What is Digg?96 Comments
- Sarki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+61The real challenge is to make the public aware of this, because I think many people buy into the piracy arguments without really thinking about what's happening.
That Jack Valenti quote is awesome.There is something to be said for being so blinded with greed that they couldn't even see how the VCR was going to make them mountains of money. - andydumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33"arguments that DRM "keeps honest people honest" are frankly insulting.
That should read "keeps honest people paying"... - rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32We (digg readers) all knew it wasn't about piracy. I mean, everyone thats in the know has seen the figures of how increasing DRM has never held back piracy. And commom sense tells us that theres no way DRM is gonna hold back the people who want to get through it. The only people DRM is gonna stop are average Joe Sixpacks.
- meldroc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32That's what it's all about - destruction of the customer's rights. Why sell a movie to you once, when they can sell it to you half a dozen times?
- loup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21"Agreed, BUT if they are only out to make money why don't they put out edited versions of their movies? I'd buy a lot more DVDs if I could have it without the f word every 5 seconds or needless nude scenes. They will happily put out an uncensored version, but not a PG version (and actively stop anyone from doing it as well)."
The unedited version is generally not about putting out a version with more swearing and sex (although, looking at some movies I'm sure that's the reason sometimes.) The main reason is that the "Unedited" version wasn't able to get the rating the studio was looking for, maybe the original cut got an NC17 and the studio knows that most theaters won't show a movie with an NC17 rating so the director ends up having to cut things from his movie to get it down to an R. When they release it on DVD, generally the movie has already been well publicized and people have seen it in the theater, so the director decides he wants to get his original vision out there and releases the "Unedited" version.
Releasing an even more edited version would require the director to compromise his vision even more, and believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there that put a lot of stock in their own artistic integrity and don't want to see their movie stripped of their original vision. - gentlax13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21MPAA Problem: More legitimate customers are switching over to 'piracy'.
MPAA Answer: Make life harder on legitimate customers. - KyjL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18@ orbit:
TROLL HARDER - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@orbit1979
Fair use rights. Haven't you been paying attention? - cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@orbit: Real world examples seem to work best in these situations...
I own a whole slew of legally purchased DVD's. I also own a video iPod. I don't normally carry a television and DVD player around with me, but I will frequently have my iPod. LEGALLY speaking, I can't put videos that I have purchased for my own personal use onto a player that I bought and own and intend to use for myself.
How exactly have my rights as a consumer not been violated? It's complete crap and anyone with half a brain understands that. - Lownin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16@orbit1979
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Essentially, in the US, you are allowed certain fair use rights. These rights state that there are some things that you can do if you purchase the material, that the copyright holder has no authority over.
For instance, making a personal backup of copyrighted media that you have purchased, among other things.
Because of the DMCA, it is illegal to reverse engineer any technology designed to help protect copyrighted material, and so in effect, the only thing a content provider has to do to prevent you from exercising fair use, is add some sort of copy protection measure to the media. Even if it is easily broken, it is still illegal to exercise fair use after DRM is in place because of the DMCA. - tewas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I just refuse to buy. I rather wait for few months while my local library will get new copy and watch movie then, not paying money to MPAA. Once they make movie prices reasonable as well as LOGICAL DRM i will start buying movies, otherwise ...
- Zuggy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The problem is that most people don't care enough to change it. I was talking about DRM with my 17-year old sister and she says, "It works, I don't care as long as it works." Until I made this revelation. Using DRM, the goal of the entertainment companies is to make you pay for content once for each room you enjoy it in, again for your car, again for your portable device and again for each and every imaginable way to enjoy it.
- Shorties, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@ Meldroc: My biggest problem with that is that they charge so much each time, if it was 2 bucks a version I wouldn't mind buying an iPod version and a DVD version And an HD-DVD version ect, but charging $10+ per version just gives me no chance in supporting them.
- pcmxa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@orbit 1979
"Once again I have yet to get an explanation of what rights have been violated when I voluntarily purchase a CD or DVD. I don't recall signing any waivers of my rights from the Bill of Rights when I voluntarily purchase CD or DVD."
consumer rights are only one right protected under fair use rules. Others are Criticism, Scholarship, and Parody. There are more. With DRM I can't take a clip out of a movie to give a critical analysis of a film makers work. Nor can I transfer work to a website for all of my students to download and write a paper on. These are both specifically exempted areas of fair use and are included in fair use so my first amendment rights are not infringed. As an artist I utilize Small segments of media to make new work that critically addresses popular culture. This is a first amendment right of mine to engage in. DRM illegally (in my opinion) prevents me from doing this. Copying for the sake of parody is also falls under fair use. Many people have re-used copyrighted material to create parodies... Think of every video clip taken from broadcast TV and re-edited to make fun of the original content or to criticize it.
