MPAA Lobbying for Home Theater Regulations

I know this article is a joke, but it's entirely too believable, if you've been following what the RIAA and MPAA have been up to. Read and be amused. And then have a good cry. Let it all out.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

MPAA Lobbying for Home Theater Regulations

Los Angeles , CA - The MPAA is lobbying congress to push through a new bill that would make unauthorized home theaters illegal. The group feels that all theaters should be sanctioned, whether they be commercial settings or at home.

MPAA head Dan Glickman says this needs to be regulated before things start getting too far out of control, "We didn't act early enough with the online sharing of our copyrighted content. This time we're not making the same mistake. We have a right to know what's showing in a theater."

The bill would require that any hardware manufactured in the future contain technology that tells the MPAA directly of what is being shown and specific details on the audience. The data would be gathered using various motion sensors and biometric technology.

The MPAA defines a home theater as any home with a television larger than 29" with stereo sound and at least two comfortable chairs, couch, or futon. Anyone with a home theater would need to pay a $50 registration fee with the MPAA or face fines up to $500,000 per movie shown.

"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise.

The bill also stipulates that any existing home theaters be retrofitted with the technology or else the owner is responsible for directly informing the MPAA and receiving approval before each viewing.

* already looks forward to 196 people shredding the opening post apart, filling three pages about how Lemur misrepresented the author * :juggle2:


But seriously, yes, one would expect somebody to someday claim that 'just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

But seriously, yes, one would expect somebody to someday claim that 'just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too.'

---

:yes:

Or use it on that second TV in the other room. You must buy another full-price copy. Because revenues are falling and those poor, near-destitute artists are being denied the fruits of their labour. Think of the artists.

Lemur, I know you are an El Reg reader, so you will know what I mean when I refer to the Recording Industry Ass. of America. The parody is too close to the bone, methinks. :no:

You dear lemur have scared the heck out of me. I had to re read the top portion of your post a couple of times through that aritcle. It has a chilling realism about it. With the way the MPAA is going though it's only a matter of time till someone starts spouting off those comments.

Wasnt there a couple lawsuits from the MPAA or a related organization sueing a few people for having superbowl parties last year?

:eeeek:

Is that one of these protection of rights casa nostra organisations? We have these vultures here as well, 'you don't steal a wallet blablabla piracy is a crime'. Now what happened, the money that should have gone to the artists incidently went to the stock-market, and they lost 60% of it. So piracy is a crime yet speculating with other people's money isn't, weird.

Recently they wanted to have extra money for every mp3 player, I can't believe they have the nerve.

If you go to the cinema these days you get a warning that taping is illegal, and at least one 'info-mercial' about piracy being a crime.

Not as bad as rental dvd's though, I once rented a movie that had over 10 minutes of anti-piracy warnings (same text in different languages), unskippable...

While entertaining and amusing, isn't this entire thread just one giant straw man? You're attributing an argument supposedly made by the MPAA that they've never actually made?

I mean, after all, they actually want to get paid for their work and enforce the law. Bloody fascists!!! :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

While entertaining and amusing, isn't this entire thread just one giant straw man?

---

I was wondering when this argument would surface. As I said in the first sentence, the article is a joke, but a representative one.

I'm all in favor of artists and the corporations that support them getting paid. If you would like to really get into what the RIAA and MPAA have been up to, and if you think their behavior is fine and dandy, well, don't let me stop you. Suing your own customers is the best idea evar! DRM r0x0rs!

God Lemur, take a chill pill. All I said was that the MPAA didn't actually say this, and you have a coniption fit. A simple reminder that this was a parody (you say fair and representational, I'd argue it's a hatchet job) would suffice.

Let me try this a different way. At the end of the day, in this and all the other threads in which you've villified the MPAA/RIAA, aren't you essentially arguing that you should be able to take whatever IP you want, whenever you want?

I'd say he's arguing for consumer friendliness.

Pirated goods are often 'better' than non pirated ones these days (music you can play on an mp3 player or even in a car and a computer, shock ! Games that don't require digging up the disc everytime you want to play it, etc.).

I have, in sevveral threads, spoken out against piracy, but the way honest consumers get threated these days is terrible and unjustified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

At the end of the day, in this and all the other threads in which you've villified the MPAA/RIAA, aren't you essentially arguing that you should be able to take whatever IP you want, whenever you want?

---

Absolutely not. I don't believe I've made that argument, um, ever.

