Slightly off topic; Dangerous new copyright law being considered!

[john]

This isn't directly related to bad movies, but it is something that should concern everyone who values the right to be able to tape movies and TV shows.

 Congress is currently considering a bill that would require all devices like VCRs, CR burners, even computers, to have hardware copy protection built into them. If this bill passes, it's a sure bet that all the networks and cable channels would put anti-copying signals into everything they air so that nobody would be able to record their shows. The VCR would be obsolete.

 If this scares you as much as it does me, check out the following URLs and voice your opinion!

http://www.digitalconsumer.org/cbdtpa/mfax.html
http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/feature.cfm

[BadTaste_nz]

I dont believe that will ever happen,
lots of stuff like that are said, but it doesnt go through, dont worry :)

[Drezzy]

VCR stands for Video Cassette Recorder, doesn't it? Wouldn't that make them change the name of VCRs to VCVs (Video Cassette VIEWERS)?

It's bulls**t. Now I'd have to pay more money to see wrestling PPVs than I already do...

[john]

> I dont believe that will ever happen,
> lots of stuff like that are said, but it doesnt go through, dont worry :)

 I can't help worrying. The MPAA, RIAA and others are pushing hard for this bil to become law and considering some of the stupid laws of the recent past (the CDA, DMCA etc), they might just pass it. Then someone will have to take them to court to get the law repealed.

 I can see it happening, but the TV channels saying that they'll only protect the pay programming (HBO, Showtime etc) and Congress thinking "That's fair, you have to pay for it anyway.". Then after it goes into effect, the other channels waiting a couple years before they claim that their programming is too valuable to go out over the air/cable unprotected.

 If I'm not mistaken, VCRs made after a certain date, at least dual deck ones, already have some kind of protection built into them. A computer illiterate friend of mine wanted a dual deck VCR from Go Video, so I found him one on Ebay. While reading through the descriptions of the various VCRs, many of them stressed that they had been plugged in and turn on BEFORE a certain date passed because if they were plugged in after, some anti-copy circuitry became active. To illustrate the point, a couple of the listings included screen shots. Under the heading what you were NOT buying was a screenshot showing a blue screen with a mesage about the tape being copyrighted. Supposedly, this was because of the DMCA, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

 This new law would also have the ability to 'lock' software and files you download to a particular computer so that they couldn't be shared, even with a new computer if you upgrade. I can also foresee them trying to get something passed that could make DVDs like DivX discs where you could only play them a certain number of times.

 I know it sounds ridiculous, but think about some of the bonehead laws our government has passed. Making it illegal for a film to show characters who are supposed to be underage having sex. True this is aimed at adult movies and nobody's been arrested for making teen comedies, but this means that people can be jailed for making a porno using 40+ year old actresses to portray 16 year olds. They passed the CDA, the Congressional Decency Act which was supposed to clean up the internet, even though it only applied to US and everyone else was exempt. It lasted just long enough for Adult Check and all those other AVS systems to start charging people to prove they're an adult.

 It scares me how stupid our lawmakers can be and easily they can be bought. Ok, neither is new, but usually their stupidity doesn't affect me this directly.

[Drezzy]

Heh...john, that made me think of Adam Carolla last night on Dennis Miller Live.

"We can show people getting their heads smashed in with chairs, blood dripping everywhere, and you can say 's**t' and 'bastard' all you want on TV...but NO boob."

Paraphrased, of course.

[Mofo Rising]

Well, it's all based on the nebulous assumption of "ownership" of a certain property.  To really make legislation that will make the protection of copyrights in the future we'll have to from a drastic overhaul to what the idea of ownership and being able to sell these properties really means.

So far it's been sort of a kluge, based on the fact that people needed specific hardware to listen to music or watch movies with.  Sure, the companies panicked when VCRs and tape recorders first became viable, but that's alright because consumers still needed to get their hands on a copy to record it.  Unless you had a particularly wide circle of friends, somebody somewhere would still need to buy a copy.  Along comes the internet and file-sharing software.  Now anybody with a good connection can download any song or movie from a complete stranger, who may not have payed for it themselves.  Now the companies can panic, as all their old laws and kluged ideas aren't going to work anymore.

