Jack Valenti died!

[bob.dino 1]

Option C: It's legal to make copies for your own personal use & to share with close friends ("Fair Use"). Large-scale duplication or making a profit off that duplication is illegal.

Until the passage of the DMCA, this was the situation in the USA. The DMCA made it illegal to circumvent a copyright-protection mechanism, so when the DVDCCA put CSS on DVDs it became illegal to bypass it to take up your Fair Use rights. The situation reverted to Option A.

Jack Valenti was one of the drivers behind the DMCA. This is why grue does not like him.

[grue 1]

Quote

Option A: it is illegal to make copies of copyrighted material without the expressed consent of such rights. That means that Chinese companies are not allowed to make copies, nor is Grue, nor is Frenchy.

Option B: it is legal to make copies of copyrighted material, regardless of the rights owner's position on the issue. Then Grue, Frenchy, and Chinese companies have the right to do so. The outcome would probably be that Grue buys a Chinese version of a DVD (at 10% of the price of the US version), then makes his own personal never to be seen by anyone else copy.

You're forgetting that the current laws don't stop anyone from pirating anyway. A half retarded monkey can get past the encryption on the damned things. The situation wouldn't change, frankly. You don't go to JB HiFi, or Walmart, or whatever and buy pirated DVDs now, do you? No, because they get them from reputable distributors. Same as it'd be without the copy protection.

cavete terrae.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Option C: It's legal to make copies for your own personal use & to share with close friends ("Fair Use"). Large-scale duplication or making a profit off that duplication is illegal.

I'm all for it. I was, once again, merely stating the thinking behind the fight. But you and I know that, should DVDs not be copy protected, one would make copies for all his/her friends, therefore diminishing the customers' pool considerably. Every industry is fighting for its profit. Nothing new to that...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[bob.dino 1]

Quote

I'm all for it. I was, once again, merely stating the thinking behind the fight. But you and I know that, should DVDs not be copy protected, one would make copies for all his/her friends, therefore diminishing the customers' pool considerably.

For all intents and purposes DVDs are un-protected and have been since late 1999. It hasn't damaged sales one iota. It just means that a hell of a lot of people are breaking the law to do something they believe they have the right to do.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

You're forgetting that the current laws don't stop anyone from pirating anyway. A half retarded monkey can get past the encryption on the damned things. The situation wouldn't change, frankly. You don't go to JB HiFi, or Walmart, or whatever and buy pirated DVDs now, do you? No, because they get them from reputable distributors. Same as it'd be without the copy protection.

Neither do laws prevent people from raping an albino midget, shooting someone in the head with a shotgun, or throwing a grand piano off the roof of a 20 story building. However, laws make such actions illegal, so that there are repercussions should someone do such things.
It's the scaring factor they are aiming for. Otherwise, I'd be throwing albino midgets off buildings myself...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[grue 1]

Quote

Neither do laws prevent people from raping an albino midget, shooting someone in the head with a shotgun, or throwing a grand piano off the roof of a 20 story building. However, laws make such actions illegal, so that there are repercussions should someone do such things.
It's the scaring factor they are aiming for. Otherwise, I'd be throwing albino midgets off buildings myself...

Yay for the reductio ad absurdum, I knew it'd come eventually. Laws like that are in place to protect others. I support those laws. I will never support laws that tell people what they can do with their own property, or their own lives, or their own bodies, as long as they are not hurting others.

In any case, there are those of us who don't function because a law tells us to do something, but instead just look at it rationally. I wouldn't want to be stabbed, so I don't stab people. I don't want to have a piano land on my head, so I don't throw them off of buildings. I don't want to have a gun in my face and my money taken away, so I don't put guns in people's faces and take their money.

Me watching a movie that I paid $20+ to watch on my PSP instead of my TV is hardly in the same vein as the above. Nobody loses money. Nobody gets hurt. Nobody has their rights violated.

cavete terrae.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Yay for the reductio ad absurdum, I knew it'd come eventually. Laws like that are in place to protect others. I support those laws. I will never support laws that tell people what they can do with their own property, or their own lives, or their own bodies, as long as they are not hurting others.

I couldn't agree more. To the risk of being redundant,I am just explaining some of the thinking behind it, not justifying it. I think the DVD laws amount to pissing in the wind, and is part of the problem rather than the solution. And to drive my point across, I think I'm going to head to the local DVD store tonight, drop $20, and go home and watch my 25 newly acquired DVDs...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[DSE 5]

wrong. "Fair Use" does NOT permit "sharing with close friends."

