copyright protection

Started by Hugh Jul 13, 2005 16 posts
Read-only archive
#1
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Jason,

I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs to me forever
and should never become part of the public domain. To belong to everyone
smacks of a socialist society and eventually stifles invention. If people
are not rewarded, or corporations for that matter, than we become nothing
more than a communist country and you see how well that works. We must
protect the works of others and always allow people to be compensated as
much as the market-place will allow if we are to remain the greatest country
on the planet.

Hugh Campbell




----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?


----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.

I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our copyright
system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so that
generations of their family for centuries to come profit from their
creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a point
where it belongs in the public domain.

I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to copying
digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that way. Kids
always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be taught
right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids learn
English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far longer.
Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real discipline
problem.

Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major digital
product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution. Look
at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to consumers,
but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the movie
industry can learn from it.

Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20 million for
each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes. It's
hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's such an
ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality') that
it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater and a
high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time before
the movie theater industry starts to really die.

My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are dinosaurs.
They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will fail
spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a living
selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of people
(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then line me
up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works. If
they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come up with
a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are looking for
a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than boardroom
talking over the past five years, we would not be in this situation.
That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due to the
downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from 98-2001, we
had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.

If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I think we
would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think anyone
would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early adopters"
but would need more concrete info.

And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"

Jason Burroughs

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Dale E. Cripps
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the American
consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a peaceful
position which provides optimum delivery of content to the consumers
over
the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation. There
will
be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner in this

supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege where it
is
"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically interpreted as
unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which when
heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited commentators.
Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice predetermined
the
outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
delivered
in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own constructive
decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue to
invite
guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here are
much
much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle. Our
nation
and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want to
break
every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not every
DRM
objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog about

human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a cheap
lock
or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era and
then
act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive side
of
life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly understand,
such
as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park at
the
curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We don't
feel
abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no need
for
a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
maintain
high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The few
violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm. We do
not
imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on the
highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster and
that
monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have been
taken
and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more like
good
chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the entanglements
designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and behavior.
A
student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility is at
its
heart. -Dale

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed press
release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what happens
when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do they
ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
material? Etc..

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Dale E. Cripps
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case (in our
articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think is
critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the reason
why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They realize
that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and they
have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why protective
measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a sympathetic
appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital Rights
Management in general is not something you just toy with or or abuse
because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect we
show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
persons property any way you like, it is then right for all property.
Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface their
home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge instead
of your power company?

I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a view
that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might appear
to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you have
them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been exterminated
in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never hear
their position nor give it consideration.

I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a previous
life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the money guys
always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but what is
different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful day
when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband ports
on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer than
its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive distribution
the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public domain.
Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft. So we
just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme the
compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe" to
everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its premier
showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?

I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they decide to
use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
concerns.

Dale

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Howard,
>
> The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make sure
> you have a bottle handy.
>
> If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are a
> target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me, would
> eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI or
> HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>
> It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and I
> anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by then
> (2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years of
> age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at high
> prices, it could be
> replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another reason to

> look for a 1080p second
> generation with HDMI or DVI.
>
> The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older model
> TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well for
> the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no market

> for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids room

> to play video games.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
> Of Howard A. Blackstead
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Thanks to those of you who have put that issue to rest, especially
> Rodolfo! I can cut back on the ant-acids again!
>
> Howard in South Bend
>
>
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:58 -0400, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> At 08:31 PM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>> >It has been indicated in another forum that the newer HD stb's (811,

>> >921, 942) do not provide HD signals on the component outputs.
>
>> Whoever made that statement is misinformed. My 921 (like my 6000
>> previously) provides HD content from the component outputs.
>>
>>
>> -- RAF
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that

>> same day) send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#2
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

What about Shakespeare?

Jason Burroughs


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Hugh Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 10:31 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: copyright protection

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Jason,

I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs to me
forever
and should never become part of the public domain. To belong to
everyone
smacks of a socialist society and eventually stifles invention. If
people
are not rewarded, or corporations for that matter, than we become
nothing
more than a communist country and you see how well that works. We must
protect the works of others and always allow people to be compensated as

much as the market-place will allow if we are to remain the greatest
country
on the planet.

Hugh Campbell




----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?


----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.

I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our copyright
system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so that
generations of their family for centuries to come profit from their
creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a point
where it belongs in the public domain.

I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to copying
digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that way. Kids
always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be taught
right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids learn
English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far longer.
Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real discipline
problem.

Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major digital
product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution. Look
at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to consumers,
but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the movie
industry can learn from it.

Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20 million for
each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes. It's
hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's such an
ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality') that
it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater and a
high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time before
the movie theater industry starts to really die.

My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are dinosaurs.
They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will fail
spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a living
selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of people
(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then line me
up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works. If
they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come up with
a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are looking for
a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than boardroom
talking over the past five years, we would not be in this situation.
That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due to the
downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from 98-2001, we
had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.

If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I think we
would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think anyone
would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early adopters"
but would need more concrete info.

And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"

Jason Burroughs

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Dale E. Cripps
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the American
consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a peaceful
position which provides optimum delivery of content to the consumers
over
the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation. There
will
be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner in this

supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege where it
is
"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically interpreted as
unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which when
heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited commentators.
Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice predetermined
the
outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
delivered
in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own constructive
decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue to
invite
guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here are
much
much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle. Our
nation
and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want to
break
every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not every
DRM
objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog about

human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a cheap
lock
or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era and
then
act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive side
of
life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly understand,
such
as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park at
the
curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We don't
feel
abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no need
for
a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
maintain
high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The few
violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm. We do
not
imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on the
highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster and
that
monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have been
taken
and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more like
good
chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the entanglements
designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and behavior.
A
student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility is at
its
heart. -Dale

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed press
release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what happens
when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do they
ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
material? Etc..

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Dale E. Cripps
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case (in our
articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think is
critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the reason
why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They realize
that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and they
have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why protective
measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a sympathetic
appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital Rights
Management in general is not something you just toy with or or abuse
because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect we
show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
persons property any way you like, it is then right for all property.
Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface their
home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge instead
of your power company?

I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a view
that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might appear
to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you have
them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been exterminated
in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never hear
their position nor give it consideration.

I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a previous
life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the money guys
always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but what is
different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful day
when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband ports
on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer than
its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive distribution
the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public domain.
Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft. So we
just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme the
compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe" to
everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its premier
showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?

I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they decide to
use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
concerns.

Dale

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Howard,
>
> The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make sure
> you have a bottle handy.
>
> If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are a
> target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me, would
> eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI or
> HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>
> It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and I
> anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by then
> (2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years of
> age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at high
> prices, it could be
> replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another reason to

> look for a 1080p second
> generation with HDMI or DVI.
>
> The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older model
> TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well for
> the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no market

> for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids room

> to play video games.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
> Of Howard A. Blackstead
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Thanks to those of you who have put that issue to rest, especially
> Rodolfo! I can cut back on the ant-acids again!
>
> Howard in South Bend
>
>
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:58 -0400, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> At 08:31 PM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>> >It has been indicated in another forum that the newer HD stb's (811,

>> >921, 942) do not provide HD signals on the component outputs.
>
>> Whoever made that statement is misinformed. My 921 (like my 6000
>> previously) provides HD content from the component outputs.
>>
>>
>> -- RAF
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that

>> same day) send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#3
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Ayn Rand and "Howard Roark" couldn't have put it better. Having said that I
believe the allotted protection time for a copyright is 100 years and
patents are less.

Anthony R


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Hugh Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:31 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: copyright protection


----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Jason,

I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs to me forever
and should never become part of the public domain. To belong to everyone
smacks of a socialist society and eventually stifles invention. If people
are not rewarded, or corporations for that matter, than we become nothing
more than a communist country and you see how well that works. We must
protect the works of others and always allow people to be compensated as
much as the market-place will allow if we are to remain the greatest country
on the planet.

Hugh Campbell




----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?


----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.

I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our copyright
system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so that
generations of their family for centuries to come profit from their
creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a point
where it belongs in the public domain.

I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to copying
digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that way. Kids
always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be taught
right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids learn
English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far longer.
Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real discipline
problem.

Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major digital
product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution. Look
at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to consumers,
but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the movie
industry can learn from it.

Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20 million for
each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes. It's
hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's such an
ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality') that
it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater and a
high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time before
the movie theater industry starts to really die.

My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are dinosaurs.
They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will fail
spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a living
selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of people
(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then line me
up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works. If
they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come up with
a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are looking for
a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than boardroom
talking over the past five years, we would not be in this situation.
That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due to the
downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from 98-2001, we
had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.

If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I think we
would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think anyone
would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early adopters"
but would need more concrete info.

And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"

Jason Burroughs

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Dale E. Cripps
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the American
consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a peaceful
position which provides optimum delivery of content to the consumers
over
the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation. There
will
be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner in this

supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege where it
is
"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically interpreted as
unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which when
heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited commentators.
Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice predetermined
the
outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
delivered
in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own constructive
decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue to
invite
guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here are
much
much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle. Our
nation
and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want to
break
every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not every
DRM
objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog about

human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a cheap
lock
or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era and
then
act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive side
of
life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly understand,
such
as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park at
the
curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We don't
feel
abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no need
for
a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
maintain
high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The few
violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm. We do
not
imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on the
highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster and
that
monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have been
taken
and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more like
good
chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the entanglements
designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and behavior.
A
student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility is at
its
heart. -Dale

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed press
release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what happens
when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do they
ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
material? Etc..

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Dale E. Cripps
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case (in our
articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think is
critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the reason
why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They realize
that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and they
have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why protective
measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a sympathetic
appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital Rights
Management in general is not something you just toy with or or abuse
because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect we
show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
persons property any way you like, it is then right for all property.
Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface their
home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge instead
of your power company?

I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a view
that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might appear
to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you have
them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been exterminated
in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never hear
their position nor give it consideration.

I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a previous
life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the money guys
always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but what is
different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful day
when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband ports
on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer than
its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive distribution
the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public domain.
Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft. So we
just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme the
compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe" to
everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its premier
showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?

I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they decide to
use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
concerns.

