Death by DMCA
 

The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) has published an article: "Death by DCMA" outlining all the technologies and businesses whose development has been brought to a standstill by the DCMA. The article is a very measured and cogent discussion of what has happened over the last few years.

Although your mileage may vary, reading it has convinced me to give up movies altogether. Most of them are crap anyway. I haven't bought a CD in about two years either. I guess I'll stick to my old favorites.

It is really a pity that well-funded lobbies with broken business-models manage to get such laws enacted.

There is an increasing lack of balance between industry lobbies and the legitimate interests of Real People.

Even the hints forums have experienced the "chilling effects" of the DMCA as discussed here:
http://forums.macosxhints.com/showth...ous#post286675

What boggles my mind is how this very successful lobby can stultify a whole industry's efforts and actively squelch new business ventures. In a way, it seems that this industry has been granted a monopoly and complete thought control over entertainment in any form.

.
I wonder what effect the British proposal, if enacted, might have. Would putting some of the more ridiculous limitations on devices make more people aware that the recording industry isn’t exactly being pleasant to its legitimate customers?

But, I'm sorry to say, although the British proposal is sane and thoughtful, it appears that the US juggernaut will roll over Europe to some extent and the British might be forced to comply.

.
Just out of curiosity: What would it take to repeal the enforcement of DVD zones? For instance, for Apple to equip all their DVD readers to handle all zones, with no limitations?

Forcing equipment producers to comply with DVD zone limitations is surely one of the more blatantly unjust moves from the entertainment industry. It has absolutely nothing to do with copyright -- the only motive is the segmentation and control of geographic markets (i.e. maximisation of profits).

I dunno. It seems like something of that magnitude would come down from the International Trade Commission or WTO or something. I agree with you though. Personally I think some copyright is needed, or people lose the ability to make money off of their own work. But DVD zone's? Gimme a break.

I think it would take a deal between Apple and the corporations that own the DVD licensing rights (the rights for the DVD playing mechanism - not the rights for the content). Apple needs to pay a certain amount for the right to put a DVD player in Macs and to supply DVD-playing software. This is a licensing issue. If the corporation that owns the rights says that your DVD players must be coloured red white and blue or you aren't allowed to use their specification, then you (Apple) paint them red white and blue.

But is ArcticStones fundamentally correct? Do DVD zones actually serve no known copyright function?

DVD zones are used as a tool to segment markets.

Nothing at all to do with copyright, which grants a limited monopoly to the owner of the creative work, but does not provide protection for selective marketing enforced by technical restrictions built into the hardware.

Like hayne pointed out, this is a private contract between the DVD consortium and those who license their technology.

There are actors in the market who deliberately ignore the obligation to get the license and produce region-free DVD-players, in particular asian no-name brands.

It would take Apple shutting down the ITMS. That's the political aspect of it. Those who supply music and video to Apple for resale would not be happy about the lack of support of DVD region codes. I suspect they would stop doing business with Apple.

Technologically it would be simple. A small change in firmware, a small change in software. No significant cost would be added to their computers.

Amazing that they got away with it...
 

And that’s the real bummer. What I don’t understand is how they got away with it. I mean it is so transparent, so obvious, that this is all about market control and profit maximisation. The arrogance of it really galls me.

(Perhaps I can find the history of the entertainment industry’s successful lobbying and PR efforts on Wikipedia or somewhere. It is impressive.)

I wouldn’t mind if it served a copyright function. It doesn’t. I coan see no legitimate reason why someone should be allowed to make it difficult for me to watch DVD films that I have purchased legitimately in the USA on my PowerBook. You can only switch the zone back and forth a number of times before it locks -- or so I’ve been told.

Sure, there are work-arounds. But why in the world should there have to be anything to work around!?

I believe this to be incorrect. Not that the content suppliers would be happy about it - you are probably right about that.
But that's irrelevant since even if the ITMS didn't exist, the same DVD region code issue would be there. As I've said in post #8 above, it is (I believe) simply a licensing issue.

I think region codes are stupid and distasteful too.
But I point out that a similar argument could be made about someone buying a copy of OS X and then trying to run it on their generic PC hardware.
They bought a legitimate copy of OS X. But that copy comes with licensing restrictions that specify it is only to be run on Apple hardware. And there are some features in OS X that strive to make it difficult to run on non-Apple hardware.

There is no (explicit) licensing on the DVDs you buy stating that you are only allowed to play them in the one region. Maybe there should be.

In any case, it's not really a moral issue. It's capitalism, pure and simple. The rules are that you are allowed to sell your product for whatever price you think desirable and you can place whatever restrictions on its use you might find useful to increase your total profit.

Here's another (completely hypothetical) example. Suppose that there was a technology that enabled video game console makers to determine the age of the person playing the game (e.g. via analysis of sweat on the game controller). This technology would enable the possibility of selling games that are age-locked. You could sell the under-14-locked games at a different price than than the same game with a 14+ locking. So a family with two kids of different age might have to buy two copies of the same game.
All quite within the rules of the game (capitalism).

Spoken like a man who probably has two kids under/over 14 who like the same games.

