MIT Student Grills Valenti on Fair Use 1162
kcsduke writes "Following a recent speech at MIT on Movies in the Digital Age (streaming audio available), MPAA front man Jack Valenti sat down for a revealing interview with The Tech, MIT's student newspaper. In this entertaining read, Keith J. Winstein grills Valenti on fair use and the right to play DVDs under GNU/Linux. My favorite part is when Winstein shows a dumbfounded Valenti a six-line DVD descrambler he's designed, to which Valenti responds with language inappropriate for the Slashdot homepage. Throughout the interview, Valenti demonstrates his ignorance and misunderstanding of fair use."
Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
The Tech: If you type that in, it'll let you watch movies.
Jack Valenti: You designed this?
The Tech: Yes.
Jack Valenti: Un-fucking-believable.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
All qrpff does is remove the (relatively simple) CSS encryption. Saying "this'll let you watch movies" was a little disingenuous of Winstein.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that it's not still a really nifty piece of code.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
No one claimed that Perl is sane.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed (Score:5, Interesting)
FYI, this is the man that wrote the law that Apple is using to persecute PlayFair to the cheers of everyone at Slashdot. So stop making fun of him.
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you mean: in time, the parts of The Constitution that conflict with the DMCA will be clarified.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Interesting)
"JV: Well, I can't believe there's not any -- there must be a reason for... Let me find out about that. You bring up an interesting question -- I don't know the answer to that... Well, you're telling me a lot of things I don't know
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Write licensed Linux DVD player
2. Sell licensed Linux DVD player
3. Profit!!!!
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the licensing part, not the writing part, that's causing the problem. It's an expensive process and you have to jump through a lot of hoops.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you know people are stupid enough to buy bottled water when they have clean tap water? I'll bet you could double your profits with those dumb people by selling the bottle with a lock on it, then licensing out the schematic for the key and suing anyone you just broke the lock off.
Some people are smart enough to realize they can just break the lock since they already bought the bottle. Other people are infinitely denser and suggest that the problem is that nobody is buying licenses to the lock and selling a key.
But, don't worry... maybe that just means you travel at the speed of light.. or something... or maybe you just don't see the inherent problem in criminalizing the activity of using something the consumer already paid for.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Weinstein then made the point that Linux users were a not-insubstantial portion of the population. This much is true. In addition, he made the point that this rather large segment of the population could not legally view DVDs on their computer without buying a separate DVD player or another operating system. I don't view this as a terribly technical problem. If I buy a DVD drive, I expect to be able to watch DVDs, just like I would have expected to be able to listen to music CDs if I bought a CD drive.
Further proof that this is neither a small nor an especially technical problem is the fact that Valenti himself has addressed it before. He has banked on the promise of DVD software soon being available for Linux, but that has yet to materialize. However, it has not and, but for the DMCA, United States copyright law would have no qualms about me finding some way to watch the content that I own. That is what's wrong.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
But Valenti has many forums in which to reveal his position, if he's really interested in doing so. Personally, I think it's wonderful that the interviewer chose to take Valenti onto unfamiliar ground, to show the Jackass how much he truly doesn't know about his job.
The legislation Valenti and the MPAA have pushed through has serious and real consequences for technology. It's not all right for them to ignore or dismiss those consequences. It's time someone called them on how much they don't know about what they're doing.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not Jack Valenti's job to make sure there are legal DVD players for Linux. It's his job to make sure that there are NOT illegal DVD players for Linux. His point is perfectly valid. It's possible today for someone to license the technology needed to make a legal DVD player for Linux, but everyone in the position to do so knows that the Linux users will just use the illegal players for free rather than pay for the legal ones.
Linux users do not have a God or country given right to watch American Wedding on their Linux box. Just like when DVDs started to get popular people had to replace their VCRs with DVD players, Linux users need to give up their technology that doesn't work correctly and use that which does.
P.S. I define "correctly" in this context as what is legal. So settle down cowboy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
And the movie companies do have a God or country given right to force us not to?
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The interviewer needed to establish... (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely, Valenti has become well versed in both the technical and non-technical details, and is choosing to play "dumb". When dealing with a small and inconsequential, but extremely vocal, group, it is a standard tactic to pretend you don't understand the issue, and promise to look into it. Getting involved in an argument on the merits of his position is not his job ... presenting that position clearly and consistently is. Unless he is actually forced to take on the merits of the pro-freely-distributable-DVD-software argument by a constituency that matters (say, Windows users or Congressmen), there isn't any point in bothering. And there currently isn't any group that has proven that they need to be countered. Like it or not, that's how the politics works.... both for you and against you.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are a couple of the best ones:
TT: I'll tell you, because I'm an engineer, I'm an engineering student, and this year I built a high-definition television, from scratch. But because of the broadcast flag, if I wanted to do that again after July 2005, that would be illegal.
JV: How many people in the United States build their own sets?
TT: Well, I'm talking about engineers.
JV: Let's say there are a thousand. But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way.