Dale

> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Howard,
>
> The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make sure
> you have a bottle handy.
>
> If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are a
> target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me, would
> eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI or
> HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>
> It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and I
> anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by then
> (2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years of
> age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at high
> prices, it could be
> replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another reason to

> look for a 1080p second
> generation with HDMI or DVI.
>
> The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older model
> TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well for
> the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no market

> for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids room

> to play video games.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rodolfo La Maestra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
> Of Howard A. Blackstead
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Thanks to those of you who have put that issue to rest, especially
> Rodolfo! I can cut back on the ant-acids again!
>
> Howard in South Bend
>
>
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:58 -0400, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> At 08:31 PM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>> >It has been indicated in another forum that the newer HD stb's (811,

>> >921, 942) do not provide HD signals on the component outputs.
>
>> Whoever made that statement is misinformed. My 921 (like my 6000
>> previously) provides HD content from the component outputs.
>>
>>
>> -- RAF
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that

>> same day) send an email to:
>> [email protected]
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#4
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

So, when's the ammendment. I seem to remember the word 'temporary'
used in the Constitution on copywrites, trademarks, patents. Now a
adays there are works that are languishing around that others are
quite willing to reintroduce to the public, but, the companies won't
give up. And if your attitude was implemented then Disney would go
bankrupt since it wouldn't have a bunch of fairy tales to 'plagerize'
for their movies (along with Shakespear, Hugo, Homer, etc.).

erik g

At 11:31 AM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Jason,
>
>I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs to me
>forever and should never become part of the public domain. To
>belong to everyone smacks of a socialist society and eventually
>stifles invention. If people are not rewarded, or corporations for
>that matter, than we become nothing more than a communist country
>and you see how well that works. We must protect the works of
>others and always allow people to be compensated as much as the
>market-place will allow if we are to remain the greatest country on
>the planet.
>
>Hugh Campbell
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.
>
>I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our copyright
>system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so that
>generations of their family for centuries to come profit from their
>creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a point
>where it belongs in the public domain.
>
>I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to copying
>digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
>behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that way. Kids
>always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be taught
>right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
>example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids learn
>English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far longer.
>Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real discipline
>problem.
>
>Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major digital
>product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution. Look
>at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to consumers,
>but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the movie
>industry can learn from it.
>
>Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20 million for
>each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes. It's
>hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's such an
>ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality') that
>it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater and a
>high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time before
>the movie theater industry starts to really die.
>
>My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are dinosaurs.
>They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will fail
>spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a living
>selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of people
>(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then line me
>up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works. If
>they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come up with
>a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are looking for
>a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than boardroom
>talking over the past five years, we would not be in this situation.
>That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due to the
>downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from 98-2001, we
>had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
>participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.
>
>If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I think we
>would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
>conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think anyone
>would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early adopters"
>but would need more concrete info.
>
>And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"
>
>Jason Burroughs
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>Of Dale E. Cripps
>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the American
>consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a peaceful
>position which provides optimum delivery of content to the consumers
>over
>the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation. There
>will
>be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner in this
>
>supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege where it
>is
>"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically interpreted as
>unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which when
>heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited commentators.
>Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice predetermined
>the
>outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
>delivered
>in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own constructive
>decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue to
>invite
>guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here are
>much
>much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle. Our
>nation
>and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want to
>break
>every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not every
>DRM
>objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog about
>
>human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a cheap
>lock
>or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era and
>then
>act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
>support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive side
>of
>life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly understand,
>such
>as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park at
>the
>curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We don't
>feel
>abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no need
>for
>a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
>maintain
>high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
>understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The few
>violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm. We do
>not
>imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on the
>highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster and
>that
>monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have been
>taken
>and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more like
>good
>chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the entanglements
>designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and behavior.
>A
>student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility is at
>its
>heart. -Dale
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed press
>release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what happens
>when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do they
>ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
>material? Etc..
>
>Jason
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>Of Dale E. Cripps
>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
>To: HDTV Magazine
>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case (in our
>articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think is
>critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the reason
>why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They realize
>that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and they
>have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why protective
>measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a sympathetic
>appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital Rights
>Management in general is not something you just toy with or or abuse
>because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect we
>show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
>persons property any way you like, it is then right for all property.
>Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface their
>home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge instead
>of your power company?
>
>I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a view
>that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
>weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might appear
>to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you have
>them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been exterminated
>in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never hear
>their position nor give it consideration.
>
>I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a previous
>life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the money guys
>always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but what is
>different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful day
>when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband ports
>on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer than
>its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive distribution
>the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public domain.
>Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft. So we
>just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme the
>compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe" to
>everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its premier
>showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?
>
>I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they decide to
>use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
>concerns.
>
>Dale
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>Howard,
>>
>>The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make sure
>>you have a bottle handy.
>>
>>If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are a
>>target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me, would
>>eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI or
>>HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>>
>>It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and I
>>anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by then
>>(2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years of
>>age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at high
>>prices, it could be
>>replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another reason to
>
>>look for a 1080p second
>>generation with HDMI or DVI.
>>
>>The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older model
>>TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well for
>>the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no market
>
>>for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids room
>
>>to play video games.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>Of Howard A. Blackstead
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>Thanks to those of you who have put that issue to rest, especially
>>Rodolfo! I can cut back on the ant-acids again!
>>
>>Howard in South Bend
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:58 -0400, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>At 08:31 PM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>>>>It has been indicated in another forum that the newer HD stb's (811,
>
>>> >921, 942) do not provide HD signals on the component outputs.
>>
>>>Whoever made that statement is misinformed. My 921 (like my 6000
>>>previously) provides HD content from the component outputs.
>>>
>>>
>>>-- RAF
>>>
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>
>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>[email protected]
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>same
>>day) send an email to:
>>[email protected]
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>same
>>day) send an email to:
>>[email protected]
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>same day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>same
>day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>same day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>that same day) send an email to:
>[email protected]
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>that same day) send an email to:
>[email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#5
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

My attitude is that what belongs to one person is not the property of others
as stated in the constitution in so many words. I'm not a lawyer but I
believe there is a time in the future when a copyright ends. Since we are
only talking about US citizens your examples of authors are a little off.

Hugh



----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: copyright protection


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> So, when's the ammendment. I seem to remember the word 'temporary' used
> in the Constitution on copywrites, trademarks, patents. Now a adays there
> are works that are languishing around that others are quite willing to
> reintroduce to the public, but, the companies won't give up. And if your
> attitude was implemented then Disney would go bankrupt since it wouldn't
> have a bunch of fairy tales to 'plagerize' for their movies (along with
> Shakespear, Hugo, Homer, etc.).
>
> erik g
>
> At 11:31 AM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>Jason,
>>
>>I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs to me
>>forever and should never become part of the public domain. To belong to
>>everyone smacks of a socialist society and eventually stifles invention.
>>If people are not rewarded, or corporations for that matter, than we
>>become nothing more than a communist country and you see how well that
>>works. We must protect the works of others and always allow people to be
>>compensated as much as the market-place will allow if we are to remain the
>>greatest country on the planet.
>>
>>Hugh Campbell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.
>>
>>I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our copyright
>>system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so that
>>generations of their family for centuries to come profit from their
>>creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a point
>>where it belongs in the public domain.
>>
>>I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to copying
>>digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
>>behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that way. Kids
>>always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be taught
>>right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
>>example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids learn
>>English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far longer.
>>Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real discipline
>>problem.
>>
>>Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major digital
>>product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution. Look
>>at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to consumers,
>>but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the movie
>>industry can learn from it.
>>
>>Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20 million for
>>each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes. It's
>>hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's such an
>>ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality') that
>>it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater and a
>>high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time before
>>the movie theater industry starts to really die.
>>
>>My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are dinosaurs.
>>They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will fail
>>spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a living
>>selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of people
>>(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then line me
>>up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works. If
>>they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come up with
>>a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are looking for
>>a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than boardroom
>>talking over the past five years, we would not be in this situation.
>>That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due to the
>>downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from 98-2001, we
>>had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
>>participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.
>>
>>If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I think we
>>would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
>>conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think anyone
>>would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early adopters"
>>but would need more concrete info.
>>
>>And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"
>>
>>Jason Burroughs
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the American
>>consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a peaceful
>>position which provides optimum delivery of content to the consumers
>>over
>>the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation. There
>>will
>>be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner in this
>>
>>supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege where it
>>is
>>"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically interpreted as
>>unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which when
>>heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited commentators.
>>Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice predetermined
>>the
>>outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
>>delivered
>>in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own constructive
>>decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue to
>>invite
>>guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here are
>>much
>>much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle. Our
>>nation
>>and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want to
>>break
>>every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not every
>>DRM
>>objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog about
>>
>>human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a cheap
>>lock
>>or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era and
>>then
>>act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
>>support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive side
>>of
>>life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly understand,
>>such
>>as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park at
>>the
>>curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We don't
>>feel
>>abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no need
>>for
>>a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
>>maintain
>>high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
>>understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The few
>>violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm. We do
>>not
>>imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on the
>>highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster and
>>that
>>monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have been
>>taken
>>and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more like
>>good
>>chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the entanglements
>>designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and behavior.
>>A
>>student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility is at
>>its
>>heart. -Dale
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed press
>>release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what happens
>>when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do they
>>ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
>>material? Etc..
>>
>>Jason
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case (in our
>>articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think is
>>critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the reason
>>why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They realize
>>that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and they
>>have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why protective
>>measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a sympathetic
>>appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital Rights
>>Management in general is not something you just toy with or or abuse
>>because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect we
>>show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
>>persons property any way you like, it is then right for all property.
>>Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface their
>>home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge instead
>>of your power company?
>>
>>I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a view
>>that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
>>weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might appear
>>to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you have
>>them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been exterminated
>>in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never hear
>>their position nor give it consideration.
>>
>>I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a previous
>>life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the money guys
>>always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but what is
>>different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful day
>>when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband ports
>>on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer than
>>its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive distribution
>>the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public domain.
>>Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft. So we
>>just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme the
>>compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe" to
>>everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its premier
>>showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?
>>
>>I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they decide to
>>use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
>>concerns.
>>
>>Dale
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>Howard,
>>>
>>>The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make sure
>>>you have a bottle handy.
>>>
>>>If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are a
>>>target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me, would
>>>eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI or
>>>HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>>>
>>>It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and I
>>>anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by then
>>>(2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years of
>>>age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at high
>>>prices, it could be
>>>replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another reason to
>>
>>>look for a 1080p second
>>>generation with HDMI or DVI.
>>>
>>>The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older model
>>>TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well for
>>>the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no market
>>
>>>for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids room
>>
>>>to play video games.
>>>
>>>Best Regards,
>>>
>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>Of Howard A. Blackstead
>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>
>>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>Thanks to those of you who have put that issue to rest, especially
>>>Rodolfo! I can cut back on the ant-acids again!
>>>
>>>Howard in South Bend
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:58 -0400, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>At 08:31 PM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>>>>>It has been indicated in another forum that the newer HD stb's (811,
>>
>>>> >921, 942) do not provide HD signals on the component outputs.
>>>
>>>>Whoever made that statement is misinformed. My 921 (like my 6000
>>>>previously) provides HD content from the component outputs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-- RAF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>
>>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>>[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>same
>>>day) send an email to:
>>>[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>same
>>>day) send an email to:
>>>[email protected]
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>same day) send an email to:
>>[email protected]
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>same
>>day) send an email to:
>>[email protected]
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>same day) send an email to:
>>[email protected]
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>>day) send an email to:
>>[email protected]
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>>day) send an email to:
>>[email protected]
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#6
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

First definition of terms. Copyright infringement is not
stealing--it's infringement. Think, when you steal something from
someone they no longer have the use of that object. With copyright,
they still have use, just others have it two. This is the problem.
If the industry would recognize this and then seek to work with that
then maybe attitudes would change. But, as long as everybody is
talking past each other we'll get no where. Admittedly this is a
really complicated issue so we need to be open and understanding of
each other so we can try and reach some agreement.

