Hollywood's Piracy Fears Turn Potentially Useful Product Into A $4,000 Brick

from the the-original-tin-foil-hat-brigade dept

Hollywood's inability to see any new technology as anything other than a piracy enabler continues to cripple potentially great products. David Pogue has a review of a "set top" box that has the potential (remember that word) to make your home movie viewing instant and seamless.

You feed it all your movies and music on disc: CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray discs. The Cinema One copies each disc to its 4-terabyte hard drive. 25 minutes for a DVD; two hours for a Blu-ray.

And I mean it copies everything. Every deleted scene, director’s commentary, alternate ending. Every DVD extra. And it doesn’t touch the video — there’s no compression or anything; it copies every pixel of quality that’s on the disc.

Once these movies are stored on the drive, you can call them up instantly using the remote or the iPad app.

When you hit Play on the remote, the movie begins playing instantly.

Read that again. The movie begins playing. Not the FBI warning, not the MPAA screen, not the previews, not the DVD menu — the movie itself. You cannot imagine how delightful that is compared with what we’re used to now: Downloading or streaming movies is handy, but you don’t get anything like the quality of Blu-ray, and you generally don’t get any of the bonus features. And discs give you the quality and the extras but require you to sit there staring at stupid FBI and MPAA screens that you’re not allowed to skip. The Kaleidescape box offers the best of both worlds.

This convenience of not being told you're a thief by your purchased product comes at a price. One is the retail price, which is an astounding $4,000. The other is a tax (of sorts) borne out of Hollywood's stupidity and paranoia.

When you want to play a Blu-ray movie off the Cinema One, you have to hunt down the original disc you own, insert it into the Cinema One’s slot, and wait for it to load. You’re not playing the disc; you’re just confirming that you own it.

But you’re also losing 80 percent of the value of having a Cinema One! What happened to “any movie in your collection, instantly”?

That's Hollywood crippling a device to ensure the $4,000 product never lives up to its potential. This is what happens when execs see nothing in the technology but a new way to pirate movies. Instead of a seamless, instant experience, you're back in the position of hunting for the purchased discs you already "conveniently" stored on the hard drive. For whatever reason, you don't have to do this with regular DVDs. (Presumably because that market isn't where the money is anymore, although at one time, that ridiculous stipluation was forced on Kaleidescape by Hollywood lawyers -- and that's when the box ran about $10,000.)

You can also purchase movies through Kaleidescape, but at this point, the selection is woefully limited. For only $2, you can purchase what amounts to a digital license to play your purchased Blu-rays without having to load the original disc, but even that is hampered by a lack of upstream licensing.

That’d be a reasonably priced solution if it were available for any Blu-ray movie you own. But it’s not. In fact, it’s available for relatively few movies: only those from Lionsgate and Warner Bros. Kaleidescape says it’s working on reaching similar deals with other movie companies, but for now, it’s only a fractional solution.

So, the studios are more than happy to cripple the device, but not so interested in providing affordable licensing of their productions. It's certainly had time to work these details out. It's been fighting Kaleidescape since 2004, tenanciously combating every technological advance the company made. Along the way, it forced the company to require the insertion of every disc before playing (including regular DVDs) and dragged it to court on multiple occasions to claim its "circumvention" of disc-based copyright protection was infringement (even if people were "burning" movies they owned to the drive).

Now, Hollywood has been forced to accept this device, nearly a decade since it first began its attack. The number of licensed movies available for download barely clears 2,000 titles. There may be more to come, but it seems unlikely to be fully embraced by the same studios who spent 10 years fighting it. And who's to say that any licenses obtained won't be rescinded in the future, punching holes in your digital collection and putting you back in the position of hunting down Blu-ray discs you stashed away after burning them to Kaleidescape's drive? It's not as though that sort of "you don't really own your digital purchases" bullshit has never occurred before.

As Pogue points out, the studios' tampering makes this product almost completely useless.

But that copy-protection business is going to kill a lot of potential sales. It’s like having a TiVo that can’t record anything on a timer, or hiring a tax preparer who hands you the blank 1040 form and a pen. It just defeats the purpose.

That's copyright protection for you. All the promise in the world negated by fearful Hollywood execs who see pirates hiding under every new technological advance.

