What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
46 Comments
- dalittle, on 11/11/2009, -0/+29interesting this has absolutely no benefit to the taxpayer and is not a government problem. Why are taxpayers being pressed to pay for this? Conservatives should be going nuts with this spending. Hollywood and their copyright jihad is their problem and theirs alone.
- directsun, on 11/10/2009, -0/+22So much FUD
- factsahoy, on 11/11/2009, -0/+17This means that they're trying to deny you the right to even WATCH the material you paid for. These ***** are so ignorant that they think component video cables are going to lead to an explosion of piracy because they aren't encrypted.
Never mind that the analog signals are UNCOMPRESSED, and thus unwieldy to capture and bulky when they are captured.
And never mind the fact that these interconnects have been in use FOR YEARS.
It's just incredible that they're still bitching about this. If nothing else, they're actually drawing MORE attention to whatever it is they fear. If they don't have anything else to worry about, Congress should send them packing and never waste OUR time and money listening to their whining again. Because clearly there are businesses with more pressing and LEGITIMATE problems that deserve our time. - Nephlabobo, on 11/11/2009, -0/+17Too bad 60 minutes is corporate now.
- factsahoy, on 11/11/2009, -0/+17There is no real news being reported anymore. Every goddamned broadcast is paid for by another corrupt oligarchy of corporations.
A couple weeks ago, the airlines paid for a fake study and railroaded NBC and USA Today into doing a report that slammed small airports and general aviation with easily called-out lies.
Here we have media conglomerates doing the same thing about consumers' lawful use of media.
And, as we've seen, the American public is too lazy or ignorant to do anything other than lap it up.
Critical thinking died a long time ago in the United States, and that's why we find ourselves wallowing in *****. - factsahoy, on 11/11/2009, -0/+14Yeah, not a day goes by that I don't see a family hunched over a keyboard, peering into a monitor to watch "pirated" movies instead of relaxing in their living room with their big-ass TV, couch, and DVD player or cable.
These ***** are so out of touch with reality that no one, NO ONE should spend a dime delaying their well earned extinction by even one day. - Ninh, on 11/10/2009, -1/+15It will be fun watching the next generation of Hollywood execs disarming all those minefields and booby traps the current one sets up between themselves and their customers.
- sango, on 11/10/2009, -2/+16Those copyright thugs are using the law as their personal army, what the hell is this, downloading music is not a ***** crime, this is ridiculous that people are being punished for something so harmless. Unbelievable.
- pigfister, on 11/11/2009, -0/+13
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate Orwellian hardware DRM designed to take away rights not to stop piracy anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the corporate globalists from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, PRS, IFPI, ASCAP, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
====================================================================
If Sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtm ...
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/14132 - acknotSW, on 11/11/2009, -0/+9The more I see of this, the more I'm convinced that this isn't about piracy at all, it's about trying to stop a new distribution system.
The current system for movie/music distribution:
huge start up costs for the production of DVD/blueray/CD's and their actual transport to the point of sale. Corporate connections determining which DVD/blueray/CD's get to appear on most store shelves and how much space they get. This makes it almost impossible for smaller studios and labels to get any kind of nationwide distribution without partnering up with an established media giant.
What the internet offers:
a damn near free method for smaller studios and labels to distribute their content to the world.
Right now the majority of movies and music still reach consumers hands through little plastic disks, but that will eventually change and digital downloads will become the dominate distribution method. If the studios and labels can get badly worded laws passed by people who don't know what the ***** they are doing, it could drastically raise the costs to legally provide digital downloads to consumers in the future. - phoomp, on 11/11/2009, -0/+8As long as the MPAA can use tools such as 60 Minutes to spread their propaganda, the Internet will be sunk. The next time they do this, they'll probably try to connect high-speed Internet use with terrorism.
- bbqribs, on 11/11/2009, -0/+8I lost ALL respect for 60 Minutes after watching that completely ridiculous MPAA fluffer piece.