But, I got the impression that you wanted indefinite copyright. I
gave the example of Disney, because they take works (say Song of the
South) that don't have copyright, and then once they have a
copywrited work the pursue everyone and anyone who even thinks of
using that work.
I guess I'm a socialist, or maybe if it really was the person who had
the copywrite, but, it seems it's the coproations that are the worst
offenders, they so pursue the law that they forget the 'public
benifit'. Check out the essay by the author William Gibson (he
coined Cyberspace for his novel Neuromancer):
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html, here he notes
that copying and transforming other works is ingrained in our
culture, and that even more interesting things come from all this
'cross pollination'.
I guess I attribute the 'death of hip-hop' to the authoritarianism of
the MPAA. Hip-hop was fresh when it was sampling other artist (and
the were willing to compensate, just the record companies are not so
flexible) creating a new art form. But, now it's all that lame
'Dirty South' and 'Crunk' that doesn't seek out the history of music
to 'borrow' from. Didn't someone say that "good artist borrow, great
artist steal."

erik g


At 07:10 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>My attitude is that what belongs to one person is not the property
>of others as stated in the constitution in so many words. I'm not a
>lawyer but I believe there is a time in the future when a copyright
>ends. Since we are only talking about US citizens your examples of
>authors are a little off.
>
>Hugh
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>So, when's the ammendment. I seem to remember the word 'temporary'
>>used in the Constitution on copywrites, trademarks, patents. Now a
>>adays there are works that are languishing around that others are
>>quite willing to reintroduce to the public, but, the companies
>>won't give up. And if your attitude was implemented then Disney
>>would go bankrupt since it wouldn't have a bunch of fairy tales to
>>'plagerize' for their movies (along with Shakespear, Hugo, Homer,
>>etc.).
>>
>>erik g
>>
>>At 11:31 AM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>Jason,
>>>
>>>I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs to
>>>me forever and should never become part of the public domain. To
>>>belong to everyone smacks of a socialist society and eventually
>>>stifles invention. If people are not rewarded, or corporations for
>>>that matter, than we become nothing more than a communist country
>>>and you see how well that works. We must protect the works of
>>>others and always allow people to be compensated as much as the
>>>market-place will allow if we are to remain the greatest country
>>>on the planet.
>>>
>>>Hugh Campbell
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>
>>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.
>>>
>>>I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our copyright
>>>system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so that
>>>generations of their family for centuries to come profit from their
>>>creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a point
>>>where it belongs in the public domain.
>>>
>>>I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to copying
>>>digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
>>>behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that way. Kids
>>>always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be taught
>>>right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
>>>example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids learn
>>>English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far longer.
>>>Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real discipline
>>>problem.
>>>
>>>Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major digital
>>>product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution. Look
>>>at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to consumers,
>>>but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the movie
>>>industry can learn from it.
>>>
>>>Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20 million for
>>>each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes. It's
>>>hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's such an
>>>ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality') that
>>>it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater and a
>>>high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time before
>>>the movie theater industry starts to really die.
>>>
>>>My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are dinosaurs.
>>>They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will fail
>>>spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a living
>>>selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of people
>>>(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then line me
>>>up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works. If
>>>they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come up with
>>>a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are looking for
>>>a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than boardroom
>>>talking over the past five years, we would not be in this situation.
>>>That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due to the
>>>downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from 98-2001, we
>>>had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
>>>participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.
>>>
>>>If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I think we
>>>would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
>>>conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think anyone
>>>would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early adopters"
>>>but would need more concrete info.
>>>
>>>And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"
>>>
>>>Jason Burroughs
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the American
>>>consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a peaceful
>>>position which provides optimum delivery of content to the consumers
>>>over
>>>the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation. There
>>>will
>>>be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner in this
>>>
>>>supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege where it
>>>is
>>>"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically interpreted as
>>>unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which when
>>>heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited commentators.
>>>Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice predetermined
>>>the
>>>outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
>>>delivered
>>>in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own constructive
>>>decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue to
>>>invite
>>>guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here are
>>>much
>>>much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle. Our
>>>nation
>>>and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want to
>>>break
>>>every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not every
>>>DRM
>>>objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog about
>>>
>>>human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a cheap
>>>lock
>>>or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era and
>>>then
>>>act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
>>>support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive side
>>>of
>>>life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly understand,
>>>such
>>>as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park at
>>>the
>>>curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We don't
>>>feel
>>>abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no need
>>>for
>>>a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
>>>maintain
>>>high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
>>>understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The few
>>>violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm. We do
>>>not
>>>imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on the
>>>highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster and
>>>that
>>>monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have been
>>>taken
>>>and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more like
>>>good
>>>chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the entanglements
>>>designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and behavior.
>>>A
>>>student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility is at
>>>its
>>>heart. -Dale
>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed press
>>>release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what happens
>>>when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do they
>>>ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
>>>material? Etc..
>>>
>>>Jason
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case (in our
>>>articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think is
>>>critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the reason
>>>why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They realize
>>>that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and they
>>>have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why protective
>>>measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a sympathetic
>>>appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital Rights
>>>Management in general is not something you just toy with or or abuse
>>>because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect we
>>>show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
>>>persons property any way you like, it is then right for all property.
>>>Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface their
>>>home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge instead
>>>of your power company?
>>>
>>>I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a view
>>>that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
>>>weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might appear
>>>to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you have
>>>them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been exterminated
>>>in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never hear
>>>their position nor give it consideration.
>>>
>>>I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a previous
>>>life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the money guys
>>>always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but what is
>>>different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful day
>>>when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband ports
>>>on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer than
>>>its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive distribution
>>>the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public domain.
>>>Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft. So we
>>>just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme the
>>>compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe" to
>>>everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its premier
>>>showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?
>>>
>>>I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they decide to
>>>use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
>>>concerns.
>>>
>>>Dale
>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Howard,
>>>>
>>>>The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make sure
>>>>you have a bottle handy.
>>>>
>>>>If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are a
>>>>target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me, would
>>>>eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI or
>>>>HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>>>>
>>>>It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and I
>>>>anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by then
>>>>(2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years of
>>>>age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at high
>>>>prices, it could be
>>>>replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another reason to
>>>
>>>>look for a 1080p second
>>>>generation with HDMI or DVI.
>>>>
>>>>The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older model
>>>>TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well for
>>>>the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no market
>>>
>>>>for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids room
>>>
>>>>to play video games.
>>>>
>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>Of Howard A. Blackstead
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Thanks to those of you who have put that issue to rest, especially
>>>>Rodolfo! I can cut back on the ant-acids again!
>>>>
>>>>Howard in South Bend
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:58 -0400, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>At 08:31 PM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>>>>>>It has been indicated in another forum that the newer HD stb's (811,
>>>
>>>>> >921, 942) do not provide HD signals on the component outputs.
>>>>
>>>>>Whoever made that statement is misinformed. My 921 (like my 6000
>>>>>previously) provides HD content from the component outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-- RAF
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>
>>>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>same
>>>>day) send an email to:
>>>>[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>same
>>>>day) send an email to:
>>>>[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>[email protected]
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>same
>>>day) send an email to:
>>>[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>[email protected]
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>>>that same day) send an email to:
>>>[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>>>that same day) send an email to:
>>>[email protected]
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>>that same day) send an email to:
>>[email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>that same day) send an email to:
>[email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#7
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

When you deprive someone of income that is rightfully theirs you are
stealing from them no matter how you slice it or what you call it. If you
are foolish enough not to copyright something then that is your fault and
not Disney's or anyone else who uses it and copyrights it themselves. But
if you do copyright your own work then you have an expectation of your work
continuing to belong to you in accordance with the copyright laws of this
country. Up until the copyright expires, which at some point it should, you
should be compensated accordingly.

You may "cross pollinate" all you wish but I shall follow the laws of the
land and reward the originator who holds a copyright. Gibson seems to be a
total socialist who believes that what belongs to one person belongs to the
entire commune. Or is that communism.