Filed Under: blu ray, copyright, david pogue, drm, dvd jukebox, hollywood
Companies: kaleidescape, mpaa

ITIF: Ignore 'Paranoid Bloggers' And Pesky 'Populists' - The Comcast Merger Will Be Great

from the your-talking-points-suck dept

As I've been noting, Comcast lobbyists have certainly fired up their sound wall of paid PR folk, consultants, think tanks, and other policy tendrils in a fairly weak attempt to convince everyone that an immeasurably larger and more powerful Comcast is going to be a good thing for everybody. Most of the arguments (correctly) focus on the fact that Time Warner Cable and Comcast don't directly compete so there's no harm, while ignoring that Comcast's ever-increasing size makes it easier for Comcast to bully disruptive Internet video companies using usage caps, restrictive licensing agreements, and peering relationships.

Most of the editorials are quite a lot of fun, like this one by Doug Brake of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. The ITIF, if you'd forgotten, was a big backer of SOPA and has championed all manner of IP maximalism, most recently through their support of the TTP agreement. They take money from broadband providers and the MPAA, not that Forbes or anybody else can ever bother to point this out. According to Brake, criticism of the merger is something that's being fabricated by "paranoid bloggers" and spreaders of "misinformation," whose "populist" thinking gives cable companies a bad rap:

"It is popular, especially in the blogosphere, to automatically distrust cable and telecommunications companies, a stance that often leads to inaccurate statements and misunderstandings."

Gosh, that distrust couldn't possibly come from the fact that Comcast is among the lowest ranked companies for customer satisfaction in what's the lowest ranked industry for customer satisfaction across all industries? Bi-annual rate hikes for channels never watched? Full-day technician visit windows that get bumped numerous times for no reason? Jacking up modem rental fees? Horrible customer support? Burying rate hikes misleadingly in below-the-line fees? Any of this ringing a bell, Doug? It's worth noting that brand impression of Time Warner Cable has actually somehow gotten even worse since the merger was announced, which is pretty impressive.

Brake stumbles forth valiantly to then argue that those worried about a larger Comcast needn't do so -- because competitive pressure from phone companies will keep Comcast executives honest:

"The broadband populists that dominate this conversation like to claim that DSL is not fast enough to be a competitor to cable. But some of DSL’s 31 million subscribers (compared to cable’s 51.5 million) might disagree. And there is good reason to expect DSL speeds to improve – new technology, called vectored DSL, promises 100 Mbps under the right circumstances. And of course, in 6 of the 19 metros, Verizon FIOS fiber service is a robust competitor."

First, I'm not entirely sure in what world being a "populist" is an insult; the dictionary definition of populism suggests someone who is looking out for the people (what a bunch of jerks). Second, if the argument is that the phone companies will keep Comcast honest as they grow, apparently Mr. Brake isn't aware of the fact that AT&T and Verizon are backing away from huge swaths of the fixed-line broadband market because they don't want to upgrade them (as in, ever), which would leave the freshly-merged Comcast Time Warner Cable with less competition than ever before. In turn, Comcast will soon have a greater ability to impose the usage caps they've been busy testing in uncompetitive markets without competitive repercussions. Brake then goes on to repeat another core merger supporter talking point -- Google Fiber will somehow keep Comcast honest:

"Let’s not forget another big announcement made on the heels of the merger proposal – Google has started early plans to expand its fiber build-out to nine new metro areas. The timing of Google’s release exposes a key flaw in Crawford’s arguments against the merger: immediately after Comcast’s announcement, many detractors dismissed Google fiber as a viable competitor to cable because it is in only a handful of cities."

Right, except that that Google Fiber announcement to "expand to nine new metro areas" never actually stated anything of the sort, something Brake would know if he'd actually read it. Google Fiber, which currently only serves a handful of users in Kansas City and Provo, Utah, simply announced it would work with cities in nine markets to examine improving infrastructure. One or two might actually see service sometime by 2015, but it's not keeping Comcast executives up at night anytime soon. This talking point that companies like Google Fiber and Hulu (which Comcast co-owns) will generate enough pressure to keep Comcast honest is laughable, but it keeps getting trotted out like an ugly show pony.