That seems to translate to "majority rules, right or wrong". Interesting thought experiment: Re-read the above after changing "engineer" to "civil rights user" or maybe "Linux-user" or herhaps "Mac user" or [flamebait]"minority ethnic or religious group member"[/flamebait]. According to Valenti's logic he would certainly give the exact same response as long as there was a correspondingly small number of people in whatever set you stick between the quotes, compared to the total number of people in the country.
And the best:
Will Linux users ever be able to view DVDs on their computers without breaking the law? "I'm sure that day is not far away," [Rich] Taylor said.
Right. Like it "wasn't far away" four years ago. These people are truly frightening. These are the kind of people who would wholeheartedly support the ideas of Thought Police and Pre-Crime style law enforcement.
And let me just make sure that all you DVD-watching Linux users truly understand the implications of what these guys are saying. THEY WANT TO PUT ALL OF YOU IN PRISON FOR WATCHING ANY ENCRYPTED DVD ON YOUR LINUX-BASED COMPUTER IF YOU DON'T DO IT WITH THE "LEGAL" SOFTWARE THAT DOESN'T EXIST. And if they could actually find you and put you in prison, they would, and they'd feel good about it. They want to put you away if you use your computer to view a DVD in a manner that they don't approve of.
It boggles the mind.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. -MINORITY RIGHTS!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's the fault of the authors of that code and *not* the language. Nothing makes me more insane than people who talk about how Perl is "write only". No, it's not. It's the people who write crappy Perl scripts and use every obfuscation feature they can to make the thing unreadable. It's perfectly possible to make readable Perl code, just take a look at POPFile [sf.net]. It's also perfectly possible to write unreadable C/C++: just look at the obfuscation contests.
John.
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
TT: I'll tell you, because I'm an engineer, I'm an engineering student, and this year I built a high-definition television, from scratch. But because of the broadcast flag, if I wanted to do that again after July 2005, that would be illegal.
JV: How many people in the United States build their own sets?
TT: Well, I'm talking about engineers.
JV: Let's say there are a thousand. But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way.
Okay. The simple clear response for Congress -- and maybe even JV can understand -- is that those thousand engineers represent the technological future progress of the USA.
And you don't want to keep them from playing in their natural turf. Sure most people don't want to build their own sets. But you let those who do, do so; that is, unless you want a dumbed-down, incompetent populace... down to the very last potential engineer.
In that case, pretty soon, the un-fucking-believable innovations are going to come from other places, that favor freedom.
Get it, Jack?
More to the point, get it, Congress?
Okay, can somebody put this in politer, more persuasive language...?
From Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germ, And Steel" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
In every instance of copyright vs technology, real innovation (innovation by individuals) is being hampered by corporations depserate to hang on to their profits. Congress should just come clean and pass a law stating that coporations in the US have a right to profits.
Worse than that, perhaps, is that Valenti gets the rights issue wrong! He talks about stealing something from someone. Copyright is just that, the right to copy. He and no one else *owns* the art (movie, picture, photo, etc). As a copyright holder you have the right to copy the presentation of the idea -- it does not mean you own the idea. Copyright is not a property right! It is a right to copy. Valenti just muddles the whole debate.
________________________________
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeh, that's a good point. Here's another -- how many people are in wheelchairs out there? It's not *that* many. In fact I don't know anyone in a wheelchair. So why should we have public policy aimed specifically at those people when there are multi-multi-millions of us who aren't crippled? It's another case, just like Skippy Valenti said, where You can't do it that way. To hell with the ADA. Those folks in wheel chairs should go buy their own damn ramps if they want to get into buildings. And tell 'em Jack sent ya!
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
So what he's saying is that it's OK to take away part of a constitutionally-guaranteed right (freedom of expression), because only a small fraction of the population actually uses it.
Un-fucking-believeable
Re:Best. Excerpt. Ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Inappropriate for the Slashdot homepage? (Score:4, Funny)
Valenti swearing (Score:5, Funny)
Don't underestimate Valenti (Score:4, Informative)
without substantial skills and experience.
And the MPAA is leagues ahead of the RIAA...
Re:Don't underestimate Valenti (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've been to the theater recently you might have seen before these short interviews before the movie with a stuntman, camera operator, or some "behind the scenes" guy explaining what he or she does in every film, and how it's their work of art. And how if you trade a movie online, or "download it with a click," you're taking that art for granted and not appreciating its beauty, which should be paid for.
First, that person should never have called all movies art. He or she obviously never saw "Ecks vs. Sever."
Second, whenever one of those trailers plays in a theater with several hundred college students inside, everyone's gut response is laughter. I think the first time I saw one of those interviews was right before Spiderman, and the whole theater was balling.
Also, as an interesting note, the original versions of those short interviews were with big-league directors and actors -- not the small guys on the set. For obvious reasons their pleas not to download movies and avoid paying for them weren't too effective on the test audience...
Also, one thing I noticed from the article:
JV: I don't want to get into the definition of morality.
So apprently, we can't get into the definition of morality, but nonetheless we're going to legislate it?
