Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Government The Almighty Buck Politics

Broadcasters Want Cash For Media Shared At Home 426

Posted by Zonk
from the gotta-get-it-where-you-can dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Broadcasters Want Cash For Media Shared At Home

Comments Filter:
  • specifics? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yagu (721525) * <yayagu@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:31PM (#20104857) Journal

    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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by 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:specifics? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rossifer (581396) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:46PM (#20105107) Journal
      Richard Stallman is a loon, but he's absolutely right [gnu.org]. The only mistake I can see is that he was optimistic on the schedule by 25 years or so.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by capt.Hij (318203)

      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.

      You should not underestimate people's ability to bow to these kinds of pressures. We live in a world where most people do not think twice about waiting for a dvd from netflix in the mail. Sneakernet as a way to deliver bits is alive and well.

      I read the articles but did not listen to the mp3, and the

      • Re:specifics? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Friday August 03, 2007 @05:13PM (#20107263) Homepage
        "The surprising thing though is the openness at which the real issue here is control"

        It was ALWAYS about control. Intellectual property is and always was about control. It was NEVER about "stimulating invention for the benefit of the species." That has never been established anywhere in history or in theory.

        And if you accept the basic premise of IP, it leads inexorably to exactly this situation - total control over your behavior.

        And it's not just the state that wants total control of your behavior - it's everybody else, too.

        Basic primate psychology: "If you're right, I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'm dead - and that can't be allowed. So I'm right and you're wrong. And that means I have to control everything you think and do - assuming I let you live at all."

        And since we have the state, the easiest way to do that is to bribe it to pass laws so I can draw on the state's "monopoly on violence" to my own benefit. Because I'm afraid I don't have the power to compel you the way I want to without the state's support. Which is also why I bow to the state - because they might kill me otherwise.

        This is the way the human species works - non-stop, pervasive fear. The only solution is: transcend human nature so it is no longer ruled by primate emotions.

        Fortunately that is likely to happen in this century as nanotechnology and biotechnology allow us to alter the human body and brain into new configurations.

        In the meantime, things will get worse before they get better.

        Operative: It's worse than you know.

        Mal: It usually is.
    • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:56PM (#20105281) Homepage
      what the mean is you record Tv with your Windows MCE. and watch it in your bedroom, You owe them $$$ for the privilege.

      Personally, I'll pay them as soon as the Broadcast executives post youtube video of them actually removing their heads from their anus so they see the real world and not their fantasy world they create inside the colon.
    • 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.
      Yeah but you can't drink gasoline.

      I guess these guys forgot about 'fair use'.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Slashdot apparently didn't run the article, and the same link had been sent in by the time I put it in the Firehose, but Microsoft patented some kind of TV that has biometric sensors to get information about who is watching the TV and to deliver targeted advertising. Of course, it would be simple to combine that with DRM schemes and force all kinds of weird licensing restrictions like those they're asking for here.

      Was someone reading 1984 for "good" ideas again, or what? I wish the media middlemen would h
    • Re:specifics? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:58PM (#20105309) Homepage Journal
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by torkus (1133985)
        Hasn't it occured to people (read: idiots who write, propose, and pass laws) that by making something that's commonplace in society illegal they just make "fake" criminals? Even worse, by passing laws that people are either 1) not even going to even KNOW about 2) not care about or 3) intentionally break because they dislike the law ... they take yet another step towards total disregard for our laws and lawmakers and courts. I say: WAY TO GO!!! Yet another excuse to totally ignore laws being passed solely
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hopelessliar (575886)
      AFAIK, it's already illegal to even format shift in the UK - therefore we're not even allowed to rip it, never mind stream it.
      • Re:specifics? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by OrangeTide (124937) on Friday August 03, 2007 @03:15PM (#20105587) Homepage Journal
        why does everything have to be illegal? are the artists who create the content having difficulty feeding their families on their meager earnings? What horrible situation are we trying to correct or prevent with all these restrictions?

