Skip to main content

MPAA Lobbying for Home Theater Regulations

A depressing and angering article by the same title: MPAA Lobbying for Home Theater Regulations

I don't have a whole lot to say about this, but it sure did make me angry. It is a little old, but I had filed it away and planned to write about. I feel strongly enough for it that I'll write about it, even if I'm writing about it late.

The basic idea here is that when the MPAA thinks of a home theater, they think in insane terms. If you have a TV over 29", stereo sound, and a couch, they are of the opinion that you owe them money and reporting of the use of your theater, just like the theater at the local mall. That is seriously just fucking crazy.

I use such strong language because this is something to feel very strong about and thus to express strongly.

My favorite quote is "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 by MPAA head Dan Glickman.

Write your representatives, everyone. Even if you are out of the US, you might have similar things in the legislative pipeline. They like to attack of globally these days.

Comments

Jay said…
From bbspot.com:

Called "the world's greatest tech humour site" by The Register, BBspot creates entertainment for the geekier side of the world. BBspot produces a variety of features like fake news stories satirizing the tech and political worlds, the BBspot Mailbag which pokes fun at the Believers (people who believe our fake news) and much more.

Though they really shouldn't have given the MPAA the idea.
Steve said…
That quote was really great: we are presumably supposed to make sure we buy our own copy of a DVD before we go and watch it at a friend's house? As I wrote some time ago, those Movie Moguls Need Control.

It really doesn't help that most politicians in America, as in most other countires, are seriously technically deficient, and will quite happily accept money from the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA, then support their insane worldview with insane legislation like the DMCA.

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…