As per usual, the lemur has an unextrordianary (and likely boring) opinion on the subject. As I said in the chill-pill-requiring post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm all in favor of artists and the corporations that support them getting paid.

---

However, as technology moves along, business models are going to have to change, and I am beyond irritated at the MPAA and the RIAA attempting to freeze time with a combination of mass lawsuits and bad laws (DMCA, anyone?).

The way to deal with online piracy seems straightforward to this lemur -- do what's necessary to make filesharing irritating (in other words, go after any company that commercially supports IP infringement), and then (this is the important bit) hit the market with an easier, nicer, better-quality method of distribution. Something similar to the iTunes store, but there's no reason that should be the end-point of quality and convenience. Even if you don't recapture 100% of the legitimate market, you'll still have a fantastic income stream, and both the company and the artist will get paid.

And for crying out loud, don't sue your own clients en masse. That way madness lies.

The RIAA in particular is trying very hard to hold back time and technology, and I find this irritating. The way to get ahead is to advance, not to turtle indefinitely.

Does this position at least seem coherent to you?

Don, the issue at hand is not how artists need to get paid, but that the industry is trying to hold onto a business model that simply can't be sustained. It's like the manufacturers of steam engines suing everyone who buys an internal combustion engine - or even travels by petrol-fuelled buses.

This might be an enlightening read for outlining a business model that might well work and recompense people properly. There are others suggested - but a notorious unwillingness from the big players to abandon their old paradigms. This often happens, the difference now being that the MPAA and RIAA have the financial muscle and the misguided politicians to prolong their own agony by legal persecution of twelve year old girls.

Hoping t'interweb will go away as the RIAA dreams, does not a business plan make.

Guys, I understnd your arguments, and yes, Lemur, your position is a coherent one. Surprsingly I suppose, I agree with you that the current system of royalties is woefully outdated and needs to be updated. Especially given the nature of global business and the fact that the West is at the far end of the spectrum in terms of respecting artistic contribution/intellectual property.

Chinese people would tell you that they don't steal, and they actually don't agree with breaking patents. If you invent the wheel, people who use the wheel should respect you and pay royalties of some form. But they don't think the guy who comes up with the 15th iteration of spoke design should enjoy the same absolute right (I agree with them here).

The issue, to me, is not whether we have a solid, stable system that needs to be maintained. The issue is whether in the absence of a better, newer system, people should be be free to flout the law present in the old. I would argue no. You say that Napster, a corporation, is sueable. But how is that any different than individual filesharing? It's the same principle, and it's bleeding money out of the system just as quickly. It promotes the same sense of lawlessness. People who fileshare know they are breaking the law, and I contend it's not a money issue, it's the thrill of 'getting away with it' that has led to its popularity. Giving them a pass and saying "well, our current system of royalties is outdated so go ahead" is advocating lawlessness.

Yes, by all means, let's construct a system that addresses the status quo and does not give the RIAA & the MPAA the final say in all matters, including what technologies will be allowed. But let's not let any hooligan that wants to prove they're above the law confirm that belief in the mean time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Yes, by all means, let's construct a system that addresses the status quo and does not give the RIAA & the MPAA the final say in all matters, including what technologies will be allowed. But let's not let any hooligan that wants to prove they're above the law confirm that belief in the mean time.

---

I agree. Personally, I do not break the law on file-sharing and have the devil of a job stopping Lady Ghost from sharing CDs in contravention of copyright law - in spite of the fact that much of her Marcosian collection of shoes is funded by my copyright protections. She's Russian you see, and in that country there is little concept of IP rights, especially in music and software. A whole generation has grown up there and in China with no regard to the sensibilities of the MPAA.

Of course, I also haven't bought a DRM protected CD of music in years*. The pigopolists think that their CD profits are being sucked away by illegal file-sharers, but it's as likely there are many consumers like me who don't want to have illegal software installed on my computer, or to be told where and when I may listen to music I purchased legally. I don't like to be characterised as a criminal by default for liking music, so I opt of their game until they come up with a new one.

I would love to buy music and await a time and method when they finally realise they should be catering to my needs as a consumer, rather than their needs as fat cats.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*This is easier for me than most, as I consider music to have died when they put Mozart in the ground, and therefore there's a lot that interests me that's not DRMed. :grin:

How prevalent are CDs with DRM in the states? I only ask because I've never even encountered one with software which restricted my use.

Bought any of these albums? Then you, my friend, have been root-kitted. Scary stuff, those rootkits.