Fair use must meet one of four components, and "sharing with close friends" isn't one of them. Fair Use (a legal term) embodies:
Criticism
Comment
News Reporting
Teaching
Scholarship
Research
AND does not embue infringement of copyright (affecting the artist's right to control copies).

There are ways of copying media to an HDD that do not involve decryption. I'm pretty familiar with how CSS, Macrovision, and newer forms of HDCP work, given that we replicate a few hundred thousand discs a quarter.

Grue, I won't participate when the discussion is moronic with the "fuck you's" and "get the fuck out's."
Either it's an intelligent conversation, or it's a conversation with a monkey.

Copyright law is in place to stimulate creativity for the betterment of the general population.
Sony vs Universal held that timeshifting is a legal action, and copying DVDs to an HDD is not timeshifting, it's changing the mechanical device. However, most legal pundits have taken the position (I believe rightfully so) that the practice of copying encrypted works to a home media system is lawful, until a duplication is made, at which point decryption must be undertaken.
Still in that same vein, attorneys on both sides of the fence also agree that decryption for personal use, while illegal, is held as "de minimis" and not worthy of prosecution.
The folks that get their shorts in a knot are the ones that are interested in illegal uses, such as "sharing with close friends."
Hmmm....Napster was all about sharing with "close friends," all 12 million of them.

Just because a "use" seems "fair" doesn't make it "Fair Use."
Fair Use is for purposes outlined above, for the benefit of the general commonwealth, and not for the entertainment or individual benefit.
Fair use is not static; it breathes and is opined as each specific case comes up. Some are foolish enough to believe that if no profit or revenue is involved, it's "fair." Try telling that to Norman Kent when you make a copy of his movie and "share it with a close friend."
You might not have made money from the copy you gave away, but someone else other than yourself is enjoying the copy you made, and Norman doesn't get the benefit, let alone be aware of how many copies of his film are out there.
Oh yeah, it's often argued that "No one would have heard of this artist/filmmaker/musician if I hadn't shared their work." Fine. Send a link. Send a watermarked copy of the picture. Invite them over to watch the movie or listen to the CD. Just don't make a copy of what you bought, and give it away to your buddy. Someone, somewhere, invested a lot of time, money, sweat, and creative energy into the product that you bought. They did so to not only release their creative muse, but also to chase their dream of making a living at what they do, and hopefully do best. When you make copies and "share them with close friends" you're making that dream a little more difficult to achieve.
Just because slimeballs in China do it doesn't in any way, justify it being done on an individual basis. There are a lot of things other countries, cultures, and communities do that aren't acceptable in the general sense of humanity; it's a weak excuse at best.

[grue 1]

Quote

Grue, I won't participate when the discussion is moronic with the "fuck you's" and "get the fuck out's."
Either it's an intelligent conversation, or it's a conversation with a monkey.

Just because YOU are uptight about words doesn't mean we all are. I can use shit, fuck, piss, cunt, damn, asshole and plenty of others in conversation, because they can express feelings better than other phrases in certain contexts. Would I use them in a formal address to a group? Perhaps not, but this is hardly that situation.

In any case, I see where you're coming from, and just because something MIGHT not get prosecuted doesn't mean it's a just law. If the law SPECIFICALLY SAID "Media may be transcoded into other formats for personal use as needed", I'd be totally ok with it, but that's not the case. Yes, I could copy the files, encryption and restrictions intact, to my drive, but why the hell would I do that? It's a drain on resources, and it just introduces more complexity. Given the choice between a 9GB VIDEO_TS folder with all the restrictions on fast forwarding and usage intact, or a 2GB H.264+AC3 file that I can watch using any software I please, on any device I please, it's a no brainer.

My idea of "fair use" is what I do in my home, on my hardware, for myself. I don't share with others, so what the law says about that doesn't bother me much. It's when the laws says "No, you may not watch that movie on your phone instead of your TV" that I get annoyed.

As the HDCP you mentioned before? Don't get me started on that. That's even worse.

cavete terrae.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

Grue, I won't participate when the discussion is moronic with the "fuck you's" and "get the fuck out's."
Either it's an intelligent conversation, or it's a conversation with a monkey.