        I say if you broadcast a message over public airwaves using the community's radio spectrum, you probably shouldn't get the same rights that you do if you are publishing a book or releasing a new CD. If you don't like that idea, then maybe you can not use public airwaves, which belong to the community.
        • Re:specifics? (Score:4, Informative)

          by drewzhrodague (606182) <drew@zhro[ ]ue.net ['dag' in gap]> on Friday August 03, 2007 @04:03PM (#20106303) Homepage Journal
          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.
          • Re:specifics? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by kimvette (919543) on Friday August 03, 2007 @04:33PM (#20106753) Homepage Journal

            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.


            In which case those "artists" could use their art as a hobby/pastime activity, and seek out paying work like the rest of us.
        • Re:specifics? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by bhalter80 (916317) on Friday August 03, 2007 @04:05PM (#20106323)
          The flip side of this is that the government decided that it was in the public interest to have a broadcast communication network and that it was unfeasible for them to build it themselves as it would be infrequently used. The result is that they awarded some privileges to the people who did build the network and whom in exchange for the right to restrict the fair-use of their broadcast allow the government use of their network in times of emergency. Now i do believe that anything that the public should benefit in a non-trivial way from any private enterprise that traverses a public good be it railways, entertainment broadcasts, etc... and that any signal that you can receive should be yours to do with as you please as long as you don't interfere with the production of such signal.
    • Never mind those... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jd (1658) <.imipak. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Friday August 03, 2007 @03:24PM (#20105717) Homepage Journal
      PCI has become a switched network of sorts. You are potentially infringing by running the data from the CD-ROM drive into memory, and then a second time when you run the processed data out to the sound card!

      (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.

    • Anybody know the term?

      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 talkin
  • And this is news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ollabelle (980205) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:32PM (#20104873)
    I've always known the end-goal for all media companies is pay-per-play, every single time.
    • I've always known the end-goal for all media companies is pay-per-play, every single time.
      TV Gunfighter: All right, pilgrim, give me yer dough. Lot's of it.
      Kid watching TV: Mo-om! The pay-TV people want more money again!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kamokazi (1080091)
      Actually their end goal is to charge everyone per second for every media playback, whistled/hummed tune, movie reference/quote, looking at a sign advertising their media, up to and including every personal thought about their media.

      But for now they'll settle for this...total control of crappy, unimaginitive content doesn't happen overnight afterall...it takes many nights of boozing up senators, tropical vacations, and 4,000 sq. ft. summer homes before that can happen.
      • Actually their end goal is to charge everyone per second for every media playback, whistled/hummed tune, movie reference/quote, looking at a sign advertising their media, up to and including every personal thought about their media.
        So put in your earplugs, put on your eyeshades, you know where to put the cork.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by neoform (551705)
      Whatever. Let them come up with their insane schemes.

      I stopped buying DVDs and CDs years ago once they made their intentions clear.

      Anyone wonder why the thepiratebay.org makes $9,000,000 a year even though they don't sell anything?

      The idiots who control the media would probably make us pay per eyeball per frame of video if they could.

      Fuck them, I'm not going to support their lobby by funding them in any way.
      • by AvitarX (172628) <me AT brandywinehundred DOT org> on Friday August 03, 2007 @03:32PM (#20105841) Journal
        Anyone wonder why the thepiratebay.org makes $9,000,000 a year even though they don't sell anything?

        Because they make billions (if not trillions) of dollars of work available for free?

        I know that's why I go there.

        Disclaimer:
        RIAA and MPAA and others, this post is obviously satire. I would only ever go to the piratebay.org for Linux distros (so I can help relieve the mirrors) and movie trailers, but never CDs, TV shows, movies, or games.
        • Re:And this is news? (Score:4, Informative)

          by init100 (915886) on Friday August 03, 2007 @05:03PM (#20107139)

          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.

