DeCSS

[sleepytom]

Jon Johansen, the author of DeCSS, has been acquitted on all charges by the Norwegian Supreme Court (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/01/07/1230212.shtml?tid=123)

[elbows]

Heh :D Its all Linux's fault again I see, he only cracked DVD's cos he couldnt play them on Linux because they guarded the CSS code so much there that there was no DVD playing software for Linux. Mwahar :D

[elbows]

Well in this instance it actually wasnt overhype by the media - Regardless of what his original purpose for writing the software was, the DeCSS routines were the basis for all the DVD ripping software thats out there.

I mean I personally applaud the fact he was found innocent, because in principal I think its fair enough that if something is created for one purpose and misused b other people then that should not get the original creator into trouble. I mean if I invented a device to stop snoring but by some quirk some scum found out they could use it in hostage situations, then its hardly my fault.

Methinks we will see some more high profile cases like this in the future. As we have discussed in relation to the copyright/sampling debates, the big industries usually only bother to take action when people are seriously affecting their income stream, which also probably explains why VJs havent been picked on much yet. But as we saw with MP3's, the music industry went rabid over that because they perceived it as a legitimate threat.

So anyway yeah digital content protection etc is really going to become a big thing as broadband increases and corporates actually get with the program and deliver content electronically to people for a fee. Theres a good many reasons they are beig slow with this, I think some of them are naive enough to assume that some holy grail of copy protetion will come along. Those who have watched anti-game copying devices dating back to the days of the Spectrum get cracked, are probably a bit more cynical about the likelihood of that ;)

So if I were a holywood studio or a record company, I would get realistic and not rely on technology to save them from the pirates. In reality they only need to do a couple of things:

1) Make it harder for people to copy stuff. They dont need to make it impossible, they simply need to prevent the average computer user from easily copying stuff, if all the geeks can copy stuff it wont harm their revenue streams, they just need to prevent the masses from doing it

2) Interfere with file sharing on the internet by denial of service attacks, and making the service rubbish for users by flooding the thing with thousands of misnamed files.

3) High profile court cases. How many people in this country would be burning audio cd's and downloading MP3's if they saw a few people getting sent down for 5 years for doing just that? They will have to be careful about how quickly they move with this agenda though as there could be a large backlash if they are too far out of step with public opinion.

4) Find some way to brand the coders who write copy-bypass protection software as Terrorists. Hey its a crazy world, I wouldnt be surprised if they try this cheap trick someday, it just requires some creative thinking from their PR(opaganda) machine.

Final thought from me: Not wishing to bring the sampling morality debate to this thread, but one thing I find interesting to compare personal copyright violations with is all the corporations that openly profit from people abusing copyright. Think of all the cd writers and blank discs out there, and now legitimate companies such as Steinberg make DVD copying software. Hmm actually is there some silly license where a small percentage of blank cd costs go to record industry etc as a supposed levy on their potential to damage cd sales? (and did this happen with blank tapes too?) Or did I dream that?

[elbows]

I soppose some holywood films are immune to getting their cinema taking reduced by net piracy, for the simple reason that some films are just meant to be watched on the big screen. Still one day I guess we will all have big screen in our homes!

To be honest Im not convinved MP3's have much to do with the current stale music scene, I think its multiple factors more to do with the industry as a whole, and I think the musicians are partly to blame too for there not being enough original stuff - Most creative people I know would still follow through on a great idea just for the sake of creating it, even if the industry went completely to poo. I dunno theres all sorts of contradicting stats too, cd salers have actually gone up in some countries, the picture is far from clear. Some of the MP3 doom and gloom stories were overhyped I beleive, possibly to help the corps get their tough legislation through by hyping the threat (hey it works for the military :D )

I suppose im interested in the human psychology of the consumers too, with the internet and computers the way they are, people are now starting to regard music and film etc as something quite seperate from a physical thing that you buy, blurring the moral issue etc. For sure the reactionary approach of the old guard is to try to protect the existing system, when realistically they should be revolutionary and just get on with delivering content electronically at a sensible price.

I mean all that buying out Napster so they could setup their own decent commercial music online sites, well its hardly materialised at the pace & scale they suggested, n fact they will drag their heels for as long as possible.

Personally my ideal would be to pay a subscription for access to content on demand. Imagine a centralised site where you could get access to music, film, other art and entertainment forms, whenever you like, for a reasonable fee. There could be a multiple tier license so people like VJs could pay a higher subscription but gain additional rights to what they can do with the footage. I suppose this sums up my chief gripe with the copyright mess of today - its just not designed to be easily accessed by yer small independant human, its jumbled up in the elaborate systems of corporate speak and isnt supposed to be accessible to me because I dont have enough money to get their attention. Well then they shoudl wake up and realise that 1 x Me is no good for their profits, but 1000 x normal people is.

Summary: Internet = damngerous because it is a middleman killer. I could just as easily say that record labels etc etc leech and thieve from the artists even more than people who sample, so they should just skip it all and sell direct. They can do it now if they want, but the corporate marketing machine isnt accessible to them that way so they arent gonna sell a million. If the way people receive hype/advertising changes, the whole house of cards could fall down.