- sm
Re:Don't underestimate Valenti (Score:5, Funny)
Errrr....I think you mean bawling, as balling is usually illegal in a theater, and it's unusual to see an entire theatre doing it at once...
Re:Don't underestimate Valenti (Score:5, Insightful)
The part of this that I find the most hilarious is this "why do they pirate" question is followed by several minutes of TV commercial style SPAM.
These spots should have been nothing more than sympathetic profiles with no references to their actual intent.
Re:Don't underestimate Valenti (Score:5, Insightful)
A) The guy on screen was most likely paid up front for his work, he's not getting a percentage of the box office take, so "piracy" doesn't affect him. (unless you belive Hollywood is gonna pack up their toys and go home, *and* that nobody will step up to replace them)
2) The people being forced to sit through this shit are the ones that just *paid* to see the damn movie.
Re:Don't underestimate Valenti (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with any other sort of skill, experience or intelligence. Some otherwise rather dull and ignorant people are rather good at it.
In fact, I was just yesterday reading that observation about Idi Amin. A crude, unintelligent man, with obviously no skills at leadership, but with a certain animal cunning that allowed him to rise up through the ranks, and even remain a free, and in certain circles, even respected man, who died at an old age, in bed.
Simply having achieved some sort of lofty status says little to nothing about a man, and might simply say he's a right bastard.
KFG
Re:Don't underestimate Valenti (Score:4, Insightful)
Get him to admit that the DMCA is wrong and then you'll have a point. Until then, he's ignorant.
The man CLEARLY has no clue as to what he's talking about.
Wasted (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wasted (Score:5, Insightful)
The downside of this interview is that the kid fails to really achieve anything substantial, other than showing Valenti to be out-of-touch.
The "bypass copy protection" law is directly contradictory to copyright and fair use laws. Valenti doesn't acknowledge that, which is frustrating. I understand his point, but it doesn't make him any less wrong.
Re:Wasted (Score:5, Insightful)
One of these things is not like the other.
One of these things does not belong.
Polished, smooth, persuasive. Check.
Knows how to argue. Negative.
Valenti: "I never believe in hostile debates. That's not my style. I believe that we ought to talk objectively about it."
Because, after all, Valenti is being objective, therefore anyone who opposes him must be irrational. Why would you pay attention to someone irrational?
Valenti: "But I try to make things simple and clear as I can,"
And the simplest position is to say "Well, this guy says he's being objective, and therefore he must be right."
Valenti: "But you can do everything you're doing right now -- you'll never know there's a broadcast flag. Well, why would people object to it?"
Because everything you're doing is obviously the same as what Mr. Objective thinks "everyone" is doing. And why would anyone object to Mr. Objective?
Valenti: "But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way. "
No, he's not saying that public policy should be geared towards the 284,000,000 people instead of 100,000 movie industry employees. He's saying "fuck 100,000 engineers over instead"
Because even though a few thousand movie industry employees can somehow create value for 284,000,000 Americans... it wouldn't be objective to assume that a few thousand engineers might be able to do something similar.
You get the point. The gaps in Valenti's logic are big enough to drive a galactic supercluster through. He couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag.
But he is indeed very polished, very smooth, and can be quite persuasive to anyone who has no capacity for rational thought, but a great admiration for polishedness, smoothness, and persuasiveness: Your Congressman.
I loathe Valenti's vision of the world - but I have to give him credit. He's perfect for the job. And he's won.
Wasted? I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wasted? I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
inappropriate? (Score:4, Funny)
Valenti replies with ascii-art pr0n? Cool!
after reading the interview (Score:5, Funny)
none whatsoever.
scary.
maybe I should get into the MPAA. im pretty clueless most of the time also, i'd fit right in.
Re:after reading the interview (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at all. He just doesn't care about the consequences to engineers/tinkerers. This illustrates his attitude rather well: "Let's say there are a thousand. But there are 284 million people in this country. You can't have public policy that is aimed at 100,000 people when the other multi-multi-millions are also involved. You can't do it that way."
Of course, he's set up a false dichotomy (100,000 engineers vs. 284 million Americans, when it really should be 100,000 engineers vs. ~100 major stockholders).
I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually I agree with valentini (Score:4, Insightful)
The point here wasn't that your toaster _should_ be able to play the video, but that it shouldn't be illegal for that toaster to do so. Exactly like it isn't illegal for win98 to be run on a Mac.
Forgot some lines... (Score:5, Funny)
[Winstein shows Valenti his six-line "qrpff" DVD descrambler.]
The Tech: If you type that in, it'll let you watch movies.
Jack Valenti: You designed this?
The Tech: Yes.
Jack Valenti: Un-fucking-believable.
The Tech: And look at this thing called Freenet [sourceforge.net], it allows you to publish movies without fear of being caught.
Jack Valenti: Oh my fucking heart, stop! <dies>
Then interviewer is a dipshit (Score:5, Insightful)
But jumping on him because there's no licensed DVD player for Linux? How is that his fault?
Yes, it sucks that to play DVDs, you have to buy a license. But...so?