You'd think for the money Comcast is pouring into these think tanks annually, one of them would actually understand the industry they're writing about and be able to make coherent arguments in support of the merger. Surely there have to be some legitimate benefits to letting Comcast get immensely more massive? Perhaps suggest that shiny new taxpayer-subsidized skyscraper Comcast is building in Philadelphia will scare away the foul shard devils from the vile astral plane of Kerithuth? Maybe suggest the combined new super Comcast will impact the earth's gravitational pull just enough to give us all super powers that could help us fight said looming cross-dimensional invasion? Surely these groups can do better. Paranoid populists everywhere demand it!

Filed Under: broadband, broadcast, dsl, itif, lobbying
Companies: comcast, mpaa, time warner cable

US Solicitor General's Office, Run By Former Top MPAA Lawyer, Shockingly Sides With Broadcasters Over Aereo

from the it's-the-little-things dept

As the Aereo case is set to be heard by the Supreme Court in April, there have been a flurry of amicus briefs filed on both sides. It's disappointing, but not too surprising, to see that the official position of the administration is to side with the broadcasters over Aereo, arguing effectively that the length of a cord changes the copyright calculation. This position goes against every Aereo court ruling to date, except for one odd ruling in Utah. That the US government would take this position isn't too surprising. After all, the Solicitor General of the US (whose office prepared this brief) is Donald Verrilli -- who probably would have been representing the broadcasters in this case if it had happened a few years ago. For years, he was Hollywood's go to litigator for their big copyright cases, including the infamous Grokster case, in which he convinced the Supreme Court to create a new "inducement" standard for infringement. Technically, Verrilli "recused" himself from this filing, but what were the chances that the folks who report to him were going to file a brief that sided against the organization most likely to employ Verrilli once he leaves government service?

The key issue in the case is whether or not Aereo is retransmitting to the public. As we've explained multiple times, Aereo's setup is technologically insane, but legally sensible, given just how stupid copyright law is today. Because it's recognized as legal that you can place shift legally accessible TV (a la a Slingbox) and that you can watch over-the-air TV via a personal antenna (duh), Aereo has set up "individual antennas" for each customer, connected to the equivalent of a Slingbox, such that you can "subscribe" and get access to over-the-air channels. It's technically no different than you setting up an antenna and Slingbox in your home, except that the distance of the cable between the antenna/Slingbox combo and your TV is much longer with Aereo (across the internet) than in your home. However, broadcasters and other supporters of them (now including the US government) argue that this longer cable somehow, magically, turns this individual antenna into a public broadcast for which Aereo should be expected to pay ridiculously steep retransmission fees.

The arguments put forth by the US government are basically a carbon copy of what the broadcasters are saying. They completely reject the length of the cable argument by basically saying that, what really matters, is how this might undermine the retransmission fees broadcasters get. Specifically, they say that it doesn't matter that people at home can create their own Aereo legally, what matters more is that Aereo looks too much like cable retransmission:

Respondent observes that, from the subscriber's perspective, respondent's service provides substantially the same functionality that consumers could obtain by purchasing equipment for their homes. In enacting the 1976 Copyright Act amendments, however, Congress overrode decisions of this Court that drew on the same analogy. In applying the Copyright Act in its current form, the more important functional equivalence is between respondent and the cable systems that the 1976 Congress brought within the Copyright Act's purview.

But that totally and completely ignores some pretty significant differences, especially around how Aereo has an individual antenna for each user, as well as making sure that there's an individual copy made. That was not the case at all with cable systems.

While this filing is careful to state that it is not trying to undermine the important precedent set in the Cablevision case (which said a remote DVR controlled by a cable company is legal), which was a key reason why the lower courts sided with Aereo, it's important to note that back when the Cablevision case was up for appeal to the Supreme Court, Verrilli's predecessor sided with innovation over claiming infringement. It's just now that the Solicitor General who has a long history of representing Hollywood is in control, that the administration seems to be happy to side with copyright maximalism, over innovation. The one potential saving grace: the prior solicitor general who sided with Cablevision and against the broadcasters? Elena Kagan... is now a Justice on the Supreme Court.

