FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: CaseAgainstFaith on February 16, 2012, 09:49:10 am
-
MPAA: Ripping DVDs Shouldn't Be Allowed Because It Takes Away Our Ability To Charge You Multiple Times For The Same Content
Copyright owners include with many DVD and Blu- Ray disc purchases digital copies of motion pictures that may be reproduced to mobile devices and computers pursuant to licenses. Blu-Ray disc purchasers can also take advantage of "Managed Copy" services that are scheduled to launch in the U.S. later this year. Movie distributors and technology companies are also making available services such as UltraViolet, which enables consumers to access motion pictures on a variety of devices through streaming and downloading. Many movies and television shows are also available online through services such as Comcast Xfinity, Hulu and Netflix, or websites operated by broadcasters or cable channels, which consumers can enjoy from any U.S. location with internet access. With all of these marketplace solutions to the alleged problem PK points to, it is unlikely that the presence of CSS on DVDs is going to have a substantial adverse impact on the ability of consumers to space shift in the coming three years.
Notice that almost all of these "market solutions" mean you have to pay multiple times for the same content -- and they ignore the fact that these offerings are all very limited and may not have the content on the DVDs people have. Public Knowledge has a quick summary of how these "solutions" are not solutions at all:
The MPAA had two specific suggestions. First, consumers could re-purchase access to a subscription service such as Netflix of Hulu. They did not dwell on the fact that 1) this would require you to pay again to access a movie you already own; 2) these services require a high speed internet connection in order to work; 3) There is a reasonable chance that the movie you own is not available on any of those services at any given time; and 4) MPAA member studios regularly pull videos that were once available on those services off of those same services.
The MPAA’s second suggestion was even less helpful. In their comments, they pointed to Warner Brothers’ DVD2Blu program. This program allows people to use their existing DVDs as a coupon towards the purchase of a handful of Warner Blu-Ray disks. They did not dwell on the fact that 1) this program is limited to Warner Brothers films; 2) the program is limited to 25 exchanges per household; 3) while some Blu-Ray disks include digital copies that can be moved to other devices, it is unclear how many of the disks in the DVD2Blu program include that option; 4) only 100 movies are included in the entire program; and 5) each exchange costs at least $4.95 plus shipping (which, for the record, is about as much as it would cost to buy the digital file from Amazon.).
Up is down, black is white, day is night. Controls have increased consumer options? No freaking way. Controls have limited options... but have allowed the MPAA studios to set up tollbooths and charge people multiple times for content they legally had purchased the rights to.
source - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/11540317771/mpaa-ripping-dvds-shouldnt-be-allowed-because-it-takes-away-our-ability-to-charge-you-multiple-times-same-content.shtml (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/11540317771/mpaa-ripping-dvds-shouldnt-be-allowed-because-it-takes-away-our-ability-to-charge-you-multiple-times-same-content.shtml)
And so the MPAA is showing their true colors yet again. I say F U MPAA! I see no harm in keeping a safe backup for personal use, should the disc finally wear out!
-
In other news, the US should follow China's example of internet censorship because MONEY:
If you're wondering why lawyers and Hollywood folks would get behind legislation to censor the Internet, you only need to listen to former Senator Chris Dodd, now the head of the MPAA, who last week explained to Variety that the lobby is only asking for the same kind of power to censor the Internet as the government has in the People's Republic of China:
"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mpaa-head-chris-dodd-online-censorship-bill-chinas-model_611984.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mpaa-head-chris-dodd-online-censorship-bill-chinas-model_611984.html)
Also, an excerpt from the Audio Home Recording Act:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html#1001 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap10.html#1001)
This clause was later expanded to include other copyrighted works.
-
1. I don't give a flying fuck about anything on the disc except the movie itself. I watched a few "Making Of" clips when DVDs first came out, but then the novelty wore off. Generally, if I actually purchase a DVD (I don't have a Bluray player yet), it is because I intend to watch the movie/show itself multiple times. I highly doubt that any significant portion of consumers actually watch the added content.
2. If the digital copy is included with the disc, how are you paying multiple times? The digital copy is ALREADY THERE. You don't owe a penny for it; you just have to put in the passcode and you've got a copy on your computer.
