Broadcasters Want Cash For Media Shared At Home 426
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.'"
specifics? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read the referenced article, I fear listening to the 16 minute audio as I'm not entirely sure I have DRM clearance to do so, and do not want to be sued or accused of piracy.
That said, I'd be interested in more specifics on this. Does this mean potentially my Squeezebox from which I listen to my music stored on the mp3 server may no longer be a legal "share". Does that potentially mean mp3's on my samba share are no longer fair game on my XP box via WinAmp?
About a year or two ago I'd have accused people making these claims (that they're trying to do this) as ludicrously insane and paranoid. Today, I'm not so sure. I guess the most heartening thing to consider is these guys eventually cross that threshold where the consumer resentment goes from smoulder to explosion, and maybe the backlash settles it once and for all.
But then again, maybe not. I know people who pay more for bottled water price-per-gallon than gasoline... and they complain about the price of gasoline.
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Interesting)
More like 10 years too late (Score:5, Interesting)
Essentially, all they have to do to make it illegal to share around your house is to implement DRM which prevents you from doing that. Since it's illegal to circumvent DRM, you're fucked.
And this does, in fact, prevent you from exercising your fair use rights, and, indeed, even the rights inherent in purchasing a physical disk (or a download, even).
I'd love to see it go to court, though. If anyone from the media industry is reading this, I dare you to sue me for playing my movies on Linux, or even ripping and time-shifting a rental. Come on, make my day. Who knows? Maybe it would end in new legislation banishing DRM at all, unless it allows all forms of fair use.
I have 2 Choices (Score:5, Interesting)
If this happens, I have 2 choices -- either ignore the new laws or cut back/eliminate the consumption of media. I only have so much money available per month for entertainment, and with the cost of fuel and everything else going up (but not my salary), entertainment will be the first to go. I can live just fine without big Media -- there are still books, and that big room with the real high blue ceiling that I can reach through my front and back doors.
If big media wins, they lose. I (and many others on this planet) cannot just create more money every time someone wants more $ for the same or less service and/or product.
What happend to FAIR USE (Score:4, Interesting)
What part of 'FUCK OFF' don't you understand. We already pay a 'piracy tax' on all blank media, pay way too much for music as it is, and now you want me to pay for sharing my music on my internal LAN? Uh, I seem to remember something called "Fair Use".
And Microsoft patented a TV that watches you... (Score:2, Interesting)
Was someone reading 1984 for "good" ideas again, or what? I wish the media middlemen would hurry up and die before they retard progress any more. They're no longer useful, but they have enough cash to buy obstructive laws.
Re:No You Didn't (Score:5, Interesting)
I have not met a computer illiterate person who gives a shit about copyrights. For many, they don't even think it's illegal to download. After all, plenty of ISP ads are along the line: download music and movies at blazing speeds!
Re:specifics? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:More like 10 years too late (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Never mind those... (Score:5, Interesting)
(But those aren't shared devices! Oh yes they are. Well, if you're running PCI-e 2.1, or virtual machines, or have sharing enabled through the OS, or a myriad of other options.)
Oh yeah, this means that Plan 9 users will presumably need to have factorial the number of nodes in their system licenses for each CD and DVD they buy in order to play any CDs or DVDs at all, as hardware location is largely unimportant under that OS. And I dread to think of what happens to people who actually run Beowulf clusters...
How will they get away with such an obviously unfair, unreasonable and obnoxious burden on unconventional desktops? Well, it'll be very easy. Most users are ignorant of the capabilities of modern machines, most users are ignorant of the fact that modern computers ARE a home network, and so most users will assume it's someone else's problem, not theirs. Once a few precedents are set in court, the broadcasters can bill who they like what they like, with no fear of retribution and an almost total guarantee of winning in court. Ignorance - even of technology - is not a valid defence in the legal system, which is reasonable enough when not taken too far. Here, it could be exploited by gold-diggers to create a perpetual stream of income.
Would the judges go for it? If the attacks start with "obvious" targets and then move to subtler and subtler definitions of home network, provided they keep winning, they'll create case law. Judges don't necessarily understand technology too well, but they do understand case law very well. A clever enough team of lawyers could easily manufacture a legal understanding of what a network was that could include a cluster that could only ever act as a single machine, any PC with a PCI-e 2.1 bus, a box running VMWare or Xen, or anything else in which multiple "top level" devices (physical or virtual) can access a single data source.
