Broadcasters Want Cash For Media Shared At Home

marcellizot writes "What would you say if I told you that there are people out there that want to make sharing your media between devices over a home network illegal? According to Jim Burger, a Washington, D.C attorney who deals with piracy in the broadcasting industry, certain broadcasters want to do just that. Speaking in a recent podcast, Burger remarked that the broadcasting industry is keen to put controls on sharing media between devices even if those devices are on a home network and even if the sharing is strictly for personal use. When pressed as to why broadcasters would want to do this, Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right.'"

Re:specifics?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK it's illegal to rip a CD so the Squeezebox is definitely not kosher. Not that that stops anybody.

Re:Duh

[doit3d]

They already do. I have 5 "home shopping" type channels, 4 religious based channels, and 10 "sports" channels I am forced to pay for but never watch. Charter calls it expanded basic in my area, and it costs me $56 a month. Just so I could History and Discovery channels. On top of that, I have 8 local channels, which are OTA (free to pick up with an aerial) that I am forced to pay for and forced to have in the package. I call it rape.

Re:specifics?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

On the plus side- this issue PREVENTED a workable IP treaty between the EU and the United States, so it's not becoming law until that treaty can be rewritten.

OTOH- if this gets written into any sort of trade treaty, I will be fully justified in calling the writers of that treaty FREE TRAITORS.

Re:specifics?

[compro01]

Not to mention if you don't like the price of bottled water, your tap provides gallons for pennies.

and quite often that water comes from the tap anyway!

Re:specifics?

[trolltalk.com]

"and quite often that water comes from the tap anyway!"

Quite often? MOST of the time. Dasani and Aquafine are both just bottled municipal tap water; they usually have higher bacteria counts than the tap they came from because the water sits stagnant in the bottle.

You're better off refilling the bottle than opening a "new" one that's been on the shelf for a month.

Re:I have paid for that right.

[notasheep]

Not sure you really did... In the US you're allowed (at a minimum) to make a backup copy for archival purposes. Not sure our copyright law gives you the right to have a copy on your computer, your iPod, your computer at work, etc. Could you provide a pointer to the law that says you can have multiple copies on multiple devices?

Just curious.

Re:specifics?

[AndersOSU]

Eh, they're not just bottled tap water, they're RO treated municipal tap water. They bacterial count is sometimes higher because RO removed the chlorine in the tap water, the chlorine whose sole purpose is to inhibit bacterial growth.

The health issues presented by bacterial and municipal tap water are different. You aren't going to get sick from drinking either, but there might be a couple more incidences per million people of cancer due to the PCBs and other nasties in the tap water.

Re:specifics?

[drewzhrodague]

why does everything have to be illegal? are the artists who create the content having difficulty feeding their families on their meager earnings?

As the son of a musician, a musician myself, and in a word yes. Many artists live the 'starving artist' lifestyle because it is generally not a line of work with which you can make any money at all. The popular musicians we hear about are 1 in 5,000,000 that get very lucky with a record contract, or in attracting enough interested people to buy a record (painting, or other artwork), or in some other way 'get lucky' enough to support themselves.

The down side, is that none of these record companies have any interest in making sure the artist makes money. Even if you end-up with a record contract, you can still end-up broke like all of those other musicians we see in those VH-1 documentaries, Dick Dale, and many others.

This is why I don't buy records or albums from a record store anymore. Not only is there little of interest that I want to hear, but I know for a fact that those musicians aren't receiving much of the money I'd spend on an album anyway. I do wonder what Rob Zombie would have to say on this topic.

Remember...

[SCHecklerX]

Not so long ago, it was 'illegal' to split your analog cable inside your own house so that you could have more than 1 tv hooked up too.

Re:I have an idea.

[kebes]

Bingo. You've hit upon exactly the model that I think would work... in fact the only realistic model in a world where copying is effectively free and effortless.

