Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MPAA Goes After Home Entertainment Systems

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tue Nov 28, 2006 04:22 AM
from the jokes-that-some-people-just-wont-get dept.
It's funny. Laugh.
philba writes to tell us that home theaters may become the new jurisdiction of our MPAA overlords. The MPAA is lobbying to make sure that home users authorize their entertainment systems before any in-home viewings. From the article: "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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

MPAA Goes After Home Entertainment Systems 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • The disgrace of it all (Score:5, Informative)

    by linuxci (3530) * on Tuesday November 28 2006, @04:24AM (#17013586) Homepage
    It's a disgrace that the MPAA are doing this, who says it's up to them to control what we do in our own home. Does it matter if we're watching it on a 14" screen or a 40" screen or even on an iPod?? The MPAA have gone too far with this, I'm packing up and moving to a country where this can't happen. I bet Microsoft will support this move.

    Oh wait, it's satire :) Still, these sites shouldn't give the MPAA any ideas.

    • Re:The disgrace of it all (Score:4, Funny)

      by davidmcg (796487) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @04:25AM (#17013602) Homepage
      Oh wait, it's satire :)
      That's what they want you to believe! Actually the MPAA only chooses ideas that the satire sites have rejected due to the idea being too crazy to be believed.

    • Straight from the horse's mouth (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      At http://www.mpaa.org/Public_Performance.asp [mpaa.org], it says:

      "Suppose you invite a few personal friends over for dinner and a movie. You purchase or rent a copy of a movie from the local video store and view the film in your home that night. Have you violated the copyright law by illegally 'publicly performing' the movie? Probably not."

      and

      "The Federal Copyright Act (Title 17 of the U.S. Code) governs how copyrighted materials, such as movies, may be used. Neither the rental nor the purchase of a movie carries wit
          • Actually, it's fairly easy to gain permission to show a MPAA movie in your school, or even for a fundraiser. I've been involved with a few groups in the past where we've done this. You show the movie for "free" and then sell the popcorn. First, you get out your word processor, write a letter explaining what you are doing and kindly asking for permission. You'd be shocked at the response you may get when trying to do something like a Boy Scouts, etc.. fundraiser. It's not that hard, you just have to write a letter, not be trying to make a profit and plan ahead. You can even pay for the problem to go away with some services [movlic.com] that will do the legwork for you, but then it will cost you more than a stamp and your time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 72beetle (177347)
      Compared to some of the bon mots that the MPAA has dropped on us in the past, this satirical piece is totally plausible - the best gags are the ones that could actually be true, and the MPAA has given us more than enough reason to think something like this would be legit at first glance.

      Still, well played, BBSpot.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ravenshrike (808508)
      *cough* TV licenses in the UK*cough*

      • Re:The disgrace of it all (Score:4, Interesting)

        by JebJoya (997050) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @09:16AM (#17015726)
        Although to be fair, TV licences in the UK are to pay for the BBC - commercial free TV. Since it's a public service, the BBC should either be paid for like that or through taxation, and at least this way you only pay if you are actually watching TV :)

        Jeb

  • yawn (Score:5, Informative)

    by rm999 (775449) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @04:25AM (#17013600)
    Bbspot is a satire site. This story is not real. I would have more of a sense of humor about it if the story was actually funny.

    • MPAA: So retarded this stuff's actually plausible. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Cordath (581672) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @05:08AM (#17013882)
      I don't understand the MPAA. In ways they're even more idiotic than RIAA. Let's take an example...

      I'm sure most people have come across MPAA's anti-piracy adds. For example, there's that one that starts out by saying:

      "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR..."

      Now, let's just stop for a moment and consider the one segment of viewers who are 100% guaranteed to see this ad: Legitimate customers. What is the car-world equivalent of legitimate customers? Car owners. When was the last time you got into your car and saw a big sign saying "YOU WOULDN'T PIRATE A MOVIE!" spraypainted across your windshield? What about the candy equivalent? How often do you buy a Coffee Crisp only to open it up and find, drizzled onto the top of the bar in iridescent-green super-sour gummy, "YOU WOULDN'T POACH ELK OUT OF SEASON...". Does IHOP serve pancakes with motor-oil drizzled on top of them to spell out "YOU WOULDN'T EAT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S KIDNEY WITH A NICE CHIANTI AND SOME FAVA BEANS..."

      Only the MPAA is insane enough to take the one thing they have to offer a customer and deliberately vandalize it in a way that only their legitimate customers are likely to see. The scary thing is that these morons have enough money to lobby the government for stuff nearly as crazy as in the linked spoof. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing if people did pirate movies a little more so that the MPAA didn't have quite so much money to throw around in Washington.

      • Re:MPAA: So retarded this stuff's actually plausib (Score:4, Interesting)

        by 91degrees (207121) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @05:14AM (#17013942) Journal
        Ironically, I hate those ads so much that it's rather put me off buying DVDs. I guess that means at least I'm not going to copy it.

        A friend of mine simply copied all her discs to her PC to circumvent it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Gibsnag (885901)
          Same here. I find it amusing that they're giving this Anti-Piracy shit to the people who've either bought their DVD or are watching their movie in the cinema... I've already paid for your shit! Leave me alone!