  • they don't care how they get it.
  • by loteck (533317) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:33PM (#20104879) Homepage
    I paid for that right when I made the initial purchase.
    • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:45PM (#20105091) Journal
      What I would like to see is certain terms very, very clearly defined.

      For example, you should not be allowed to hijack domains and call yourself an ISP. You can still hijack domains and sell some sort of service, but you shouldn't be able to call it Internet service.

      You should not be allowed to sell a CD with any kind of copy protection (let alone rootkits) and call it a CD. You can still sell them, but they should include a fairly large disclaimer to the effect of "This is not a CD." Ditto for DVDs with any copy protection beyond CSS, especially deliberately breaking the spec to where it won't even play on your own players (I'm looking at you again, Sony) -- you could call it a movie, but not a DVD, and it should be very clear that it is not intended to be able to play in DVD players.

      And you should not be able to sell media that has its fair use restricted and call it "selling" -- indeed, you must make it very clear that the customer is renting the media.

      At least if we had a clear definition of terms, I could buy a movie and know it will play on anything.

      As it is, they don't even need additional legislation to make this work. All they need is what they already have -- DRM + DMCA. They can use DRM to prevent you from copying the media around your house, and the DMCA will make it illegal to crack that DRM, even if you have the right to copy the media around your house.
      • by mosch (204) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:55PM (#20105249) Homepage
        You can still sell them, but they should include a fairly large disclaimer to the effect of "This is not a CD."

        This is not a CD, it's a MegaDisc! MegaDisc gives you the hot new music video, footage from the concert Live in Moscow, and behind the scenes footage showing you a day in the life of the artist!

        So don't settle for a CD, when you can have a MegaDisc!
    • No You Didn't (Score:4, Insightful)

      by asphaltjesus (978804) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:49PM (#20105157)
      The media conglomerates are training consumers otherwise.

      The whole point behind those stupid trailers in front of DVD's, stupid FBI warning and RIAA lawsuits is to instill fear.

      They want you to believe *they* are the ultimate authority. So far, it's working great.
      • by afidel (530433)
        Those stupid freaking "unskippable" trailers are the reason I ditched my PS2 for playing DVD's and bought a proper Apex DVD player that ignored that crap.
      • Re:No You Didn't (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dc29A (636871) * on Friday August 03, 2007 @03:00PM (#20105349)

        They want you to believe *they* are the ultimate authority. So far, it's working great.
        I have a few computer illiterate friends, who don't know what the fudge is DRM (nor do they care), they got 10x as much illegally downloaded stuff as I do. I was shocked to see one of my friends who can barely turn on a computer having over 1TB of videos (non pr0n unfortunately). The other has over 20k songs downloaded. My sister has a shitty dialup internet connection, every time she comes over to my place she brings her laptop and leeches music off the net. A gamer friend of mine has about 100+ PS2 games and a modded PS2.

        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!
    • by Himring (646324)
      Rockefeller was worth 1/42 of the GNP of the U.S. at his prime. In an interview he was asked if he had enough money and he answered, "no." When asked how much more he needed he replied:

      "Just a little more...."

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by notasheep (220779)
      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.
  • Duh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Trigun (685027) <evilNO@SPAMevilempire.ath.cx> on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:33PM (#20104885)
    If they could get away with it, they would make you pay for content you don't even watch, but have the ability to.

    Crooks, fighting to uphold a dying business model, and squeeze every penny out of it the entire way.

    • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HTH NE1 (675604) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:36PM (#20104921)

      If they could get away with it, they would make you pay for content you don't even watch, but have the ability to.
      They're called premium channels.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by doit3d (936293)
      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.
  • If they don't want us to have the rights to content, why are they selling us the content on a disk? Does no one see how dumb this is? The summary makes it sound like they want me to pay 5 more dollars or something to take a DVD upstairs and play it vs. downstairs... there is just no chance people will pay it. Movie tickets are an example of a license to view that doesn't include a physical copy of the content, so I refuse to believe they don't know they're selling you your own copy of the content.
    • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:52PM (#20105197) Journal
      I say that because 11 years ago, we got the DMCA, which already gives them this ability.