Absolutely disgusting. Shame on you, CBS. - trevwar, on 11/11/2009, -0/+8This article and McCains Internet Freedom Act show how corporate America is trying to control the internet for their own purposes. User generated content and real internet freedom scares them. Rather then using the Google Wave approach of throwing stuff out there and seeing what happens this is the only way they can see to protect their income because the guys in charge are too set in their ways to see how it can actually work for them!
Makes me mad - Iceman21, on 11/11/2009, -0/+7"Mobsters have moved into the piracy business, and it's bleeding Hollywood to the tune of billions of dollars a year"
What?
-_-
He brought a child with him to do this?" Stahl asked the private investigator who collared the man, outrage in her voice.
They make it sound like the kid witnessed someone injecting heroin, or screwing a prostitute, since when did a video camera become the devil's work??? - acknotSW, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6Yes, the ISP would need to brute force decrypt each packet as it passes, something that no computer on earth is fast enough to do at the moment. They also can't decide to just block all encrypted traffic without shutting down the way most people and businesses work on the internet. It's only a matter of time before all p2p traffic is encrypted and then the studios are right back where they started, going after individuals who's IP address they get by downloading from them.
My personal belief, after watching all this ***** for a couple of years, is that the real goal here is to prevent or at least dramatically drive up the cost of providing legitimate digital downloads to consumers in an effort to prevent content created by small studios and labels from getting worldwide distribution. The internet has the ability to really level the playing field between established media giants and the little guy. Marketing power will always be a factor, but look at how fast viral videos spread on the web, that’s a speed of marketing that all the money in the world can’t compete with. - TAGline, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6Old people. And old people vote.
- snowplow527, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6Aside from piracy, how else are people supposed to sift through the crap hollywood churns out?
- Suricou, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6Hollywood has depended for a time in part upon the opening weekend rush - the period when even the worst film will get viewers, because it takes two days for word to spread of it's crappyness.
When Hulk flopped badly on it's opening weekend (Though unfortunatly not so badly that it didn't get a sequel), the studio blamed mobile phones for the failure - claiming that viewers were texting friends immediatly after seeing the film urging they avoid it, and that the earlier estimates of opening weekend takings were based on models from before mobile phones became so widespread. - Suricou, on 11/11/2009, -1/+6I think their objection is that component video is unauthenticated: Anyone can make a device to recieve and process it. The standards are open, and the electronics simple in theory. With an encrypted connection, the only devices that can recieve it are those who have licenced the technology and thus obtained the vital keys, and this licence can specifiy exactly what devices are and are not permitted to do.
This is why, for example, all DVD players support region codes, macrovision on the output and a 'Disable skip button' flag for the antipiracy notice and studio logos. The manufacturers are obliged under the terms of the CSS licence to include these limitations.
In the case of cable TV, the corresponding technologies will be things like a 'This is an advert, disable fast-forward button' flag and a 'Pay-per-view event, display but disable recording' flag. Features that consumers don't want, but that manufacturers can be forced to support via the encryption licence. - 5thdigg, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5if it's encrypted then yes.
- autokad, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5so they are saying the matrix would have never been made today because movie pirating makes it unprofitable to film expensive moves? like say i dont know, maybe transformers? transformers 2? I seem to recall reading about how movies are bringing in more than they ever have
- rignopolis, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5Don't waste your time sifting. It's not worth it.
- factsahoy, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4WTF does this have to do with downloading music?
- tretter7, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4Question for someone more tech savvy than me: If it comes to pass that your ISP gets to watch what you do and shut you down if you download illegally, will a VPN be any kind of defense? I'm thinking back to this digg article from a while ago: http://digg.com/d35TjS
- tadsexington69, on 11/11/2009, -1/+5http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
- Frostek, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3Read a book instead. :-)
- skipvt, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3Does anyone watch 60 Minutes anymore?
- jv2k, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3Seriously. You'd think the child were watching his daddy ruff someone up for protection money or something.