3. If I only want to watch a movie ONCE, which is the more logical option? Paying $20 to own a copy, or paying significantly less to watch it from Blockbuster or Netflix and then return it for someone else to watch?
4. The first suggestion makes no logical sense. If you already own a movie, why would you also want to watch it on Netflix? YOU OWN IT. YOU CAN WATCH THE COPY THAT YOU ALREADY OWN.
5. The second suggestion is patently stupid. Bluray players can still play DVDs, and there isn't much difference between the older digital quality and HD quality. Unless you're watching it on a HUGE screen, you won't even notice.
-
MPAA and RIAA
Taking consumer rights* because they're not satisfied with taking our money >_>
*I realize there's no explicit legal right to be able to rip DVD footage, but in this sense, I am using this word as "Currently enjoyed unspoken but not illegal ability". Just for the pedants out there.
-
I realize there's no explicit legal right to be able to rip DVD footage, but in this sense, I am using this word as "Currently enjoyed unspoken but not illegal ability". Just for the pedants out there.
see my previous post. It was expanded to include all digital media.
-
Damn it RIAA/MPAA, you assholes make it really hard for me to remain anti-piracy.
-
Damn it RIAA/MPAA, you assholes make it really hard for me to remain anti-piracy.
Same. I'm anti-piracy but pro-consumer rights, and I'm convinced that RIAA and MPAA are trolling.
Also, FUMPAA sounds like an onomatopoeia of some sick beat.
-
Washington, DC (AP) - Today, federal lawmakers, working alongside lobbyists from the RIAA, the MPAA, Sony Music Entertainment and more than a dozen other concerned parties, passed the 2,972 page Business Opportunity protection and Help for Intellectual property-holding Corporations Act, or BOHICA for short.
The law, which contains "controversial" provisions which extend copyright on creative works indefinitely and requires ISPs turn over user information on demand from copyright holders, was the brainchild of Rep.Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), who worked closely with legal representatives of the MPAA and RIAA who assisted in writing the final draft of the bill. "We believe that the lifeblood of America's position as an economic and technological leader of the free world is dependent on intellectual property rights," said Representative Smith in an interview at his office Wednesday, smiling as he lovingly caressed the briefcase filled with neat stacks of hundred dollar bills to his right on his office desk. "This truly bipartisan legislation will allow government and law enforcement to work in a synergistic, mutually-supportive fashion with copyright-holding companies to protect the labor of so many hardworking people--the attorneys, the politicians, upper-level management, stockholders, lobbyists, CEOs, and our finest corporate citizens--who together form the strong backbone of this great nation."
When asked if the new law, which among many other things makes it legal for companies to sue customers on evidence as flimsy as their ownership of a computer with an optical drive, essentially grants perpetual ownership of works yet to be created by an author to that author's present employer, makes encryption flatly illegal, paves the way towards the removal of anonymity from all online activities from US internet users, allow for indefinite imprisonment of copyright violators until all fines are paid, and would require ISPs to constantly and aggressively monitor all customers for indications of illegal activity online, had any potential for misuse, Representative Smith said, "No, I don't believe it does." Then he chuckled quietly while stroking his white cat, Mittens, as thunder pealed in the background. "In fact, I think it will work precisely as intended." The interview ended as Smith began laughing maniacally. It was impossible to reach Leahy at his office for comment, as the Senator was off on an all-expenses-paid couple's retreat at Lake Tahoe, Nevada, a gift from Sony.
"This law represents a significant breakthrough in US-Corporate relations," said former senator Chris Dodd, Chairman and CEO of the MPAA. "We've worked hard for years to improve our aquisition and utilization of our customers' hard-earned dollars and find new and better ways to protect our property from pirates and thieves, such as most of the public. Whether it's an overpriced, special-FX-heavy-yet-utterly-plotless movie from one of our studios, an insipidly empty, soulless, autotuned ballad from one of the RIAA's 'artists', a classic novel that one of our associate publishers has forever acquired the rights to, or a piece of $295.95 software that one of our customers would like to install on more than one of his household's computers without purchasing separate licenses for them all, at last, we can rest easy, knowing that our brave congresspeople will see to it that our potential profits are protected from those who would deny us every potential cent we feel we are owed. And when you're buying that same music, or those same books, movies and television shows over...and over..and over..and over again, to enjoy it anew in formats yet undreamt of, we hope you too will appreciate the hard work that went into BOHICA.