DRM blocks people from reusing material that it is their legal right to re-use. If implemented completely we will lose out on a ton of art (think of almost all hip-hop, electronica, artists such as Robert Heineken, all of the video parodies you have ever seen) , information, social engagement (criticism and education)
We are not just consumers but members of a society. The movie industry are also members of that society and must also play by its rules.
A nice description of fair use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use - Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"You mean like buying DVD to play in a DVD player, or in the past buying a VHS to play in a VCR, or CD to play in a CD-player? Did people bitch when they couldn't play their new DVD's in their old VCR that they paid for? Did people bitch when they couldn't play their new CDs in their cassette players they already bought? I just don't see the difference here, only the technology and ways to access entertainment have changed."
---------------------------------
No, but when you buy a digital file, you should be able to play it on ANY DIGITAL PLAYER made by ANY COMPANY, just like old school VHS, you ***** moron. - Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Clearly orbit works for the MPAA/RIAA. He must to be so ignorant.
- hobbers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"... but charging $10+ per version just gives me no chance in supporting them."
Last time I checked the $9.99 bargain movie bin, it was a crappy selection. Who wants to watch "Little Timmy and the Big Red Wagon" (I made that title up, but you get the point). Most decent movies are $20 and up. - Zuggy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@Orbit
Well orbit you make some good points. ATM the main right that is violated is fair use. Fair use states that I can make a back-up of my movies for personal use. However, since DVD's and some CD's have DRM you lose fair use since backing them up is considered illeagal under the digital millenium copyright act, but what the article is pointing towards is further loss of rights, like the right to enjoy the same content on different devices. And with the idea that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are the last of the optical media, DRM will become a bigger problem when you paying $20 4 times to watch a movie on 4 different screens in your house. - cherrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@orbit
Copyright law defined "fair use." - geoken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"I like how you left out that the player is an iPod. So your pissed because you bought DVDs that were designed to play in a DVD player do not play on your iPod, at least legally.
I still don't see what the problem is other than a personal one."
The problem is that DRM has overuled fair use. How is his problem a personal one? His scenerio fits in perfectly with what fair use clauses were designed to accomodate. - jeromeerome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Everyone always knew that whole 'sky is falling' piracy complaint was a bunch of crap. This reason makes so much more sense. The entertainment industry just wants to continue to resell the same movies and music to us consumers over and over again in slightly different formats. Then they take it a step further by imposing time limits on this media causing you to get stuck in an infinite loop of 'renting' the files from them but never truly owning them. Most consumers have wised up over the years to these tactics and its probably the number one reason they resort to piracy in order to bypass all these mindless limitations. If the industries goals are to turn as many honest paying consumers as possible into pirates they have succeeded at that. If they truly want to boost their profits and sell lots of music and movies they should kill DRM all together. Look at eMusic.com and AllofMP3. They seem to be doing quite well.
- venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Unlike the VHS pirates of yesteryear, oddly we're at the stage now where pirated versions are better than thier purchased cousin.
- Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7There's always morons who will buy it. Wishful thinking. I wish otherwise.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Could've not said it better myself. I recently bought Walk The Line at Costco fro $9.99. It was the wide screen version with a few extra bonuses. First thing that appears after inserting the DVD in my player? A PSA by the MPAA the compares auto theft with piracy. No "Thanks for buying this DVD and supporting thousands of jobs in the film industry". Instead the good old legitimate consumer gets treated like a criminal. Between this PSA, the FBI warning, the copyright warning and the feeble copy protection that can 'break' older DVD players, why would anyone want to buy DVDs these days. And the MPAA and RIAA wonder why people are getting their content through 'other' channels?
- geoken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"So your pissed because you bought DVDs that were designed to play in a DVD player do not play on your iPod, at least legally."
No he's pissed because his fair use rights were taken away. - redthumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6They'll find out what it's all about when the public stops buying altogether.
- BigCalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7IMO, the article hits the nail on the head square. This is all about trying to control (and profit from) the choices that consumers have to enjoy media. It is absolutely ABSURD that I should be charged for a CD, then have to pay more money because I want to listen to that same CD on a portable device, then have to pay even more money because I upgraded my device and now want to listen to the CD on that one. Pfft, I wouldn't be surprised if they start trying to push for drivers license numbers to be recorded with DVD player sales so they can institute a new type of lock for viewing content.
The RIAA and MPAA can have a glass of duckbutter for all I care. - catchneyez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So my question is . . . What can we do about it? Joining DefectiveByDesign does little more than get me an email every once and a while. If any one has any suggestions, please share.
- profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@LeonThePro
Chances are that such movies are centered around themes which aren't appropriate for, or aimed at, younger people to begin with. Maybe I'm missing some specific examples you had in mind, so please share.
By "share", I mean just the titles, of course. *rolls eyes at MPAA* - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Leon, you are scared of words. Get the ***** over it.
- Kbennett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6A flat out excellent piece, and one that I'm passing on to friends and family who are only passably aware of the DRM issue because it is broken down into simple terms and provides examples of past attempts at lunacy, clearly demonstrating again exactly what priority number one is for the record/movie industry. Somewhere along the line the visibility that priority seems to have been hidden a bit by the screams of 'the sky is falling' coming from the industry exexutives, so I compliment Mr. Fisher for bring back to the limelight that fact the more things change, the more they stay the same.
- Shorties, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ hobbers
I said $10 Plus, as in over 10 bucks I started at 10 because that is the iTunes price... and unfortunately after reading this article I went and bought the Italian Job (Movie) off of iTunes without really thinking... I am such a horrible customer. :( - cesclaveria, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"only the technology and ways to access entertainment have changed." BINGO!
Thats the point here, the point is that if I download a movie (in a legit way) they want to prevent me from, transferring the movie to my ipod to see it on the go, burn it to see it to see it on my TV or back it up because I want to reformat my PC. I have to pay for each device when I already "own" a capable copy of the movie. - sleepwalkers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Orbit: Except when you buy that DVD you get the rights to watch it on your laptop, your desktop PC, and your DVD player. When you buy that CD, you're allowed to play it in your car, in your home stereo, and in your boombox. With many digital downloads, you aren't able to do something like that unless you pay extra.
- ebrandsberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have a solution to this DRM debate: A law must be written that guarantees you the right to do anything with your purchased copyrighted works after the copyright terminates. This means that not only do people implementing DRM have to figure out how to restrict your rights, but they must also figure out a way to guarantee that after the copyright has expired, that you have FULL rights to the content, since it will now be in the public domain, EVEN IF they go out of business and it is the only copy of the content remaining on the planet. This gotcha will make DRM so prohibitive that it will be basically impossible to implement within the limits of the law.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Piracy concern is about Distribution Concern. Right now and in the past he who distributes controls the profit. With the decentralized nature of torrents, you lose that distribution and change multiple layers of profit capability immediately.
- Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Don't feed the troll anymore. You know who i'm talking about.
- cherrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Right, Orbit, but that's not the issue at hand. We're talking about legitimate online distribution and and the next generation of media, as Zuggy explained. Having to buy different versions in different formats for different devices is absurd. Limiting the number of devices that are allowed to play the media you've bought is insulting. Clearly, your right to view the media you've legitmately purchased is being limited to the point where you would conceivably be charged multiple times for the same product.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Excellent points.
Sadly, we the people can't spend hundreds of millions of dollars in Washington under the table to buy votes and influence. They can. And they do.
Fair use is being systematically destroyed. - hobbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Won't work because industry will argue that each time copyright expiration comes up, they will lobby to have it extended. Therefore, even though copyrights are currently finite, they should not have to build in rights for when expiration occurs, because they will see to it that that never happens.
- hobbers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Here's a current example. Ring tones. You own a CD with a certain track on it. You want to use that track as a ring tone on your phone. Can you? Nope. You have to shell out another $3 to buy that same track AGAIN, but as a ring tone so you can use it on your phone. Even though you may have already ripped that track to a digital format on your computer.
Not that I condone ring tone usage. In fact I despise it. And I leave my phone on vibrate 90% of the time. - avolant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Wouldn't you be sick of the movie by that time? Or, here's a thought, don't buy it. +1 consumer, -1 business"
your 'solution' doesnt even address the actual problem, i.e. DRM destroys fair use. your 'solution' is the equivalent of hiding your head in the sand and calling it a victory because you managed to not deal with the issue. the issue here is that we shouldnt have to buy it 10 times. if we bought the movie and have 10 ways to play it (i argue for the collective), we should be able to play it 10 ways.
while i find that the proposed 'solution' is the one taken most often by most people (myself included), the point here is that the 'solution' contributes to the very sentiment which allowed the very real problem to take such a hold int he first place.
you were called a troll because your comment was, from the perspective of someone who can think past the laws that were so benevolently set in place for them, completely irrelevent and, aside from that, kind of dumb. i dont think you were trolling, but i also dont think you have a very clear understanding what youre talking about. - coldhandshake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"and arguments that DRM "keeps honest people honest" are frankly insulting. If they're already honest, they don't need DRM." Yeah I have a HUGE problem with DRM, it is misused and abused. It should be used to protect that .pdf you just wrote for your company, not the song you want to hear on your mp3 player.