Just because YOU are uptight about words doesn't mean we all are. I can use shit, fuck, piss, cunt, damn, asshole and plenty of others in conversation, because they can express feelings better than other phrases in certain contexts. Would I use them in a formal address to a group? Perhaps not, but this is hardly that situation.

it can be that situation if you allow it to be

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[grue 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Grue, I won't participate when the discussion is moronic with the "fuck you's" and "get the fuck out's."
Either it's an intelligent conversation, or it's a conversation with a monkey.

Just because YOU are uptight about words doesn't mean we all are. I can use shit, fuck, piss, cunt, damn, asshole and plenty of others in conversation, because they can express feelings better than other phrases in certain contexts. Would I use them in a formal address to a group? Perhaps not, but this is hardly that situation.

it can be that situation if you allow it to be

If I want to use undue restraint for no good reason, I'll go back and get another degree.

cavete terrae.

[RBM 1]

Was Jack Valenti still Pres or in some type of work capacity of the MPAA at the time of his death??
if so, well,, he had other goons like him that will surely take up where he left.. they waste millions in trying to stop what they cant..
MPAA and RIAA just need to get a grip and realize, they will never stop the train that left the station years ago,,,,,...

[BillyVance 35]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been moved to SC already. That said, I'm not much into the whole DVD copyright semantics so I'll shut up. I'll say this though, if Jack was a prick, then it's good that he's dead, but of course, his goons will keep his work going.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

I'll say this though, if Jack was a prick, then it's good that he's dead, but of course, his goons will keep his work going

Jack was as much of a prick as any Union or organization leaders. He will be praised by most of the MPAA members, and vilified by most of his opponents. As far as rejoicing upon his death, I'm not quite convinced his legacy warrants such celebration. We're talking about DVDs, people! DVDs!!!!

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[grue 1]

Quote

Quote

I'll say this though, if Jack was a prick, then it's good that he's dead, but of course, his goons will keep his work going

Jack was as much of a prick as any Union or organization leaders. He will be praised by most of the MPAA members, and vilified by most of his opponents. As far as rejoicing upon his death, I'm not quite convinced his legacy warrants such celebration. We're talking about DVDs, people! DVDs!!!!

So? DVDs are as much a part of my life as most things. I like movies

cavete terrae.

[bob.dino 1]

You are correct on the limitations of US copyright "fair use" exemptions. I was confusing them with the UK rules (which have also changed since I lived there).

Quote

There are ways of copying media to an HDD that do not involve decryption.

Yup. Now try playing them back on something that can't mount a DVD image and play MPEG2, and wasn't granted a CSS licence by the DVDCCA.

Quote

Copyright law is in place to stimulate creativity for the betterment of the general population.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

Quote

Still in that same vein, attorneys on both sides of the fence also agree that decryption for personal use, while illegal, is held as "de minimis" and not worthy of prosecution.

It shouldn't be illegal. Whether it's "de minimis" or not is not the point. The existing copyright laws made wholesale piracy illegal. The DMCA only served to criminalize users attempting to do things that they believe they have the right to do.

Quote

The folks that get their shorts in a knot are the ones that are interested in illegal uses, such as "sharing with close friends."
Hmmm....Napster was all about sharing with "close friends," all 12 million of them.

That's an absurd generalisation.

[bob.dino 1]

Funniest quote in the slashdot discussion:

Quote

The man's dead, show some respect. Let's have a moment of silence in his honor. Oh... wait, my moment of silence is actually encrypted using DRM that I lost the license key for. I'd reverse engineer it but I don't want to get in trouble...

[dorbie 0]

I'm with ya.

Jack valenti was a myopic litigious lobbying pigopolist scumbag like many of the others he ran with in life.

Never in the history of technology has so much benefit been gifted to so few only for the greedy pigs to do as much as they could to completely fuck it up.

The VHS casette, the DVD and now HD media, all technologies there for the taking, to fill their bank accounts all they needed to do was use them and rake in the cash. Instead myopic greedy fucks like Valenti took this windfall and turned into lobbying monsters. They've conned and bribed congress into chaining digital media to suit THEIR archaic business, restricted what was once considered fair use and generally rigged the system in their favor to exploit the public at the expense of entire industries of innovation and the general wellfare.