There are no licensed DVD players for Linux because no one wants to (or needs to, or would) pay for one. End of story.
Jesus. Someone finally gets a chance to grill Valenti and they blow it.
Re:Then interviewer is a dipshit (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the interviewer should have brought up the point that engineers make products for the REST OF US. If engineers can't do something, then than will kill innovation and restrict what the other 299 million people can do.
That's the big hole in Valenti's "make policy for the majority" argument.
As far as jumping down his throat for the lack of a Linux DVD player: Yes he's to blame for that. He set's the policy that the rest of his licensed toadies have to follow. He creates the cartel environment that prevents individual companies from acting truely independently.
There could have been a shareware DVD player by now if not for this cartel BS.
This cartel environment is also something that's "bad in principle". He's also essentially conspiring with Microsoft to help prevent small, innovative software companies from competing on a level playing field. It's one thing for device drivers to be non-existent due to lack of interest and it's another for key multimedia apps to be non-existent due to gratuitous legal entanglements.
This is all due to the fact that DVD is not a genuine open standard.
Re:Then interviewer is a dipshit (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the interview actually made Valenti look like a good guy - he had consistent, intelligent responses. The interviewer bordered on whining with his "I rented a DVD at Blockbuster, why is it illegal for me to play it with my 6-line Linux DVD program on my homebuilt HDTV?" argument, repeated ad nauseum.
Re:Then interviewer is a dipshit (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's only a licence, I've got that. I actually have a few spares. Every DVD drive I've bought was bundled with Windows DVD playing software. A few system boards too.
I'd like to see this legal proceeding;
Defendant: I had one, but it didn't run under Linux.
Judge: But you could have used that player.
Defendant: It would be unreasonable your honor.
Judge: Is that a fact?
Defendant: Using the same machine, I would have to purchase an operating system from a third party ... install it ... and use the software for DVD playing, right?
Judge: Continue.
Defendant: The licence has been paid once, why burden myself and others to go out of our way to pay it yet a second time or to go through special steps that bear an additional cost. The proscution has already recieved payment. Forcing the use of a third party product would benifit no one represented in this case. The prosecution is not under any obligation to provide software. They in fact don't provide any software at all, only the licence. They are obligated to live up to the already paid for licence, though. Does the The prosecution does not refute that the licence has been paid for in full already.
Judge: Isn't the licence tied to the software, and the software does not run under Linux?
Defendant: The software was sold as a bundle with my DVD drive. As such, it is already tied to the same hardware -- if Linux is running or some other operating system. That said, if it were purchased without hardware, it would still be one licence paid for the device in question.
Judge: It actually is not, because you aren't using the licenced software under Linux.
Defendant: If two different licenced software players for two different DVD drives were used as the manufacturer recommends...but the two players were switched on each machine...would there be a violation? They are not using the right operating system or hardware, Linux or not, yet the licence has been paid in both cases.
Judge: Yet, you can't use Linux and this licenced software.
Defendant: True, your honor, and for that we do not ask for a remedy from the prosecution. It is a technical issue; the licence has been undisputedly paid. It was tied to the hardware, so any method to make use of the paid for licence would be reasonable and have no impact on both the licensee and the licensor.
Judge: Hmmm....
Smarter than he looks (Score:5, Interesting)
People like Valenti are paid to have certain beliefs, and they have no incentive to change those beliefs just because they happen to be wrong, moreover, expect Valenti to use every rhetorical technique in the book to obfuscate the real issues.
The value of this type of debate is to point out the inconsistencies in the MPAA position, but you can argue until hell freezes over, Valenti will never (publicly) agree with our position on fair use.
Re:Smarter than he looks (Score:5, Insightful)
The secret is to ask questions that are so simple they are difficult to dodge without being obvious.
My favorite exchange (Score:4, Interesting)
JV: There's lots of machines you can play it on.
TT: None under Linux. There's no licensed player under Linux.
JV: But you're trying to set your own standards.
TT: No, you said four years ago that people under Linux should use one of these licensed players that would be available soon. They're still not available -- it's been four years.
JV: Well why aren't they available? I don't know, because I don't make Linux machines.
Let me put it in my simple terms. If you take something that doesn't belong to you, that's wrong. Number two, if you design your own machine, you can't fuss at people, because you're one of just a few. How many Linux users are there?
TT: About two million.
JV: Well, I can't believe there's not any -- there must be a reason for... Let me find out about that. You bring up an interesting question -- I don't know the answer to that... Well, you're telling me a lot of things I don't know.
Re:My favorite exchange (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My favorite exchange (Score:5, Informative)
Who needs PowerDVD Linux?
A:Currently, PowerDVD Linux is targeting those IA(Information Appliance, such as Set-top Boxes) developers as an embedded software DVD playback solution. CyberLink is also looking forward to integrating PowerDVD Linux into various Linux distributions. The time frame will be early next year.
2.Is there any trial version available for individual users?
A:Trial version is not yet available for end users right now. Please check back CyberLink web site constantly and we'll publish related news once it is available.