But neither is their outmoded supply system.  It is no longer the case that people have to buy (overpriced) CD's from an authorized to listen and enjoy the music.  Well, it will work for a while, but as bandwidth increases a new dynamic will form.  Adapt or die.

So a complete overhaul is due.  What will it  be?  I don't know, I lack a true understanding of the system.  I for one would still like to see the artists receive a living for the efforts.  Maybe somebody will figure out a system where more of the profits will go to the artists instead of the middle-management production company.

But I doubt it.

[john]

>Heh...john, that made me think of Adam Carolla last night on Dennis Miller Live.

 I'll have to catch a repeat of that.

>Well, it's all based on the nebulous assumption of "ownership" of a certain
>property. To really make legislation that will make the protection of copyrights in
>the future we'll have to from a drastic overhaul to what the idea of ownership and
>being able to sell these properties really means.

 Current copyright laws work fine. You can do what you want with something you've paid for as long as you don't try to pass it off as your own, use it to profit from, or use it in a way that would cause the copyright holder to lose money. It's ok to loan a copy of a movie you've boughtto someone else. It's not ok to sell copies of it at $10 a pop. You can resell a book you've bought, but not scan it in, put your name on it and distribute it as if you wrote it.

 The same would apply to files. If you pay to download a song, you can make copies for your own use, or give the file to someone else (erasing all copies from your system), but it's not ok to just upload it to an FTP site so that other people can download it for free.

 The media companies don't like people having even the few rights they have now. They'd love to be able to force people to buy multiple copies of a song to play it on more than one device. Or stop people from loaning tapes of cable shows to friends so that the only way to see them is to sign up for that channel yourself.

>understanding of the system. I for one would still like to see the artists receive a
>living for the efforts. Maybe somebody will figure out a system where more of the
>profits will go to the artists instead of the middle-management production
>company.

 I agree. In fact one of the arguments some of the posters on the second site brought up was that the current copyright period benefits the companies not the artists. Now it's something like the life of the artist plus 70 years. What good will it do the artist 70 years after they're dead? Besides, according to mulitple posters copyrights were only supposed to be used to make sure that the artist can profit from a work before it passes into the public domain, not to allow a company to retain total control over something for eternity.

 It's funny that Disney is one of the companies pushing for these new copyright laws to protect 'their' works. Look at some of their recent films, Tarzan, The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, Beauty And The beast etc. Yup, lots of 'original' works there.

 Personally, I think that since companies use copyrights to protect their profits, copyrights on commercial products should be based on how long it's been since the item was last sold. For example; if a software company hasn't marketted a game in say 5 years, then it would be free to copy. If they wanted to retain control of it, they'd have to make it commercially available again. If they decide that it's not worth the expense, then having it freely available wouldn't hurt their profits at all. The same could be done with movies, but maybe with a longer time period since movies aren't outdated as quickly as software. But if you haven't been able to buy a copy of a particular movie on video in the last 15-20 years, why shouldn't someone be allowed to offer copies for the cost of a blank tape and postage?

 Make it a requirement that people not profit from such copies, meaning they can't charge for it, just for the media and shipping, but they'd be free to make copies for anyone who wanted them. If a company wants to offer that item again, then people would have to stop distributing it, but they'd have fresh copies available. This would make the companies actually work to retain copyrights, not just hand them a never-ending right to make sure people can't legally obtain copies from anyone but them. Actually, they'd never really lose the copyright, people would just  be allowed to legally copy it.

[Brock]

I don't see how that law is going to "violate our rights".  Being able to record shows off of TV and stuff isn't necessarily a right, it's just something that we've all gotten used to since it's inclusion on basic VCR's.  It really makes a lot of sense for companies to push for this because there are a lot of people out there cheating them out of money with black market copies and whatnot.  They want to protect their profits, just as you would if someone were making you obsolete by reproducing your posts here and distributing them everywhere.  You'd no longer need to post because everyone's already read everything you have to say.

Okay, that's kind of a bad example, but I think you get the point.  The law, if its even passed, will not be the end of the world.