- acknotSW, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3"this is the only way they can see to protect their income because the guys in charge are too set in their ways to see how it can actually work for them!"
That's the thing though, I don't think it can work for them, at least not at the same profit levels they have enjoyed for the last several decades.
If digital downloads become the dominant means of content distribution (anyone with any sense knows that's going to be the case), then the amount of content that the average consumer is going to have to choose from is going to explode exponentially. There simply won't be even close to enough time in a day for the consumer to watch everything they want to. The consumer will pick and choose very carefully what they decide to watch and that will reduce the overall value of all content as the content providers lower their prices to compete with one another. - Iceman21, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3An impending decision on a proposal to block analog streams to HDTVs may show how much clout the studios have with the new FCC
What does that mean exactly?, forgive my ignorance. - Suricou, on 11/11/2009, -2/+5Technicly, it is a crime.
I think you mean it *shouldn't* be a crime. - Iceman21, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3So they blame hulk for doing crap because it was crap and people texted each other to tell them not to see the crap film?
Lesson learned there, stop making crap films. - HonoredMule, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3No it isn't. Copyright infringement is a civil infraction, and downloading music does not even necessarily involve copyright infringement.
- HonoredMule, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3Head of nail, meet sledgehammer.
- Stimshock, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2$10 a pop ($15 for the IMAX experience) of course.
- gkiltz, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2Too late, the FCC is already useless.
- HonoredMule, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2Maybe budget cuts are what it will take to revive the lost art of entertaining educated adults.
- johnsmith3210, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2Video link? anyone?
- Yage2006, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2Meanwhile Transformers 2 has earned over 800 million the last time I checked and that was one of the most pirated movies in 2009.
- trevwar, on 11/13/2009, -0/+1Yes...but the result of that should be high quality content becomes more valuable as a means of reaching a large target audience and the development of better mechanisms to help you find the content you are interested in...such as digg!
It also allows smaller, niche, content distributers to exist which should allow advertisers to spend their budget on broadcasters who have an audience who are interested in their products. If companies look hard at the data that is available from broadcasters such as TWIT they should be able to benefit more and spend less. Number of viewers is no longer the be all and end all figure!
My problem is these companies are acting out of fear, trying to protect their existing business models rather than making use of new opportunities. Think innovation rather than protection and you will make your customers happy rather than alienate them. Put your customers first rather than growth and you will be in a more sustainable position in the long term! - palmer, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1That is indeed their objection, but these are analog HD signals that would require an HD capture board and a high-performance system to capture.
The people calling for these rules don't understand the first thing about digital media, or they're counting on our legislators not understanding it.
We need to dumb it down for the dolts. How about this:
All consumer digital media (except CDs) are compressed. Think of them as mashed-potato flakes in a box. A large amount of potatoes easily fit in a cereal box, and you can move the flakes into another box quickly and easily.
The analog signals sent to your TV are like reconstituted mashed potatoes; you've added hot water, and you now have a huge amount of fluffy potatoes that are way, way bigger than the box they came in.
GET IT, LEGISLATORS? - autokad, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1or maybe they will have to get back to writing those pesky plots
- HonoredMule, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1Breaking encryption? That is yet another act that is *not* a step in downloading music. Heck, it's not even involved in most copyright infringement of music.
Oh, and allowing criminal prosecution and declaring something a crime (as in under criminal law) are not at all the same thing. - RedShoulder, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1With the money at stake? Don't bet on it.
- Suricou, on 11/11/2009, -2/+1Civil? Not since the 1997 NET act made it a criminal matter. Even aside from that, in order to commit the infringement someone will have to break copy protection, which is a criminal offence under the DMCA.
- stunner21, on 11/11/2009, -6/+3Wait did I just read that right "there are days when I really wish Al Gore hadn't invented the Internet." Since when was Gore the sole master of the internet? Jeez these people get up my back when they're clueless about what they're fighting for.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is