I'm an aging lemur, so I don't consume nearly so much music as I used to. Boycotting any and all RIAA labels is no great pain for me. When I do buy music, it's almost always from the iTunes store, because (a) the quality is adequate for car listening, and (b) I know how to strip out the DRM.

My opinion is that I bought it, I own it, and there's no reason I should have to "validate" anything to play it. Makes no ultimate difference to my experience, since all of my music resides on one PC and gets shuffled between two iPods. But it's the principle of the thing. I own those little 2-3 meg files, and if Apple ever goes insane, bankrupt or comes to dominate the world, I should still have access to those little files.

I paid for them, after all.

What on earth is the MPAA?

A primer for those who are new to the acronyms:

MPAA

RIAA

DRM

Fair use

DMCA

Sony's rootkit DRM fiasco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

People who fileshare know they are breaking the law, and I contend it's not a money issue, it's the thrill of 'getting away with it' that has led to its popularity.

---

I'm not sure that's really on the money. The problem, as I see it, is that we have a generation that has grown up thinking filesharing is normal. I blame this squarely on the record labels. I was covering the music industry when the Internets were getting started, and every single music exec I spoke with was thinking, worrying and gnawing on what the Internets would mean for them. They had years, years to sort out a new business model, and for reasons of short-sighted greed and organizational inertia, they didn't.

It's a generational thing, not a criminality thing. Even the children of music execs think it's normal to look for new music with P2P.

For the music industry, it's a bit like Iraq; they messed up the opening phases, and now they've got to deal with a new reality. It's not too late for them to re-tool, but at some point it will be. With any luck the MPAA will play a smarter game. I'm glad to see them in talks with BitTorrent, for instance. And I'm glad they haven't gone bonzo and started five million lawsuits against YouTube.

Yes, the recording industry are a bunch of scumbags. But running file-servers that distribute their copyrighted material, because they 'deserve it', is vigilantism. It's no different then burning down OJ's house. Trust me, I'd be found guilty of arson, rightfully so.

As for that whole DRM/XCP business, I hope between that, the Playstation 3 artificial shortage, and the exploding laptop batteries, Sony goes under soon. They are a coroporation without scruple and have just made it to the front of my shorts list next time I call my broker. I wonder if this is why my computer can see and identify my CD drives but frequently cannot read the disk on the drive itself on the reader, and the CD-RW/DVD-R doesn't work at all... According to that article, the cure is worse than the sickness. Is there any way to get it off without opening your PC up to remote execution?

I don't know why the MPAA is all upset. I can't believe anyone seriously downloads movies as an alternative to buying them. The video and sound quality is just not good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't know why the MPAA is all upset. I can't believe anyone seriously downloads movies as an alternative to buying them. The video and sound quality is just not good enough.

---

:laugh4:
Can you really say that in a straight face ?

Ok, I'll try to not be rude, and to keep it within the limits of legal discussion of the org: your claim is false.

edit: dammit, I didn't mean to come off like an arrogant pompous ass - I'm sorry about that. I mean, I still think your claim is incorrect, but I should have managed to say that in a less condescending, and more polite, manner.
My apologies for my knee-jerk reaction, Sasaki.:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

:laugh4:
Can you really say that in a straight face ?

Ok, I'll try to not be rude, and to keep it within the limits of legal discussion of the org: your claim is false.

---

Maybe I'm just picky.

Netflix is far nicer, and works out to about $1.50 a movie.

And that is probably the kind of business model that will become prevalent, let's hope sooner rather than later.

It's always struck me that those who risk huge fines to watch movies are true fans, whilst those who just pay a couple of hours worth of earnings are wannabes.

Dumb music industry. A whole series of adverts (in the UK anyway) which clearly make out pirates to be proper fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I wonder if this is why my computer can see and identify my CD drives but frequently cannot read the disk on the drive itself on the reader, and the CD-RW/DVD-R doesn't work at all... According to that article, the cure is worse than the sickness. Is there any way to get it off without opening your PC up to remote execution?

---

Since the rootkit only affects Windows, Microsoft has issued a Malicious Software Removal Tool that should scrub your PC of the Sony evil. There are ways to do it manually, but I would not recommend the process to anyone who is not 100% comfortable in regedit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't know why the MPAA is all upset. I can't believe anyone seriously downloads movies as an alternative to buying them. The video and sound quality is just not good enough.

---

In Europe that's pretty common. I believe in belgium more movies are downloaded a day than in the entire US.

But Europe is piracy land, especially further east I've heard.

