Intrusive copyright contols and what they could lead to (1 Viewer)

[Roberto Carlo]

A hoax is the likely explanation.

Agreed. It sounds suspiciously like the A/V equivalent to other "proposed" government actions such as the now-infamous FCC ban on religious broadcasting. Years after the alleged instigator of that "ban" was dead, people are still writing the FCC in opposition to this proposal.
Regarding Rachael's comments on pricing: Jazz fans know how rational CD prices can be. Verve and others sell classic recordings by the likes of Coltrane, Clifford Brown and others for $19! If you're lucky, you'll find them on sale for $15.
I'm all for the record companies making a profit, but $19 for a CD where the initial costs have been recovered many times over and where the artists are dead? This is gouging. I hate the sound quality of MP3 so my only recourse is "no."
BTW, Rachael, you sound suspiciously like an economist. Are you at UT?

 

[Rachael B]

Roberto, I did study business at U.T. but I majored in marketing. I did take alot of economics courses. Verve Records is a front owned by Universal, I think. Old music by totally dead dudes should be in the public domain and be very cheap. The big five has worked very hard to eliminate the public domain for all practical purposes. A few measley campaign contributions was all it cost them.
Roberto, I like jazz alot and also hate the prices. I'm a very patient shopper for CD's though. I have a long list of stuff I want and mostly buy used. I do treat myself to some brand spankin' new SACD's though. When I let myself be price gouged I expect more than CD quality.
Even if this supposed bill doesn't exist, the will to impose draconian copy-control does exist. The next big battlefield looks to be digital TV. The music battle could heat up any time. My basic point stands that boot-legged media could beome the superior media if the content providers muck up their product.
Jeff, your response if so shocking , not! Outside of downloading, there really isn't much boot-legging going on IMO. I know where one could go downtown and buy drugs, but I don't know of a "strip" dominated by illicit audio and/or video sellers in this city. Physical media sales of bootlegs is primarily an "other world" thang. It's very limited in the U.S.
The big five has only themselves to blame for not selling downloads. They refuse to serve the market and seem bound and determined to bully it. I'm tired of being bullied. I've been one of their best customers!!!

 

[BobG]

Seriously, everybody. Associated Press is not a small-fry operation given to reporting spurious matters. If such a bill existed, it would have made huge news in the business sections of newspapers across the country. The financial implications, not to mention the abuse of fair-use laws, would be making headlines. A hoax is the likely explanation.

I hope you're right, but I have a feeling this isn't a hoax. Check out this thread at DVDTalk

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Looks like a hoax to me. It's not on the wire. It is on a couple of local tv and newspaper sites, but local sites have been fooled before by fake wire stories 'forwarded' via email.

Not to mention that the technology to do this with standard DVD and VHS would be impossible to implement. It would have to be implemented with a new format like HD ones, and it would just guarantee the complete failure of future HD formats. And if a 'new' DVD format were to roll out, that would split the market and flop as well.

 

[Rachael B]

Thanks for the link Bob. It's the same vague story we've seen turn up elsewhere. The mystey is what is the bill #? Or, is this a rider on a bigger bill, maybe? The guys at DVD talk are thinking along the same lines as me. Doing this would propel boot-legging and cause many people to become accepting of it.

 

[CamiloCamacho]

Lowering prices will have no effect on bootlegging, sorry, but that is a fact. People will still steal.

I'm not with you. Here in Colombia, the price of Lord Of The Rings 2 disc edition is 50 dollars!!!. (it's equivalent in pesos)

Personally i won't buy the disc, because i already preorder the 5 disc edition (and i was able to get it for less than that money - 50, after a couple of coupons). I don't think too much people will buy it, even in the US.

The real fact is people want to buy that movie, but if it cost one week of work no matter how much you want to comply with law. People will:

- Import the disc (like me) for less than a half money, including taxes

- Buy the DVD or VCD versions for a fraction (i think DVD bootlegs 19 dollars or something like that, franckly i'm not much interested)

 

[Mitty]

There's no way a DVD would be "married" to the first player it's played in. A 5 year old could see the absurdity of that.

Replace your DVD player? Replace your whole collection because your discs won't play in your new machine.

It'd also completely eradicate the rental market.

If it smells like a hoax, it probably is.

 

[Rachael B]

Michael, even if the story is a fraud, we all know about the secret desire of the MPAA and RIAA. It equals the story/news item.
Muchas Gracias Carmilo!!! That's what we're talking about! ...ejemplar magnifico!!!! Who needs to eat when you can watch movies instead! Recuredos de Rachael!

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

John,

I agree with what you are saying. I won't argue that the public will go for the cheap hardware. But, if the FCC had mandated that the decoder hardware be installed back in say, 1995, the problems would have worked themselves out by now. By forcing the inclusion of said hardware, it would have forced the manufacturers to mass produce them instead of having them be a specialty item, as they are now. That would have driven down the cost of a HD decoder to something very reasonable. I would toss out a number, but it would only be speculation anyways. I know it's also speculation to say that by including a decoder so early that it would've dramatically changed the HDTV climate...but I do believe that to be the case. The content providers wouldn't be saying "People are buying digital televisions, but they aren't buying the decoders" They've used that excuse for years to stall the HD front. Hollywoods extreme demands for an air-tight encryption and the lack of a transmission standard caused this delay.

Do you really think that the average consumer gives a wit about digital copy protection and content management?

Yes I do. The fact that digitally watermarked CD's won't play in CD-Roms has caused a firestorm among the CD buying public. As for content management, one of the scariest aspects of Hollywoods encryption stance is that it would have the ability to reach into your home and down-res any program it chooses, as well as keep a log of what programs you watch. That creeps too far into Big Brother territory and if there is one thing people don't want, it's to have their activities monitored by a faceless entity.

Bruce

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Rachael,
I agree completely. In fact, why are people likely to believe a hoax like this?
RIAA releases fake CDs that do not display the compact disc logo, but are marketed with real CDs. These discs do not play in many computers and even DVD players.
MPAA wants to eliminated full-bandwidth progressive component outputs, obsoleting millions of HD sets that have been sold, despite the fact that no consumer device is available to record these signals. And despite the fact that DVD was already hacked (due to typical incompetence in the encryption implementation) and overcompressed "DVD-quality" rips are more than good enough to make pirates happy. Pirates don't give a shit about HD.
MPAA wants the ability to selectively eliminate fair-use recording for timeshifting as legitimized with the Betamax case.
MPAA wants the right to hack into your PC if they believe you are sharing copyrighted material, and wants immunity from prosecution if they damage your property.
All during a time when video sales are at an all-time high.
Is it not surprising that people would believe such a hoax?