 
cybermud
join:2000-08-25
Chicago, IL
| Doesn't have a clue... quote:
These kids are smart. They know. What I'm trying to do is find a ready alternative to stealing. You can never protect movies against hackers. Hackers will break into anything. But 99 percent of people aren't hackers.
and
quote:
You can download a song over a 56K modem almost in real time. It takes a lot longer to download a two and a half hour movie, with all its graphics.
Prove that Mr. Valenti doesn't have a clue...
a) students won't be spending much money on movies regardless of how you get it to them.
b) You can maybe get streaming audio, but downloading songs in real-time from a 56K connection is impossible. | |
|  | 
StudioTech
S2409W plus SA4250HD
join:2001-10-10
Edison, NJ | Re: Doesn't have a clue... Remember this is the same guy who 20 years ago thought the VCR was the biggest threat to the industry's existence at the time. | |
| | | CatholicJedi
join:2001-09-28
Mesa, AZ | Re: Doesn't have a clue... It's clear that he and his industry friends would rather die having things their way (or trying to) than have success by adapting. | |
| 
jhudson2
Copyright Martyr
join:2000-11-07
San Marcos, CA
| Oh My God!!
"There are more than nine and a half million broadband subscribers now. Once those large pipes and high-speed access subscribers begin to increase, we can be terrorized by what's going on."
Terrorist Broadbanders??? Has anyone notified John Ashcroft??
If the fear of my DSL connection keeps Jack Valenti awake at night with covers pulled up tight over his shriveled mellon then that in and of itself is worth $50 a month. | |
| | cidhigh42
join:2001-02-26
Ashford, CT
| Re: Oh My God!! "If the fear of my DSL connection keeps Jack Valenti awake at night with covers pulled up tight over his shriveled mellon then that in and of itself is worth $50 a month."
I would easily fork over $600 / month, and get that T1 I've been dreaming about. I mean, I can't possibly find a better excuse.
Imagine how much that 1.5 Mbit upload would make him feel...drools... | |
| | | | | | | | 
wolfvgang
@swbell.ne
| Re: Oh My God!! You are so absolutely right...these days ANYTIME anyone feels like somebody might be stepping on their toes, they just cry "terrorism!" in order to justify retaliation. It's going in this circumstance, in the war on drugs (t.v. commercials saying that money you spent on last weekend's weed went directly to UBL), and even in the middle east where Israel is trying to destroy the "Palestinian terrorsits".
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is going on.
I will say, though, that the use of the word "terrorism" in the digital copying context is just ludicrous. | |
| | Siljanus
join:2000-12-13
Chevy Chase, MD
| Love the way that people throw around the term "terrorist" after 9/11 to justify their arguments. And I'm sure it is no coincidence that he used that term in his interview. Hey Mr. Valenti! Talk to people in the Middle East, Northern Ireland and New Yorkers/Pentagon workers about real terrorism. Save your hyperbole for hawking your crap Hollywood drivel that I wouldn't even waste my bandwidth and HD space trying to download. | |
| | JackHeismann
join:2002-04-01
Downingtown, PA
| Mr. Valenti will continue using words like "cyberterrorism" unless WE do something about it.
Words work only when no one challenges them. Like an empty gun, they still scare people into action. The real terrorist here is Jack (Sticky Fingers) Valenti, who is using scare tactics to take your rights away. He will win if you don't do something about it.
Let your elected officials know that you find his characterization of everyday Americans as "Broad Band terrorists" as criminal, unethical and disgraceful (you can also use words like "s**ks", but politicians like nice, pleasant, big words). Get your friends, neighbors, dudes at work and IM buddies to do the same.
Let's all start using the slogan "I download music, and I VOTE". Valenti has no power if the people who make laws represent us. We just have to convince those nice folks in Washington and State Capitals that we're more important than the cash cows they worship. | |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Agreed. The only "Terrorism" in MP3's etc is in Jack Valenti's mind... the thought that someone might be actually able to use digital media without him making *extra* profits on it strikes Terror into his heart. | |
| | 
amdaz
Premium
join:2000-12-29
San Francisco, CA | Oh evil you are ... he he
BTW, Ashcroft cant be bothered with terrorist, he is busy covering some metal breasts. | |
| 
mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal |  Posterboy for Stupidity
| |
| 
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
|  Bad Interview
--
When do I get my freakin' third star?!?!? | |
| | | | 
Juke Box
Free From Marketing
Premium
join:2001-01-29
Bar & Grill | Well, ultimately.. Power is going to be on one side or the other.