Filed Under: broadcast, solicitor general, streaming, television
Companies: aereo, mpaa

MPAA Shifts Its Funding Efforts To Republicans After SOPA Defeat

from the but-of-course dept

You may recall that, as SOPA/PIPA were in their final death throes, MPAA boss Chris Dodd made a significant political faux pas in flat out warning politicians that if they refused to stay bought, the MPAA might not keep funding them:

"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"

Historically, of course, it has always been the Democrats that Hollywood has backed the most. While there are some high profile exceptions, Hollywood is a Democratic town. And, of course, with the Democrats failing to give Hollywood its desired censorship tool, the MPAA has apparently shifted strategies and has ramped up its funding of Republicans (possible paywall, depending on where you visit from):

Last year, the MPAA replaced its longtime lead lobbying firm, considered to be close with Democrats, with a lobbyist with ties to key GOP lawmakers. Its political-action committee now gives more donations to Republicans than Democrats. And it has sent money to a GOP super PAC, a conservative antitax entity and a business lobby helping Republicans in the 2014 elections.

Of course, this isn't so much the end result of Dodd's promise, rather it appears to be the MPAA recognizing that the party that bailed first (and most loudly) on SOPA and PIPA... were the Republicans, who have begun showing sparks that suggest that they may break from the bipartisan support for copyright maximalism.

While it's easy to be cynical about the MPAA here, it's more likely that this is all by design by Congress itself. For all the belief that lobbyists drive the agenda in Congress via money, when you dig down, you realize it's often the opposite, with the politicians themselves effectively extorting money from lobbyists by threatening to push certain laws.

In fact, right before SOPA blew up, a cynical, but knowledgeable (and all too prescient) friend of mine pointed out that the whole point of SOPA/PIPA was to pit two "rich" industries -- tech and Hollywood -- against each other to make donations rain from the sky. As this friend pointed out, for years, Congress would pit two other "rich" industries -- radio broadcasters and the recording industry -- against each other by pushing a performance rights bill, and both sides would donate heavily to various candidates in support of or against it. However, by 2010, it was quickly becoming clear that neither the radio industry, nor the recording industry were going to continue being huge successful industries with lots of money to throw around lobbying. So, folks on the Judiciary Committee looked around and sought a bill that would get the tech industry and Hollywood all riled up to start donating. It didn't much matter if the bills passed or not -- just that people got angry.

And that's more or less what happened.

And, now the MPAA is raining dollars on candidates it hasn't in the past:

In 2010, MPAA had a budget of about $50 million, down from $70 million in 2008, according to tax forms. In 2012, the last year for which tax forms are available, MPAA's budget was back to nearly $70 million....

The fastest-growing part of the MPAA budget is donations to interest groups and political organizations. It made $2.5 million in grants to third-party groups in 2012, up from just $120,000 in 2009. Many were routed to nonpolitical organizations that share Hollywood's interest in copyright protections or lower taxes. About $600,000 went to organizations that play a more political role.

MPAA gave $75,000 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is a top supporter of Republican candidates for Congress; $100,000 to Americans for Tax Reform, the antitax group run by conservative advocate Grover Norquist ; $25,000 to the large pro-Republican super PAC American Action Network; and $20,000 to Let Freedom Ring, whose mission is to "counter the attacks of anti-conservative groups," according to its website.

Cynical or not, if the plan all along with SOPA/PIPA was basically a fundraising plan for Congress, well, mission accomplished.

Filed Under: chris dodd, pipa, republican party, sopa
Companies: mpaa

White House Withholds Details Of Its Role In 'Voluntary' Agreement Between Payment Processors And Copyright Industries

from the of-course-not dept

The Obama White House has been a big supporter of getting companies to come up with what they like to call "voluntary agreements" for various issues where both the White House and Congress know that there just isn't enough political will in Congress to pass a law. Not that Congress is particularly good at legislating, but sometimes these "voluntary agreements" don't appear to be all that voluntary, and at other times they appear to border on being collusion against certain competitors and innovators. This focus on "voluntary agreements" has been a big part of the administration's approach to dealing with copyright law. That was true prior to the SOPA debacle, but even more so since that legislative effort fell flat on its face. The most high profile of these was the six strikes "voluntary agreement" between certain major ISPs along with the RIAA and MPAA.

