MPAA wants to charge for viewing DVDs with your mates

Ness Rowlah

Norwegian Wood
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html (via digg)

It's a joke, but still the thinking is not too far from what we've seen bandied around.

The bill would require that any hardware manufactured in the future contain technology that tells the MPAA directly of what is being shown and specific details on the audience. The data would be gathered using various motion sensors and biometric technology.

The MPAA defines a home theater as any home with a television larger than 29" with stereo sound and at least two comfortable chairs, couch, or futon. Anyone with a home theater would need to pay a $50 registration fee with the MPAA or face fines up to $500,000 per movie shown.

"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise.

And did someone read Mike Hucknall's ridiculous request for extending British copyright laws (just in case he lives to 130) -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1954672,00.html
Copyright is not a monopoly restricting the free flow of ideas. Allowing valuable sound recordings to pass into the public domain does not create a public asset: it represents a massive destruction of UK wealth, and a significant loss to the UK taxpayer as exploitation moves offshore or into the grey market.
 
Last edited:

gek-opel

entered apprentice
And did someone read Mike Hucknall's ridiculous request for extending British copyright laws

Yes! Why the industry (for surely it was they who put him up to this) chose him of all people to put forward their case is ridiculous, he's one of the most hated figures in British music. Also, as the quote you pulled demonstrate, he (or whoever wrote the piece for him) are either grotesquely ignorant of the meaning of common words or merely perniciously mendacious... Copyright is PRECISELY the creation of an artificial market for ideas! I doubt anyone would be convinced by this piece.
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
Hucknall was one of several people pushing for the copyright extension (and hooray for the common sense that told them where to stick it), including Sir Cliff Richard, Ian Anderson form Jethro Tull and, er, Katie Melua.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
Its funny, but even though you know he's going to be talking a load of nasty old guff, its actually surprising how noxious it really is. All that misguided shit about "copyright being a tool of socialism" (or whatever) he talks is fucking offensive too.
 

KernKätzchen

Well-known member
Its funny, but even though you know he's going to be talking a load of nasty old guff, its actually surprising how noxious it really is. All that misguided shit about "copyright being a tool of socialism" (or whatever) he talks is fucking offensive too.

Hehe. And when he reshuffles the piece for the Telegraph or whoever, it'll be "copyright is a tool for the liberation of the individual creator that allows market forces to do their good work, honest!"
 

KernKätzchen

Well-known member
Sorry to harp on, but also this:

"copyright facilitates sampling"

No it doesn't. If I had a pound (ho ho!) for every time I heard a track sample another track (and you can bet your bottom dollar they didn't pay a copyright fee, tee hee!), I'd be a very rich woman. Like Mick Hucknall.
 
Top