The best part is that in such a model you can still have middlemen. Imagine independent companies get set up to collect these donations. Like you have a "top 20 songs consortium," a "historic drama consortium," a "sci-fi consortium," and so on. So instead of sci-fi fans going to dozens of websites and adding to the tip-jar, they just pay a lump sum to the consortium of their choice, which then distributes the money to worthy sci-fi projects (and takes a cut for themselves, obviously). If consumers find that the consortium is doing a bad job (taking too big a cut, not funding good projects), then consumers will switch to paying directly to the things they care about, or funding a different consortium.

So, basically, you will have the consortiums fighting each other for our cash. This will tend to force them to be good at picking worthy projects to fund. They may even spend money on ads and so forth, convincing us to support them. That's all fine, because unlike the monopolies that exist now, they will actually have to compete with each other (since the flow of money is voluntary... that is, anyone can circumvent the consortiums if they are doing a bad job). Another type of middleman that would develop (or remain, rather), would be producers, who gather investment money for the thing to be made (movie, album, whatever), and of course set the "release price" at a level where the investors gets some return. The free market does its optimization thing, people make money, everyone is happy.

Of course there will be a certain 'free-rider' aspect, because some people will persistently wait for others to pay for content to be released. I say: so be it. We have plenty of free-riders now, and we're surviving. Some people are never going to want to contribute, no matter how hard you try and force them. Others will always be willing to pay for the things they care about... not just so that they have access, but so that everyone does.

I am not an economist, but it seems like it would work. For those of you who don't know, the project "A Swarm of Angels [aswarmofangels.com]" is trying to do exactly this--they are trying to get 50,000 people to contribute £25 each, so as to produce a big-budget movie that will then be released under a creative commons license. Consider becoming a subscriber! (There are >1000 subscribers so far...)

Re:specifics?

[Tony Hoyle]

Dasani for a start - that's why it failed in the UK.. people found out (one of the great product disasters of the century IMO).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3566233.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:And this is news?

[init100]

I would only ever go to the piratebay.org for Linux distros (so I can help relieve the mirrors)

Many, if not most, modern Linux distros use Bittorrent as an offficial distribution method. You can simply go to their main trackers rather than going to The Pirate Bay for Linux distros.

So that argument is no longer valid.

Re:specifics?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Rich inherit wealth, poor inherit poverty.

Most millionaires are first generation in the USA.

Re:specifics?

[turly]

Mind if I quote that article [cnn.com]?

Pepsi-Cola announced Friday that the labels of its Aquafina brand bottled water will be changed to make it clear the product is tap water.

The new bottles will say, "The Aquafina in this bottle is purified water that originates from a public water source," or something similar, Pepsi-Cola North America spokeswoman Nicole Bradley told CNN.

Pepsi will change current labels on water bottles to say the water comes from a public water source.

The bottles are currently labeled: "Bottled at the source P.W.S." Americans spent about $2.17 billion on Aquafina last year, according to Beverage Digest, an independent company that tracks the global beverage industry. The U.S. bottled water business in 2006 totaled roughly $15 billion, it said.

Two. Billion. Dollars. On Tap Water.
That's Two. Billion. Dollars. in case you missed it the first time.

This whole Eau de P.W.S. saga brings to mind H.L. Mencken's quote [quotationspage.com]:

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.

Pepsi-Coka - bastards to a man, every last one of them. Definite 'B' ark material [geoffwilkins.net].

Re:specifics?

[Artifakt]

I just today helped move the furnishings of two young people who had to leave their apartment. They got a cat, and didn't want to pay the 500$ deposit to add a pet. I thought the extra deposit was actually reasonable for a damned fur covered meatloaf that occasionally tears up couches*, but the apartment management also wanted to tack on a 25$ a month additional fee. No change in floor space, and possible damages are already covered, so what's this for? They explained that the management had sent a list around a few months ago with lots of these - 10$/month for keeping a BBQ grill stored on the patio, 10$/month/bike locked in the racks out front, 25$/month extra if you had a motorcycle instead of a car and didn't use 'your' parking space (with this being in reference to on street parking provided by the city, not the apartment management), etc.
        When I heard this, I immediately thought of the RIAA/MPAA.

*just keeping the one that keeps climbing onto my desk as I type this humble :-)