I would never wish anyone ghost time, regardless who they are. | |
| | vlovich
join:2001-12-08
| First of all, streaming video is no threat to any industry. If the companies are smart they will get behind the idea and start doing what they did with movie rentals. Next, i don't know about you, but i have maybe downloaded 4 movies in total (Shrek, Vanilla Sky, Gladiator which I saw in theaters, and on DVD, and monsters inc). If you get movies, you know most of the time you get the first and second halves seperatly. And the quality is usually very bad compared to movies. First thing you have to do is get both parts which depending on the size of each file and the connection can take up to a total of 4 hours. And I have very little patience to wait that long for a bad quality movie. If you do get a high quality movie (i haven't been able to find one yet, but there may be places where there are) they are going to be huge. A normal length movie will probably be around 3 GB. I don't have that much room on my hard drive for one movie, and i don't have a connection (mine is cable with stable speeds of 100~200+ KB/s) fast enough that can download a 3GB movie. If anything, what's happening with file sharing is probably damaging the music industry more than anything, but hey, when a company tells a student to $15 for a cd that only has 2 or 3 good songs on it (and the fact that not even the whole CD is used and a CD costs less than $1 is besides the issue) and then is surprised by the fact that that student would rather go and get some mp3's quickly downloaded for free and then to put it onto his/her (got to be politically correct) mp3 player and carry around 100+ songs (if the mp3 player uses cds), then the music industry is really really slow. Maybe if the put more songs on a CD by making deals with mp3 player manufacturers so that a person could get more songs, or allowing a person to pick the songs they want, they wouldn't be losing so much money. File-trading is here to stay (as bad as it may be sometimes, it will still be used just to screw the record companies) so all this regulation won't even minimize it (since how are you supposed to control something as widespread and widely used as the Internet. I don't think that the government should or will spend taxpayers' money on tracking people that file-trade. And the fact that the large record companies don't care whether or not the start-up musicians find file trading beneficial to spread their reputation is a completely different issue. I know i went somewhat away from what this thread was discussing and i'm sorry but i just had to get this off my chest. | |
| | 
beeman65
join:2001-07-23
Mckeesport, PA
| Please... "There are more than nine and a half million broadband subscribers now. Once those large pipes and high-speed access subscribers begin to increase, we can be terrorized by what's going on."
I'm sure everyone will be downloading movies and music 24/7 allowing him to fall to his knees and weep like a baby. Wonder what this guy's salary is? Is downloading one stinking song every two weeks going to diminish the change he uses to buy a Snickers bar?
I actually like to buy DVD's for their quality and content. I don't think you can download EVERYTHING (extras, etc) from a DVD off the internet. If there is a way to do that, I'd like to know, but I'd still buy DVD's and that's it.
Also, has any executives from stores like Suncoast or Sam Goody spoke out on these "devilish" deeds? I mean these are the stores that most people buy CD's and movies from and these are also the stores that would collapse before the respective industries would. Obviously, if somehow, someway, the MPAA and/or RIAA implodes, these stores will cease to exist, so the inverse is true. | |
| | 
damonlab
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Detroit, MI
clubs: 
| Re: Please... " I don't think you can download EVERYTHING (extras, etc) from a DVD off the internet. If there is a way to do that, I'd like to know"
For one movie and all of its extras you need to download over 4GB of vob files... and you need a dvd burner.
--
free security software | |
| | | PokeyThePenguin
join:2001-06-20
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Please... OMFG!!! Why doesn't anyone challenge idiots like these with facts?!?!? This guy gets away with ridiculous statements like "You can download a song over a 56K modem almost in real time." Maybe because he is a lobbyist and he talks to other idiots in the senate and congress that have less of a clue than he does he gets away with it. Valenti is trying to use mp3 as an example for movies. But even a compressed movie (like DivX) is larger than a regular music cd in .wav format. So how is this idiot allowed to compare compressed mp3's to movies in peer to peer networks? Afterall, how many people are downloading ripped .wav files of songs on peer to peer networks? How many people can afford to give up that kind of upload time? Does Valenti think broadband on peer to peer means that everyone has a T1 line? Someone needs to shut this guy up with facts before he spouts more crap to lawmakers.
