MPAA Goes After Home Entertainment Systems

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."

Wow.

[Somatic]

This would be funny, if the government didn't listen to them half of the time.

bbspot.com is a satire site

[Satorian]

From their about [bbspot.com] site:

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.

Aren't there any editors around here?

MPAA has no shame...

[Exitar]

"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.

This is satire

[bakerstreet]

Come on... folks... when you get this quick to outrage it just makes YOU look silly...

I dunno what's scarier

[Opportunist]

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?

[kraada]

"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

[davmoo]

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.

Re:I dunno what's scarier

[ComaVN]

Indeed. It's not crazier than cabdrivers having to pay for putting on the radio.

Re:There is something worse

[pryonic]

They did notice, it's from the "jokes-that-some-people-just-wont-get dept" if you look at the header of the article. Just a bit of humour.

Re:MPAA: So retarded this stuff's actually plausib

[MemoryDragon]

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

[Gibsnag]

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.

Re:MPAA: So retarded this stuff's actually plausib

[jasontheking]

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.

Yeah - a bit too believable ...

[DikSeaCup]

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

[unts]

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!

Another way to look at it

[HangingChad]

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.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there isn't a "Retarded" moderation.

Re:MPAA: So retarded this stuff's actually plausib

[GreyPoopon]

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.

Too close for comfort

[AlHunt]

Sadly, the antics of the **AA make this one just a bit too close for comfort. Who wants to bet that we'll see something along these lines sooner rather than later? Maybe a tax on home theater equipment similar to Canada's tax on recordable media? Or maybe a tax on comfy seating for 2 or more people?

Errr... :-/

[Digital Vomit]

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.

Re:So what DOES buying a DVD get you the rights fo

[Talinth]

If you had read the rest of the comments (hell, even the first one) you may have saved some face here...

Re:Another way to look at it

[EvilTwinSkippy]

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.

Re:The disgrace of it all

[ravenshrike]

*cough* TV licenses in the UK*cough*

Re:The disgrace of it all

[plover]

Still, well played, BBSpot.

Too well played, I believe. Their site is not only being Slashdotted, but I think millions of gullible people are frantically sending each other emails right now saying "OMG, Dave, they want to charge you $50 for your big screen TV!!!" Their site is going to take a looong time to recover from this one!

Past experience suggests that I'll get this exact link from a well-meaning relative sometime in the next two or three months.

Re:MPAA: So retarded this stuff's actually plausib

[mrchaotica]

I suspect those ads are aimed mostly at teenagers who just copy stuff all the time without realizing that it is against the law.

As someone who was recently a teenager myself, let me tell you: teenagers aren't that stupid. They do know that it's against the law; they just don't care.

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.

The copyright infringers would be offended too, you know -- car theft is a Hell of a lot "worse" (if you even accept the proposition that copyright infringement is wrong in the first place)!

Re:The disgrace of it all

[Brad Eleven]

The real disgrace is in the majority of responses here which indicate how many of us are willing to believe that the MPAA would actually propose something like this. See also the Federal Government.

It's obvious that there is, indeed, a growing clampdown on individual rights in the United States. If it were simple fascism, the Constitutional controls could be applied for a relatively speedy and simple remedy. It's not the government, though. It's private corporations.

Does anyone still believe Friedman's simplistic assertion that the only moral responsibility of a corporation is to provide value to its shareholders?

As pervasive as corporate corruption has been shown to be, this issue is completely independent of shadowy malfeasance: It's all about above-board actions, ignored or rubber-stamped by the Congress, which make sense only to authoritarians. The referenced satire clearly illustrates that American citizens realize that there is no democratic representation in private corporate decisions which impact life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--and that these private concerns have more power than their century-old counterparts, which had only labor to exploit.

Corporations collect, retain, and use private information without so much as the most minimal regulation. Their claim that they need the data for business purposes seems to trump concerns of freedom and privacy. How egregious must their offenses become? Must we endure an actual example of the satire we discuss today?

Re:The disgrace of it all

[jonbryce]

When Friedman said this, he was talking about corporations in the context of a capitalist economy, where there is competition between lots of small corporations, and none of them are able to influence the market.

What we have here is not really a capitalist system. It is more like a feudalist system where the overlords control everything for their own benefit and prevent anyone else from competing with them.