Viacom sues Google, Digital TV in Europe to gain content control
The copyright lobby is at it again: Viacom sues Google for 1 billion USD (which is less than what Google paid for Youtube). Can you spell "negotiation tactic"? Of course, Google knew this was going to happen when they bought Youtube, so my guess is that they were expecting this and are prepared. (Via Slashdot, and in about two hours, everywhere else.)
In a bit more worrying news, the new DVB-standard looks like it's going to obsolete existing digital TV in Europe - and for what? So that the content owner could say what can be recorded and what cannot. Let me put it this way: trying to sell Finns another set of digiboxes so that they could do less with them than previously is probably only a good tactic if you're trying to incite a revolt.
Back to weblog
|"Main_blogentry_130307_1" last changed on 13-Mar-2007 19:43:02 EET by JanneJalkanen.|
CommentsToisaalta, aika harva digiboksi taitaa nykyäänkään _tallentaa_ 5.1 ääntä. Lisenssimaksuja välttelevät kai - vapaaehtoisesti sentään vielä.
"CPCM can be used to examine, for instance, the frequency with which devices are connected to a personal network and determine whether your sharing is within an "Authorized Domain" Absurdly, DVB spent significant time arguing over what happens to a digital video in case of a divorce!"
Oh yes, I would imagine the question "Which one of us gets to keep all episodes of the Amazing Race!?" would be at the very top in the list of problems in a divorce process... Absurd indeed, got a chuckle out of that one :-).
I dunno, seriously. Maybe its just me turning into a capitalist pig or something, but I actually think, in this case too, that PDVR:ing should be a restricted activity. You want to own stuff, you buy a hardcopy in the form of a physical media. You want to rent stuff, you get it, whether via broadcast or by subscribing to it via net (no need to visit the video rental store to get rid of the cassette Sunday afternoon :-( ).
Then again, I feel the whole current "base" system of a copyright with a fixed time span (i.e. the Mickey Mouse effect) is starting to look kind of stupid... That idea has died when more and more art/media gets produced by groups, not individuals. Even more so when it is financed, at the time of making, by companies. The most important thing, for me, would be availability: If the rights holder no longer produces copies of something because making copies is more expensive than the profits made from selling them, then that stuff should be labeled "free game" and be available from somewhere/something... maybe a library like institution, possibly taking nominal fees. This has previously not been possible for several technical reasons (space... cataloging... you name it...), but I thing it is starting to look viable. The human reasons (we don't wanna give it, because we might reprint this book lets say 15 years from now...) remain. Separating the assets that are still worth something from the worthless ones would be impossible I guess...
But recording stuff from TV... seriously, who does that these days? So 80's :-). And even the people (=OAP ;-) who'd like to, are so confused by digiboxes their VCR:s should feel proud they get hooked on televisions at all anymore. I know several families in which a digibox has demoted VCRs to "kids room", because "making it work was just not worth the effort".
I would imagine the person who'd want to record something would have to record a lot - you like one variety of crap, you're bound to enjoy the rest of them too ;-).
Ah, but you actually can't own music or videos any more. You license them. I mean - if I own something, I can do whatever I want with it, yes? But DRM means that after I have bought something, they can keep changing the license terms or do whatever they please. Even if you buy a CD, you only own the physical copy, you don't own the music on it.
Besides, time-shifting is a good, solid usecase for TV programming. And it's possible for CPCM to prevent time-shifting, or to make sure that recorded shows disappear after two weeks. Which means that your choices become more restricted.
Tivo seems to be working great in the US. At the moment most digi-tv boxes are difficult to use, yes, but that does not mean that will continue always.
I'm with you on the copyright reform. 50 years from creation + 50 years by renewal (say, at 5€/piece of work) sounds good to me.