Time is money, so if they just make it a pain in the ass for people to download stuff, and make the subscription a reasonable price, then bingo.

Will the above happen? Its not in the interests of a lot of powerful people/comapnies to let it, so Im not too optimistic. They will drag their feet for as long as possible, and who knows the Internet is so "dangerous" to the status quo in so many ways that I wouldnt be surprised to see it eveolve into something where the average person cant publish/share stuff so easily.

If I had a time machine, Id like to find in 10 years time, that I support artists I like by paying then a regular fee. If all your loyal fans send you ?1 a month, it would add up :)

[unjulation]

i had an interesting conversation with some muso people the outher day about bootleging which basicly went because the actual % of profits made by a perticular musician is about 10-15% tops if people bootleg there work they as artists dont actualy lose out on that much revenue, its the compinaies that do, sony, emi, etc, etc, then the way that the perticular musisian makes his mony and keeps his/her name within the public eye/mind is by the fact that people can get there music cheep, and from that are able to do sell out tours, sell merchandising, etc etc, so for some bootleging is a viabel option to continue the work that they know and love because then people will come to there gigs the record compians will what to keep hold of them and pay them mony to live, i know its a bit of track but there you go!

[eXhale]

Originally posted by elbows
Will the above happen? Its not in the interests of a lot of powerful people/comapnies to let it, so Im not too optimistic. They will drag their feet for as long as possible, and who knows the Internet is so "dangerous" to the status quo in so many ways that I wouldnt be surprised to see it eveolve into something where the average person cant publish/share stuff so easily.

If I had a time machine, Id like to find in 10 years time, that I support artists I like by paying then a regular fee. If all your loyal fans send you ?1 a month, it would add up :) actually all the major record companies have already started doing this with pressplay (www.pressplay.com) (sony, universal, microsoft, etc) and musicnet (www.musicnet.com) (bmg, emi, real, etc). they haven't had much success yet mainly because of their lame proprietary formats (i personnaly wouldn't use a service which force me to use real player!) with so many anti-piracy protections that it's hardly possible to do anything with them.

anyway hardly none of music i listen is on these labels so i would not get much of this... i suspect this is one of the reason why these majors are losing money: with the internet, people are finally able to discover other kind of music, bypassing the usual mtv-radio channels which are squatted by these majors. not being able to control all the media is probably what bothers them most. that's just my theory anyway.

[Rovastar]

elbows interesting but what do you see a reasonable for films, music and everything. 20 a month, 40 a month, 100 a month, 500 a month??

"If I had a time machine, Id like to find in 10 years time, that I support artists I like by paying then a regular fee. If all your loyal fans send you ?1 a month, it would add up"

ummh. I wonder. If this was the case that people are so nice. Why don't a big artist with a record deal pay from there own back for a record release it free and ask people to donate.

Ummh. I don't think so.

We live in a new generation we people want things for free. The Internet I am not paying for that generation and yes I am part of that too. :)

Take the visualization scene that I am from release stuff for free cool. Ask someone to donate you do not see anything so what is the point. I admit it is on a smaller insignificant scale but it is the same thing.

People donate time got a website done for me and sometimes resources but pound notes it does happen as often as you like/think in the real word.

Why not make VJo totally free and have a donation box there?

If something is free why should you pay even if you do love it.

Dunno what the answer is and predicting the future is nearly impossible as the present is changing at such exponential rates.

[elbows]

Ahh well although Id love to be a hippy in a hippy dippy world, im too into human psychology to live in that unreality, fun though it would be.

Im not talking about charity, Im talking about a practical and realistic subscription system.

Yes if you stick something in front of people that they want, and they can just grab it free with no strings attached then of course they will go down that route. But if there are serious implications for making that choice, coupled with a system where they can get what they want at a price which is acceptable to them (we can argue about precise figures forever but im basing the concept on lots of people paying a low price and costs being kept down by minimising the real costs which are middlemen)

Forget the bullshit way the systems of the world happen to be today, but dont be unrealistic about human nature, I guess thats my philosophy. I could spend years trying to fully understand the way all the intricate and stupid mechanisms of the modern world work, but what good would it do? Ive decided to start again from very basic concepts, so as to eliminate the infinite hassle of trying to decode the smokescreens and complexities that various cultures histories have culmulated in the world of Jan 2003 that we happen to be in right now.

At this rate I might even go further than subscriptions and give the concept of bartering another look, as you say its more realistic to swap knowledge/time/effort with people than get them to throw money into a begging bowl ;) That might be how I solve my content issues, see if starving content creators can form a useful partnership with starving vj's (but me not starving cos of mind-numbing dayjob income).

Call me Dr GeekoNet but I reckon history will judge the internet to have more of an impact on society and culture than we yet realise. Maybe thats just my hippy bubble in a 2003 style, but it hasnt burst yet so bear with me, and if it does burst i'll survive ;)