To use an audio analogy, if assholes like Valenti ran the world every speaker and headphone on the planet would need decryption technology on board and music would be encrypted on the wire unless severely degraded. This is what they're doing with video and system & firmware inside and outside devices like PCs, they're moronic fools who are now interfering with the very technology that fell from the heavens to make them wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice.

It just wasn't enough for assholes like Valenti to have the biggest windfall in showtime history fall into their lap. DESPITE fighting tooth and nail against it, Valenti and others had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a successfull business and it STILL isn't enough, it never will be.

Valenti and the other bastards who couldn't lift their eyes up from the pig trough to see the potential make me sick and I sincerely hope the greedy fuck is dancing on a pitchfork tonight.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

We're talking about DVDs, people! DVDs!!!!

That's actually one of the rounds (not the first) but more significant is the DMCA (never mind the international intimidation it has spawned), and worse to come on the technology front w.r.t. standards and encryption 'on the wire' externally to displays and internally accross the BUS, it is a fiasco.

[grue 1]

Quote

Quote

We're talking about DVDs, people! DVDs!!!!

That's actually one of the rounds (not the first) but more significant is the DMCA (never mind the international intimidation it has spawned), and worse to come on the technology front w.r.t. standards and encryption 'on the wire' externally to displays and internally accross the BUS, it is a fiasco.

HDCP makes me want to punch babies. One of the many reasons I will not go to BR or HDDVD until they're cracked.

cavete terrae.

[jtval 0]

well since this thread is already too deep for me to comment I will just say thanks for the entertainment.


It was fun...kinda.


I'm gonna pirnt this out and hang it in every coffe shop I can find,but first I'm going to delete the names of the posters.

My photos

My Videos

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

Still in that same vein, attorneys on both sides of the fence also agree that decryption for personal use, while illegal, is held as "de minimis" and not worthy of prosecution.

It shouldn't be illegal. Whether it's "de minimis" or not is not the point. The existing copyright laws made wholesale piracy illegal. The DMCA only served to criminalize users attempting to do things that they believe they have the right to do.

.

I disagree. DCMA is in place to help thwart the punks that illegally copy media and share it with a few hundred friends. You yourself say "Believe they have the right to do." They DO have the right to copy to an HDD. It just might not be as convenient as youd' like. Why should it be?
What about the twits that copy movies and CD's, head to the local swap meets, and sell the copies out of the back of their cars on weekends?

DCMA doesn't at all affect the guy who is copying movies to his home media center. Not at all, and likely never will. Additionally, while it is technically illegal to transcode media from one format to another, it's not necessarily the law that makes this an issue; it's the licensee's. If they choose to not encrypt, which a few record labels have now agreed to not do, and a couple small studios are experimenting with, then there is no DCMA. In other words, the *studio* makes th decision. In this thread, there are idiots that would make Valenti the bad guy, but the point being missed is that it's the Tom Cruises, George Lucases, James Camerons, Robert Redfords, Jon Carpenters, Steven Soderbergs of the world that are responsible. They kept Valenti in office because in spite of his personal convictions he lobbied on their behalf. MPAA is THEIR spokesperson. If they didn't care about who copies what, they wouldn't encrypt their films. Valenti spoke for me, just as the RIAA and NARAS are my spokespeople in the music industry. You'd do better to vilify me, because me, the artist, wants my work to be as controlled as it can be. My own view is that I don't care if you buy the CD once, you're then entitled to listen to it where you want, so long as you don't make another copy of it and email it to a buddy to "share." He then copies his/her buddy, and so on. Next thing you know, dozens, hundreds, or millions of people are listening to my music but I got paid .0562 (cents) for the one sale. Costs me around 100K to make a CD, but I only get to be paid a nickel for every 100 listeners? That's less than I make for a radio play.
Go to Ebay. I guarantee you'll find at least ONE pirate copy of my music, and at least ONE copy of one of my visual works. Ebay gets a letter a week from my representatives. Yet there are those here that claim "it hurts no one to share with a few friends." I have locks on my home. My close friends know where the keys are. I choose to show them the hiding place. But when you copy my music and upload it to the internet, you've not only found out where I hide the key, you've placed a front page ad in the newspaper telling folks it's OK to come into my house and take what I've worked hard for.
Yes, I'd like it if you could buy a download of my music and put it on your phone, iPod, computer, and stereo. But people have proven that they'll steal vs pay for something. You say Napster is an absurd comparison? It's absurd to think it's not. Dozens of non-encrypted options were available for low monthly, per-use, or temporally-based fees. Only three of them survived during Napster, Gnutella, Kazaa's reign. People would rather steal in the privacy of their homes instead of paying for something. So, locks have to be put on the content, or an acceptance that work will not be remunerated. Works not remunerated means it's not worth spending the $$ to produce it. Then you've got nothing good to listen to.
"Sharing with a few friends" is exactly what is responsible for the copyright mess we have today. Not Valenti, not artists like me. Those that share are responsible.
Hollywood, most producers, directors, artists, etc don't give a rats ass about the guy that copies a DVD to a portable device (I copy movies to stick frequently to watch on my PSP) but that's perfectly legal as an individual. As I say, the problem comes in when you're copying the work to share with others, and/or selling that movie out of the back of your truck at the flea market.