      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by afidel (530433)
        Hmm, moving the content between devices seems like a clear cut use for the interoperability exemption in the DMCA. Of course the problem with a law like the DMCA is that if you are ever accused of violating it your are presumed guilty until you spend enough money to prove your innocence.
  • Would you pay for the privilage of bringing a CD into your 'unlicensed' bath room to listen to?
  • by garcia (6573) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:36PM (#20104941) Homepage
    Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'.

    I already did, with my taxes. I have fair-use rights that trump the media industries desire to make money.

    Discussion over.
    • I already did, with my taxes.

      You should have just said: "I already have those rights." As long as people think that they only have access to rights as long as they pay for access[1] and/or pay through taxes,[2] we've already lost. Rights are not commodities to be purchased.

      [1] E.g. You don't have to buy a copy of content to exercise fair-use, like excerpts, etc.

      [2] You don't have to pay taxes to have rights. Children, people who are unemployed, homemakers, and many other classes of people may not pay

  • Losing customers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ktappe (747125) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:37PM (#20104965)
    I'm meeting more and more people who are shunning traditional TV and audio content--the very content that is being proposed to be locked down in TFA. The rush away from such content will become a stampede if such controls are enacted. Imagine not being allowed to record your favorite show in your living room while you're at work and then play it in your exercise room when you get home. The sheer lunacy of it will turn consumers off extremely quickly and therefore these companies will lose even more money. But they are far too short-sighted to realize this, so we will all suffer. Well, except for book publishers, who will see sales soar as we revert to earlier (and fully portable) media forms.
    • by kebes (861706) on Friday August 03, 2007 @03:05PM (#20105437) Journal
      This is why everyone should take note of the file-sharing debate. Though many people do not support the plight of the file-sharers (after all, they just want to watch content for free, don't they? cheap bastards!), I think what the file-sharers are going through is really a preview of what the "fair use" crowd is going to have to deal with a few years later, and what the general public will have to deal with a few years after that.

      Right now the file-sharers are experiencing technical and legal roadblocks to doing what they want to do. The media companies are trying to expand this war, year by year, to include activities that were previously legal. (As Lawrence Lessig puts it, previously most actions related to media were presumptively legal... in a digital age we're now seeing most actions being presumptively illegal.) So whereas laws and technological restrictions may have been originally intended to stop file-sharing (and other "bad stuff") they will inevitably be expanded by the media companies to include things like "fair use" and other things which were previously presumptively allowed (listening to a purchased recording more than once... using the same copy of a recording in your home CD player and in your car...). These things are not even "fair use"... there was no name given to them because they were so obviously allowed! (But not anymore!)

      Year by year it will get worse. You may not be breaking the law today... but don't worry, you'll be breaking the law soon enough... and it will cost you money to be "legit."

      We need a model for production and distribution that gets away from this insane control and this slippery slope towards paying for every single minute fraction of "media" every single time we experience it. We need to look towards supporting creative commons, and actively reducing the scope of copyright. It should be possible to create a system where content creators are rewarded, but where the audience is not burdened. File sharing and payment to artists are not mutually exclusive.

      Unless, of course, you like paying more and more for less and less.
  • by drhamad (868567) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:38PM (#20104967)
    In other news, paper companies want you to pay a fee if you reuse their paper.
    • by ktappe (747125)