"And one day soon, you will not only thoroughly enjoy the rape," Dodd finished, his grin widening as the yellow of his reptillian eyes glinted through his human contacts. "You will come to beg us for it."
Lobbyists and attorneys representing Google, Facebook and Youtube are expected to appeal on the grounds that the hardware and software upgrades required for constant, round-the-clock monitoring of all internet users while online would require many hundreds of billions of dollars, possibly in excess of America's GDP. A similar bill which would have allowed copyright holders to require their customers to install cameras and microphones in their bedrooms, living rooms and bathrooms for periodic monitoring at their own expense, was recently vetoed by President Obama, but is expected to be re-introduced early next year.
-
-snip-
BOHICA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOHICA)?
(http://cached.brentozar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/i-see-what-you-did-there-300x237.jpg)
-
Do these assholes not realize that they're only discouraging people from paying for content by pulling shit like this? It's a two way street, MPAA -- you want us to play fair, you're going to have to do the same.
-
*Snip*
(http://whatthecrapp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/5082f7ea_Slow-Clap.gif)
-
/tinfoil hat statement/
Do you think the MPAA and RIAA do this on purpose not because of "potentially lost sales" due to piracy but the power to become more sue happy?
If you think about it, if you purchase a movie legally you the buyer is out ~$20. But if there is a easy way to show you downloaded that same movie illegally (through these kinds of new copyright laws) you could be out ~$2500+ and maybe even prison time right? So I wonder since their first go around of being sue happy didn't go their way, their next strategy would be to change the laws to make their sue happiness work more in their favor. But maybe I am wrong.
-
/tinfoil hat statement/
Do you think the MPAA and RIAA do this on purpose not because of "potentially lost sales" due to piracy but the power to become more sue happy?
If you think about it, if you purchase a movie legally you the buyer is out ~$20. But if there is a easy way to show you downloaded that same movie illegally (through these kinds of new copyright laws) you could be out ~$2500+ and maybe even prison time right? So I wonder since their first go around of being sue happy didn't go their way, their next strategy would be to change the laws to make their sue happiness work more in their favor. But maybe I am wrong.
It was definitely planned, but not just for the purposes of suing consumers--that's just a nice byproduct. What you have to realize is that the vast majority of old-school P2P programs were developed and advertised by branches of the same companies now lobbying for all these anti-piracy laws. So they created a problem that they now get to have the government fix by letting them shut down any service that can be used for copyright infringement--which are also all the services that allow non-mainstream entertainment to flourish. This would effectively let large corporations be the sole providers of any type of entertainment material, as up-and-coming artists or people who want to avoid the artistic constraints imposed by such companies would never have the money to fight against the alleged infringements.
And I really fucking wish that was nothing but conspiracy theory.
-
/tinfoil hat statement/
Do you think the MPAA and RIAA do this on purpose not because of "potentially lost sales" due to piracy but the power to become more sue happy?
If you think about it, if you purchase a movie legally you the buyer is out ~$20. But if there is a easy way to show you downloaded that same movie illegally (through these kinds of new copyright laws) you could be out ~$2500+ and maybe even prison time right? So I wonder since their first go around of being sue happy didn't go their way, their next strategy would be to change the laws to make their sue happiness work more in their favor. But maybe I am wrong.
It was definitely planned, but not just for the purposes of suing consumers--that's just a nice byproduct. What you have to realize is that the vast majority of old-school P2P programs were developed and advertised by branches of the same companies now lobbying for all these anti-piracy laws. So they created a problem that they now get to have the government fix by letting them shut down any service that can be used for copyright infringement--which are also all the services that allow non-mainstream entertainment to flourish. This would effectively let large corporations be the sole providers of any type of entertainment material, as up-and-coming artists or people who want to avoid the artistic constraints imposed by such companies would never have the money to fight against the alleged infringements.
And I really fucking wish that was nothing but conspiracy theory.
Which is entirely the point.