Of course, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Chris Soghoian showed that rather than a truly "voluntary" agreement, the White House, in the form of then IP czar Victoria Espinel, was heavily involved in the process. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (where the IP czar position is housed) withheld most of those emails. Soghoian sued and lost, as the court ruled that OMB was okay to hide the documents claiming either that they contained confidential commercial information or that it was part of the "deliberative process privilege."

It appears that the IP czar and OBM are going to get away with this again. A professor from the University of Iowa School of Law, submitted a similar FOIA request for details of the IP Czar's involvement in the creation of a similar voluntary agreement with payment processors -- an effort to get Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, American Express and others to stop doing business with sites deemed evil by the MPAA and RIAA. In this case, OMB is admitting that it has found 60 pages of relevant information but is withholding all of it for the same reasons given to Soghoian. Specifically:

We are withholding the 4-page final agreement under FOIA exemption 4... which protects from disclosure "... trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential. We are withholding the 56 pages of various drafts of such agreement and other related documents under FOIA exemption 4 and FOIA exemption 5.... Exemption 5 protects interagency and intra-agency predecisional, deliberative materials, the disclosure of which would inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views that is necessary for effective government decision-making.

So, once again, the main issue here is the deliberative process privilege. In theory, it makes some sense to have such an exemption, because you want government employees to be willing to discuss things frankly when shooting around ideas. But here's the problem in both of these cases: these aren't government policies. The whole point is that they're "voluntary agreements" between private parties. And thus, there's no government policy involved, and thus it's difficult to see how the deliberative process privilege could or should possibly apply. Unfortunately, the court ruled otherwise against Soghoian, and I'd imagine that should Gleason appeal this rejection the results would be the same.

Of course, the end result now is that the office of the IP Czar now realizes that it has basically free rein in browbeating companies into collusive positions against upstarts and innovators as pushed for by copyright maximalists -- and it can keep the efforts of the government (i.e., threats of "do this or we'll pass legislation" or "do this or we'll make life difficult for you") totally secret. That should raise serious questions about the appropriateness and legality of nearly all of these so-called "voluntary agreements."

Filed Under: copyright, foia, ip czar, obm, six strikes, white house
Companies: mpaa, riaa

ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass

from the theft? dept

Earlier this week there was a report about a guy being yanked out of his seat in a movie theater for wearing Google Glass during the movie. Glass was turned off, and the guy kept them on because he had prescription lenses installed and wears them as his regular glasses. Both the MPAA and federal agents were called to interrogate the guy for a few hours, asking him a bunch of ridiculous questions until late in the night, before someone finally realized he hadn't done anything. Both the MPAA and ICE confirmed the incident happened, and yesterday folks at ICE -- who have recently been transitioned into the new Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) organization -- decided to take to their bizarrely named twitter account, @wwwicegov, to further "defend" these actions, by talking up how they're in charge of dealing with "movie theft." Because, apparently, Homeland Security Investigations doesn't understand the law, and doesn't realize that (1) infringement is not, and has never been, "theft" and (2) a dude wearing a powered-off Google Glass is not doing anything wrong. Here are the tweets: As you can see, there's a lot of ridiculousness there -- just the fact that they repeatedly refer to it as "theft," as mentioned above. The problem is that ICE's role as "the lead agency to combat piracy" is a joke. As ICE, it was supposed to focus on stopping counterfeit physical products from crossing the border. But with the help of Joe Biden and Hollywood, that mandate has been twisted repeatedly, so that what started as a very narrow mandate is now being treated as this broad mandate from an organization that doesn't even understand the issues. For years now, the group has made sure to conflate the very, very different issues of counterfeits at the border with copyright infringement, as it tries to expand its own mandate.

And now that's reached the absolutely insane point of yanking people out of their movie seats for doing nothing wrong, entirely on the say so of the MPAA -- a private group which has a long history of overreacting badly to new technologies.

What comes out of this is that ICE/HSI now appears to be incredibly gullible, falling for basically every bullshit claim from the MPAA. Just imagine if ICE/HSI had been around and had this sort of broad stupid made-up power over "intellectual property theft" during the introduction of the VCR -- back when the MPAA was declaring it illegal? ICE would be out there raiding and shutting down electronics stores for selling the devices. All because the MPAA said so.