I read an article (I forget where, sorry) that senator Diane Feinstein (D-Ca), read: bought by Valenti, had a press conference where she showed that one of her aids had downloaded a movie off of the internet (GASP! WOOOO!). These idiots are trying to show what's possible not probable or even likely. "Senator Feinstein, How long did it take your aid to download that movie? 12 hours? 18 hours? 24 hours?" By the logic of their arguments no one would ever pay $8 to see a movie in a theater and would just pay $3 rent a dvd even if there was no pirating of movies. | |
| | | | | | | | PokeyThePenguin
join:2001-06-20
Los Angeles, CA
| Re: Please... Yes, but the thing is I don't think your average user has the 'right amount of bandwidth'. There's a big difference between downloading 4 meg files from different users and downloading 1 to 2GB files from a single user. According to Valenti in the article he will concede the 1% to hackers but he is saying 99% of the people have the bandwidth to download movies. I don't think that statement is true but even if that point is conceded that would mean a good proportion of the average user would need to have the upload bandwidth to serve the 99% (Valenti is talking about peer to peer networks). But more than the majority of broadband connections are not symmetrical and I just don't think have the upload bandwidth to upload in a 'reasonable' amount of time for the average user. | |
| 
SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA | How long has this guy been around? Damn, I can't remember when Jack Valenti wasn't around and I am not kid. Is this guy like 150 years old or what? Plus it seems like he is always stepping in you know what. How does he survive so well? | |
| | | koveman
join:2002-01-23
Phoenix, AZ
| What rights are we talking about? Many people in the technology community are concerned that the Hollings bill would take away some of their rights. What is your response to their criticism?
"What rights are we talking about?"
Exactly.
Mr valenti seems to have forgotten all about the "Audio Home Recording Act of 1992" (AHRA). From which we get the "Fair Use" provision. Basically it states that you can make copies of legally obtained material as long as you do not profit from it. This is a key portion of the ammendment that jack spent a lot of time and money fighting. He even submitted testimony to congress on the issue of fair use. Not exactly something that just slips your mind. One thing I'm sure he'll remember clearly though is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The DMCA has greatly diminished the power of the "fair use" clause by outlawing encryption circumvention. The next step is to legally mandate encryption, therefore eliminating the right to fair use. This is on the way as you may well know in the form of the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA) and now the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA). The SSSCA has been dropped but the CBDTPA is almost the exact same piece of legislation. Both are Hollings sponsored pieces of poo.
"Content" as some like to call it will soon be dictated to the consumers in what ever way the media companies see fit. What that means is that you will only be able to rent titles. You will have absolutely no legal right to copy these rented titles or use them in any manner other than that specifically dictated by the copyright owner. This is crap and we can't let this happen. Bitching on a web site is not enough. Next time you get a chance, go make an informed decision and vote. Until then you can write to your local lawmakers. Most have e-mail addresses so use them. Keep it short and to the point. Unlike this post.
Sorry for the speech. | |
| | 
Polaris5
All Hail, The Vulture From Van Nuys
join:2002-03-26
old RIA of A
| Re: What rights are we talking about? said by koveman:
Mr valenti seems to have forgotten all about the "Audio Home Recording Act of 1992" (AHRA). From which we get the "Fair Use" provision. Basically it states that you can make copies of legally obtained material as long as you do not profit from it.
I like your style, but some of your facts are off. Fair use is much older than the AHRA. FU first popped up in 1841. The AHRA actually continued the drumbeat towards unbalancing the balance between the rights of copyright holders and consumers.
Remember DAT? It exists, but was never widely supported by the recording industry. You'll notice that you don't see Britney Spears DAT's when you enter a record store, visit Amazon.com (even though, like Betamax, it was arguably better technology than CD). If the non-support from suppliers wasn't enough, the AHRA helped kill the technology as a meaningful retail organism.
With regard to 'fair use' itself as a concept, it's simply a misconception to say that fair use grants you an absolute right to "make copies of legally obtained material as long as you do not profit from it." Instead, 'fair use' preserves the use of copyrighted materials "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research...."