Re:specifics? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really good for environment - drinking water and all that.
But I agree with the sentiment...
How's that saying go: "soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box"? So far, I don't see the first three producing reasonable results. I'm sure I won't miss a few RIAA/MPAA/media Execs/Lawyers...
Re:I wish a judge would stop their bullshit campai (Score:3, Interesting)
The addition of the government as a protection method just bothers me. They haven't been looking out for my constitutional interests for quite some time. So why would they protect me, as an individual, from being oppressed by someone else? Police don't help me in the matter at hand, they come into play after the fact.
I really take the inalienable rights concept to heart. While you stated:
you can always do whatever you want as long as there is nobody around that is capable of stopping you from doing it and you have the necessary resources available
I say you can do anything you want as long as you are willing to pay the consequences of your actions, whatever those may be and however fair they are.
Re:Duh (Score:3, Interesting)
But survival at a higher price can be better than death. Firefly might still be around if fans could have voted with their wallets.
Re:specifics? (Score:4, Interesting)
They do? Oh shit, what happens if you don't get it? 'cause I haven't bought gasoline in...let's see...ever. And neither have a whole lot of people on this planet, who somehow seem to be getting by okay, and are even enjoying themselves most of the time.
Characterizing luxuries as "needs" is just a cop out that spoiled people use to justify being greedy. "I need my cellphone", "Oh, I need my coffee", "I just have to have my car"...fuck that. You need food, you need clothes, you need shelter, and sometimes you need medicine. Maybe you'd like more than that, maybe you deserve more than that, but you don't need it.
The implication of "needing" something is that no matter what it takes to get it, that's ok. CO2 emmissions? Government repression? Child slavery? Hey, that sucks, but what can we do, we
Re:specifics? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh they didn't forget about it, they are trying to brainwash people into believing Fair Use means not owning what you paid for.
Re:specifics? (Gasoline- Serious) (Score:3, Interesting)
If you smell it inside your car you should really get it fixed.
I had a relative who was apparently going crazy and then we rode in their car and my friend (I missed it) pointed this out. In about 30 days her apparent sanity improved enormously.
Rent-seeking behavior... (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking [wikipedia.org]
Basically, the idea is that in classic economic theory (Adam Smith et. al.) you make money either through wealth creation (mining stuff that's useful, producing food, manufactured goods from raw material) or by trade (I buy tea in china and sell it for more in England).
When companies/individuals try to "game the system" and have the regulatory environment changed to suit their interests.
A simple example would be, say the US government was talking about legalizing drugs (I know, huge suspension of disbelief required), and a lobby group consisting of organized crime interests and central American cocaine producers came together to keep the current status quo in place.
It's a classic moral hazard, and when this behavior becomes common, it's probably a sign that things are seriously wrong with your economy.
They never learn (Score:3, Interesting)
This is crap - yet another group who haven't learned that ruining the experience for the customer and attacking how the customer wants to acquire and digest their media not only doesn't work, it actually works against their bottom line in the end and ruins their image in the process.
We can speak out about this, write a million posts, contact congresspeople (who are mostly bought and paid for), but, like many things these days I get the feeling that the decision has already been made and that any "process" involved is likely just for show.
If this turns out to be correct, then since this government and it's corporate whoremasters doesn't listen to us, subvert our rights, sell us out to each other, and do a whole host of other illegal, extralegal, and unethical things - that I am just going to do what I want when it comes to my media regardless.
These media conglomerates can keep trying, but they're too big and too slow; and there will always be a way around DRM/restrictions -and that's not even looking at market based solutions; because if they cripple their devices there will always be somebody innovative enough not to cripple their offering to the public, or to at least leave back doors to easily enable features technically advanced users want, kind of like what Philips does with some of their products.
Re:specifics? (Score:3, Interesting)
They can kiss my ass (Score:4, Interesting)
And now you want to charge me again (and again and again) because I've ripped all my CDs to my server so I can stream them through a password protected web page (usually from work)? I don't think so. Fair Use Bitch!
I have not purchased a music CD in over a year because of the RIAA. Nor have I downloaded anything. I'll be content with what I already have until I see some serious change in the music industry. Most likely when the revolution comes and we put your asses in front of a wall and put a bullet through your collective brain cell.