary to sue their customers and prosecute middlemen who don't commit the crime, just provide sites on which the crime can be committed. I can think of no other way to alienate the world against you than taking the tack all these content providers have.

Re:Idiotic ideas like this... (1)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062223)

Or, to (probably mis-) quote Bruce Schneier, "trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet".

It's all a big joke (5, Funny)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062129)

One day, maybe in the not too distant future, there will be an article on /.

It will read like this:


Your Rights Online: [slashdot.org] MPAA admit that everything they have said for the last 5 years has been a practical joke
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday Cantrembember 75th @ 27:00
from the i-knew-it department
Anonymous Coward writes:
The MPAA [mpaa.org] has finally admitted [news.com] what a lot of people on Slashdot have suspected for a while. Everything they've done for the last 5 years was all part of a practical joke [mpaa.org] .

"The lawsuits, the absurd DRM, the crazy "the entire industry is going to collapse" rhetoric - we never believed any of this crap", said a spokesman. "What actually happened was someone suggested that perhaps we could somehow start announcing these ridiculous ideas, record the reaction then release it as a movie. Kind of like The Truman Show [imdb.com] , only much much bigger."
Has the MPAA finally gone too far? Will this lead to their ultimate collapse? Quiver with excitement. Tremble with fear. Eat peanuts with raisins.

Re:It's all a big joke (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062677)

It's the JEWS, stupid... They'd love to be able to CENSOR any TRUTH about them, that appears on the internet. After all, they already own 99% of the media in white countries, which is why most white people are braindead sheep who think that Jews are poor, helpless victims... Meanwhile the Jews decide who gets to run your country, steals YOUR money from you, to fight wars against Israel's enemies, and gets YOUR children to fight and DIE in wars for Israel.

The Jews want to be able to monitor every single website on the internet and pull it down if it dares to tell the TRUTH about our 'masters', who call themselves 'God's chosen people'...

Meanwhile, they get away with sexually torturing their own children without being punished, and slash the throats of fully conscious animals, because 'God told them to do it'...

Gee... I wonder why every country in Europe has expelled them at one time or another?

Oh hi Microsoft, fancy meeting you here. (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062137)

I know we've been down this path before, but seeing Microsoft get behind open standards when it suits them, and then getting behind closed proprietary stuff when that suits them, still makes me sick. Such a complete absence of any virtue whatsovever.

Do not worry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062645)

Last I heard, a certain proposed industry standard from Microsoft [wikipedia.org] doesnt work as well as it should.

Media companies want it both ways... (3, Interesting)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062151)

The media companies love standards when it suits them, such as when it limits the technology companies power (as in music DRM or content filtering). However, when the standards become, well, too standard, they want their own proprietary formats. NBC pulls out of ITunes [nytimes.com] because they didn't like the standard pricing. Sony tweaks its DVD's [about.com] because it doesn't like the standard DRM (and I rented a coaster from Blockbuster recently, thanks Sony).

Viacom says "we believe in following the consumers". The real quote was "We believe in following the consumers as long as it pleases us. Otherwise fuck the consumers."

hmmm. (1)

MM-tng (585125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062153)

Management meeting: Ok guys. To protect our copyright we need a filtering system without copyright. This would be better for all of us. Wait a second, I feel a clue train rolling in to the station.

Slashdot: The place to be Gay (1)

TeleoMan (529859) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062177)

Believe it or not, the majority of Slashdot readers are male, aged 12 to 24, are computer literate or computer proficient, introverted, and homosexual. Slashdot creator and self-avowed homosexual Rob Malda, who, in 1997 in his Holland, Michigan dorm, was running a gay singles' list, had the following to say:

If I hadn't had Slashdot when I was coming out, I don't know what would have happened. There would have been no one to connet with, no twinks to share my rage with, no bears to gain knowledge from. Slashdot was the ultimate gay hookup and for that alone am I thankful I created it years ago.

Obviously, Slashdot serves more than the tech community it purports to cater to. In 1999, Slashdot hired then-Wired columnist Jon Katz, another openly gay literary genius. Sporting blue hair and multiple facial piercings, the angst-ridden Katz expresses in his writings are clearly visible in real life. I'd found a home with Rob. Wired was too straight, but at Slashdot I fit right in.

Finally, in early 2000, public homosexual and Nazi censor Michael Sims joined the Slashdot orgy crew. I wanted to introduce goat sex and a lot of non-Slashdot, homosexual, erect male penises to the group, said Sims, So ESR got involved with donkey dicks and we all like to suck each other off. Without Rob Malda, Michael Sims would be nothing except an aggravated gay male without a place to call home.

Slashdot is definitely the place to be gay concluded Sims. Definitely the place to be gay.

I fully support Viacom here... (1)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062205)

.. then we just have ONE "standard" to attack :) Easier to hack.