3.Do you have PowerDVD Linux retail version for we Linuxers?
A:Not yet. Due to the variety of different audio and video hardware devices among systems , there are still many details we have to work out. For example, device manufacturer such as NVIDIA has not released their display drivers with Overlay support for Linux yet. That is why CyberLink can not release the retail version right now. We think it is not responsible to release any product until we can ensure the functionality, general compatibility and program stability when running our software.
That was from here [lugos.si] and was also from 2000. Four years later, and we still have nada.
Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, 6 or 7 articles before this one, was there not an article about Turbolinux shipping with a licensed DVD player, and WMP licenses?
Oh, there's not a "Free as in gimme gimme i deserve it" DVD player for linux.
Lies and horseshit won't help the 'cause'.
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
This interview was from April 16, 2004
TurboLinux made the announcement yesterday and on top of that it mentions the player, but CyberLink does not have a listing for the product [gocyberlink.com]
How is anyone suppose to be able to use a product that does not exist yet?
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
This will probably be applied to books soon. I can imagine how it will work: the text will be printed as a mirror image. This probably satisfies the legal defintion of "effective encryption". The fact that the algorithm for breaking the encyption (ie. using a mirror) is public domain is irrelevant, it is still illegal. The only way to legally read such a book would be to buy a special 'licensed' mirror, which comes with all sorts of additional restrictions.
Now do you see the issue here?
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
There's langauage inappropriate for Slashdot? News for me.
6-line perl script here (Score:5, Informative)
Circular logic at its finest. (Score:5, Insightful)
Jack keeps arguing in circles. It is illegal to watch DVDs on an unlicensed player because it's illegal.
How can one seriously respect that line of thinking?
LK
Understanding and agreeing are not the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I'd imagine that next time he'll have done a little bit more research and have something of an answer for the Linux DVD player question.
Other than that, I think it's a little bit unfair to say that he doesn't understand the issues. Remember, disagreeing is not the same as not understanding.
Re:Understanding and agreeing are not the same thi (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, I researched and purchased an off-brand DVD player for my father that could play Italian (region 2) DVDs in the US. When he travels to Italy he likes to bring back some DVDs so he can watch them in his native language. Subtitles don't cut it for him. Technically speaking he is breaking the law when he watches one of these movies.
I want to hear it from Valenti's mouth whether or not this type of thing should be allowed.
Many and Few? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been a while since my civics class, but isn't our entire country founded on the idea that people have certain inalienable rights, even in the face of a majority that wishes to take away those rights?
Re:Many and Few? (Score:5, Funny)
I think the "multi-multi-millions" he's referring to are dollars, not people.
Re:Many and Few? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Ninth Amendment: "Even if we didn't mention them here, all your rights are belong to you!"
The Tenth Amendment: "If we didn't say here that they can, then the Feds can't do it."
These must be the two most ignored amendments (though lately the First, Fourth, and Fifth are coming along too).
"You're trying to set your own standard" (Score:5, Insightful)
Valenti and those sharing his views on copyright believe that we (the consumers) should only be able to view works on devices that they approve, at a time and place allowed by them, and how ever many times they want us to.
However, fair use standards CLEARLY state that consumers are allowed to view copyrighted work however they please, as long as they have paid for it. There is no law or statute that allows copyright holders to force consumers to view their work only on certain devices. The DMCA's anti-circumvention provision has this effect, but it would be a blatant anti-trust violation to allow copyright holders to tell consumers they could only view their works on certain devices.
Another notable quote from Valenti is that he is a "great persuader". We need people advocating for consumer's rights who are just as smooth and soothing to technophobe politicians and Valenti is. We need a Good Old Boy to evangelize to the Good Old Boys. Even if Valenti found qrpff "un-fucking-believable", he still left the interview with the opinion that such tools should not be legal. A dialog is most successful when each side can identify with the other on a personal level.
Well spoken. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, really, what is being said is, when you buy a DVD, you are not buying a physical product. What you are buying the right to view some content in a prescribed manner on an authorized device.
That's really the crux of the argument. We are geeks. We like to take things apart and use them in ways the original designers did not intend. That screws with ideas of the establishment.
What WE are saying is, "I got this free Cue-Cat scanner, and it belongs to me, and if I want to take the pieces apart and grind them into confetti or build a moon laser or whatever, I can do that, because it belongs to me."
What THEY are saying is, "You do not actually own that physical Cue-Cat scanner, you have a license to use that device in the manner we have declared, in the same way that you cannot use your cable TV box to get channels you haven't paid for."
Re:Well spoken. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Where are the terms?
2. Where's my signature?
3. Where's my replacement if my current media breaks or is damaged in some way?
Re:Well spoken. (Score:5, Insightful)
They advertise DVDs as "[INSERT MOVIE NAME HERE]: Buy it today!!!" or "[INSERT MOVIE NAME HERE]: Own it today!!!"
Yet, the MPAA (and the studios) claim that you're not buying it, but licensing it! Has to be a false advertising claim in there somewhere....