Hugh



----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: copyright protection


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> First definition of terms. Copyright infringement is not stealing--it's
> infringement. Think, when you steal something from someone they no longer
> have the use of that object. With copyright, they still have use, just
> others have it two. This is the problem. If the industry would recognize
> this and then seek to work with that then maybe attitudes would change.
> But, as long as everybody is talking past each other we'll get no where.
> Admittedly this is a really complicated issue so we need to be open and
> understanding of each other so we can try and reach some agreement.
>
> But, I got the impression that you wanted indefinite copyright. I gave
> the example of Disney, because they take works (say Song of the South)
> that don't have copyright, and then once they have a copywrited work the
> pursue everyone and anyone who even thinks of using that work.
> I guess I'm a socialist, or maybe if it really was the person who had the
> copywrite, but, it seems it's the coproations that are the worst
> offenders, they so pursue the law that they forget the 'public benifit'.
> Check out the essay by the author William Gibson (he coined Cyberspace for
> his novel Neuromancer):
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html, here he notes that
> copying and transforming other works is ingrained in our culture, and that
> even more interesting things come from all this 'cross pollination'.
> I guess I attribute the 'death of hip-hop' to the authoritarianism of the
> MPAA. Hip-hop was fresh when it was sampling other artist (and the were
> willing to compensate, just the record companies are not so flexible)
> creating a new art form. But, now it's all that lame 'Dirty South' and
> 'Crunk' that doesn't seek out the history of music to 'borrow' from.
> Didn't someone say that "good artist borrow, great artist steal."
>
> erik g
>
>
> At 07:10 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>My attitude is that what belongs to one person is not the property of
>>others as stated in the constitution in so many words. I'm not a lawyer
>>but I believe there is a time in the future when a copyright ends. Since
>>we are only talking about US citizens your examples of authors are a
>>little off.
>>
>>Hugh
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
>>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>So, when's the ammendment. I seem to remember the word 'temporary' used
>>>in the Constitution on copywrites, trademarks, patents. Now a adays
>>>there are works that are languishing around that others are quite willing
>>>to reintroduce to the public, but, the companies won't give up. And if
>>>your attitude was implemented then Disney would go bankrupt since it
>>>wouldn't have a bunch of fairy tales to 'plagerize' for their movies
>>>(along with Shakespear, Hugo, Homer, etc.).
>>>
>>>erik g
>>>
>>>At 11:31 AM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>Jason,
>>>>
>>>>I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs to me
>>>>forever and should never become part of the public domain. To belong to
>>>>everyone smacks of a socialist society and eventually stifles invention.
>>>>If people are not rewarded, or corporations for that matter, than we
>>>>become nothing more than a communist country and you see how well that
>>>>works. We must protect the works of others and always allow people to
>>>>be compensated as much as the market-place will allow if we are to
>>>>remain the greatest country on the planet.
>>>>
>>>>Hugh Campbell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
>>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.
>>>>
>>>>I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our copyright
>>>>system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so that
>>>>generations of their family for centuries to come profit from their
>>>>creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a point
>>>>where it belongs in the public domain.
>>>>
>>>>I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to copying
>>>>digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
>>>>behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that way. Kids
>>>>always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be taught
>>>>right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
>>>>example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids learn
>>>>English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far longer.
>>>>Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real discipline
>>>>problem.
>>>>
>>>>Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major digital
>>>>product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution. Look
>>>>at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to consumers,
>>>>but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the movie
>>>>industry can learn from it.
>>>>
>>>>Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20 million for
>>>>each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes. It's
>>>>hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's such an
>>>>ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality') that
>>>>it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater and a
>>>>high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time before
>>>>the movie theater industry starts to really die.
>>>>
>>>>My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are dinosaurs.
>>>>They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will fail
>>>>spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a living
>>>>selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of people
>>>>(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then line me
>>>>up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works. If
>>>>they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come up with
>>>>a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are looking for
>>>>a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than boardroom
>>>>talking over the past five years, we would not be in this situation.
>>>>That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due to the
>>>>downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from 98-2001, we
>>>>had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
>>>>participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.
>>>>
>>>>If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I think we
>>>>would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
>>>>conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think anyone
>>>>would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early adopters"
>>>>but would need more concrete info.
>>>>
>>>>And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"
>>>>
>>>>Jason Burroughs
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the American
>>>>consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a peaceful
>>>>position which provides optimum delivery of content to the consumers
>>>>over
>>>>the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation. There
>>>>will
>>>>be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner in this
>>>>
>>>>supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege where it
>>>>is
>>>>"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically interpreted as
>>>>unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which when
>>>>heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited commentators.
>>>>Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice predetermined
>>>>the
>>>>outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
>>>>delivered
>>>>in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own constructive
>>>>decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue to
>>>>invite
>>>>guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here are
>>>>much
>>>>much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle. Our
>>>>nation
>>>>and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want to
>>>>break
>>>>every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not every
>>>>DRM
>>>>objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog about
>>>>
>>>>human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a cheap
>>>>lock
>>>>or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era and
>>>>then
>>>>act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
>>>>support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive side
>>>>of
>>>>life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly understand,
>>>>such
>>>>as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park at
>>>>the
>>>>curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We don't
>>>>feel
>>>>abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no need
>>>>for
>>>>a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
>>>>maintain
>>>>high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
>>>>understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The few
>>>>violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm. We do
>>>>not
>>>>imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on the
>>>>highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster and
>>>>that
>>>>monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have been
>>>>taken
>>>>and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more like
>>>>good
>>>>chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the entanglements
>>>>designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and behavior.
>>>>A
>>>>student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility is at
>>>>its
>>>>heart. -Dale
>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed press
>>>>release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what happens
>>>>when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do they
>>>>ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
>>>>material? Etc..
>>>>
>>>>Jason
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case (in our
>>>>articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think is
>>>>critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the reason
>>>>why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They realize
>>>>that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and they
>>>>have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why protective
>>>>measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a sympathetic
>>>>appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital Rights
>>>>Management in general is not something you just toy with or or abuse
>>>>because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect we
>>>>show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
>>>>persons property any way you like, it is then right for all property.
>>>>Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface their
>>>>home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge instead
>>>>of your power company?
>>>>
>>>>I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a view
>>>>that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
>>>>weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might appear
>>>>to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you have
>>>>them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been exterminated
>>>>in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never hear
>>>>their position nor give it consideration.
>>>>
>>>>I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a previous
>>>>life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the money guys
>>>>always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but what is
>>>>different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful day
>>>>when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband ports
>>>>on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer than
>>>>its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive distribution
>>>>the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public domain.
>>>>Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft. So we
>>>>just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme the
>>>>compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe" to
>>>>everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its premier
>>>>showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?
>>>>
>>>>I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they decide to
>>>>use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
>>>>concerns.
>>>>
>>>>Dale
>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Howard,
>>>>>
>>>>>The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make sure
>>>>>you have a bottle handy.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are a
>>>>>target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me, would
>>>>>eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI or
>>>>>HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>>>>>
>>>>>It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and I
>>>>>anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by then
>>>>>(2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years of
>>>>>age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at high
>>>>>prices, it could be
>>>>>replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another reason to
>>>>
>>>>>look for a 1080p second
>>>>>generation with HDMI or DVI.
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older model
>>>>>TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well for
>>>>>the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no market
>>>>
>>>>>for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids room
>>>>
>>>>>to play video games.
>>>>>
>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>>Of Howard A. Blackstead
>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks to those of you who have put that issue to rest, especially
>>>>>Rodolfo! I can cut back on the ant-acids again!
>>>>>
>>>>>Howard in South Bend
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:58 -0400, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At 08:31 PM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>>>>>>>It has been indicated in another forum that the newer HD stb's (811,
>>>>
>>>>>> >921, 942) do not provide HD signals on the component outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Whoever made that statement is misinformed. My 921 (like my 6000
>>>>>>previously) provides HD content from the component outputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-- RAF
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>
>>>>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>>same
>>>>>day) send an email to:
>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>>same
>>>>>day) send an email to:
>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>>[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>same
>>>>day) send an email to:
>>>>[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>>[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>>[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>>[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>[email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>>day) send an email to:
>>[email protected]
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#8
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Guess we struck a nerve. I guess I look a bit more to the benefit of
all. The trick is, were will innovation come from if we're not
allowed to use other works? Will we be charged when we download a
copyrighted art, again when it is in our computer's RAM, and again
when it is displayed, and for each subsequent display. There needs
to be a reasonable limit to copyright.
Remember it's the government that gives the copyright older the
ability to use that copyright, the individual has no rights other
that that which was given to them by the government (they can get
income from it because the gov't setup the system)--so if the
government decides to adjust those rights it quite capable to do so
(since it's quite happy to adjust for the lobbyist from the
MPAA/RIAA). I guess my problem is that it's largely the corporations
that have the copyright, and the individuals seem to be lost in the
process. I've read one interesting idea that one would pay for the
'privilege' of copyright, and those fees would go towards
enforcement. Why should my taxes go towards enforcement when I don't
directly benefit from the copyright held (i.e. I don't get royalties,
etc.)?
I tend to agree with those that feel the 'temporary' part needs to be
emphasized. I'm not at all offended that you call 'us' socialist,
since I'd much rather be know for caring for my fellow citizens, than
be a money-grubbing Scrooge;)
There needs to be discussion as to which benefits are best for all.
This is certainly one of the 'justifications' for the P2P people
give, that the corporations "can afford it", and they're screwing the
artists (someone noted that the RIAA has millions of dollors in
royalties paid that haven't reached the artists--unknowns like Puff
Daddy, etc.). But, that's just as misguidedas the MPAA/RIAA that
want us to pay everytime we open our eyes/ears. If you don't like
the way it's done then change the system. Unfortunately there is
much more money behind the status quo, but, all this 'stealing music'
may even the playing field. Even Europe and the rest of the world is
dealing with this--especially the 'developing' world that his been
hit hard by this in things like live-saving drugs that are patented
and the companies that hold it are more interested in the principle
of money, rather than the public good.

erik g

I'm off to work so I'll see how this develops, they haven't awarded
my patent so this discussion is still 'theory';)

