Fair Use advocates silenced by Big Brother

The Register UK (internet) ^ | 18/07/2002 at 18:57 GMT | Grant Gross

[RicocheT]

And you thought this was a free country, governed by the people? Think again. This is a corporatocracy. Bill Gates has much more to say about what legislation gets passed than you ever will. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has controlling tentacles all throughout Washington DC, in places you can only stroll between the felt-covered ropes as a tourist.

Who cares? You should, if you use a computer. "Digital Rights Management" is a euphemism which really means "Total Copy Protection" for all digital content on computers, and the government and Hollywood are working tirelessly to implement it as soon as possible, before the public can respond. And if the latest DRM workshop is any indication of their intent, they don't want to hear one peep out of the public on this topic.

Advocates trying to speak for regular Internet users were basically told to sit down and shut up during a "public" workshop on digital rights management dominated by IT heavyweights and Big Hollywood at the U.S. Department of Commerce Wednesday.

[RicocheT]

The plan is to make your computer an old style record player or movie projector that includes commercials and a report to pappa on what you watch. The idea that a computer should enhance your ability to find infromation or be a creative tool is your dream, not the government's

[DrDavid]

I agree wholeheartedly with you, but others will view this post like chicke little saying "The sky is falling".

[efaust93]

No Joke. I have an idea when it comes to such inforamtion and the Internet which is much more suited for a tech forum than here. With the RIAA and the MPAA threatening to sue people left and right, why don't companies (and people with the means to) use their firewalls to block traffic from these companies. Why don't they tell these companies that they are not welcome at their sites (in an official mailing) and tell them that if they do try to gather information from their network, they will be sued and reported to the federal government for attempted hacking (which carries a stiff penalty now). I would love to see a couple of the top Fortune 500 companies do that.

Media companies are too big and they thing they know what you want. Meanwhile, they force out music that people don't want to hear - (maybe that's the reason record sales are down), movies that aren't that good (does anyone need to see another Adam Sandler movie?) and they bitch because someone downloaded a song or a movie.

Face it, Media companies are afraid of PC's and the internet because they don't know how to use them. Media companies are too slow to deal with the future. You might think "AOL Time-Warner?" AOL is the land of the technologically clueless.

[elbucko]

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has controlling tentacles all throughout Washington DC,

I have always been offended by the FBI warning at the beginning of a video. One would think the FBI had better things to do than protect the profits of Hollywood. Post 911, these warnings seem absolutely obscene.

Jack Valenti, the head of MPAA, and a former aid of LBJ, has done a good job of getting the Democrats in Congress to carry Babylon Hollywood's water. Too bad he doesn't care as much about America, as he does about the gold in the banks of Beverly Hills that are in someone else's name.

[elbucko]

AOL is the land of the technologically clueless.

AOL may be a tech idiot, but that doesn't prevent the impulse of greed. When I first learned of the "AOL Keyword" ploy, I knew this was an ISP I wanted to stay away from. This was AOL's attempt to recreate the Web into its own, profitable, image.

[efaust93]

I meant the users.

Unfortunately, the clueless are easily influenced and you are correct the "AOL Keyword" is just bad news.

You are starting to see - with examples of China blocking the BBC and the "Great Firewall of China" - how a major corporation that controls most of the market can hide information it doesn't like from it's customers.

Believe me, AOL has a large market share unfortunately and they only want to make it larger. What's to stop them from allowing you to go to sites they feel are "not friendly to AOL."

[Greeklawyer]

The media distributors (that is all they do) are DESPERATLY trying to move the public at large away from the stand alone computer. They are trying to move towards the net appliances that failed miserably a few years ago.

These distributors are not interested in solutions, nor do they even understand their problem. They are not unlike the old railroad moguls who had the mistaken idea they were in the train business rather than the transport business.

Steve Jobs, said it best this weekend in a moment of clarity, "the myth is that there can be protection, what someone can build someone else can unbuild." Jobs said the entertainment industry needs to give the consumer something they can not make at home at a cheeper price. He further said it only takes one person to crack a code and the whole world has access.

[Greeklawyer]

The notorious fbi warning is just a creation of the MPAA. It is no different than a junkmailer puting a notice about postal abuse on a junk advertising. While factual, it is only there to intimidate more than inform. The fine print at the end of the credits in a movie does the same thing just not as (sarcasm on) scarry. (sarcasm off)

[weikel]

AOL is for luddites but AIM I must grudgingly admit is useful.

[ponyespresso]

And you thought this was a free country, governed by the people?

uh, no, it's been a while since I thought that actually.