- digginestdogg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I do not like DRM and wish it were not there. But all this talk whining about draconian DRM is ridiculous. The simple fact is this: the content owners own the fruits of their labor and capital. So they should, in a free market system, have the right to decide how you use it--before you buy it. In order to maximize their revenue from you, they'd liek to restrict your option for using it for that inital pruchase and would liek to surcharge you again and again for subsequent uses. Users would like to minimize the costs of ownership for multiple uses. But the fact remains, in general, that they own it unitl we buy it, when we buy we agree to their terms, and what we buy is up to them and courts to decide.
Is it fair? What _is_ 'fair'. It's a business contract: you agree to abide by it when you buy. The courts have focused on what you 'think' you buy and came up with the concept of 'fair use'. But, liek many contracts between business and consumer, it is skewed towards the rights of the business not the consumer. But whining about it won't solve anything. Unitl consumers unite with enough force to fight back, this battle and the war will go to the content providers who have more money, time, resources, and patience. And follish consumers keep fattening their war chests by buying mroe and more of their crippled products.
The only real way to force a loosening of DRM is to boycott the products unitl the content owners compromise. Unfortunately so far, too few are willing to engage in such a boycott for any significant period of time, so instead many resort to copying. (I refuse to call it 'piracy' because that is a a poor use of the original term and involed focible commandeering of a ship and often murder and rape--none of whcih copying DRM media involves. Aonther example of the twisted hype the content providers use to create an emotional smoke screen). - kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, orbit1979 is an idiot but I don't believe he/she is a troll. An MPAA employee perhaps, but not a troll. Thing is, some diggers might read his comments, which forces me to explain how our rights are being attacked.
There is no technological barrier to format migration - transferring your purchased content onto another device - just as there's no technological barrier to protecting your purchased books from the rain by covering them in plastic. No book publisher demands that you buy another copy of a book specifically for use in rainy weather. When you rip and encode a legally purchased DVD into a format compatible with your iPod, no additional cost is accrued by the parties responsible for the creation and manufacture of the content. In fact, it's the consumer who has to expend resources in order to transfer or back up their content.
Want to back up your kids' Disney DVDs? Tough *****, the MPAA want you to buy another copy when your kids break the disc. Want to encode your DVDs for use on your MP4 player? Tough *****, the MPAA want you to purchase the same content again in a compatible format. Want to encode your DVDs for use on your PSP? Tough *****, the MPAA want you to buy the same content again but in the UMD format. They lose no money when you back up your content, as you've purchased a license to play back the DVD. The material costs are negligible and more importantly irrelevant, as all materials necessary to back up your DVDs are the responsibility of the consumer. You buy the blank discs and DVD burner, not the MPAA. So there is no material loss, only a lost opportunity to compel you to buy another license to access the same content you've already bought a license for.
The barriers here are greed, not technological. As such, the actions above should be protected by fair use legislation. Ars Technica put it perfectly - the MPAA are trying to create revenue streams where there were previously none. Their ultimate ambition is that we purchase the same content MULTIPLE TIMES for playback on different devices in different scenarios, despite there being no technological or moral impediment to utilising your one license for that content to enable playback on other devices. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2orbit1979 has been in orbit since 1979
- profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"This gotcha will make DRM so prohibitive that it will be basically impossible to implement within the limits of the law."
It kinda, sorta, *shrug*, already WAS impossible to implement within the limits of the law (i.e., existing copyright law). Turns out that the solution according to lobbyists was to change the law (i.e., the DMCA). - StevethePirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ soogy
we have a guy who works at our school named hollywood. He takes out the trash and teaches us life lessons. When seen rolling his cigarettes in the alley and questioned about it, Hollywood responded "Dis ain't no weed, baby" - fuzzmello, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3how can you support apple if you don't like drm? you can't.
- BrettFromTibet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The scary thing about iTunes model of DRM is that the music you purchase for the same price as a CD, is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS. You pay something, and you get NOTHING but the right to listen to some tunes on a single machine for a brief blip in the digital device timeline. DRM music has NO VALUE, or transferability whatsoever. I am an DJ and a CD collector. I bought some classic ambient and Goa trance CDs in the mid-1990s and I have sold them on eBay for upwards of $50 each - and that is pocket change. My uncle Ron makes a fat living off of selling rare jazz vinyl from the 60s. He regularly sells LPs for several thousand dollars a pop. Music media used to be worth something, now it is worthless. I agree that DRM has nothing to do with piracy, and everything to do with selling us back our rights. Unfortunately, most people are blissfully uninformed about the new business model that is locking in.
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is