At 08:21 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>When you deprive someone of income that is rightfully theirs you are
>stealing from them no matter how you slice it or what you call it.
>If you are foolish enough not to copyright something then that is
>your fault and not Disney's or anyone else who uses it and
>copyrights it themselves. But if you do copyright your own work
>then you have an expectation of your work continuing to belong to
>you in accordance with the copyright laws of this country. Up until
>the copyright expires, which at some point it should, you should be
>compensated accordingly.
>
>You may "cross pollinate" all you wish but I shall follow the laws
>of the land and reward the originator who holds a copyright. Gibson
>seems to be a total socialist who believes that what belongs to one
>person belongs to the entire commune. Or is that communism.
>
>Hugh
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:34 PM
>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>First definition of terms. Copyright infringement is not
>>stealing--it's infringement. Think, when you steal something from
>>someone they no longer have the use of that object. With
>>copyright, they still have use, just others have it two. This is
>>the problem. If the industry would recognize this and then seek to
>>work with that then maybe attitudes would change. But, as long as
>>everybody is talking past each other we'll get no where. Admittedly
>>this is a really complicated issue so we need to be open and
>>understanding of each other so we can try and reach some agreement.
>>
>>But, I got the impression that you wanted indefinite copyright. I
>>gave the example of Disney, because they take works (say Song of
>>the South) that don't have copyright, and then once they have a
>>copywrited work the pursue everyone and anyone who even thinks of
>>using that work.
>>I guess I'm a socialist, or maybe if it really was the person who
>>had the copywrite, but, it seems it's the coproations that are the
>>worst offenders, they so pursue the law that they forget the
>>'public benifit'. Check out the essay by the author William Gibson
>>(he coined Cyberspace for his novel Neuromancer):
>>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html, here he notes
>>that copying and transforming other works is ingrained in our
>>culture, and that even more interesting things come from all this
>>'cross pollination'.
>>I guess I attribute the 'death of hip-hop' to the authoritarianism
>>of the MPAA. Hip-hop was fresh when it was sampling other artist
>>(and the were willing to compensate, just the record companies are
>>not so flexible) creating a new art form. But, now it's all that
>>lame 'Dirty South' and 'Crunk' that doesn't seek out the history of
>>music to 'borrow' from. Didn't someone say that "good artist
>>borrow, great artist steal."
>>
>>erik g
>>
>>
>>At 07:10 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>My attitude is that what belongs to one person is not the property
>>>of others as stated in the constitution in so many words. I'm not
>>>a lawyer but I believe there is a time in the future when a
>>>copyright ends. Since we are only talking about US citizens your
>>>examples of authors are a little off.
>>>
>>>Hugh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
>>>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>So, when's the ammendment. I seem to remember the word
>>>>'temporary' used in the Constitution on copywrites, trademarks,
>>>>patents. Now a adays there are works that are languishing around
>>>>that others are quite willing to reintroduce to the public, but,
>>>>the companies won't give up. And if your attitude was
>>>>implemented then Disney would go bankrupt since it wouldn't have
>>>>a bunch of fairy tales to 'plagerize' for their movies (along
>>>>with Shakespear, Hugo, Homer, etc.).
>>>>
>>>>erik g
>>>>
>>>>At 11:31 AM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>Jason,
>>>>>
>>>>>I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs
>>>>>to me forever and should never become part of the public domain.
>>>>>To belong to everyone smacks of a socialist society and
>>>>>eventually stifles invention. If people are not rewarded, or
>>>>>corporations for that matter, than we become nothing more than a
>>>>>communist country and you see how well that works. We must
>>>>>protect the works of others and always allow people to be
>>>>>compensated as much as the market-place will allow if we are to
>>>>>remain the greatest country on the planet.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hugh Campbell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
>>>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our copyright
>>>>>system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so that
>>>>>generations of their family for centuries to come profit from their
>>>>>creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a point
>>>>>where it belongs in the public domain.
>>>>>
>>>>>I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to copying
>>>>>digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
>>>>>behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that way. Kids
>>>>>always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be taught
>>>>>right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
>>>>>example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids learn
>>>>>English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far longer.
>>>>>Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real discipline
>>>>>problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major digital
>>>>>product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution. Look
>>>>>at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to consumers,
>>>>>but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the movie
>>>>>industry can learn from it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20 million for
>>>>>each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes. It's
>>>>>hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's such an
>>>>>ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality') that
>>>>>it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater and a
>>>>>high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time before
>>>>>the movie theater industry starts to really die.
>>>>>
>>>>>My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are dinosaurs.
>>>>>They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will fail
>>>>>spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a living
>>>>>selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of people
>>>>>(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then line me
>>>>>up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works. If
>>>>>they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come up with
>>>>>a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are looking for
>>>>>a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than boardroom
>>>>>talking over the past five years, we would not be in this situation.
>>>>>That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due to the
>>>>>downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from 98-2001, we
>>>>>had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
>>>>>participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.
>>>>>
>>>>>If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I think we
>>>>>would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
>>>>>conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think anyone
>>>>>would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early adopters"
>>>>>but would need more concrete info.
>>>>>
>>>>>And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"
>>>>>
>>>>>Jason Burroughs
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the American
>>>>>consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a peaceful
>>>>>position which provides optimum delivery of content to the consumers
>>>>>over
>>>>>the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation. There
>>>>>will
>>>>>be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner in this
>>>>>
>>>>>supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege where it
>>>>>is
>>>>>"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically interpreted as
>>>>>unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which when
>>>>>heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited commentators.
>>>>>Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice predetermined
>>>>>the
>>>>>outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
>>>>>delivered
>>>>>in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own constructive
>>>>>decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue to
>>>>>invite
>>>>>guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here are
>>>>>much
>>>>>much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle. Our
>>>>>nation
>>>>>and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want to
>>>>>break
>>>>>every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not every
>>>>>DRM
>>>>>objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog about
>>>>>
>>>>>human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a cheap
>>>>>lock
>>>>>or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era and
>>>>>then
>>>>>act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
>>>>>support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive side
>>>>>of
>>>>>life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly understand,
>>>>>such
>>>>>as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park at
>>>>>the
>>>>>curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We don't
>>>>>feel
>>>>>abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no need
>>>>>for
>>>>>a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
>>>>>maintain
>>>>>high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
>>>>>understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The few
>>>>>violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm. We do
>>>>>not
>>>>>imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on the
>>>>>highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster and
>>>>>that
>>>>>monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have been
>>>>>taken
>>>>>and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more like
>>>>>good
>>>>>chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the entanglements
>>>>>designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and behavior.
>>>>>A
>>>>>student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility is at
>>>>>its
>>>>>heart. -Dale
>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed press
>>>>>release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what happens
>>>>>when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do they
>>>>>ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
>>>>>material? Etc..
>>>>>
>>>>>Jason
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case (in our
>>>>>articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think is
>>>>>critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the reason
>>>>>why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They realize
>>>>>that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and they
>>>>>have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why protective
>>>>>measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a sympathetic
>>>>>appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital Rights
>>>>>Management in general is not something you just toy with or or abuse
>>>>>because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect we
>>>>>show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
>>>>>persons property any way you like, it is then right for all property.
>>>>>Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface their
>>>>>home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge instead
>>>>>of your power company?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a view
>>>>>that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
>>>>>weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might appear
>>>>>to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you have
>>>>>them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been exterminated
>>>>>in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never hear
>>>>>their position nor give it consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>>I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a previous
>>>>>life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the money guys
>>>>>always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but what is
>>>>>different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful day
>>>>>when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband ports
>>>>>on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer than
>>>>>its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive distribution
>>>>>the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public domain.
>>>>>Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft. So we
>>>>>just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme the
>>>>>compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe" to
>>>>>everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its premier
>>>>>showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?
>>>>>
>>>>>I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they decide to
>>>>>use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
>>>>>concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dale
>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Howard,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make sure
>>>>>>you have a bottle handy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are a
>>>>>>target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me, would
>>>>>>eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI or
>>>>>>HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and I
>>>>>>anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by then
>>>>>>(2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years of
>>>>>>age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at high
>>>>>>prices, it could be
>>>>>>replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another reason to
>>>>>
>>>>>>look for a 1080p second
>>>>>>generation with HDMI or DVI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older model
>>>>>>TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well for
>>>>>>the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no market
>>>>>
>>>>>>for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids room
>>>>>
>>>>>>to play video games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>>>Of Howard A. Blackstead
>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks to those of you who have put that issue to rest, especially
>>>>>>Rodolfo! I can cut back on the ant-acids again!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Howard in South Bend
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:58 -0400, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At 08:31 PM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>It has been indicated in another forum that the newer HD stb's (811,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> >921, 942) do not provide HD signals on the component outputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Whoever made that statement is misinformed. My 921 (like my 6000
>>>>>>>previously) provides HD content from the component outputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-- RAF
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>>
>>>>>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>>>same
>>>>>>day) send an email to:
>>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>>>same
>>>>>>day) send an email to:
>>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>>same
>>>>>day) send an email to:
>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>>>>>that same day) send an email to:
>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>>>>>that same day) send an email to:
>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>>>>that same day) send an email to:
>>>>[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>
>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>>>that same day) send an email to:
>>>[email protected]
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>>that same day) send an email to:
>>[email protected]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>that same day) send an email to:
>[email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#9
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Individuals benefit to a substantial degree from copyright laws. Ask anyone
who has written a song or a book or made a discovery and obtained a patent.
Corporations do not write songs or books and they do not benefit unless they
have purchased the rights to the song or book, etc. So it is not the big,
bad corporations that benefit but actually the little guy. It is the
individual who has the rights in this country and if he doesn't like what he
has he can always leave and get everything free in one of the more pleasant
countries like Russia or Cuba. Gee, I wonder why that didn't work in those
countries. As to benefiting all, no one is born with a guarantee of food,
clothing, money or anything else........but in this country if you are
willing to work you can have anything you want. Those who don't want to
work should all leave in my opinion, and this country would be a better
place. I'm in favor of welfare for those poor people who cannot work due to
a mental or physical disability...........for everyone else, get to work.

This will be my last comment on this subject.