          On the other hand I could download a ripped copy (for free), with no ads what-so-ever and watch it on my computer without having to arse around. Hrm... it makes me want to pirate more just to show them that their little advertisement scheme isn't fucking working.
            • Has anyone, ever, in the history of the universe, decided not to pirate a film after seeign a message on it equating it with theft?
              This probably isn't the place to ask. Most of us know that pirating a film is a violation of copyright. I suspect those ads are aimed mostly at teenagers who just copy stuff all the time without realizing that it is against the law. Clearly, anybody who is pirating movies and knows it's illegal will just laugh at the ad, and those of us who don't pirate movies are offended by the insult of equating making copies of a movie with stealing a car. As for those who were breaking the law without knowing it, I guess they can now consider themselves educated.

      • Re:MPAA: So retarded this stuff's actually plausib (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MemoryDragon (544441) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @05:47AM (#17014114)
        Actually the funny thing is, that those ads probably are one of the major factors why moviegoer numbers are steeply declining. First of all there are the ads, then the insults and then the trailers. I guess the insults pushed it over the top for many. If I look into my own surrounding, there used to be a lot of people who went to the theatre once a week. Nowadays it is only twice per year, and it basically was due to the ads, and the insults. I recently went with them into a movie, after 10 minutes of constant ads we were close to walking out, the following piracy insult basically did it to ruin the experience entirely! Needless to say, no theatre visit anymore for the following months by anyone of us!

      • Re:MPAA: So retarded this stuff's actually plausib (Score:5, Interesting)

        by simm1701 (835424) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @06:00AM (#17014176)
        Every time I see those adds I want to report them to the advertising standards agency for making false claim and accusations.

        How I understand it making a private copy of a dvd, or downloading one (ie piracy by their definition) is breach of copywrite, which is a civil offense, not a criminal offense.

        Since it is not a criminal offense then it cannot be described as a crime (by the definition of the word).

        Since the advert says it is it is suggesting that people who may or may not be commitinga civil offense are criminals which seems to me is slander...

        But then again IANAL, though I would find it ratehr amusing if the ASA banned their trailers in the uk til they changed them (same for the ones about TV licenses for those that don't have or want TV but thats a completely different rant)
      • No, I wouldn't steal a car.

        But if someone could invent a torrent for a Ferrari F355, I'd certainly download one.

        I don't download movies, but I sometimes really wish I could skip all that crap. I just put the disc in and let it play through before turning the TV on. So the recent ones insist on a few button clicks to get past. Bastards.
      • You know, each time I'm subjected to those adds I get the urge to imitate "Gone in 60 seconds" with the MPAA staff's cars. Now that would answer their rethoric question.

      • Re:MPAA: So retarded this stuff's actually plausib (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jasontheking (124650) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @06:37AM (#17014362)
        if someone does a movie parody , I'd love to see a fake add that says

        "you wouldn't doctor your books to get zero profit as a tax dodge"
        "you wouldn't offer unsuspecting people the chance of a percentage of non-existant profits"

        and so on.

      • Re:MPAA: So retarded this stuff's actually plausib (Score:5, Interesting)

        by fotbr (855184) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @09:29AM (#17015880) Journal
        I've seen that commercial exactly once. I bought the DVD of Office Space, got home, saw that, and went right back to the store to return the movie. Amazingly enough, walmart WILL take opened DVDs back, for a refund (not "another copy"), if you claim it is defective and are patient enough to wait while they find the store manager. I explained that I had expectations of seeing the movie I paid for, not a 5 minute insult that I couldn't skip, and therefore the product was defective as designed, and another copy would not be acceptable.

        I will not be buying any more DVDs. I already don't go to theaters. I just wish I could find contact information for Fox Home Entertainment to tell them WHY their anti-piracy insults have now hit their bottom line (even if it is only a few dollars / year).

    • Good satire (Score:4, Informative)

      by Per Abrahamsen (1397) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @07:07AM (#17014534) Homepage
      It seems to pass the first test of good satire, it is close enough that some people mistake it for reality. Obvious satire is pointless and boring.

  • Satire? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ddent (166525) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @04:26AM (#17013614) Homepage
    This is satire, right? Right? Please say its satire.

    • Re:Satire? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by witte (681163) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @05:33AM (#17014050)
      It's interesting that there is actually doubt enough, and that people would almost believe MPAA would try to pull something like this off.

      • Re:Satire? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Cruise_WD (410599) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @06:09AM (#17014218) Homepage
        Indeed. I was quite happy to accept this as real until I read the comments.

        Actually, I'm gonna go further. I would, if I were a gambling man, bet that there is at least one exec in the MPAA /right now/ shouting at the screen in his little office, "Damn it they stole my idea! They're hacking my computer!" :P
  • You know, you really should warn us of the site you're sending us to in these kinds of cases. Because I wouldn't put this past the MPAA for reals.

    And the newly elected congress might be just busy enough to say 'sure sure' and pass something like this through.