Economics 101 (3, Interesting)

DCFC (933633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062245)

First up we have a new variant on googlebombing. The filter will be gamed by content owners to pick up on anything they possibly can.
This is because of the asymmetric costs. A false positive will cost them nothing, but the poster will get zapped. Indeed blockingd free content will serve the industry quite nicely.

There are >50 content formats, and new ones keep appearing. If the "standard" filter cannot read them, then the obvious thing to do is ban them.
You've now established a monopoly where only "approved" formats are allowed.
Even if it is an open standard, who writes the filter for new formats ? More importantly, who pays ?

It is also an arms race, and I think we can be clear that the "standard" filter will not be open source.
DRM attracts crackers in direct proportion to it's success. Many crackers may not be fans of economics, but their goals are easily modelled in economic terms.
They want to take out the "big beast" current filters are small, unsucessful critters.
Cracking the industry standard media filter will be more of a coup than breaking WEP, and thus inevitably be swamped.

Also, an entertaining technical/legal point is so many site use Linux so the GPL may get involved.

Just pull the plug (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062249)

Its about time the internet was shut down. There is too much copyright infringement going on and it is the only solution. Hackers invariably get past the filters, so filters only work out to be a temporary solution. Maybe we should consider turning off TV transmission too, since those stealing pirates keeping on seeing our copyrighted work without paying us. If we can't have 100% control then we would rather have no one be able to see our work. The Spanish inquisition were taking the right approach.

Okay, so the copyright holders aren't saying the above, but their desire for total control makes the above scenario feel not to far from the reality that they seem to want.

what a Microsoft tool (1)

m2943 (1140797) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062261)

There is a common standard: you upload your videos, and these sites filter them for you. For Google (or anybody else) to disclose their algorithms would be stupid, simply because that would make circumventing the copyright filters much easier.

I think what's really going on here is that Microsoft is egging on Viacom to gain an advantage for themselves.

Three things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062293)

1) They reflect the fact that there ought to be a filtering system in place on the part of technology companies

No, there ought to be a filtering system in place on the part of the media companies. Go check the DMCA, that's your responsibility, a responsibility stemming from legislation you pushed for.

2) I can see this being totally open to abuse. Don't want a competitors work to be shared online despite their wishes? Put a sample of it in the internet-wide copyright filter! Don't like someones political speech? Submit it to the copyright filter!

3) How is this filter going to interoperate with fair use of copyright works?

4) How is this filter going to know the circumstance under which a copyright work is being used? What if a license explicitly permits some type of use?

Re:Three things (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062319)

Put a sample of it in the internet-wide copyright filter
There's no indication that is going to be worldwide.

Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21062297)

The small, independent web sites will form the basis of a new Internet that will arise from the ashes of the old. The new Internet will have features such as encryption and anonymity built into it.

Give them the filter (4, Interesting)

femto (459605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062345)

I say give them the filter. It should be built into every node of the network, so the network flat refuses to transmit Viacom's material, or that of any other copyright holder who wants out of the Internet. Surely a network that will only transmit stuff under a free license would have to be every free software author's dream?

Content Filters & Trusted Computing (2, Insightful)

Howard2nd (162784) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062349)

London Printers, Music Moguls, Hollywood Twits; all these content providers want to own the content. They start as a service to deliver content from producer (author, musician, director & actors,..) to consumer (you & I), BUT greed makes them stupid. Unfortunately the best friends of 'Greed & Stupidity' are lawyers. They can and will support either side of an argument for money. Right, morals, ethics are not part of the equation. And we, the consuming public, allowed the legislatures of nation and states to be filled by these amoral, anethical, 'money is right' bottom feeders. A pundit wrote that 'wanting to make laws controlling others, is proof that you are not to be trusted to make laws!'

The freedom of the future belongs to those who understand that the threat of content control is not JUST entertainment, but truth. It is not about the next episode of '2&1/2 Men', it is about the next election or the next war or the next reduction in services or the next increase in taxes for the middle classes.

If all you have is "Trusted!" computing can you trust your family to their control?

And I want free naked women, Viacom! (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062377)

(oh wait this is the internet)

He doesn't have a clue....what he is wanting. (1, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062387)

Copyright application is really quite simple.

The moment anything is published it is copyrighted. Its about prior art, establishing it.

The only way to fulfill what he wants is to take down the whole world wide internet.
Considering everything is copyrighted. The real question is: when are such people going to
get a clue that what they want is simple not going to happen. Not everyone wants to constrain
their works

A clue that its getting time for fundamental changes in the way we live and exchange value?

If the world wide internet was taken down then the same people would come along and say they
want to have it back but only if they completely control it like any other media.