This is the kind of thing that makes the lemur crazy. I bought a DVD, I own it. I want to watch it on my computer? I should be able to do so. I want to copy it to my video iPod to watch it on a plane? I should be able to do so.

The doctrine of fair use and the precedent set by the Home Recording Act both argue in my favor. The MPAA doesn't give a rat's posterior.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Stealing Fair Use, Selling It Back to You

November 30, 2006

"Apparently, Hollywood believes that you should have to re-purchase all your DVD movies a second time if you want to watch them on your iPod." That's what I said last week, commenting on the Paramount v. Load-N-Go lawsuit, in which Hollywood studios claimed that it is illegal to rip a DVD to put on a personal video player (PVP), even if you own the DVD.

Well, this week the other shoe dropped. According to an article in the New York Times:

Customers who buy the physical DVD of Warner Brothers’ “Superman Returns” in a Wal-Mart store will have the option of downloading a digital copy of the film to their portable devices for $1.97, personal computer for $2.97, or both for $3.97.

So you buy the DVD, and if you want a copy on your PVP or computer, you have to pay a second time. Despite the fact that you bought the DVD, and you have a DVD drive in your computer that is perfectly capable of making a personal-use copy. Imagine if the record labels offered you this "deal" for every CD you bought -- pay us a few dollars extra, and you can have a copy for your iPod. And a few more dollars, if you want a copy on your computer, too! As LA Times reporter Jon Healey puts it in his blog: "So from the perspective of the studios and federal officials, consumers have to pay for the privilege of doing the sorts of things with DVDs that they're accustomed to doing with CDs (and LPs and cassettes)."

This latest bitter fruit from Hollywood is brought to you by the DMCA, which treats "protected" content (like the encrypted video on DVDs), differently from "unprotected" content (like every audio and video media format introduced before 1996). Thanks to the DMCA, Hollywood believes fair use personal-use copies simply do not exist when it comes to DVDs.

Given that the Copyright Office has refused [PDF, see p. 71-72] to recognize any DMCA exemption for space-shifting, claiming that putting a DVD you own on your iPod "is either infringing, or, even if it were noninfringing, would be merely a convenience," (excuse me, Copyright Office, that's a decision for a court to make) the ball is now in Congress' court. Let's hope Congressman Rick Boucher is listening and will reintroduce his DMCA reform bill first thing next year.

Here's more stuff to get revolted about: let's spell hypocrisy together:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20061204/003837.shtml
RIAA's boss's kids have been downloading unauthorized content... are they gonna be sued ? :laugh4:
After all, the RIAA has been suing parents, considering them liable for their kids' ventures...

Disgusting. And guess what, absolutely nothing will happen, and nothing will change... Of course, justice for all...well, ok, some. Others are above justice.

Amusing/horrifying update: The RIAA is suing to have artists royalties lowered. Because, you know, there's new technology and stuff. So they should be allowed to pay even less money to the people who make the music.

Funny, those "new technology" thoughts never come up when they're busy suing their own dang customers. Unbelievable.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

RIAA Petitions Judges to Lower Artist Royalties

Aggressively litigious group has claimed to protect musicians in the past. Now believes musicians deserve less for "innovative" music distribution.

December 7, 2006 - The RIAA rose to public prominence around the year 2000 when the growth of internet file sharing and music piracy was blamed for rapidly declining album sales at the time. The RIAA's subsequent highly publicized and aggressive litigious action against those the group identified as distributors of copyrighted music, which has famously included grandmothers, single mothers in economic hardship, and children, won the organization little sympathy from the general public. While protecting copyrights is a fully legitimate concern, many believe the piracy that blossomed in first blush of the Napster and KaZaa was primarily due to the fact that there were no viable legal means to acquire music in mp3 format via the internet. That changed when Apple launched the iTunes Music Store, the subsequent massive success of which would seem to illustrate consumers' willingness to pay for music files on the internet if they are conveniently available.

In publicly defending its strong arm tactics and stated desire to scare consumers into absolute compliance, the RIAA has long cited the negative repercussions of piracy and lost revenue upon the recording artists that pour their talent into making the music that people like to hear. It's a sympathetic defense, yet in the past week the RIAA has made it quite clear whose profits the group is truly out to defend, and it's certainly not the artists who actually make the music.

On December 1 The Hollywood Reporter revealed that the RIAA is currently petitioning the panel of federal government Copyright Royalty Judges to lower the rates paid to publishers and songwriters for use of lyrics and melodies in applications like cell phone ring tones and other digital recordings. The last time the American government set the rate was in 1981, but since that time, the RIAA argues in its petition, a lot has changed.

