1. Create an account to join in the discussion. Once you register don't forget to enter our monthly drawings.

    Register to post on our forum.
  2. Home Theater Lounge will begin holding a live chat every Wednesday evening at 9pm Central. The goal is to get as many members online at the same time and just talk movies, music, and gear. You can join the chat by going to the Shoutbox app.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Dismiss Notice

Share your thoughts and ideas on the studio/consumer balance

Discussion in 'Movie Lounge' started by Michael, May 19, 2007.

  1. Michael

    Michael Junior Geek

    I am reposting this in a new thread. I have asked one of the mods to move the on topic responses over. I hope anyone and everyone who has a thought or idea on this feels comfortable posting here!



    Back to basics:

    There are plenty of reasons to question the DMCA, but loss of "fair use" is not one of them. Fair Use never was designed to allow an exact replication of the data on a purchased music or movie disc. As the term "fair use" implies, it has to do with certain usage rights that include archival. The method of archival, including exact replication was never guaranteed.


    That said.... I think that there should be a healthy balance between studios maintaining and controlling the ownership and distribution of their materials and consumer usage rights. I think that there should be an informed discussion in places like this where a healthy consensus can be reached. One based on respect and understanding of each groups rights and desires and not mired in pointless arguments trying to villify consumers, the studios or any existing copyright and patent law.

    We have been down the road of finger pointing and villification and it leads to discussions mired in pointless bickering.


    I always liked the approach of DigitalConsumer.org They actually presented a fairly even handed approach. Unfortunately, all the money and support went to the more partisan EFF. They seemed to realize that villianizing the content owners would help them become a larger org and raise more money. It is too bad because the "Us vs Them" attitude only helps those who want long, expensive drawn out legal battles.


    Going back the the Digital Consumer org.

    They had a Consumer Bill of Rights that I always thought was a great starting point:

    Let me the first to comment on the list. I think #6 is too restrictive to the content owners. If they can use technical means to grant all the other rights, then #6 should not be required. As it is worded, it takes away their option to use DRM since any user would be able to state that the DRM may get in the way of whatever method they wanted to use to exercise their other rights... even if those methods were already provided.
     
  2. Michael

    Michael Junior Geek

    Adding one more post here from the previous thread and hoping the mods can move the other relevant posts!

    So we have heard from the extreme of both positions.


    What I would like to see is other viewpoints. What do you think would be a good scheme to protect the IP owners rights and privileges, while granting good usage rights and privileges to consumers?


    If possible, please try and list specific thoughts and ideas instead of just saying "I agree with X". The reason I ask to list things out is that often times that is how a good idea will present itself. Sometimes is the small tweaks in a general view that really sparks a momentous idea.

    I am sure that more then the regular 3 or 4 guys have a viewpoint here. Share it!!

    For those who have already shared their viewpoint. Be respectful of other ideas and don't try and crap on new ideas.
     
  3. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    Michael:


    Kudos for your fair and even-handed approach to the subject. Here's my two cents:

    The problem with the "digital rights" is that they are not all based on law but instead, on what users want or think seems reasonable. Unfortunately, our legal system is not based on "fair." As one example, why can I driver 65 mph on the highway, but not 70? Is 65 somehow "fairer" than 70? Nope, it's simply the law. Why can I put a shed in my backyard, but not an extension to my house? There are of course countless other examples, encompasing virtually every aspect of our lives.

    Larry
     
  4. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    To expand a bit ...

    CDs were designed to be played in...CD players. The manufacturers of CDs do not, TTBOMK, make any clainm, overt or implied, that a CD will play in any other device. What many consumers (though hopefully, few HTL members) still fail to realize is that when they purchase a CD, they are actually licensing the content and agreeing to the terms of that license. The studios own the content and it is their choice to sell it in any form they chose, just as it is the conumers' choice to purchase that particular disc or not. While it is certainly resonable to ask studios for discs that play in, for example, computers, or to vote with one's pocketbook, this is a far cry from the so-called consumer's "rights" that are claimed. The bottom line is that the people making the demands do not understand the law.

    Lest I be misunderstood, I do not like the laws as they stand, nor do I like the approach the studios have taken in distributing their product. But I understand and accept that it is their product not mine, and that they are not infrigning any of my rights.

    Larry
     
  5. I have supported the DCO's Bill of Rights, and if they were adopted by the entertainment industry, I would start buying CDs and movies again. At that point, I'd have only one qualm left to discuss, but I won't talk about that here in this thread.

    Thumbs up to the DCO's Bill of Rights!!!
     
  6. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    Feel free to support them, but they are based on vapor.

    Imagine that I invented a superior internal combustion engine, which got much better gas mileage than existing engines. Can potential consumers dictate how, or even if, I choose to sell it? ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NOT. But because audio- and video-philes really really really really really really love their CDs, DVDs and gadgets used to display them, they have convinced themselves that when they can't do as they please, their rights are being stepped on. You can click your ruby slippers and pray to the video deity of your choice, but the facts are the facts: No one's rights are being infringed.

    Don't shoot the messenger. ;)
     
  7. Michael

    Michael Junior Geek

    The idea here is not to dissect what is legal or not legal. I think everyone has a good grasp of that at this point (thank goodness), so we don't need to argue that anymore. The idea is to strike a theoretical balance so that it is not an "Us vs Them" relationship and each side can feel they are getting a good deal as part of the transaction, without having to resort to lawsuits, illegaly copying or piracy.