[AndyC]

A very good idea about permitting copying of movies that are not available for sale. Not sure how it would affect a company that wants to buy the rights to an old movie and market it. I suppose, if a new DVD started to sell, the copying would no longer be permitted. But, then you run into the problem of people being aware that an obscure movie might have been released on an obscure label. Copying could go on for a while before either the person becomes aware of the video re-release, or the company becomes aware of the copying and takes action. Then you run into the whole quagmire of whether a lawsuit (if it came to that) would hold up if the defendant was unaware of the commercial video. Very hard to allow copying AND have the company retain the rights.

Personally, I've had my share of headaches with the current copyright laws, not with regard to copying, but public exhibition. I've been trying to find a way to organize a B-movie festival in my own community. Nothing fancy, just 100 people in a bar with a video projector. Admission would a voluntary donation of canned food. This would just be for the love of the movies, and the food bank would benefit a little.

So far, I can't figure out how to make it happen, mainly because I want to do it legally. First problem is getting permission. Virtually impossible to go directly to the studio. It's just about as hard to find a company that will sell me the one-time exhibition licence (hard to find one that will return an email), then there is the problem of paying a ridiculously high fee to show a movie that can't possibly be in demand right now. This makes it necessary to start charging cash admission and printing tickets, or finding sponsorship. Also makes it harder to draw people. What's more, it seems difficult to get a movie for public exhibition without actually having film reels or tapes shipped to me. I'd just like pemission to use regular home DVDs.

To me, public exhibition should only matter where profit is involved. Churches, schools and charitable organizations should be able to exhibit home videos, as long as no admission is charged. I'd even accept a limit on the size of the venue, and some added protection for movies less than ten years old. The way it is now just seems ridiculous to me.

[John Morgan]

I see the future of ALL media taking a different direction.  I see that in order for companies to protect profits and secure their investments, they have to join the system and not fight it.  Why buy a copy of a song or download a copy from a total stranger when you can download it strait from the producers own web site.

Think of it this way:

TV/Radio/movies/whatever will all be listed on ONE "channel" on the Internet TV of the future.  As you look through the listings, you find that this week: a new episode of you favorite TV show has been added, you can also view your favorite movie as well as listen to your favorite song, and you find that a new song has been released by your favorite artist and it is available.  If you don't have time to watch TV right now, you can come back later and see that new episode any time that week because it has been uploaded to the Internet.  You can download the new song onto an MP3 player that already has a copy of your favorite song on it.  And you can choose to watch the movie now or any time you wish.  You see, the production companies will have encrypted the media with codes that track when their media is being downloaded.  In order to get this service, you will need to have a credit card.  The system will charge you card to view the movie, just like you go rent a movie.  It will charge you a few cents to download the song, view the TV show, and any thing else out there.  The neat part is, YOU WILL ONLY BE CHARGED FOR TV SHOW AND OTHER MEDIA YOU USE.  (How many of you out there watch every channel you cable TV provides? Golf, Home & Garden, CNN, FOXNEWS, ESPN, ESPN2, How many out there only watch one show on one TV network?)  Instead of being charged for TV you don't use, you will only be charged for TV you use.

Remember, the encryption codes will be so ingrained in the media that if someone tries to remove it, they will damage the media.  (The TV show will no longer play.)

Other people, who go for the big bucks and get a full size wide screen TV, will be able to view new movies in their homes.  It will be more expensive than taking the kids to the movie, but if you have 7 kids I doubt it would be over $70.00.  If someone decides to charge admission, so what?  The encryption codes will detect the size of the screen (which will also tell haw many can safetly view the picture) and determine a value.  (Size matters)  


The old systems will still be there for a while, but I see a network where ALL media is available to everyone.  Why buy a bootleg copy of a movie when the production company has it available for download on their website for less the cost of a VHS Tape or DVD?  Why have a VCR or DVD player when a website will store the old I Love Lucy show forever?  Why have CDs when the MP3 player, or something like it, will allow the costomer to downlaod songs any time.