Somehow I think "[INSERT MOVIE NAME HERE]: License it today!!!" wouldn't sell so well...
What about spray paint? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I have a question - isn't this a bit like the label on a can of spray paint - you know the one - it's unlawful to use this product in any manner other than its intended use (I'm paraphrasing). If I buy a can of silver spray paint from Walmart and then huff it in my living room for 30 minutes, I'm breaking the law. Not because i don't own the paint in the can, but because i'm using the paint in a manner that isn't in line with its intended use.
Now, if I buy a DVD, what am i buying - the video, right (it's not like i'm buying a game, which is in fact only a license to play the game, really)? Does it say anywhere on that DVD that I can only use it in a manner prescribed by the manufacturer? I mean - there's a FBI warning about not copying it, but i'm pretty sure I have to actually watch it to see that warning. But to my knowledge, it doesn't state anywhere that I've only purchased the right to view the video on prescribed hardware under a specific license agreement.
Does it?
input please (Score:5, Insightful)
Has ANYONE heard of your rights end where mine begin?
Taking away someone else's rights is NOT your right.
It sucks that pirates use stuff to copy their overpriced pieces of round plastic... but I have the right to play a DVD in linux, build an HDTV, etc. as long as I don't steal content. They shouldn't be able to take that away from me just because its a convenient and easy way for them to fight to protect RIAA/MPAA materials.
Broadcast Flag (Score:5, Interesting)
The broadcast flag -- if you are in your home, then you can copy anything that's on over-the-air television to your heart's content. The only time that you will know there's a broadcast flag is if you try to take one of those copies and redistribute it on the Internet. Then, the flag says, 'No, you can't redistribute it.' But you can do everything you're doing right now -- you'll never know there's a broadcast flag. Well, why would people object to it?
The unspoken assumption here is that you have scrapped all of your existing hardware, and bought new hardware that has support for all of the DRM copy protection. So, the chipset will honor the flags, all the hardware will support the encryption, and the signal will never be available on the system while decrypted.
My current system does a fine job of HDTV recording and playback. So, it's not just a cpu power upgrade requirement. It's a purely manufactured requirement that I need to use their encryption, and have a computer that obeys their commands, not mine.
Also, the interviewer does not do a good job of making the point. He brings up some bullshit point about making his own HDTV, which Valenti easily skewers as being irrelevant to 99.999% of people. He should have made the much more valid point of the millions of TV tuner cards out there today will not be available in the digital TV world without people buying MPAA approved hardware.
(As an aside, WTF was the kid yalking about reqarding his HDTV? I'm pretty sure he didn't create his own CRT or other display device, and all supporting electronics.. that's very difficult from a manufacturing perspective. I would guess that he "made" a HDTV decoder system by plugging in a PCI card from pchdtv.com)
A fundamental misunderstanding. (Score:5, Insightful)
This struck me as being at the heart of Valenti's misunderstanding of the issues important to us. The whole purpose of encryption is to guard the data whether or not it is in a hostile environment. The Nazis didn't go running around screaming "you can't do that, it's not your right" when British intelligence cracked Enigma. Instead, they responded with a stronger cypher.
If your encryption can be cracked, it's not a matter of rights or privileges. It's matter of technology. Your encryption is weak and you need to make it stronger. Then you don't need social laws to prevent people from cracking it. The laws of mathematics do that for you, and do a much better job.
Of course, I cannot speculate on how that would change the dynamics of the situation. It may improve because it might eliminate their motivation to push for bad laws to prop up their weak system. Solving technological problems with technology is better than solving them with legality.
I had High Hopes for This Interview... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably Valenti tells this same story to his buddies to illustrate how difficult it is to have a dialog with fair-use advocates.
Missing a fact (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the other questions needing answered ? (Score:5, Interesting)
What about:
What is the use of the Region Codes, especially on old DVDs, (and how can the MPAA create their own copyright laws like this - totally bypassing the current laws) ?
How did the movie industry become what it is today, especially knowing it was founded by people frustrated by the control of Thomas Edison and decided to create an organization to fight that control ?
How exactly does the MPAA view copyright, is your definition include total control of anything you create, not just redistribution ? What about fair use ? Or better yet what about unregulated uses, such as me watching a DVD I bought on a toaster if I wanted to ?
A book everyone should read (Score:5, Informative)
My situation (Score:4, Interesting)
My son is in Kindergarden. His class is putting on a play based on the book 'Click Clack Moo, Cows that Type' (it's a good book - check it out if you have small kids). Last year the school did 'The very quiet cricket'.
I'm assuming that the school purchased a license or has some sort of comprehensive license to put on plays based on copywritten material.
So the question is: Can I videotape my son's perfomance?
I asked my Senator (Patrick Leahy) this, since he's a big DMCA booster (but is good in most other ways).
What do you think?