"While record companies and music publishers were able to agree on royalty rates during that 25-year period, the assumptions on which those decisions were based have changed beyond recognition," the RIAA brief reads.

There's no doubt about that, but it's obnoxious to see the RIAA finally acknowledge that fact only when it serves to aid their cause rather than that of consumers who rejected CD-based distribution years before the music industry got onboard the digital distribution train. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry (Highly debatable. Sales went down, but a direct relationship to piracy is not proven. -ed.) profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other "innovative services" grew dramatically. Record industry executives believe this to be cause to advocate reducing the royalties paid to the artists who wrote the original music.

As quoted by The Hollywood Reporter,"Mechanical royalties currently are out of whack with historical and international rates," RIAA executive VP and General Counsel Steven Marks said. "We hope the judges will restore the proper balance by reducing the rate and moving to a more flexible percentage rate structure so that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings that drive revenues for music publishers."

The language of this statement reveals a great deal about who the RIAA is looking out for, and it's not artists. Couched in terms of apparent necessity, the RIAA's is insisting that the real musicians be paid less so that the record companies can continue to "drive revenues." If piracy really is devastating the recording industry and cell phone ringtones are one of the remaining highly profitable distributed mediums, should the RIAA really be trying to ensure that musicians be paid less for them while they're already hurting from lost revenue on album sales? At best the RIAA is kicking artists when they're down via this action, and at worst has fully revealed that despite repeated claims that artists need to be protected from piracy, the organization is very much the tool of the major labels and publishers who have famously never really cared about the artists in the first place.

Tactics like this raise serious concerns for the future of interoperable DRMs and any trend towards more rapid acceptance of new technology and the demands it imposes upon the music distribution industry. If the RIAA is nothing but a litigious arm of the stodgy business men in the music industry who can't see past a perceived necessity of protecting established revenue streams rather than pursuing innovation and listening consumers' demands, it seems doubtful that the litany of complications currently facing consumers who demand flexibility in managing their legally acquired digital content will be resolved anytime soon.

In other words having gnawed the consumers hand to a bloody mess they now turn on the other hand that feeds them, the artists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Amusing/horrifying update: The RIAA is suing to have artists royalties lowered. Because, you know, there's new technology and stuff. So they should be allowed to pay even less money to the people who make the music.

Funny, those "new technology" thoughts never come up when they're busy suing their own dang customers. Unbelievable.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

RIAA Petitions Judges to Lower Artist Royalties

Aggressively litigious group has claimed to protect musicians in the past. Now believes musicians deserve less for "innovative" music distribution.

December 7, 2006 - The RIAA rose to public prominence around the year 2000 when the growth of internet file sharing and music piracy was blamed for rapidly declining album sales at the time. The RIAA's subsequent highly publicized and aggressive litigious action against those the group identified as distributors of copyrighted music, which has famously included grandmothers, single mothers in economic hardship, and children, won the organization little sympathy from the general public. While protecting copyrights is a fully legitimate concern, many believe the piracy that blossomed in first blush of the Napster and KaZaa was primarily due to the fact that there were no viable legal means to acquire music in mp3 format via the internet. That changed when Apple launched the iTunes Music Store, the subsequent massive success of which would seem to illustrate consumers' willingness to pay for music files on the internet if they are conveniently available.

In publicly defending its strong arm tactics and stated desire to scare consumers into absolute compliance, the RIAA has long cited the negative repercussions of piracy and lost revenue upon the recording artists that pour their talent into making the music that people like to hear. It's a sympathetic defense, yet in the past week the RIAA has made it quite clear whose profits the group is truly out to defend, and it's certainly not the artists who actually make the music.

On December 1 The Hollywood Reporter revealed that the RIAA is currently petitioning the panel of federal government Copyright Royalty Judges to lower the rates paid to publishers and songwriters for use of lyrics and melodies in applications like cell phone ring tones and other digital recordings. The last time the American government set the rate was in 1981, but since that time, the RIAA argues in its petition, a lot has changed.

"While record companies and music publishers were able to agree on royalty rates during that 25-year period, the assumptions on which those decisions were based have changed beyond recognition," the RIAA brief reads.

There's no doubt about that, but it's obnoxious to see the RIAA finally acknowledge that fact only when it serves to aid their cause rather than that of consumers who rejected CD-based distribution years before the music industry got onboard the digital distribution train. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry (Highly debatable. Sales went down, but a direct relationship to piracy is not proven. -ed.) profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other "innovative services" grew dramatically. Record industry executives believe this to be cause to advocate reducing the royalties paid to the artists who wrote the original music.