      In other news, paper companies want you to pay a fee if you reuse their paper.
      And/or book publishers want you to re-buy the book instead of giving it to your spouse when you're done reading it.
    • by griffjon (14945)
      ...and the media companies also want to levy a per-inch moving charge on rolling TV and AV equipment carts by applying an odometer to the wheels...
  • Stuff like this makes me not even care about the rules anymore. When you make it easier for your customers to get your product illegally, than legally, guess what happens? Yeah. Either the media industry is full of idiots, or someone needs to put their lawyers and spokespeople on a leash and shut them up.
  • by NynexNinja (379583) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:42PM (#20105055)
    first you would have to dismantle the fair use doctrine in the copyright act...unfortunately for them, sharing copyrighted material between devices at home currently is considered fair use... you paid for the material once already -- its going to be hard for them to prove that paying over and over and over for an audio music file is reasonable... I'm sure if you had to pay for repeat broadcasts of television shows, people would probably stop watching television...
  • by frovingslosh (582462) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:43PM (#20105061)
    I want $1 from everyone who does this too. And I have just as much right to it as they do.
  • >>When pressed as to why broadcasters would want to do this, Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'."

    Of course they want it.

    Will we let them have it?
  • Absurd Scenarios (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smackenzie (912024) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:54PM (#20105243)
    First, many of us already are kind of doing this with the premium iTunes music. I pay $1.29 so I can listen to a song on my laptop, my iMac at home, my home office PC and my computer at work -- without worrying whether I've gone over the five computer limit because I keep changing my home office PC and have to reauthorize.

    Second, if I buy a song online to listen to in my home office, are they going to charge me to upload it to my media center PC in the living room? Now, what if I install a second set of speakers from my home office into my living room? Does that count? What's the difference?

    What if I have it on a removable drive that I then bring from room to room and listen to the music on it on different computers? Charge me for that? What if I just walk from room to room with an iPod? Music in the office, music in the kitchen? What's the difference? Obviously, I can argue the fine points here, but that is just it. The various gray scenarios are absurd...

    I should be able to buy music and listen to it (me and anyone within earshot) in any fashion, on any machine, no matter where I am.

  • I have 2 Choices (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gonarat (177568) * on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:56PM (#20105273)

    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.

  • by Nonillion (266505) on Friday August 03, 2007 @02:57PM (#20105289)
    "According to Jim Burger, a Washington, D.C attorney who deals with piracy in the broadcasting industry, certain broadcasters want to do just that."

    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".
  • Our response, as tech-savvy consumers, must be several fold:
    • We must stop buying this media at home. I'm just about ready to cancel my cable subscription over this kind of abuse.
    • We must work hard to seek out alternative media outlets that want to foster our rights, rather than abuse them for profit.
    • We must work to reform the campaign finance rules that allow Congress to be bribed into allowing such horrendous abuses of their constituencies.

    If we do not do these things, then we have no right to complain ab

  • Pay per-view for everything, everytime, is the goal.

    Scumbags
    • by webrunner (108849)
      The goal is even worse than that.. sports companies, for instance, want pay-per-hear-about. They've claimed copyright on stats and descriptions of events, before.
  • by nege (263655)
    I agree with copyright holders. Shame on you slashdot people! Wont you think of the children? How else will dodgy old men be able to get addicted to pain medication and molest little boys if they dont have a right to be given a penny every time you hear part of that one song that that britney spears person wrote as you are walking down the street and you hear a bit of it playing from some ghetto-wannabe persons ride? I say we allow the RIAA access to our homes and allow them to crash little kids birthda
  • "Broadcasters are claiming however that sharing media between devices over the air constitutes a grey area that needs to be more strictly controlled to fight piracy."

    Well this sounds like it applies to WIRELESS networks but NOT to WIRED networks.
    So, I'm good.
  • Please, invest a lot of money trying to prevent us from doing so. I guaren-fucking-tee you that the hackers of the world will spend a lot less breaking whatever protection you put on it, and I guaren-fucking-tee you again that the regular citizens of the US that want to share their music to themselves at home will do so.

    Nothing you say or do can stop them. Even if you passed a law saying people would be put to death for it, most people still would.