Hugh Campbell


----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: copyright protection


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Guess we struck a nerve. I guess I look a bit more to the benefit of all.
> The trick is, were will innovation come from if we're not allowed to use
> other works? Will we be charged when we download a copyrighted art, again
> when it is in our computer's RAM, and again when it is displayed, and for
> each subsequent display. There needs to be a reasonable limit to
> copyright.
> Remember it's the government that gives the copyright older the ability to
> use that copyright, the individual has no rights other that that which was
> given to them by the government (they can get income from it because the
> gov't setup the system)--so if the government decides to adjust those
> rights it quite capable to do so (since it's quite happy to adjust for the
> lobbyist from the MPAA/RIAA). I guess my problem is that it's largely the
> corporations that have the copyright, and the individuals seem to be lost
> in the process. I've read one interesting idea that one would pay for the
> 'privilege' of copyright, and those fees would go towards enforcement.
> Why should my taxes go towards enforcement when I don't directly benefit
> from the copyright held (i.e. I don't get royalties, etc.)?
> I tend to agree with those that feel the 'temporary' part needs to be
> emphasized. I'm not at all offended that you call 'us' socialist, since
> I'd much rather be know for caring for my fellow citizens, than be a
> money-grubbing Scrooge;)
> There needs to be discussion as to which benefits are best for all. This
> is certainly one of the 'justifications' for the P2P people give, that the
> corporations "can afford it", and they're screwing the artists (someone
> noted that the RIAA has millions of dollors in royalties paid that haven't
> reached the artists--unknowns like Puff Daddy, etc.). But, that's just as
> misguidedas the MPAA/RIAA that want us to pay everytime we open our
> eyes/ears. If you don't like the way it's done then change the system.
> Unfortunately there is much more money behind the status quo, but, all
> this 'stealing music' may even the playing field. Even Europe and the
> rest of the world is dealing with this--especially the 'developing' world
> that his been hit hard by this in things like live-saving drugs that are
> patented and the companies that hold it are more interested in the
> principle of money, rather than the public good.
>
> erik g
>
> I'm off to work so I'll see how this develops, they haven't awarded my
> patent so this discussion is still 'theory';)
>
> At 08:21 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>When you deprive someone of income that is rightfully theirs you are
>>stealing from them no matter how you slice it or what you call it. If you
>>are foolish enough not to copyright something then that is your fault and
>>not Disney's or anyone else who uses it and copyrights it themselves. But
>>if you do copyright your own work then you have an expectation of your
>>work continuing to belong to you in accordance with the copyright laws of
>>this country. Up until the copyright expires, which at some point it
>>should, you should be compensated accordingly.
>>
>>You may "cross pollinate" all you wish but I shall follow the laws of the
>>land and reward the originator who holds a copyright. Gibson seems to be
>>a total socialist who believes that what belongs to one person belongs to
>>the entire commune. Or is that communism.
>>
>>Hugh
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:34 PM
>>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>First definition of terms. Copyright infringement is not stealing--it's
>>>infringement. Think, when you steal something from someone they no
>>>longer have the use of that object. With copyright, they still have use,
>>>just others have it two. This is the problem. If the industry would
>>>recognize this and then seek to work with that then maybe attitudes would
>>>change. But, as long as everybody is talking past each other we'll get no
>>>where. Admittedly this is a really complicated issue so we need to be
>>>open and understanding of each other so we can try and reach some
>>>agreement.
>>>
>>>But, I got the impression that you wanted indefinite copyright. I gave
>>>the example of Disney, because they take works (say Song of the South)
>>>that don't have copyright, and then once they have a copywrited work the
>>>pursue everyone and anyone who even thinks of using that work.
>>>I guess I'm a socialist, or maybe if it really was the person who had the
>>>copywrite, but, it seems it's the coproations that are the worst
>>>offenders, they so pursue the law that they forget the 'public benifit'.
>>>Check out the essay by the author William Gibson (he coined Cyberspace
>>>for his novel Neuromancer):
>>>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html, here he notes that
>>>copying and transforming other works is ingrained in our culture, and
>>>that even more interesting things come from all this 'cross pollination'.
>>>I guess I attribute the 'death of hip-hop' to the authoritarianism of the
>>>MPAA. Hip-hop was fresh when it was sampling other artist (and the were
>>>willing to compensate, just the record companies are not so flexible)
>>>creating a new art form. But, now it's all that lame 'Dirty South' and
>>>'Crunk' that doesn't seek out the history of music to 'borrow' from.
>>>Didn't someone say that "good artist borrow, great artist steal."
>>>
>>>erik g
>>>
>>>
>>>At 07:10 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>My attitude is that what belongs to one person is not the property of
>>>>others as stated in the constitution in so many words. I'm not a lawyer
>>>>but I believe there is a time in the future when a copyright ends.
>>>>Since we are only talking about US citizens your examples of authors are
>>>>a little off.
>>>>
>>>>Hugh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund"
>>>><[email protected]>
>>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>So, when's the ammendment. I seem to remember the word 'temporary'
>>>>>used in the Constitution on copywrites, trademarks, patents. Now a
>>>>>adays there are works that are languishing around that others are quite
>>>>>willing to reintroduce to the public, but, the companies won't give up.
>>>>>And if your attitude was implemented then Disney would go bankrupt
>>>>>since it wouldn't have a bunch of fairy tales to 'plagerize' for their
>>>>>movies (along with Shakespear, Hugo, Homer, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>>erik g
>>>>>
>>>>>At 11:31 AM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jason,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs to me
>>>>>>forever and should never become part of the public domain. To belong
>>>>>>to everyone smacks of a socialist society and eventually stifles
>>>>>>invention. If people are not rewarded, or corporations for that
>>>>>>matter, than we become nothing more than a communist country and you
>>>>>>see how well that works. We must protect the works of others and
>>>>>>always allow people to be compensated as much as the market-place will
>>>>>>allow if we are to remain the greatest country on the planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hugh Campbell
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
>>>>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our copyright
>>>>>>system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so that
>>>>>>generations of their family for centuries to come profit from their
>>>>>>creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a point
>>>>>>where it belongs in the public domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to
>>>>>>copying
>>>>>>digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
>>>>>>behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that way.
>>>>>>Kids
>>>>>>always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be
>>>>>>taught
>>>>>>right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
>>>>>>example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids learn
>>>>>>English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far longer.
>>>>>>Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real discipline
>>>>>>problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major digital
>>>>>>product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution. Look
>>>>>>at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to
>>>>>>consumers,
>>>>>>but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the
>>>>>>movie
>>>>>>industry can learn from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20 million
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes. It's
>>>>>>hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's such
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality')
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater and
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time
>>>>>>before
>>>>>>the movie theater industry starts to really die.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are
>>>>>>dinosaurs.
>>>>>>They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will
>>>>>>fail
>>>>>>spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a
>>>>>>living
>>>>>>selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of
>>>>>>people
>>>>>>(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then line me
>>>>>>up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works. If
>>>>>>they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come up
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are looking
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than boardroom
>>>>>>talking over the past five years, we would not be in this situation.
>>>>>>That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due to
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from 98-2001, we
>>>>>>had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
>>>>>>participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I think we
>>>>>>would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
>>>>>>conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think anyone
>>>>>>would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early adopters"
>>>>>>but would need more concrete info.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jason Burroughs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the American
>>>>>>consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a peaceful
>>>>>>position which provides optimum delivery of content to the consumers
>>>>>>over
>>>>>>the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation. There
>>>>>>will
>>>>>>be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner in
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege where
>>>>>>it
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically interpreted
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which
>>>>>>when
>>>>>>heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited commentators.
>>>>>>Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice predetermined
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
>>>>>>delivered
>>>>>>in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own constructive
>>>>>>decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue to
>>>>>>invite
>>>>>>guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here are
>>>>>>much
>>>>>>much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle. Our
>>>>>>nation
>>>>>>and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want to
>>>>>>break
>>>>>>every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not every
>>>>>>DRM
>>>>>>objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog
>>>>>>about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a cheap
>>>>>>lock
>>>>>>or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era and
>>>>>>then
>>>>>>act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
>>>>>>support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive
>>>>>>side
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly understand,
>>>>>>such
>>>>>>as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park at
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We don't
>>>>>>feel
>>>>>>abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no
>>>>>>need
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
>>>>>>maintain
>>>>>>high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
>>>>>>understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The few
>>>>>>violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm. We do
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on the
>>>>>>highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster and
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have been
>>>>>>taken
>>>>>>and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more like
>>>>>>good
>>>>>>chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the
>>>>>>entanglements
>>>>>>designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and
>>>>>>behavior.
>>>>>>A
>>>>>>student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility is at
>>>>>>its
>>>>>>heart. -Dale
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed
>>>>>>press
>>>>>>release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what happens
>>>>>>when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do they
>>>>>>ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
>>>>>>material? Etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case (in
>>>>>>our
>>>>>>articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think is
>>>>>>critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the reason
>>>>>>why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They realize
>>>>>>that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and
>>>>>>they
>>>>>>have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why protective
>>>>>>measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a sympathetic
>>>>>>appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital
>>>>>>Rights
>>>>>>Management in general is not something you just toy with or or abuse
>>>>>>because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect we
>>>>>>show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
>>>>>>persons property any way you like, it is then right for all property.
>>>>>>Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface their
>>>>>>home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge
>>>>>>instead
>>>>>>of your power company?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a view
>>>>>>that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
>>>>>>weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might
>>>>>>appear
>>>>>>to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you have
>>>>>>them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been
>>>>>>exterminated
>>>>>>in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never hear
>>>>>>their position nor give it consideration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a previous
>>>>>>life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the money
>>>>>>guys
>>>>>>always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but what is
>>>>>>different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful day
>>>>>>when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband ports
>>>>>>on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer than
>>>>>>its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive
>>>>>>distribution
>>>>>>the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public
>>>>>>domain.
>>>>>>Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft. So
>>>>>>we
>>>>>>just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme the
>>>>>>compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe" to
>>>>>>everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its premier
>>>>>>showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they decide
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
>>>>>>concerns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dale
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Howard,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make sure
>>>>>>>you have a bottle handy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are a
>>>>>>>target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me, would
>>>>>>>eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI or
>>>>>>>HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and I
>>>>>>>anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by then
>>>>>>>(2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years of
>>>>>>>age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at high
>>>>>>>prices, it could be
>>>>>>>replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another reason
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>look for a 1080p second
>>>>>>>generation with HDMI or DVI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older model
>>>>>>>TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well for
>>>>>>>the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no
>>>>>>>market
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids
>>>>>>>room
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to play video games.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>>>>Of Howard A. Blackstead
>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
>>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks to those of you who have put that issue to rest, especially
>>>>>>>Rodolfo! I can cut back on the ant-acids again!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Howard in South Bend
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:58 -0400, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>At 08:31 PM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>>It has been indicated in another forum that the newer HD stb's
>>>>>>>>>(811,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >921, 942) do not provide HD signals on the component outputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Whoever made that statement is misinformed. My 921 (like my 6000
>>>>>>>>previously) provides HD content from the component outputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-- RAF
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>same day) send an email to:
>>>>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
>>>>>>>same
>>>>>>>day) send an email to:
>>>>>>>[email protected]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To un
#10
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Hugh, you may be right that the individual benefits (sometimes) instead
of the corporation when it comes to music, but with most other products
and ideas, that is rarely the case. Just ask any engineer who came up
with a brilliant idea while on the clock with ibm or motorola - they may
get a few hundred bucks in a bonus check. Many artists are in the same
boat - they sign a record deal to lock in their purported riches, then
to find out that it rarely trickles down like they were told initially.
I know that is a whole different story, but wanted to chime in.

jason

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Hugh Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:24 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: copyright protection

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Individuals benefit to a substantial degree from copyright laws. Ask
anyone who has written a song or a book or made a discovery and obtained
a patent.
Corporations do not write songs or books and they do not benefit unless
they have purchased the rights to the song or book, etc. So it is not
the big, bad corporations that benefit but actually the little guy. It
is the individual who has the rights in this country and if he doesn't
like what he has he can always leave and get everything free in one of
the more pleasant
countries like Russia or Cuba. Gee, I wonder why that didn't work in
those
countries. As to benefiting all, no one is born with a guarantee of
food, clothing, money or anything else........but in this country if you
are willing to work you can have anything you want. Those who don't
want to work should all leave in my opinion, and this country would be a
better place. I'm in favor of welfare for those poor people who cannot
work due to a mental or physical disability...........for everyone else,
get to work.

This will be my last comment on this subject.

Hugh Campbell


----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: copyright protection


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Guess we struck a nerve. I guess I look a bit more to the benefit of
all.
> The trick is, were will innovation come from if we're not allowed to
use
> other works? Will we be charged when we download a copyrighted art,
again
> when it is in our computer's RAM, and again when it is displayed, and
for
> each subsequent display. There needs to be a reasonable limit to
> copyright.
> Remember it's the government that gives the copyright older the
ability to
> use that copyright, the individual has no rights other that that which
was
> given to them by the government (they can get income from it because
the
> gov't setup the system)--so if the government decides to adjust those
> rights it quite capable to do so (since it's quite happy to adjust for
the
> lobbyist from the MPAA/RIAA). I guess my problem is that it's largely
the
> corporations that have the copyright, and the individuals seem to be
lost
> in the process. I've read one interesting idea that one would pay for
the
> 'privilege' of copyright, and those fees would go towards enforcement.