The industry giants have spent nearly a century essentially creating a machine that churns out an endless flood of money by aggressively monopolizing the means of production and distribution of all forms of entertainment and information. There essentially ARE no independents left--if you were an artist and you wanted to make a movie, write a book or release an album, for most of that time, you had to go through them. Period. You either played ball and paid Danegeld, or you got locked out forever.
And then the internet changed all of that. For the first time, artists could actually create and distribute their work themselves, with virtually no overhead, directly to their fans. They could even get paid for it. News could be distributed without going through one of their outlets. For the first time in decades, it was actually possible to completely cut them completely out of the loop. But they're not so old that they can't remember how they smothered their competitors and Vaudeville before them--they're actually getting the faintest whiff of their own mortality in the air, and they don't like it one bit.
Whether they actually deliberately engineered this "crisis" themselves, or they're simply exploiting an opportunity they blindly helped create is irrelevant. Their goal now s nothing less than to annex or outright destroy the internet, to make it nothing more than another one-way medium for shoveling their own content at us while making sure that we can't create our own without going through them. They spent nearly the entire twentieth century ruthlessly choking every last competitor to death and eating the ones they couldn't kill, and they understand that if they stop NOW, they're finished.
-
/tinfoil hat statement/
Do you think the MPAA and RIAA do this on purpose not because of "potentially lost sales" due to piracy but the power to become more sue happy?
If you think about it, if you purchase a movie legally you the buyer is out ~$20. But if there is a easy way to show you downloaded that same movie illegally (through these kinds of new copyright laws) you could be out ~$2500+ and maybe even prison time right? So I wonder since their first go around of being sue happy didn't go their way, their next strategy would be to change the laws to make their sue happiness work more in their favor. But maybe I am wrong.
It was definitely planned, but not just for the purposes of suing consumers--that's just a nice byproduct. What you have to realize is that the vast majority of old-school P2P programs were developed and advertised by branches of the same companies now lobbying for all these anti-piracy laws. So they created a problem that they now get to have the government fix by letting them shut down any service that can be used for copyright infringement--which are also all the services that allow non-mainstream entertainment to flourish. This would effectively let large corporations be the sole providers of any type of entertainment material, as up-and-coming artists or people who want to avoid the artistic constraints imposed by such companies would never have the money to fight against the alleged infringements.
And I really fucking wish that was nothing but conspiracy theory.
Which is entirely the point.
The industry giants have spent nearly a century essentially creating a machine that churns out an endless flood of money by aggressively monopolizing the means of production and distribution of all forms of entertainment and information. There essentially ARE no independents left--if you were an artist and you wanted to make a movie, write a book or release an album, for most of that time, you had to go through them. Period. You either played ball and paid Danegeld, or you got locked out forever.
And then the internet changed all of that. For the first time, artists could actually create and distribute their work themselves, with virtually no overhead, directly to their fans. They could even get paid for it. News could be distributed without going through one of their outlets. For the first time in decades, it was actually possible to completely cut them completely out of the loop. But they're not so old that they can't remember how they smothered their competitors and Vaudeville before them--they're actually getting the faintest whiff of their own mortality in the air, and they don't like it one bit.
Whether they actually deliberately engineered this "crisis" themselves, or they're simply exploiting an opportunity they blindly helped create is irrelevant. Their goal now s nothing less than to annex or outright destroy the internet, to make it nothing more than another one-way medium for shoveling their own content at us while making sure that we can't create our own without going through them. They spent nearly the entire twentieth century ruthlessly choking every last competitor to death and eating the ones they couldn't kill, and they understand that if they stop NOW, they're finished.
*Clap* *clap* *clap*
And I'm not even using my slow clap processor!
-
(http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2010/10/1/ccb99074-91f4-4585-a758-c9385d2dd22f.jpeg)
-
Well, the trailers in most of the movies I have seen are not unskippable. At least not when using the “next chapter” button, which you wind up having to press 20 times. They still disable the damn Menu button.
But it is really the anti-piracy PSAs that are totally unskippable and unfast-forwardable that drive me up the wall.
-
Hellooooooooooo valid point.
-
Is that a huge trollface in the background?
-
Is that a huge trollface in the background?
yep.