HDCP; I'd wager less than .01%, and especially not many in for example, Oz, have experienced it yet. So, why not "get you started?" if you haven't experienced it? Do you measurebate? Someone who reads what another person writes and believes it, taking a position based on what you've read vs experienced? Thank god folks don't skydive that way, with this community's extremely varying opinions, we'd have a lot of dead skydivers, now wouldn't we?

I wonder how many skydiving photographers wouldn't care if you copied their pictures and sent them to everyone you knew? The ones I know (Norman, McGowan, Jennings, Laszlo, etc) aren't gonna be too happy with you, and a couple of them make it pretty clear that they'll come after you.
Is Michael Holmes a money-grubbing asshole because he carefully covered his copyrights?
It's easy for non-creative people to get their panties in a wad over copyright issues, because they:
a-don't understand the work and expertise it takes to create a work that others WANT to steal
b-don't actually understand the laws, and absent laws, the inappropriate nature of what they do when they steal
c-don't understand that just because something is intangible doesn't mean it's valueless.
d-believe it's their right to do whatever they want with someone else' property. That's unfortunate. It's more unfortunate that the protections against theft have only been an inconvenience to those that are slightly more ethical/honest.

Kinda like the locks on my doors. If a real bastard wants to get into my home or office, he's gonna do it. If a punk teenager wants to break in and steal trophies from my shelf tries, he's likely gonna think twice when he encounters my locks or alarm system.
Anything more is either overkill or bluster.

Copyright is about licensing/permissions.
I (the artist) own the right to copy. you don't.

Just because you buy a disc that contains the essence of my work doesn't mean you own my work. you merely have permission to listen/watch my work.

Similar to "I, the homeowner, own the contents of what is in my house. You, the person I've given a key to, are welcome to come into my home. But having a key doesn't give you permission to steal my furniture and CD collection, nor screw my dog."

It's been tried to allow consumers to be honest. If it worked, copyright protections wouldn't exist on products. Just like how it's gotten harder to shoplift due to electronic tags, the general public has shown that given the chance, they'll steal.

If everyone was the same on the computer as they are in public, then porn wouldn't likely be the most trafficked commodity of the web. Nor would pirated software, nor pirated movies. It's already been demonstrated that the predominant uses of the internet outside of email, are transmission of adult content, and pirated content. It's changing with various destinations on the web, but this is one of the major points of impetus to remove the "free" from the web. Someone, somewhere, wants to be paid for all the stolen content. I'd hate to see the web no longer be free, but since society can't self-police...whaddaya gonna do?

Do you leave your rig out at the DZ? Why not? Afraid it might get stolen? Even though you likely know EVERYONE at your DZ? Duhh...no brainer, yeah? And if it *is* stolen, who do you blame but yourself?
Well...artists are tired of blaming themselves. And so they're doing something about it.
Organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, and NARAS are the voices through which artists speak.

Those that have EVER registered a copyright, raise your hands, please?

Vilify me if you want, I can take it. What is amusing is how logical points seem to turn into "fuck you." Actually, when it comes to piracy, I'm already being fucked, thank you very much.

Here is a link to a pirated CD of mine...
There are two currently on Ebay. Can't help but wonder if the buyer will know it's pirated? "We DO NOT sell Imports, Copies, DVD-R, Bootlegs, etc. Every DVD we offer is sealed, brand new, factory shrink wrapped. We sell the real deal." says the seller. It must be true, it's in writing! On the internet!