> Why should my taxes go towards enforcement when I don't directly
benefit
> from the copyright held (i.e. I don't get royalties, etc.)?
> I tend to agree with those that feel the 'temporary' part needs to be
> emphasized. I'm not at all offended that you call 'us' socialist,
since
> I'd much rather be know for caring for my fellow citizens, than be a
> money-grubbing Scrooge;)
> There needs to be discussion as to which benefits are best for all.
This
> is certainly one of the 'justifications' for the P2P people give, that
the
> corporations "can afford it", and they're screwing the artists
(someone
> noted that the RIAA has millions of dollors in royalties paid that
haven't
> reached the artists--unknowns like Puff Daddy, etc.). But, that's
just as
> misguidedas the MPAA/RIAA that want us to pay everytime we open our
> eyes/ears. If you don't like the way it's done then change the
system.
> Unfortunately there is much more money behind the status quo, but, all

> this 'stealing music' may even the playing field. Even Europe and the

> rest of the world is dealing with this--especially the 'developing'
world
> that his been hit hard by this in things like live-saving drugs that
are
> patented and the companies that hold it are more interested in the
> principle of money, rather than the public good.
>
> erik g
>
> I'm off to work so I'll see how this develops, they haven't awarded my

> patent so this discussion is still 'theory';)
>
> At 08:21 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>When you deprive someone of income that is rightfully theirs you are
>>stealing from them no matter how you slice it or what you call it. If
you
>>are foolish enough not to copyright something then that is your fault
and
>>not Disney's or anyone else who uses it and copyrights it themselves.
But
>>if you do copyright your own work then you have an expectation of your

>>work continuing to belong to you in accordance with the copyright laws
of
>>this country. Up until the copyright expires, which at some point it
>>should, you should be compensated accordingly.
>>
>>You may "cross pollinate" all you wish but I shall follow the laws of
the
>>land and reward the originator who holds a copyright. Gibson seems to
be
>>a total socialist who believes that what belongs to one person belongs
to
>>the entire commune. Or is that communism.
>>
>>Hugh
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund"
<[email protected]>
>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:34 PM
>>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>First definition of terms. Copyright infringement is not
stealing--it's
>>>infringement. Think, when you steal something from someone they no
>>>longer have the use of that object. With copyright, they still have
use,
>>>just others have it two. This is the problem. If the industry would
>>>recognize this and then seek to work with that then maybe attitudes
would
>>>change. But, as long as everybody is talking past each other we'll
get no
>>>where. Admittedly this is a really complicated issue so we need to be

>>>open and understanding of each other so we can try and reach some
>>>agreement.
>>>
>>>But, I got the impression that you wanted indefinite copyright. I
gave
>>>the example of Disney, because they take works (say Song of the
South)
>>>that don't have copyright, and then once they have a copywrited work
the
>>>pursue everyone and anyone who even thinks of using that work.
>>>I guess I'm a socialist, or maybe if it really was the person who had
the
>>>copywrite, but, it seems it's the coproations that are the worst
>>>offenders, they so pursue the law that they forget the 'public
benifit'.
>>>Check out the essay by the author William Gibson (he coined
Cyberspace
>>>for his novel Neuromancer):
>>>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html, here he notes
that
>>>copying and transforming other works is ingrained in our culture, and

>>>that even more interesting things come from all this 'cross
pollination'.
>>>I guess I attribute the 'death of hip-hop' to the authoritarianism of
the
>>>MPAA. Hip-hop was fresh when it was sampling other artist (and the
were
>>>willing to compensate, just the record companies are not so flexible)

>>>creating a new art form. But, now it's all that lame 'Dirty South'
and
>>>'Crunk' that doesn't seek out the history of music to 'borrow' from.
>>>Didn't someone say that "good artist borrow, great artist steal."
>>>
>>>erik g
>>>
>>>
>>>At 07:10 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>My attitude is that what belongs to one person is not the property
of
>>>>others as stated in the constitution in so many words. I'm not a
lawyer
>>>>but I believe there is a time in the future when a copyright ends.
>>>>Since we are only talking about US citizens your examples of authors
are
>>>>a little off.
>>>>
>>>>Hugh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund"
>>>><[email protected]>
>>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>So, when's the ammendment. I seem to remember the word 'temporary'

>>>>>used in the Constitution on copywrites, trademarks, patents. Now a

>>>>>adays there are works that are languishing around that others are
quite
>>>>>willing to reintroduce to the public, but, the companies won't give
up.
>>>>>And if your attitude was implemented then Disney would go bankrupt
>>>>>since it wouldn't have a bunch of fairy tales to 'plagerize' for
their
>>>>>movies (along with Shakespear, Hugo, Homer, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>>erik g
>>>>>
>>>>>At 11:31 AM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jason,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs to
me
>>>>>>forever and should never become part of the public domain. To
belong
>>>>>>to everyone smacks of a socialist society and eventually stifles
>>>>>>invention. If people are not rewarded, or corporations for that
>>>>>>matter, than we become nothing more than a communist country and
you
>>>>>>see how well that works. We must protect the works of others and
>>>>>>always allow people to be compensated as much as the market-place
will
>>>>>>allow if we are to remain the greatest country on the planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hugh Campbell
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
>>>>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our
copyright
>>>>>>system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so
that
>>>>>>generations of their family for centuries to come profit from
their
>>>>>>creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a
point
>>>>>>where it belongs in the public domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to
>>>>>>copying
>>>>>>digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
>>>>>>behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that
way.
>>>>>>Kids
>>>>>>always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be
>>>>>>taught
>>>>>>right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
>>>>>>example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids
learn
>>>>>>English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far
longer.
>>>>>>Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real
discipline
>>>>>>problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major
digital
>>>>>>product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution.
Look
>>>>>>at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to
>>>>>>consumers,
>>>>>>but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the

>>>>>>movie
>>>>>>industry can learn from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20
million
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes.
It's
>>>>>>hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's
such
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality')

>>>>>>that
>>>>>>it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater
and
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time
>>>>>>before
>>>>>>the movie theater industry starts to really die.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are
>>>>>>dinosaurs.
>>>>>>They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will

>>>>>>fail
>>>>>>spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a
>>>>>>living
>>>>>>selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of
>>>>>>people
>>>>>>(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then
line me
>>>>>>up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works.
If
>>>>>>they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come
up
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are
looking
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than
boardroom
>>>>>>talking over the past five years, we would not be in this
situation.
>>>>>>That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due
to
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from
98-2001, we
>>>>>>had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
>>>>>>participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I
think we
>>>>>>would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
>>>>>>conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think
anyone
>>>>>>would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early
adopters"
>>>>>>but would need more concrete info.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jason Burroughs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On
Behalf
>>>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the
American
>>>>>>consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a
peaceful
>>>>>>position which provides optimum delivery of content to the
consumers
>>>>>>over
>>>>>>the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation.
There
>>>>>>will
>>>>>>be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner
in
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege
where
>>>>>>it
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically
interpreted
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which

>>>>>>when
>>>>>>heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited
commentators.
>>>>>>Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice
predetermined
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
>>>>>>delivered
>>>>>>in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own
constructive
>>>>>>decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue
to
>>>>>>invite
>>>>>>guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here
are
>>>>>>much
>>>>>>much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle.
Our
>>>>>>nation
>>>>>>and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want
to
>>>>>>break
>>>>>>every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not
every
>>>>>>DRM
>>>>>>objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog

>>>>>>about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a
cheap
>>>>>>lock
>>>>>>or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era
and
>>>>>>then
>>>>>>act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
>>>>>>support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive

>>>>>>side
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly
understand,
>>>>>>such
>>>>>>as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park
at
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We
don't
>>>>>>feel
>>>>>>abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no

>>>>>>need
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
>>>>>>maintain
>>>>>>high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
>>>>>>understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The
few
>>>>>>violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm.
We do
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on
the
>>>>>>highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster
and
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have
been
>>>>>>taken
>>>>>>and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more
like
>>>>>>good
>>>>>>chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the
>>>>>>entanglements
>>>>>>designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and
>>>>>>behavior.
>>>>>>A
>>>>>>student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility
is at
>>>>>>its
>>>>>>heart. -Dale
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed

>>>>>>press
>>>>>>release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what
happens
>>>>>>when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do
they
>>>>>>ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
>>>>>>material? Etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On
Behalf
>>>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case
(in
>>>>>>our
>>>>>>articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think
is
>>>>>>critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the
reason
>>>>>>why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They
realize
>>>>>>that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and

>>>>>>they
>>>>>>have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why
protective
>>>>>>measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a
sympathetic
>>>>>>appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital
>>>>>>Rights
>>>>>>Management in general is not something you just toy with or or
abuse
>>>>>>because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect
we
>>>>>>show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
>>>>>>persons property any way you like, it is then right for all
property.
>>>>>>Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface
their
>>>>>>home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge
>>>>>>instead
>>>>>>of your power company?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a
view
>>>>>>that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
>>>>>>weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might
>>>>>>appear
>>>>>>to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you
have
>>>>>>them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been
>>>>>>exterminated
>>>>>>in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never
hear
>>>>>>their position nor give it consideration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a
previous
>>>>>>life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the
money
>>>>>>guys
>>>>>>always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but
what is
>>>>>>different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful
day
>>>>>>when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband
ports
>>>>>>on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer
than
>>>>>>its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive
>>>>>>distribution
>>>>>>the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public
>>>>>>domain.
>>>>>>Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft.
So
>>>>>>we
>>>>>>just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme
the
>>>>>>compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe"
to
>>>>>>everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its
premier
>>>>>>showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they
decide
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
>>>>>>concerns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dale
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Howard,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make
sure
>>>>>>>you have a bottle handy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are
a
>>>>>>>target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me,
would
>>>>>>>eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI
or
>>>>>>>HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and
I
>>>>>>>anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by
then
>>>>>>>(2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years
of
>>>>>>>age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at
high
>>>>>>>prices, it could be
>>>>>>>replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another
reason
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>look for a 1080p second
>>>>>>>generation with HDMI or DVI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older
model
>>>>>>>TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well
for
>>>>>>>the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no
>>>>>>>market
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids

>>>>>>>room
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to play video games.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On
Behalf
>>>>>>>Of Howard A. Blackstead
>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
>>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks to those of you who have put that issue to rest,
especially
>>>>>>>Rodolfo! I can cut back on the ant-acids again!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Howard in South Bend
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 22:58 -0400, Dr Robert A Fowkes wrote:
>>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>At 08:31 PM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>>It has been indicated in another forum that the newer HD stb's
>>>>>>>>>(811,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >921, 942) do not provide HD signals on the component outputs.
>>>>
#11
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Jason, when you work for someone else and you develop something on their
time it does belong to them and always has, nothing new. If people don't
like it they can cease being inventive on the job, but few people think that
way. I was a "company" man for forty years and considered it better than
going out on my own, so we all make choices and live by them. If someone in
the music business signs a contract that doesn't give him anything than
shame on him. Don't blame the music company for the stupidity of the
artist. It is not the job of the government to protect people from
themselves. Most artists do extremely well as they have gotten smarter and
now have lawyers looking over any contracts they sign. I've got a really
interesting case involving a client of mine that I'll write you about.

Hugh


----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: copyright protection


----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Hugh, you may be right that the individual benefits (sometimes) instead
of the corporation when it comes to music, but with most other products
and ideas, that is rarely the case. Just ask any engineer who came up
with a brilliant idea while on the clock with ibm or motorola - they may
get a few hundred bucks in a bonus check. Many artists are in the same
boat - they sign a record deal to lock in their purported riches, then
to find out that it rarely trickles down like they were told initially.
I know that is a whole different story, but wanted to chime in.

jason

-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
Of Hugh Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:24 PM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: copyright protection

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Individuals benefit to a substantial degree from copyright laws. Ask
anyone who has written a song or a book or made a discovery and obtained
a patent.
Corporations do not write songs or books and they do not benefit unless
they have purchased the rights to the song or book, etc. So it is not
the big, bad corporations that benefit but actually the little guy. It
is the individual who has the rights in this country and if he doesn't
like what he has he can always leave and get everything free in one of
the more pleasant
countries like Russia or Cuba. Gee, I wonder why that didn't work in
those
countries. As to benefiting all, no one is born with a guarantee of
food, clothing, money or anything else........but in this country if you
are willing to work you can have anything you want. Those who don't
want to work should all leave in my opinion, and this country would be a
better place. I'm in favor of welfare for those poor people who cannot
work due to a mental or physical disability...........for everyone else,
get to work.