    You did already point out the underlying problem... Consumers feel they should have more usage rights. So what usage rights are really wanted?

    Larry,
    What usage rights would you like to see?

    What techniques, etc would be acceptable for you in protecting reserved rights of the content owners?


    I am going to quote another post from the other thread that expands on these ideas:



    NOTE: Free your mind of the old arguments. Think about what you want as a consumer while still respecting the valid rights and claims of the content owners. There is no line in the sand. This is a conversation amongst informed and intelligent friends.
     
  8. cjd

    cjd New Member

    So, instead of #6, I think the key is not that technology must be allowed.

    I believe the key is that all consumers must have access to the tools to achieve the rights previously mentioned. So, affordable, readily available, reasonable. Not sure the legal terms for this.

    I think that can coexist with DRM, and may even look forward to new technologies. Instead of buying a DVD, I go buy a license. I can get as many DVD's as I want spun at the store, one copy, ten copies. If my kids destroy 'em all, it's another couple bucks a pop for the media or whatever it is.

    I'm thinking this kind of thing could almost work the way photography works. I don't have a darkroom of my own, but I can send negatives or digital images over and have them printed up, great affordability. I CAN have my own darkroom, it just costs more. Instead of having all TV broadcast straight, it should switch to being served up. The earliest possible time you can get a show is when it "airs" but if you get in half an hour later, it's streamed over to you as if you were catching it the normal time.

    C
     
  9. Michael

    Michael Junior Geek

    Thanks Chris!!

    Exactly the kind of open minded thoughts/ideas I am hoping for!!
     
  10. Tom R S 4

    Tom R S 4 New Member War Zone Member

    (I haven't been following this from the previous thread, simply because I do not as yet own a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc or player, and have for the most part been ignoring the whole area. I only saw this thread because of the 'view posts since last visit' feature.)


    O.K.

    While I do have problems with the stealing of anything, and understand why someone would try to prevent theft, I also do not appreciate going about my own business and being treated like a criminal. Any "phone home" system would do exactly that, and I won't participate.
     
  11. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    Personally, I am fine with things as they are, but I am not a high-tech guy. That said, I can understand WHY people want to be able to use their discs in different ways.

    At this point, as long as I can play my discs in a CD player or DVD player, I am unaffected by any protection safeguards.
     
  12. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    Please humor me and stop calling them rights. Instead, let's call them "things consumers want."
     
  13. LarryB

    LarryB Active Member

    I know this is antithetical to an HT crowd, but I would be quite happy (at least, I think I would) with a PPV model, provided the price is reasonable (say, a few bucks per viewing) and the quality is high. Having access to a nearly unlimited library is much to my liking.
     
  14. cjd

    cjd New Member

    On the flipside, I would be willing to pay a bit more to own the films (I'm assuming you refer to film at a few bucks a view, Larry) and not have to pay a PPV fee. I buy very few, but watch them frequently. And not always all the way through. The "I just paid for this" takes the relaxation out of movies. Unless I have a week like I do with a rental.

    Phone home systems are out for me, too. So, give me a digital key required for playback. Put it on my keyring. And make me have the key handy for playback.
     
  15. DYohn

    DYohn Well-Known Member Donor

    Top Poster Of Month

    Yea, this is all pointless. The law is the law and what you may or may not "want" is completely moot.

    I also advocate PPV.
     
  16. brianca

    brianca New Member

    I think #4 would be the hardest to implement. The rest pretty much exist now. I wouldn't have any problem implementing them into a bill, but I'm not sure how much it would help.

    I, too, am pretty happy with the current state of affairs. I buy or rent a movie and it plays in my player. That's pretty much all I ask. Extra stuff is nice and I use some of it, but not all.
     
  17. Tom R S 4

    Tom R S 4 New Member War Zone Member

    It doesn't really bother me that the PPV option exists, having a choice doesn't bother me. If it were to become the only way to watch a movie or listen to music at home, it would be a different matter. I want to have, and will always have, the option of watching 'my' movies whenever I want, what ever scenes I want, over as long a time period as I want, repeating (or skipping) whatever scenes I want. All of this without ever having that information placed on some database somewhere for someone to charge me for (or keep tabs on me). Why would anyone have problems with that?

    A simple rental from the video store is as close to PPV as I want to have.
     
  18. cjd

    cjd New Member

    None of this is at odds with the law. At least, it is not at odds with copyright law.

    C
     
  19. Tom R S 4

    Tom R S 4 New Member War Zone Member

    I have a serious question:

    For those of you who feel a PPV model would be quite agreeable, do you also feel a similar system for music would work as well? If not, why not? I don't see any real difference between the two. They both have the same copyright issues and DRM issues. In my mind there's very little difference between them.
     
  20. Michael

    Michael Junior Geek

    There is no law stating that content holders must use every tool at their disposal to protect their content.

    Again... let's get back to discussing schemes that would provide consumer benefit, which in turn should provide the best opportunity for content owner to sell their wares to consumers.


    I personally do not have an interest in Pay Per View. I would be interested in a Netflix type scheme that used digital distribution. I have mentioned this before, but it would basically result in having a set top box that held a certain number of movies that I had queued up (ala Netflix). I could watch them as many times as I wanted, and pause, forward, rewind, etc at will. But there would be a limit to the number of movies that would be on the device at any one time. When I was done with a movie, I would "delete" it and the device would automatically download the next title in my queue.

    I have ideas on what I want from purchased media, but I will hold off on those thoughts for now.
     

Share This Page