    I prefer the other MPAA story they have on their site though: MPAA to Thwart Pirates By Making All Movies Suck [bbspot.com] (It would be funnier if it wasn't so true.)

  • One month too late, MPAA (Score:4, Funny)

    by Travoltus (110240) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @04:27AM (#17013624) Journal
    Your deadline for getting that law signed, passed on November the 7th.

    *writes letter to Congresswoman Matsui JUST IN CASE*

  • This can't _be_ real. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Armagguedes (873270) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @04:28AM (#17013634) Homepage Journal
    Seriously WTF. Not to doubt BBSpot's credibility, but i can't believe this is real. If it is (and we are royally screwed), what's the source then. YHBT?

  • This is satire (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bakerstreet (136889) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @04:31AM (#17013660)
    Come on... folks... when you get this quick to outrage it just makes YOU look silly...

    • Another way to look at it (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HangingChad (677530) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @06:49AM (#17014430) Homepage

      Yes, it's satire. But that fact that no one would be at all surprised if the MPAA was really being that retarded speaks volumes about them.

      I have an issue with "dirty work" organizations. Microsoft and other companies don't want to get their hands dirty suing customers so they fund the BSA. Record labels don't want their name on enforcement actions so they fund RIAA. One of the best things Congress could do for the consumer is strip away the ability of companies to hide behind their mafia inspired enforcement organizations. I don't think it would stop Sony from suing people for using file sharing software but it at least they take the PR hit for doing it.

      • You can't spell Lawyer without layer. The answer is to simplify the legal system, not add on yet another veil for the powers that be to pierce and misuse.

        The fact that you need an advocate to find an advocate to talk to a representitive who may be able to help is stupid.

  • I dunno what's scarier (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @04:33AM (#17013668)
    That some people don't get the joke or that I can understand well why they don't.

  • So what DOES buying a DVD get you the rights for? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kraada (300650) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @04:34AM (#17013686)
    "Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too", Dan Glickman, head of the MPAA (FTA).

    Now, I really want to know this: So, what rights do we get for buying a DVD? The right to watch it by my lonesome? Should each family of four have to pay for four copies of a movie? If I want to watch a DVD with my girlfriend, should I have to buy two copies? If I could get four copies worth if I had a familiy, why couldn't a single guy invite three of his buddies over to watch the film? Am I really supposed to believe that buying a DVD merely allows ONE person to watch the DVD and no more?

    Because, to be perfectly honest, 75% of the reason I buy a DVD is to show it to friends that haven't seen it already. My DVD library is a collection of movies I think everyone should see (and I wouldn't mind watching repeatedly). If I were "not allowed" to buy DVDs with this express purpose, I don't think I would buy any at all. I don't rewatch movies all that often on my own; when I want to see a movie -- especially alone -- I want to see something new.

    In short: This is ridiculous. I wish there were an effective way to do something about it.

  • There is something worse (Score:3, Insightful)

    by davmoo (63521) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @04:39AM (#17013720)
    There is something that's worse than the MPAA regulating home theaters. And that's Slashdot posting a link to an obvious satire piece and a great many of its readers (and possibly a certain editor) not having the intelligence to realize that its satire.

    P.T. Barnum was right.

  • Auto Slashdot Story Generator (Score:3, Funny)

    by ChrisZermatt (892665) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @04:52AM (#17013796)
    You guys have missed the best part of the site -- the menu link on the left side of the page: http://www.bbspot.com/toys/slashtitle/index.html [bbspot.com] which creates (incredibly believable) stories to post to /.

  • I know it's satire, but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by digitalhermit (113459) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @05:14AM (#17013924) Homepage
    ...don't you have the tiniest fear that someone in MPAA headquarters isn't reading and thinking, "Great Scott!! It's brilliant!"

  • Yeah - a bit too believable ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DikSeaCup (767041) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @06:39AM (#17014374) Homepage
    In spite of all the warnings (tags, dept header), it was hard not taking this seriously. I would not have been surprised if this had been a real news item - and I'm sure we'll see something just as crazy before too long ...

    Thing is, when you say "they want $50 for any home theater system," I got the image (to borrow from Robin Williams) of two guys with the middle name "the" showing up at my place and knocking on my door (like "Jimmy the Fish" or "Johnny the Shark"). Because let's face it - the *IAA is just the new Mob, specializing in extortion using the legal system, whose lawyers should have the middle name "the".

  • The worrying thing is it's believable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by unts (754160) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @06:46AM (#17014418) Homepage Journal
    The problem with satirical articles about the MPAA is that they have to get well beyond the realms of reality before they stop being believable.

    Don't forget that here in the UK we have TV licensing. Home Theatre licensing isn't so far fetched from that.

    Satire? Looks like they're just giving the MPAA more great ideas... We're doomed!

  • Errr... :-/ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Digital Vomit (891734) on Tuesday November 28 2006, @07:08AM (#17014542) Homepage Journal

    When I realized that this article was from BBSpot, I didn't know whether to laugh or be relieved...and that's a frightening thought.

    Seriously. We have to do something about these media cartels before articles like this stop being satire.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.