Valenti's point (Score:5, Interesting)
Too many of you are so fanatically blinded by your ambitions that you don't see some fundamental points Valenti made. If a distributor wants to release content in a restricted manner, tough shit for you; it's their content, deal. It's wrong to try and end-run someone's encryption, no matter how easy it is to do. Ease does not make it right. It's easy to pick fruit from a neighbors tree if their yard has no fence; that doesn't make the fruit yours. If you spend money on content, know what you're getting. You don't get to dictate what the rules are to content owners; you have to play by them.
Stop trying to drive this politically...you're going to lose and cry yourself dry wondering why the world doesn't work the way you want it to.
Shut the fuck up and spend your money on content that ISN'T restricted. Dry up the RIAA's money. Convince your friends and neighbors to purchase only content that doesn't put money in the coffers of those distributors whose methods you don't approve.
No licensed Linux player not entirely true... (Score:5, Informative)
The movie industry is within its rights (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't see any moral, ethical, or legal way around the fact. They own the copyright on the movies. If you want to see them, then they have every right to tell you to view them, or not view them, in whatever way they want. You may find it distasteful or discriminatory but it's not your call, it's theirs.
If you don't like the way they're telling you to do things, then god damn, please stick up for yourself and say "Alright, fine, I'm not buying any more of your shit." If you really want things to change, that's the *only* way you're going to do it. Vote With Your Wallet. End of story. That's right: No Matrix for you; No Lord of the Rings for you. You'll live. At the very least cut down on the movies you watch and go watch some live theater, go to hear an orchestra play, support the very things that the movie industry is currently destroying. The only alternative is to accept the way they want to do it. So, make a decision. Do you actually like movies more than you hate the way they're treating you?
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is what i got from it:
1) He really believes in his side of the story. It just makes sense to him, and he explains it in a way that makes sense.
2) His argument is simple: Don't copy what you don't have permission to copy.
3) The interviewer was an absolute idiot for approaching his questions from the Linux point of view. Why should Valenti or the RIAA or anyone else assure that there is fucking DVD viewer for Linux???? Why try to put the man on the spot because market forces have not created a Linux DVD player? DUUHHHH! How about asking Valenti about the "fair use" aspect where you cannot make any copies that right now fall under "fair use"?
4) Showing Valenti that anyone can easily make an "illegal" Linux DVD player only makes the man more resolute, and gives ammo to the RIAA. Can you see Valenti saying to some congressmen I know for a fact anyone, and I mean anyone can make a DVD copier! You must erode freedoms now for the sake of our economy!? He could then provide a printout of the interview with the MIT fool who made the wrong point.
Well, I'm sure we got closer to an accord with Valenti by letting him know that MIT nerds building their own HDTVs and DVD players need the freedom to do so... But of course, he's worried about the other 300 million people in the USA and the other 4 billion people in the world.
What an awful interview!
The interviewer blew it: (Score:5, Insightful)
==========
JV:
TT: I'll tell you, because I'm an engineer, I'm an engineering student, and this year I built a high-definition television, from scratch. But because of the broadcast flag, if I wanted to do that again after July 2005, that would be illegal.
JV: How many people in the United States build their own sets?
TT: Well, I'm talking about engineers.
==========
The interviewer blew it right there in his last response.
The CORRECT response should have been "Why does that matter? Do I not have the right to build stuff for myself?"
Because that's the crux of the misunderstanding. They do not believe we have the right to build anything for ourselves. We only have the right to choose which overinflated strong-arm corporate overlord we're the least pissed off at today.
What the internet is changing is not copyright infringement, but publication and distribution. We used to be consumers because we had no choice. Now we are producers becuase the option is available. That's the meat of the thing!
Anyone who's been to homestarrunner.com knows that Disney does not have to be involved for your entertainment to be hilarious, (very nearly) family-appropriate and extrodinarily well-written.
I'm so frickin' tired... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to talk about three things here: Reverse engineering provisions (getting around the DMCA)
Read the article. GIves hard time to Jack Valenti RE: Can't play movie on linux, can't reverse engineer.
Some posters here are correct in that this is about control and money. Give up the control, harder to get money. Thanks to convergence we are looking at a head-to-head fight with the MPAA. We want freedom with digital media, the MPAA wants to take the freedom away to support their artificial scarcity model. Nothing to see here, move along.
Jack has been responsible for lobbying for DMCA, etc. to limit our freedoms. Congress buys in because: copyright extension and DMCA provisions limiting digital freedom/fair use is seen as "GOOD" for an entire industry. Why? Because Jack, Hillary and Cary have convinced law makers that it is "GOOD" and it supports artists, etc.
Since the public buys into the sales pitch of DVDs (with their encryption) congress sees very little complaining or problems, and having already bought into the arguments once sees fit to ignore a few complaining (slashdot, Lessig, EFF) parties.
There are several ways to fix this, but "dialogs" or "discussions" with Jack or whoever with angry geeks are going to do NOTHING. DDOSing the RIAA website will do NOTHING. Saying things like "I only download mp3s to try out and then I buy the CD" does NOTHING. Continuing to download/upload stupidly MP3s, movies,etc. in this age of lawsuits by RIAA does NOTHING (though I agree with it, and in this case support civil disobediance in the face of bad law). Suing the RIAA to get judgements from the supreme court on constitutionality, or right to reverse-engineer does NOTHING (see Aimster, Felten vs. RIAA).