Their problem is no more up to others to solve this delima for them, then it is for everyone
to be responsible for making me a billionaire while those who help me do so, are to be put in
the poor house with constraints I used to get there.

Perhaps the easier solution that provides them with total control, is for them to simple not
publishing anything that they don't want people to access. That way they are not trying to impose
constraints upon the freedoms of others.

The only reason piracy exist, the only reason infringement of copyright, patent and in sum
"Intellectual Property" (with its double meaning) constraints exist is because the abstract economic
systems we have can't handle it otherwise. IP rights are done on a "cannot use" basis. You cannot use it
unless I say you can.... Yet all that we have today is built upon what those before us have done because
we "did use" the works of others.

It is by using the works of others that we improve upon the quality of life for all.

So... we have abstract value exchange systems in place that have problems dealing with abstract
works using a technology designed specifically to manipulate the abstract.

Seems to me we have created our own abstraction problems. However, since we are the ones who
created such abstractions, we are the only ones to correct them. It'd be interesting to create a
parrallel to what we have, value representation system. Even if only to start getting a better
handle on whether or not such piracy claims are real of just excuses to try and rationalize even
more constraints to apply.

The only problem there is here is of the more fundamental economic systems that employ "cannot use"
as a way of extracting value through permission constraints.

So Do I have permission to improve quality of life for everyone including myself? Even by such a
seemingly insignificant amount?

Not with the economic systems we have in place.

I'm all for credit where credit is due. Its to bad there are those who haven't figured out what
the open source community has.

I'm finding more and more value in open source software in comparison to proprietary software.
And there is one thing for sure regarding infringement claims and that is any such constraint
claims are very small in comparison to the overall value of open source even minus the claims
property.

We need to develop another abstract value representation system that allows "can use".

Skip TFA (3, Interesting)

Jay L (74152) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062449)

TFA is a summary of comments made at the Web 2.0 Summit which reference another announcement which summarizes these principles [ugcprinciples.com] .

Considering who's on the press release - NBC Universal, Disney, Viacom, Fox, Microsoft, MySpace, Dailymotion (who?), veoh (who??) - the proposed principles are actually fairly balanced. They mention fair use four times, including a statement that "When sending notices and making claims of infringement, Copyright Owners should accommodate fair use" and "If the UGC Service is able to identify specific links that solely direct users to particular non-infringing content on such [piracy-oriented] sites, the UGC Service may allow those links while blocking all other links" and even "If a UGC Service adheres to all of these Principles in good faith, the Copyright Owner should not assert a claim of copyright infringement against such UGC Service with respect to infringing user-uploaded content that might remain on the UGC Service despite such adherence to these Principles."

It's worth reading the whole principles statement. I'm sure there are things that could be tweaked, but there are no major outrages that jump out at me; I'm actually kinda impressed.

confused desires (3, Funny)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062527)

Most responsible companies have followed that path.


He seems to be confusing "responsible" with "threatened."

The copyright holder (2, Interesting)

Amphetam1ne (1042020) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062577)

"It is a big drain to a company like ours to have to deal with incompatible systems"

Isn't it the place of the copyright holder to enforce copyright? Regardless of how incompatible it is with viacom's systems, a system that has been put in place to help copyright holders protect their works is still doing them a favor. Adapt or die Viacom.

Proposed Copyright Standard (4, Informative)

jc42 (318812) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062583)

industry standard to filter copyrighted material

How about we suggest the following standard:

1. the © character (Unicode 00A9, or decimal 251), followed by
2. the date of the copyright, followed by
3. the name of the copyright holder, optionally followed by
4. an email or web address to contact the copyright holder

I've heard that a system similar to this (but lacking part 4.) is already in use in some publications.

Such a copyright standard would make it easy to use hundreds (or thousands) of programs that already exist to filter copyrighted material and determine what to do with it.

Think anyone would go for it?

Maybe we should write up an RFC ...

That's funny... (1)

FoboldFKY (785255) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062651)

What no one wants is a proprietary system that benefits one company. It is a big drain to a company like ours to have to deal with incompatible systems.

...you mean like some sort of proprietary technology [wikipedia.org] that locks you [wikipedia.org] to one platform [wikipedia.org] ? Why you poor, inconvenienced people, you!

I don't get the big deal with this (1)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062657)

Generally, its not because people want to watch a commercial free broadcast of *insert show here* but rather they don't have time to watch it live, they missed an episode, its not available where they live, or they don't get the channel it is on. Viacom is not losing any money because of this because obviously people can't watch the show when they want to on TV so they are watching it online. An industry wide copyright filter will just encourage people to crack and hack it.

I give up. (1)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 6 years ago | (#21062673)

You know what? I'm tired. I'm just damn tired of all of this content maneuvering.

I think I'm just going to swear off of music and video all together and find other uses for my time. I'm serious. I've already canceled the cable TV.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>