    So please. Spend your money and time trying to stop us.
  • by TheWoozle (984500) on Friday August 03, 2007 @03:06PM (#20105443)
    Whenever I hear a scheme like this, I wonder where these people got the idea that copyright gives them the right to tell people how they can use the copyrighted work after they've sold them the copy.
    AFAIK, there's no law preventing me from purchasing a book then using a magnifying glass or opaque projector to read it. Why do they think that copyright for music or movies prevents me from using different technology to access the paid-for content?
  • X360 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by justkarl (775856) * on Friday August 03, 2007 @03:23PM (#20105701) Homepage
    Surprised noone has brought up the 360 example yet.

    I have an xbox 360 on my home network which I sometimes use to stream stuff from my XP box. It's doing nothing illegal, it's acccessing the same media which I would normally watch/listen to/look at on my pc, but just doing it remotely. The idea that I would have to pay for anything twice in this example is foolish - My guess is that this kind of thinking stems from business execs that don't understand computers.
     
    For that matter, that could be the source of most of the worlds problems...
  • by bluenovadesign (996064) on Friday August 03, 2007 @03:29PM (#20105793)
    If I have to pay to share songs throughout my house then I have a foolproof plan...

    I'm going to turn up the volume in the lounge till I can hear the music in the bathroom.

    Hang on...what if someone introduces a volume tax? Imagine the payments for turning the dial to 11! :(
  • Lawyer is a Fool (Score:5, Insightful)

    by imstanny (722685) on Friday August 03, 2007 @03:32PM (#20105847)
    "When pressed as to why broadcasters would want to do this, Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'."

    A 'right' is something that you can do without asking anyone else's permission. Once you have to ask someone's permission, then it no longer becomes a 'right' but a 'priviledge'. He just admitted that they want to charge people for exercising their right to use their own property. At best, he's just not that bright; at worst, this is yet another unwarranted advance on our freedoms.
  • by slashname3 (739398) on Friday August 03, 2007 @03:36PM (#20105897)
    It's all part of the book publisher's and librarian conspiracy. For the last couple of decades fewer people spend time reading actual books. They sit and stare at the TV all day or listen to music in larger and larger quantities. To fight this the publishers and librarians have been helping develop P2P software and slowly infiltrating the TV, music, and movie industries and getting them to enact this kind of stuff to alienate users. If the plan succeeds the vast majority of people will no longer be able to afford any kind of media except for books.

    Look how far they have come, in a few short years most TV sets will no longer be capable of receiving over the air broadcasts unless the user buys a new digital set or tuner. That will drive more people to cable if they can afford it. At which point the cable companies and the show producers will up the ante and start trying to charge for each viewing of a show.

    The decline of theaters is on going. Fewer people go to the movies now, many wait for the DVD to come out because it is cheaper at the moment to buy a DVD than go to the theater. Now that they have people conditioned to that they will increase the price of DVDs so most can not afford them or put DRM systems in place that make it impossible to use a DVD.

    Librarian's around the world are all working toward this end.
  • Rights?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scutter (18425) on Friday August 03, 2007 @04:05PM (#20106325) Journal
    "Burger replied simply 'because they want you to pay for that right'."

    You don't pay for rights. Rights are inherent (or God-given, if you prefer). You pay for privileges.
  • Remember... (Score:3, Informative)

    by SCHecklerX (229973) <thecaptain@captaincodo.net> on Friday August 03, 2007 @04:12PM (#20106407) Homepage
    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.
  • They never learn (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moxley (895517) on Friday August 03, 2007 @06:07PM (#20107993)

    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.

  • They can kiss my ass (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rossz (67331) <`ogre' `at' `geekbiker.net'> on Saturday August 04, 2007 @02:34AM (#20111305) Homepage Journal
    They already got paid twice when I replaced my albums and tapes with CDs. I'll be damned if I pay them again. And they have a lot of fucking nerve charging damn near $20 for a CD that has made them a fortune a thousand times over. Check the price of classics such as Led Zeps Stairway to Heavan CD, or Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Both phenomenally successful. Both well past the intended length of copyright. Both sold a zillion copies. Both over priced.

    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.

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...