Filed Under: copyright, google glass, homeland security, hsi, ice, infringement, movie theft
Companies: amc, mpaa

MPAA & ICE Confirm They Interrogated A Guy For Wearing Google Glass During A Movie

from the insane dept

We wrote earlier about the guy who told the story of being pulled out of a theater in the middle of a movie for wearing Google Glass (turned off), which he wears all the time, because he got prescription lenses installed on the device and uses it as his regular pair of glasses. As we noted, there were some oddities in the original story, including references to the FBI and "The Movie Association," neither of which made sense. Since then, as we noted in our updated post, AMC confirmed that a customer had been detained, and since then the MPAA as well as Homeland Security have weighed in, confirming the basic story. This is insane on multiple levels, which we'll get to in a moment. But first, the quotes. Here's AMC:

Movie theft is something we take very seriously, and our theater managers contact the Motion Picture Association of America anytime it’s suspected that someone may be illegally recording content on screen. While we’re huge fans of technology and innovation, wearing a device that has the capability to record video is not appropriate at the movie theatre. At AMC Easton 30 last weekend, a guest was questioned for possible movie theft after he was identified wearing a recording device during a film. The presence of this recording device prompted an investigation by the MPAA, which was on site. The MPAA then contacted Homeland Security, which oversees movie theft. The investigation determined the guest was not recording content.

Then the MPAA:

Google Glass is an incredible innovation in the mobile sphere, and we have seen no proof that it is currently a significant threat that could result in content theft. The MPAA works closely with theaters all over the country to curb camcording and theater-originated piracy, and in this particular case, no such activity was discovered.

Finally, Homeland Security's ICE division:

On Jan. 18, special agents with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations and local authorities briefly interviewed a man suspected of using an electronic recording device to record a film at an AMC theater in Columbus. The man, who voluntarily answered questions, confirmed to authorities that the suspected recording device was also a pair of prescription eye glasses in which the recording function had been inactive. No further action was taken.

Okay, now onto the point. As we said in the initial post, this certainly fit with the MPAA's insane "guidelines" to theaters and their "zero tolerance" policies towards anyone possibly recording anything. However, the involvement of ICE is particularly insane. We've been particularly critical of ICE and the group's over-aggressive campaign to seize websites based entirely on Hollywood's say so.

Even so, it seemed incredible that ICE would take direction from the MPAA on something as small as a guy in a movie theater, rushing to the theater to help with the interrogation of someone there, but we underestimated the willingness of ICE to say "how high" when the MPAA says "jump." Yes, we should know better by now, but we thought we'd actually give the MPAA and DHS the benefit of the doubt here. Our mistake.

We find it difficult to believe that there aren't more important things for ICE to be doing than hassling a guy out attending a movie with his wife. Hollywood has gotten ICE into trouble in the past with its over-aggressive claims about websites. You'd think that ICE would have learned by now that the RIAA and MPAA are not exactly trustworthy when they insist someone is a "filthy pirate" who needs to be investigated. There is simply no reason for federal investigators to be involved at all, let alone called in to interrogate some guy wearing a new piece of technology that the MPAA has overreacted to.

Filed Under: dhs, google glass, ice, movies
Companies: amc, mpaa

Google Glass Wearer Claims He Was Yanked Out Of Movie, Held In Office For Hours, Over Filming He Didn't Do [Updated]

from the zero-tolerance! dept

Just a couple months ago, we wrote about the MPAA's insane "zero tolerance" policies that it was sending to movie theaters, telling them to be extra vigilant in stopping anyone from filming movies:

The MPAA recommends that theaters adopt a Zero Tolerance policy that prohibits the video or audio recording and the taking of photographs of any portion of a movie.

Theater managers should immediately alert law enforcement authorities whenever they suspect prohibited activity is taking place. Do not assume that a cell phone or digital camera is being used to take still photographs and not a full-length video recording. Let the proper authorities determine what laws may have been violated and what enforcement action should be taken.

Theater management should determine whether a theater employee or any other competent authority is empowered to confiscate recording devices, interrupt or interfere with the camcording, and/or ask the patron to leave the auditorium.