Your position better dovetails with the 'first sale' doctrine, which limits the power of copyright holders to control your use of a copyrighted product after you buy it. Under that doctrine, you can make copies, resell the 'entire work,' and shift the method in which you use the product.
The great debate is the extent to which you can transform said product. Under the DMCA, you are limited to transfers that do not create additional copies (keeping one, creating a 2nd copy by giving one away, aka file-sharing). The question is whether the DMCA's various provisions are Constitutional (it encompasses more than just your right to make copies).
The rest of what you said was dead on! | |
| | | 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Re: What rights are we talking about? Good call there Polaris.
There is a distinct difference (albeit somewhat vague) between the doctrines of "Fair Use" and "First Sale".
The trouble is that the RIAA and the MPAA are effectively ignoring BOTH of these doctrines.
Unfortunately, most of our legislators do not or cannot understand the statutory history of these doctrines and are inextricably linked with industry insiders like Valenti.
I certainly support artists being compensated for their work, but to be clear -- that never has been the issue here. Whether we are talking music or movies, it is the distributors who actually own the copyrights who are raising hell over P2P.
The article does indicate right off that Valenti is not what you would call tech-savvy. However, the article is also extremely soft on the issues at hand, offering Valenti a perfect opportunity to air HIS views -- but share few others.
If talks are to happen "in good faith" as Valenti proposes, than the industry should have to be faced with their distractors for once in a public forum. Of course the RIAA and MPAA don't want the world to know just how many legislators they do have in their back pockets.
I really wish a news organization would actually take a harder line with Valenti et al and push the real truths of the issues. If they say they have lost income DIRECTLY because of piracy, then prove it. Submit to an independent 3rd party review of the economic landscape instead of just spouting off "facts" which have little backing or with surveys that were conducted under the umbrella of the industry groups.
I have read many articles where the authors mention the VCR "scare" that went on years ago, however I have yet to see the question asked in an interview! If anyone has, I would love to see the response -- but I believe even then it would be incomplete or the answer simply redirected to another issue.
I say kudos to the hardware vendors who are standing up against these mechanisms. Copy protection or not, a CD that is protected should not crash the PC it is trying to be run on. It should simply not be accessible. The articles I have see on this topic tend to have a condescending air of "Too bad, so sad" from Sony et al. The impression from them is that if you are trying it on a PC then you must be a pirate, and shame on you -- tough luck if your PC crashes.
I also have a great deal of distaste for all of the references to dead US Presidents in these debates. First off, Lincoln -- although coined as "Honest Abe" was a lawyer by profession. I believe also that he would have loved the internet -- and yes, I doubt he would have been thrilled about piracy. HOWEVER, he was also a man that was greatly concerned over civil & human rights. I believe he would have greatly questioned the RIAA/MPAA's motives with the legislation they support. He would have been embarrassed by many of our legislators actions.
And, oh yea...Abe Lincoln wouldn't have been wrapped around the little finger of the entertainment industry.
Remember "...a government of the People, by the People and for the People."
K.
--
"i want everything to work. i choose iSeries." | |
| | | |
p2pabuser
@charternc.net
| Well, have the laws changed. rofl..
Even though some of Jacks Facts are off. You must be in the dark if you think downloading material that you didn't rightfully purchase is not stealing or close to it.
It is apparent from these discussions, that we should break the first and then have the law changed. Similar to a highway that is 55 and the reality should be 65.
How many tickets does it take to change a law? | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
omar93
join:2001-10-17
Mission Viejo, CA
| I'm sick of the term cyber terrorism | |
| | | | | omar93
join:2001-10-17
Mission Viejo, CA | Re: I'm sick of the term cyber terrorism You don't make any sense...
do you even know what TERROR means?? look it up in a dictionary.... | |
| DYNE5407
join:2000-11-26
San Diego, CA | dont worry mr. valenti doesn't realize but right now some kid or group is probably reverse engineering it like the whole dvd code fiasco. give it time and energy b/c where there's a will there is a way. | |
| 
phxmark
What Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27
Glendale, AZ
|  IT'S ALL UP
[text was edited by author 2002-04-10 11:15:35] | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·
·
·
·
·
open up the pipes and let it FLOW
·