DMCA and DRM is bad capitalism
 

.
Those are good points, Hayne, and I believe you’re absolutely right: It is a licensing issue. This is capitalism at work. No one can protest that.

The problem, of course, is that it is immoral -- and it is rightfully perceived as such by legions of consumers. And so this breeds utter contempt. Not just against these outrageous transgressions, but also against the legitimate interests of the entertainment industry.

Therefore, by any analysis, this is bad capitalism.

What is most unfortunate (for everybody!) is that the true decision makers of the major corporate players so far fail to understand that. Unfathomable! Eventually, someone will conclude that they are unfit for their jobs -- and in hindsight say that those same CEOs have effectively undermined their employers for many years.

For some of those companies, by then, it will be too late.

That's an interesting start.
Why does hayne say it's distasteful, but the rule of the game anyway ?

Let's try to be a bit more analytic here:
Corporations are out there to make a profit, no doubt about that.
Government, on the other hand, is expected to provide a legal framework reflecting the ideas of the majority of what is a fair balance between competing interests.
Car manufacturers love drunk drivers, because it increases their sales whenever there's an accident. However, even if it is bad for their bottom line, we still expect there to be laws against drunk driving to protect us all.

The actual problem is, that nowadays, there are lots of political decisions made and laws enacted on behalf of corporate interest, completely ignoring the legitimate concerns consumers can't claim with the same vigor than well-funded lobbies.

That's a broken political system, not a "natural" state of affairs we should accept as a fatality shrugging our shoulders.

It is not natural for political systems to be broken regarding new or modern technology? I disagree. Here in the US you can look to the railroads and the clipper ships before them for new technologies that were used in ways that did not provide the greatest benefit for the end users. I think that things like DVD region codes are more the rule than the exception when it comes to new technology. A very natural occurrence.

I see where you are coming from there. Apple could include something that would play DVDs, but they might not be able to market it as a DVD player or have any sort of DVD symbol on it. Certainly third party software exists that ignores region codes. Firmware hacks for various players/burners are available if you do some looking around. So it's not a technological issue, we agree on that.

As they should, of course - it's their raison d'etre.

Which is why most countries have anti-trust acts that prevent unregulated monopolies. Why is this one permitted to exist, then?

And to protect the insurance industry too, I'll bet.

This is the crux of the matter, I think. This is particularly true of "cultural" industries, which is why Canada has all kinds of foolish laws about "Canadian content" in the media.

Agree, 100%

A very good point, in my view. Laws are, unfortunately, made by lawyers who neither understand the businesses involved, nor see the "big picture" for the most part, nor understand the technology generally; but they do understand who votes for them and who finances their campaigns!

Thank you for the correction.
Let me take another swing at it:

I do not believe that a political system that caters to the robber barons of the content mafia, deliberately ignoring the legitimate interest of academia and the general public, is something we should simply accept as a fatality.

It is a tricky subject indeed.
Given the market dominance of Hollywood productions which have already earned their money on the american market and then compete at pretty much any price with local productions are a real problem. How to deal with it is a debatable question, but the "culture" aspect in cultural industry certainly is important and cannot be reduced to pure marketing logic.

People aren't accepting it. Here's a quote from a New York Times interview with David Bowie in 2002.

"Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity," he added. "So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen."

I see this happening already in music and in video. Both legally and illegally, streaming and downloading music and video is becoming more common, and less expensive. Shoutcast.com for one example is legal, free music like running water.

I suppose it's possible to pass laws against water running downhill, but it's not easy to enforce them. I could be wrong. Perhaps laws can put the Genie back in the bottle. Certainly I understand the concern about such laws. But there are many things to be concerned about in this world.

That’s a pretty telling remark coming from David Bowie. He is not just one of the most respected artists in the business. Bowie is an expert in the field of entertainment technology.

He has consistently been a leader in implementing a wide range of new technologies -- in his stage designs, concert tours (f.ex. holding simultaneous concerts), in terms of music distribution, etc etc.

For the benefit of those who want to read more:

The Bowie paper in the NYT was mentioned by the Observer last fall:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/busin...592964,00.html

The Observer article seems to be written by a journalist successfully brainwashed by the music industry:
"For the record industry, it has been an unqualified disaster, because millions of people aren't paying for their packages. Legal download services like Apple iTunes are beginning to mitigate the disaster, but it's not clear that even iTunes can compete with illicit file-sharing."

How could even iTunes (one of the least obnoxious for-pay music-sites) possibly compete with an inferior product (DRM, high compression) you need to pay for against high-quality rips and HDTV shows on p2p networks for free ?

The NYT would like you to pay to read the original story, but in an ironic twist, given the subject, it is also available, just like tap water, here:

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-A.../msg00047.html

Thumbs down from the Norwegian Ombudsman
 

.
Do note the recent decision by the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, quoten on MacRumors today (7 June):

"Highlights of the decision
- It is unreasonable that the consumer must give consent to an agreement regulated by English law.
- It is unreasonable for iTunes to disclaim all liability for possible damage the software may cause.
- It is unreasonable that rights to music already downloaded by the consumer may change after purchase."

For a more comprehensive article in English, you may read the Ombudsman’s official website.