As we noted at the time, these kinds of policies seem more likely to piss off movie viewers than to actually stop any form of "piracy." And, indeed, as pretty much every one of you has sent in this morning, a story over at The Gadgeteer appears to show these overreaching policies in action, as a guy wearing his Google Glass (with the power off) was summarily yanked out of the theater in the middle of a movie and held in an office while a bunch of people posing as officials quizzed him about who he was recording for.

The story is a little short on some key details. For example, it's never clear who the people interrogating him actually are associated with. The article title claims "the FBI" and other reports have similarly claimed the FBI was involved, but that seems unlikely. Apparently someone claimed to be with the "federal service" which is not what anyone would say if they were actually a federal employee. Someone is claimed to be from "the Movie Association" -- which might mean the MPAA (the Motion Pictures Association of America), but that's hardly clear. It's especially odd since the person who went through the experience claims that he got the business card of this guy -- named "Bob Hope" -- from "the Movie Association" so if it was actually the MPAA, you'd think he'd look at the business card and properly state where the guy came from. Or, you know, send in a picture of the business card (perhaps with contact info redacted).

To be honest, all of those factors make me question the legitimacy of the entire story -- though there have been other similar stories in the past that we've seen involving mobile phones. And it does fit with the MPAA's guidelines on "zero tolerance."

Update: AMC has confirmed that "a guest with a potential recording device inside the auditorium was questioned at our AMC Easton 30. Another report says that the MPAA was on site and interrogated the guy and then contacted DHS, claiming they have "oversight for movie theft." I'd be curious to see where or how DHS has authority over "movie theft." I'm guessing people will claim it's an ICE issue, but that goes way beyond what ICE is supposedly working on.
Separately, the guy begged the "police" or whoever was there to look at his Google Glass and go through his private things. While that has no bearing on the legitimacy of his story, as Popehat recently reminded people, this is monumentally stupid for a whole variety of reasons.

Whether or not this turns out to be a legitimate story, this issue is going to come up again and again as Google Glass and a flood of similar products heading to market become more popular. The MPAA's "zero tolerance" attitude and its general antipathy towards any new technology it can't control or quash is going to lead to this sort of scenario playing out one way or another eventually. If the MPAA and the theaters had any vision at all, they'd be working out a better way to deal with it, but since they seem to see everything as a black and white situation, expect an even more extreme version of how they've treated mobile phones -- even to the point of (at times) requiring them to be confiscated before people can go into the theater -- thereby encouraging fewer people to actually go to the theater.

Filed Under: google glass, movie theaters, zero tolerance
Companies: amc, mpaa

Hollywood Needs The Internet More Than The Internet Needs Hollywood... So Why Is The W3C Pretending Otherwise?

from the get-on-with-it dept

Last week, we wrote about the MPAA joining the W3C almost certainly as part of its ongoing effort to push for DRM to be built into HTML5. Cory Doctorow has a beautifully titled blog post about all of this, saying that "we are Huxleying ourselves into the full Orwell." It's a great way to think about it, and Cory's quite pessimistic about the outcome:

Try as I might, I can’t shake the feeling that 2014 is the year we lose the Web. The W3C push for DRM in all browsers is going to ensure that all interfaces built in HTML5 (which will be pretty much everything) will be opaque to users, and it will be illegal to report on security flaws in them (because reporting a security flaw in DRM exposes you to risk of prosecution for making a circumvention device), so they will be riddled with holes that creeps, RATters, spooks, authoritarians and crooks will be able to use to take over your computer and fuck you in every possible way.

While I am quite frequently in agreement with Cory, I'm at least marginally more optimistic than he is about the eventual result here. Putting DRM into HTML is monumentally stupid, and he's right that it will create massive security and legal liabilities for almost everyone. But the history of DRM has shown, over and over again, that it gets broken to bits in minutes once released, and even if there is legal liability involved in such things, it always happens. It will happen again here, and there will be "patches" made pretty quickly. It will be a tremendous waste of resources on pretty much everyone's part, but I'm not convinced that it will be effective in making things that much more unsafe.

That said, the larger point that Cory raises reminds me of the key point that I'm still at a loss to understand here. Why the W3C and others who support this proposal seem to be so willing to kowtow to Hollywood on this. Yes, as Cory explains, it's really Netflix driving the bus here, but it's the Hollywood studios that are out there telling Netflix they need DRM:

And it’s basically all being driven by Netflix. Everyone in the browser world is convinced that not supporting Netflix will lead to total marginalization, and Netflix demands that computers be designed to keep secrets from, and disobey, their owners (so that you can’t save streams to disk in the clear).