As quoted by The Hollywood Reporter,"Mechanical royalties currently are out of whack with historical and international rates," RIAA executive VP and General Counsel Steven Marks said. "We hope the judges will restore the proper balance by reducing the rate and moving to a more flexible percentage rate structure so that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings that drive revenues for music publishers."

The language of this statement reveals a great deal about who the RIAA is looking out for, and it's not artists. Couched in terms of apparent necessity, the RIAA's is insisting that the real musicians be paid less so that the record companies can continue to "drive revenues." If piracy really is devastating the recording industry and cell phone ringtones are one of the remaining highly profitable distributed mediums, should the RIAA really be trying to ensure that musicians be paid less for them while they're already hurting from lost revenue on album sales? At best the RIAA is kicking artists when they're down via this action, and at worst has fully revealed that despite repeated claims that artists need to be protected from piracy, the organization is very much the tool of the major labels and publishers who have famously never really cared about the artists in the first place.

Tactics like this raise serious concerns for the future of interoperable DRMs and any trend towards more rapid acceptance of new technology and the demands it imposes upon the music distribution industry. If the RIAA is nothing but a litigious arm of the stodgy business men in the music industry who can't see past a perceived necessity of protecting established revenue streams rather than pursuing innovation and listening consumers' demands, it seems doubtful that the litany of complications currently facing consumers who demand flexibility in managing their legally acquired digital content will be resolved anytime soon.

---

Why do you hate freedom money grubbing corporate executives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Why do you hate freedom money grubbing corporate executives?

---

You know, the sad thing is that if they were greedy and doing something interesting, I wouldn't have a problem with them. It's more the fact that they're trying to freeze technology and art in time, while simultaneously screw their audience and artists that really gets to me.

Of course, it only makes sense: this is THE major argument they waved around as a reason for all the suing they've been doing: "Pirates are taking money off artists !! Poor artists are being ripped off by pirates!".
So now, it's only natural that THEY do the same thing to the artists...:dizzy2:

Apparently, there really are no limits to their hypocrisy and lack of ethics.

https://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4967/mp3lr4.jpg

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...tutional_r.jpg

The RIAA says no to tab websites. Fine, your song is your song. But how do you copyright a scale?

Hmmm, maybe people should also pay money every time they watch a DVD they bought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Hmmm, maybe people should also pay money every time they watch a DVD they bought?

---

Whadayouthinkpayperviewisallabout ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Hmmm, maybe people should also pay money every time they watch a DVD they bought?

---

please.....don´t give them any ideas!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Hmmm, maybe people should also pay money every time they watch a DVD they bought?

---

I think Disney already tried this. They wanted DVD players hooked up to the phone lines to download encryption keys and charge per viewing. Knowing how kids like to watch cartoon movies over and over (and over, and over...), they were definitely thinking about the potential dollar signs. Good thing they got shot down, but it doesn't mean they won't try again.

If I recall correctly, that's more or less how Divx was conceived originally, before it became the compressed video codec of choice. There was some sort of business where you'd be able to watch a disc a certain number of times before it locked up. I wonder why that never took off ...

This is a snippet from an interview with a former MPAA head:

Quote:

---

What would you say to a mom who wants to make a backup of her kids’ DVD movies?

When you go to your department store and you buy 10 Cognac glasses and two weeks later you break two of them, the store doesn’t give you two backup copies. Where did this backup copy thing come from? A digital thing lasts forever.

---

Here's a comment from a reader at the bottom of the page:

Quote:

---

I suppose, however, that if he were president of the KWAA (Kitchen Ware Association of America) that he'd be proposing schemes like charging me each time I pour milk into my glasses.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You can read the whole interview here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If I recall correctly, that's more or less how Divx was conceived originally, before it became the compressed video codec of choice. There was some sort of business where you'd be able to watch a disc a certain number of times before it locked up. I wonder why that never took off ...

---

Isn't this where PA's 'The Div' comes from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

Isn't this where PA's 'The Div' comes from?

---

Yuppers. One of the PA guys worked at Circuit City or an equivalent box store, and he was very pumped for the introduction of Divx, which of course turned out to be a technological dead end. So The Div is portrayed as a sleazy, lecherous appliance who hangs out with other deadbeat formats.

Appropriate.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v.../20000820h.jpg