[john]

>I don't see how that law is going to "violate our rights". Being able to record
>shows off of TV and stuff isn't necessarily a right, it's just something that we've all

 If I'm not mistaken, courts have ruled that people have a right to record shows if you can't be there to watch it 'live' or you're watching something on another channel. They've also ruled that people have a right to copy music for their own personal use, or to convert the format of something if it's necessary for you to use it. Say there's an album you want, but it's only available on CD and you still have tape players. It's completely, even a right, for you to be able to have someone copy the CD to tape for you, so you can use it.

>gotten used to since it's inclusion on basic VCR's. It really makes a lot of sense
>for companies to push for this because there are a lot of people out there
>cheating them out of money with black market copies and whatnot. They want to

 Black market copies of TV shows? Except for a few cable shows, most series aren't available on tape. Most bootlegs aren't taped off TV anyway, they're made from factory tapes. The groups that make and sell bootleg copies won't be deterred by these laws anyway. They have the resources to gte around them, either by using older equipment, or by hacking new epuipment to get around the anti-copy circuitry. The only people these anti-copying devices would stop, would be average people who want to tape a TV show, or make a backup copy of a tape. Ok, some people copy tapes for other people, but that's hardly a drop in the bucket for these companies. It won't do anything to stop the organized pirates who are the ones really costing them money.

>A very good idea about permitting copying of movies that are not available for
>sale. Not sure how it would affect a company that wants to buy the rights to an old
>movie and market it. I suppose, if a new DVD started to sell, the copying would
>no longer be permitted. But, then you run into the problem of people being aware
>that an obscure movie might have been released on an obscure label.

 True. That occurred to me too. Maybe they could set up a central site on the net where the status of all movies could be listed. People could go there to check and see if anyone has a current license for a paricular movie. Maybe it could even be icorporated into the IMDB.

>Personally, I've had my share of headaches with the current copyright laws, not
>with regard to copying, but public exhibition. I've been trying to find a way to
>organize a B-movie festival in my own community. Nothing fancy, just 100
>people in a bar with a video projector. Admission would a voluntary donation of
>canned food. This would just be for the love of the movies, and the food bank
>would benefit a little.

 Which part might cause trouble, the public exhibition or the asking for donations? How do stores get around these issues? I mean, everytime you go to the A/V department of any semi-large store, you're likely to find a current movie playing on all the TVs.

>To me, public exhibition should only matter where profit is involved. Churches,

 I agree.

 On the plus side, if you just went ahead and did it, I doubt most companies would want the bad publicity of shutting down a charity event.

>TV/Radio/movies/whatever will all be listed on ONE "channel" on the Internet

 I hope not, at least not eexclusively. See below for why.

>song has been released by your favorite artist and it is available. If you don't
>have time to watch TV right now, you can come back later and see that new
>episode any time that week because it has been uploaded to the Internet. You

 Which even with a cable modem, will take you quite while to download. Let's say you watch a lot of shows, like 17 a week. Do you have any idea how long it would take to download those shows, not to mention the HD space required to store them?

>codes that track when their media is being downloaded. In order to get this
>service, you will need to have a credit card. The system will charge you card to
>view the movie, just like you go rent a movie. It will charge you a few cents to

 Great idea, that excludes kids from watching anything unless their parents are around.

>download the song, view the TV show, and any thing else out there. The neat
>part is, YOU WILL ONLY BE CHARGED FOR TV SHOW AND OTHER MEDIA
>YOU USE. (How many of you out there watch every channel you cable TV
>provides? Golf, Home & Garden, CNN, FOXNEWS, ESPN, ESPN2, How many
>out there only watch one show on one TV network?) Instead of being charged for
>TV you don't use, you will only be charged for TV you use.

 And if you watch a lot of shows and movies, that can end up costing you a lot more than paying for cable. Not to mention that it virtually eliminates channel surfing. Who's going to spend the time & money to download a show that they only think they might want to see?

>Remember, the encryption codes will be so ingrained in the media that if
>someone tries to remove it, they will damage the media. (The TV show will no
>longer play.)