But here's the thing: the internet wasn't built to be the next broadcast medium for big Hollywood blockbusters. It was built as a computing and communications platform. That's what made it special and it's why so many people have flocked to it. It's why it's "the internet." Hollywood came late to the party and has been trying to redesign the web in its own image ever since -- and that means locking it down so it's more about a broadcasting model, in which the "professionals" in Hollywood get to determine what you, the peons, get to do.

But there's a reason Hollywood so desperately wants to control the internet: because all the people are here. And that's an important point. Hollywood (and, by extension, Netflix) need the internet much more than the internet needs Hollywood. Sure, the Hollywood folks like to claim that the reason the internet is so popular is because of professional content, but there's little to no evidence to support that. Yes, people like to have access to that content, but it's never been the driving force for why people want to be online.

And we've seen this game before. The record labels demanded DRM from online music stores for years... until they realized that this was a complete waste of time and money for no benefit. And they finally agreed to what the public wanted: no DRM. There's no reason for the W3C to make this same mistake. The studios and Netflix can resist all they want. They can stick with their proprietary Silverlight players no matter how annoying and technologically backwards they might be. But, in the end, they'll come around to better, more open technologies like HTML5 because that's where the people are and that's what the people want.

So, the W3C has a serious choice to make here, and it's been betting on the wrong horse. Sure, Netflix will resist HTML5 for a while. Because that's what it feels it needs to do. But it won't last. Because it can't. History has shown over and over again that companies will eventually follow the will of the public and it will happen again here. There's no reason to go through a stupid, shortsighted and wasteful process of DRMing everything, only to see it cracked and broken within hours of being launched. Just drop the DRM, focus on building a system that better provides what the public wants... and Hollywood and Netflix will get there eventually as well.

Filed Under: drm, hollywood, html 5, internet, movies
Companies: mpaa, netflix, w3c

Not Cool: MPAA Joins The W3C

from the that's-not-going-to-end-well dept

The W3C has been at the forefront of open standards and an open internet for many years, obviously. So it's somewhat distressing to see it announced this morning that the MPAA has now joined the group. After all, it was not that long ago that the MPAA flat out tried to break the open internet by imposing rules, via SOPA, that would have effectively harmed security protocols and basic DNS concepts. All because it refuses to update its business model at the pace of technology. The MPAA has never been about supporting open standards or an open and free internet. The W3C states that its "principles" are "web for all, web for everything" and that its vision is "web of consumers and authors, data and services, trust." The MPAA has basically been opposed to... well.... all of that. It has tried to take a consumer web of authors and turn it into a broadcast medium for major producers. It's tried to destroy trust, and put in place locks and keys.

In short, the MPAA has no place at all in the W3C. If there had been any indication that this was a shift in the MPAA's thinking, that actually would be interesting. If the MPAA had shown even the slightest indication that it was finally willing to embrace real internet principles and standards, and move Hollywood into the 21st century, that would be a good thing, and they should participate. But that's not what this is about, at all.

Instead, I fear that this is because of the stupid fight, which the W3C supports, to put DRM in HTML5. Tim Berners-Lee, who created the web and heads the W3C, has (for reasons that still don't make any sense) supported this dangerous proposal. Despite detailed explanations for why this is a bad idea, he has continued to defend the idea, which appears to go against nearly everything he's said in the past. Having the MPAA join the W3C is not encouraging at all.

Berners-Lee's support of DRM in HTML5 seems to be based on the short-sighted (and simply wrong) idea that the web needs the legacy entertainment industry more than the legacy entertainment industry needs the web. Building truly open standards that the world adopts will get the MPAA and others to come along eventually, because they'll realize they need to go where the people are, even if it isn't crippled with restrictions and locks. Bringing the MPAA into the process only continues to perpetuate this idea that we should be building a broadcast platform for the entertainment industry to push a message at consumers, rather than building a platform for creators of all kinds to communicate and share.

Filed Under: creators, drm, html, html 5, open standards, tim berners-lee, web standards
Companies: mpaa, w3c