Grue, I'm really sorry your dad is maybe having a hard time as a "film maker." Bob, I'm sorry you find it inconvenient that the law exists, even though it prevents nothing. I remember driving with you to Picton; you didn't speed at all. Why not? We both know the law to be absurd. Oh yeah...the cameras on the highway. Well...there are no cameras preventing you from bending copyright laws for personal use. The law is designed on a more grand scale. Should the laws be changed to say..."If you're just one guy, with the intent of copying to your HDD, then it's OK, but if you share with a friend or upload it, you get the death penalty?"

C'mon...let's be realistic. We ALL break laws to a minor point. Why is it that breaking the law (which is actually very debatable as "breaking the law" when it's for personal-only use, read Paul Tauger's opinion on IP law and personal use) then why is it a big deal to copy media to a hard drive?

BECAUSE NO ONE IS COPYING ONLY TO THEIR OWN HARD DRIVE, THEY'RE SHARING WITH FRIENDS. Which is when it becomes a big issue, not a small one. Kinda like speeding on a freeway vs driving 55 through a school zone during recess.

So, as I may not like who Jack Valenti was, either as pres of the MPAA, or as a writer for Lyndon Johnson, or as a decorated airplane pilot in WWII, I do appreciate the fact that he stood in the front lines to protect what directors and producers asked him to protect.

[edited for spelling]

[grue 1]

I'm not going to bother with a point by point retort because I don't have the time or energy, except on a couple of points:

1. You made an assumption my dad is having a hard time as a filmmaker. I assure you, he's not.

2. You assume NOBODY is copying to their drive and not sharing with friends. You're wrong. Granted, yes, it's because I have no friends to share with, but it doesn't change the fact I'm not sharing my movie collection.

cavete terrae.

[bob.dino 1]

Quote

DCMA is in place to help thwart the punks that illegally copy media and share it with a few hundred friends.

Existing copyright laws already did just that.

Quote

They DO have the right to copy to an HDD. It just might not be as convenient as youd' like. Why should it be?

Because it can be.

Quote

Dozens of non-encrypted options were available for low monthly, per-use, or temporally-based fees.

Who? I don't recall any. Not to say they didn't exist, but I don't recall any compelling legal options from those days.

These days, eMusic is doing rather well selling MP3s. I like it, though I'd prefer if they were a little quicker getting new releases on the site.

Quote

Hollywood, most producers, directors, artists, etc don't give a rats ass about the guy that copies a DVD to a portable device (I copy movies to stick frequently to watch on my PSP) but that's perfectly legal as an individual.

No it's not. The DMCA prevents me from legally turning a DVD into an MPEG4 stream.

Quote

As I say, the problem comes in when you're copying the work to share with others, and/or selling that movie out of the back of your truck at the flea market.

Absolutely no argument on that front, but CSS/AACS and the DMCA do not address that problem. They just impede existing users and drive them towards illegal avenues for content.


This will probably be my last post on the subject, as it's 4:45pm on a Friday afternoon here and I've got a Becks in my hand. 'Twas nice to debate with you. Have a good weekend

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

DCMA is in place to help thwart the punks that illegally copy media and share it with a few hundred friends.

Existing copyright laws already did just that.

The DMCA is a disaster of a law that has far reaching implications outside the trivialities of Hollywood's hogs.

I would eviscerate the entire movie-making industry in LA if it meant we could get rid of the DMCA, it's that bad and that much more important than the business of the celluloid phonies.

Of course that is not a prerequisite for getting rid of the DMCA, and it certainly wouldn't be a consequence of it. It just emphasizes what a terrible piece of legislation it is and anyone who thinks this is just about copy-protecting DVDs has no idea what the ramifications of the law are nor any idea of just how ineffective it truly is at that objective.

The solution according to the MPAA is to go all out on even more draconian and frankly technically insane copy protection methods that are not merely about protecting casual copying but are an earnest attempt to keep the genie in the bottle even from those who might have extremely sophisticated equipment. It is doomed to failure but will cost everyone except the MPAA many billions of dollars.

It almost makes it a pleasure to watch them completely screw up the HD business as everyone else who touches it succeeds. That's mainly format related but boy, we're looking at some lean years here where it COULD have exploded by now. Serves these dinosaurs right. They're too busy trying to own the content to realize that it's worthless unless they can sell it, 100% of nothing is still zero.