 Yes and they'll make sure to design the encryption so that it will only play a set number of times. Do you really want to have to pay twive just to watch a movie a second time? Or be charged a small fee everytime you want to watch an episode of your favorite TV show? I don't. Not to mention encrypting it so that it can't be transferred to any other system, even if you decide to upgrade, so you'll need to buy another copy, or at least another license.

>The old systems will still be there for a while, but I see a network where ALL >media is available to everyone. Why buy a bootleg copy of a movie when the
>production company has it available for download on their website for less the
>cost of a VHS Tape or DVD? Why have a VCR or DVD player when a website
>will store the old I Love Lucy show forever? Why have CDs when the MP3 player,
>or something like it, will allow the costomer to downlaod songs any time.

 Because with those devices you can make a copy of the show, movie or song to watch/use anytime you want.  With your way, the companies will make you pay everytime you want to watch something. Before you tell me I'm wrong, some sites already do this. There are adult sites which only let you view their videos streamed over the net. You can't save them and you get charged every time you want to view them. Micro$oft created their Windows Media Audio with encryption built in so that they can only be played on the computer they were downloaded to. And while nothing you can download today can be set to only play a limited number of times, don't kid yourself that companies wouldn't want this built into the new standards.

 Even if companies didn't limit their media this way, people would still need to pay $30-50 a month for broadband access to make this feasible. I keep hearing that in a couple years we'll all have cheap broadband access even faster than today's cable modems, but I won't believe it until I see it.

 Somehow, I don't think the monthly broadband fee, paying for each thing you watch, the long download times and not being able to transfer the files to anything else, will go over too well with most people.

[systemcr4sh]

Don't Worry!

If it does happen there will be mod chips and such out for it in like, 20min haha. No lie, like very soon afterwards someones gonna crack it.

-Dan

[AndyC]

In answer to your question, it's the public exhibition that is the problem. Doesn't matter if I let people watch free movies, if I show them to the public, I need a licence.

A friend and I are trying to get around that by hosting a private party at a local bar, for 20 to 30 friends and acquaintances. It's nothing close to a real festival, but it's a start.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about the copyright laws for something so small, but when I start to involve local businesses to supply food, equipment and publicity, I have to have everything above-board for them. There's also the possibility that my little festival could grow to a point where I'll need my Is dotted and Ts crossed. Better to do it from the beginning.

[John Morgan]

john

Yeah, I don't think that most people will like the idea of being charged for every show they watch.  I also don't think that most people will like the idea of long downloads too.  But remember, people who own computers DO NOT MAKE UP the majority of the population.  (This is one of the reasons why stores that were only on-line were having trouble.  They basically locked out the majority of consumers.)  

I don't see the idea of charged for every time you use some media coming into use any time soon.  I imagine that after a few lobby groups in Hollywood get going and try to protect the rights of artists and producers to there media, it may become part of the system.

I also don't think it can be that much of a charge to view the media.  If a show has sponsors, (Commercials), it will be cheaper to view, maybe just a few cents per viewing.  Laws of supply and demand may kick in to.  If everyone wants to view a show at the same time, it may cost more.  If a show is old, like I Love Lucy, it may cost less.  

But still, it all depends on faster download times.  Technology is not at the point were this can work.  (TiVo is close but not that close)  But I still see many companies who would jump at the chance to have this kind of "protection" on their property.

[Kurt]

The confusion seems to be that everyone thinks this will protect copyrights.  It won't, it monopolizes copyrights.

The law specifies that digital data will only be transferrable, not copyable.  It makes no provisions for whether that data is actually copyrighted.  It's going to block you from copying your home movies, and distributing garage band CDs just as much as it protects copyrighted work.

This basically is giving the big distribution houses sole rights to any digital publishing whatsoever.

Also, the requirement for the method of data protection is only that it be "agreed upon" by the major corporations.  As they have demonstrated in the past, they have no qualms about using patented technology, which would pretty much prevent any small startup from producing digital equipment, since they would never be able to afford the licensing fees needed to make legal equipment.

Since most of the hardware manufacturers are also content providers, and the ones that aren't will be stomped out with licensing fees, it looks like this law would create a huge monopoly of information with only non-digital mediums available to the independent producers.