So, to move forward and DO SOMETHING:
(a) The EFF, DigitalConsumer.org, Creative Commons people... Need to get lobbying congress to get some provisions for fair use. Namely all the ones that have been taken away. What we need is 1 line in the copyright act(s) that makes okay a WIDE RANGE of fair use. No amount of whining or complaining will change an ACT of congress. Getting in the face of congressmen REPEATEDLY has a chance. They are the law makers and we have bad law here.
(b) Engineers, COMPSCI, IEEE... Should get lobbying congress to allow for reverse engineering in this digital world. We have associations and societies, why the heck aren't they doing something? Why isn't industry lobbying for fewer restrictions on hardware? It only lowers their costs.
(c) Quit complaining to JACK, MPAA, RIAA... Quit whining on slashdot, DOn't assume that if you just keep ripping, downloading from Kazaa things will get better. The language in the laws (DMCA, Copyright) MUST CHANGE. And the LAW MAKERS MUST CHANGE IT AT URGING FROM LOBBYISTS REPRESENTING US!
(d) Quit buying into the crap that the MPAA and RIAA (and companies represented) put out! Their cash flow will have to suffer far more to sufficiently weaken their fight. Start caring about supporting troublesome companies like Sony and their ilk. Its a question of knowing what you want instead of being sold on by 'marketting' and advertising gimicks.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Valenti is a good man (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, writing your own OS is no walk in the park, but that's been done, and the software is freely available (and is evidently being used by 2M people right now).
Re:Valenti is a good man (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes but designing your own OS from scratch does not give you the right to install it on Apples hardware for instance.
Sure it does. If I bought said apple, it's mine. I can smash it with a hammer, drop it in an acid bath or do any other crazy thing with it including installing my own software in it. I shouldn't expect Apple to help me do any of these things, but I do expect Apple to stay out of the way while I do them since after all the hardware is mine.
With DVD's the same happens. I bought the right to view that movie. If I want to put the DVD under a microscope write down all the bits, do the CSS math in my head, do the MPEG decoding in my head, and then create an image of each frame I can do it. There's nothing wrong about this since it's a fair use of the DVD. The same is true for viewing it in my linux PC. I'm not creating copies or doing a public broadcast I'm just viewing the freaking movie, and that is just plain legal.
Re:Valenti is a good man (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a car, with a physical presence that can destroy property and life. It doesn't need to be regulated on safety grounds.
This is information, which can be replicated and accessed to enrich life at virtually no cost.
It's not information about weapons systems or international spies, so there is also no security issue or danger to society from its spread or any inherent need to control it.
The grounds upon which this information is being regulated aren't even purely "must make profit" grounds, since buying a DVD makes a profit for the movie industry and the bulk of movies are profitable based on theatre and DVD sales alone.
It's simply about control. The MPAA does not want to lose the ability to charge you MORE, LATER, AT WILL... by imposing a fee structure for the player... for the software to look at it... for the transmission of it... or, if they decide they really need a profit bump, by rescinding any licenses to current media and players, releasing some "new" technology and forcing you to buy new media and new licenses to play/see/transmit it all over again, effectively enabling them to charge at will for content that you have already paid for innumerable times, if you want to continue to watch it.
Perhaps in some peoples' moral universes this is "right" and "fair" and the MPAA should be able to do this if they want to and if you don't like it then stop paying for it (even though you've already shelled out $20 for the VHS tape, $10 in IP/trademark license for the VHS technology to play it, $30 for the Laserdisc, $10 for the IP/trademark license for the Laserdisc technology to play it, $35 for the DVD, $10 for the IP/trademark license for the DVD player technology to play it...) and simply give up access to the content, because that's the "right" thing to do.
But I'm telling you that the general public is nowhere near that subtle. The reality of the situation is that if someone holds a VHS or a DVD in their hand and they bought it, they're gonna have no qualms about trying to find whatever they can, hardware or software, at a flea market, at a download site, whatever, to play the film that they "OWN." Trying to explain to them that they a) don't own the technology in the player that they just bought and b) they don't own the DVD that they want to play anyway, so you can't watch the DVD that you're holding under condition x or with player y... is going to be like trying to make water flow uphill.
It goes against all natural sense and logic. It's about as artificial a construct as you can find in the marketplace.
Re:No licensed DVD player for Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Linspire DVD player requires Lindspire 4.5 or higher.
I don't use Linspire. I use Linux. There is no mention of support for Linux, just endless mention of Linspire.
Before anyone says "but it'll probably work with other Linuxes as well," remember that that defeats the entire point of the argument... alicensed player for Linux... This player is clearly not for Linux (i.e. the set of operating systems collectively known as), and I don't have any evidence without buying the product that the EULA even allows me to run it on anything other than Linspire.
So I don't think this link or product particularly alters my reaction to the article, which was to applaud the student (even if he was a bit ham-handed) and to want to vomit on Valenti.