This will be my last comment on this subject.

Hugh Campbell


----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: copyright protection


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Guess we struck a nerve. I guess I look a bit more to the benefit of
all.
> The trick is, were will innovation come from if we're not allowed to
use
> other works? Will we be charged when we download a copyrighted art,
again
> when it is in our computer's RAM, and again when it is displayed, and
for
> each subsequent display. There needs to be a reasonable limit to
> copyright.
> Remember it's the government that gives the copyright older the
ability to
> use that copyright, the individual has no rights other that that which
was
> given to them by the government (they can get income from it because
the
> gov't setup the system)--so if the government decides to adjust those
> rights it quite capable to do so (since it's quite happy to adjust for
the
> lobbyist from the MPAA/RIAA). I guess my problem is that it's largely
the
> corporations that have the copyright, and the individuals seem to be
lost
> in the process. I've read one interesting idea that one would pay for
the
> 'privilege' of copyright, and those fees would go towards enforcement.

> Why should my taxes go towards enforcement when I don't directly
benefit
> from the copyright held (i.e. I don't get royalties, etc.)?
> I tend to agree with those that feel the 'temporary' part needs to be
> emphasized. I'm not at all offended that you call 'us' socialist,
since
> I'd much rather be know for caring for my fellow citizens, than be a
> money-grubbing Scrooge;)
> There needs to be discussion as to which benefits are best for all.
This
> is certainly one of the 'justifications' for the P2P people give, that
the
> corporations "can afford it", and they're screwing the artists
(someone
> noted that the RIAA has millions of dollors in royalties paid that
haven't
> reached the artists--unknowns like Puff Daddy, etc.). But, that's
just as
> misguidedas the MPAA/RIAA that want us to pay everytime we open our
> eyes/ears. If you don't like the way it's done then change the
system.
> Unfortunately there is much more money behind the status quo, but, all

> this 'stealing music' may even the playing field. Even Europe and the

> rest of the world is dealing with this--especially the 'developing'
world
> that his been hit hard by this in things like live-saving drugs that
are
> patented and the companies that hold it are more interested in the
> principle of money, rather than the public good.
>
> erik g
>
> I'm off to work so I'll see how this develops, they haven't awarded my

> patent so this discussion is still 'theory';)
>
> At 08:21 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>When you deprive someone of income that is rightfully theirs you are
>>stealing from them no matter how you slice it or what you call it. If
you
>>are foolish enough not to copyright something then that is your fault
and
>>not Disney's or anyone else who uses it and copyrights it themselves.
But
>>if you do copyright your own work then you have an expectation of your

>>work continuing to belong to you in accordance with the copyright laws
of
>>this country. Up until the copyright expires, which at some point it
>>should, you should be compensated accordingly.
>>
>>You may "cross pollinate" all you wish but I shall follow the laws of
the
>>land and reward the originator who holds a copyright. Gibson seems to
be
>>a total socialist who believes that what belongs to one person belongs
to
>>the entire commune. Or is that communism.
>>
>>Hugh
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund"
<[email protected]>
>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:34 PM
>>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>First definition of terms. Copyright infringement is not
stealing--it's
>>>infringement. Think, when you steal something from someone they no
>>>longer have the use of that object. With copyright, they still have
use,
>>>just others have it two. This is the problem. If the industry would
>>>recognize this and then seek to work with that then maybe attitudes
would
>>>change. But, as long as everybody is talking past each other we'll
get no
>>>where. Admittedly this is a really complicated issue so we need to be

>>>open and understanding of each other so we can try and reach some
>>>agreement.
>>>
>>>But, I got the impression that you wanted indefinite copyright. I
gave
>>>the example of Disney, because they take works (say Song of the
South)
>>>that don't have copyright, and then once they have a copywrited work
the
>>>pursue everyone and anyone who even thinks of using that work.
>>>I guess I'm a socialist, or maybe if it really was the person who had
the
>>>copywrite, but, it seems it's the coproations that are the worst
>>>offenders, they so pursue the law that they forget the 'public
benifit'.
>>>Check out the essay by the author William Gibson (he coined
Cyberspace
>>>for his novel Neuromancer):
>>>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html, here he notes
that
>>>copying and transforming other works is ingrained in our culture, and

>>>that even more interesting things come from all this 'cross
pollination'.
>>>I guess I attribute the 'death of hip-hop' to the authoritarianism of
the
>>>MPAA. Hip-hop was fresh when it was sampling other artist (and the
were
>>>willing to compensate, just the record companies are not so flexible)

>>>creating a new art form. But, now it's all that lame 'Dirty South'
and
>>>'Crunk' that doesn't seek out the history of music to 'borrow' from.
>>>Didn't someone say that "good artist borrow, great artist steal."
>>>
>>>erik g
>>>
>>>
>>>At 07:10 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>My attitude is that what belongs to one person is not the property
of
>>>>others as stated in the constitution in so many words. I'm not a
lawyer
>>>>but I believe there is a time in the future when a copyright ends.
>>>>Since we are only talking about US citizens your examples of authors
are
>>>>a little off.
>>>>
>>>>Hugh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund"
>>>><[email protected]>
>>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>>>
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>So, when's the ammendment. I seem to remember the word 'temporary'

>>>>>used in the Constitution on copywrites, trademarks, patents. Now a

>>>>>adays there are works that are languishing around that others are
quite
>>>>>willing to reintroduce to the public, but, the companies won't give
up.
>>>>>And if your attitude was implemented then Disney would go bankrupt
>>>>>since it wouldn't have a bunch of fairy tales to 'plagerize' for
their
>>>>>movies (along with Shakespear, Hugo, Homer, etc.).
>>>>>
>>>>>erik g
>>>>>
>>>>>At 11:31 AM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jason,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs to
me
>>>>>>forever and should never become part of the public domain. To
belong
>>>>>>to everyone smacks of a socialist society and eventually stifles
>>>>>>invention. If people are not rewarded, or corporations for that
>>>>>>matter, than we become nothing more than a communist country and
you
>>>>>>see how well that works. We must protect the works of others and
>>>>>>always allow people to be compensated as much as the market-place
will
>>>>>>allow if we are to remain the greatest country on the planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hugh Campbell
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
>>>>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our
copyright
>>>>>>system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so
that
>>>>>>generations of their family for centuries to come profit from
their
>>>>>>creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a
point
>>>>>>where it belongs in the public domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to
>>>>>>copying
>>>>>>digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
>>>>>>behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that
way.
>>>>>>Kids
>>>>>>always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be
>>>>>>taught
>>>>>>right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
>>>>>>example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids
learn
>>>>>>English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far
longer.
>>>>>>Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real
discipline
>>>>>>problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major
digital
>>>>>>product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution.
Look
>>>>>>at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to
>>>>>>consumers,
>>>>>>but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the

>>>>>>movie
>>>>>>industry can learn from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20
million
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes.
It's
>>>>>>hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's
such
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality')

>>>>>>that
>>>>>>it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater
and
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time
>>>>>>before
>>>>>>the movie theater industry starts to really die.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are
>>>>>>dinosaurs.
>>>>>>They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will

>>>>>>fail
>>>>>>spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a
>>>>>>living
>>>>>>selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of
>>>>>>people
>>>>>>(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then
line me
>>>>>>up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works.
If
>>>>>>they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come
up
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are
looking
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than
boardroom
>>>>>>talking over the past five years, we would not be in this
situation.
>>>>>>That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due
to
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from
98-2001, we
>>>>>>had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
>>>>>>participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I
think we
>>>>>>would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
>>>>>>conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think
anyone
>>>>>>would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early
adopters"
>>>>>>but would need more concrete info.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jason Burroughs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On
Behalf
>>>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the
American
>>>>>>consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a
peaceful
>>>>>>position which provides optimum delivery of content to the
consumers
>>>>>>over
>>>>>>the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation.
There
>>>>>>will
>>>>>>be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner
in
>>>>>>this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege
where
>>>>>>it
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically
interpreted
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which

>>>>>>when
>>>>>>heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited
commentators.
>>>>>>Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice
predetermined
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
>>>>>>delivered
>>>>>>in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own
constructive
>>>>>>decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue
to
>>>>>>invite
>>>>>>guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here
are
>>>>>>much
>>>>>>much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle.
Our
>>>>>>nation
>>>>>>and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want
to
>>>>>>break
>>>>>>every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not
every
>>>>>>DRM
>>>>>>objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog

>>>>>>about
>>>>>>
>>>>>>human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a
cheap
>>>>>>lock
>>>>>>or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era
and
>>>>>>then
>>>>>>act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
>>>>>>support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive

>>>>>>side
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly
understand,
>>>>>>such
>>>>>>as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park
at
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We
don't
>>>>>>feel
>>>>>>abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no

>>>>>>need
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
>>>>>>maintain
>>>>>>high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
>>>>>>understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The
few
>>>>>>violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm.
We do
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on
the
>>>>>>highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster
and
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have
been
>>>>>>taken
>>>>>>and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more
like
>>>>>>good
>>>>>>chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the
>>>>>>entanglements
>>>>>>designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and
>>>>>>behavior.
>>>>>>A
>>>>>>student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility
is at
>>>>>>its
>>>>>>heart. -Dale
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed

>>>>>>press
>>>>>>release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what
happens
>>>>>>when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do
they
>>>>>>ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
>>>>>>material? Etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On
Behalf
>>>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case
(in
>>>>>>our
>>>>>>articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think
is
>>>>>>critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the
reason
>>>>>>why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They
realize
>>>>>>that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and

>>>>>>they
>>>>>>have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why
protective
>>>>>>measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a
sympathetic
>>>>>>appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital
>>>>>>Rights
>>>>>>Management in general is not something you just toy with or or
abuse
>>>>>>because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect
we
>>>>>>show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
>>>>>>persons property any way you like, it is then right for all
property.
>>>>>>Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface
their
>>>>>>home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge
>>>>>>instead
>>>>>>of your power company?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a
view
>>>>>>that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
>>>>>>weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might
>>>>>>appear
>>>>>>to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you
have
>>>>>>them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been
>>>>>>exterminated
>>>>>>in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never
hear
>>>>>>their position nor give it consideration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a
previous
>>>>>>life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the
money
>>>>>>guys
>>>>>>always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but
what is
>>>>>>different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful
day
>>>>>>when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband
ports
>>>>>>on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer
than
>>>>>>its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive
>>>>>>distribution
>>>>>>the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public
>>>>>>domain.
>>>>>>Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft.
So
>>>>>>we
>>>>>>just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme
the
>>>>>>compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe"
to
>>>>>>everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its
premier
>>>>>>showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they
decide
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
>>>>>>concerns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dale
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Howard,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make
sure
>>>>>>>you have a bottle handy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are
a
>>>>>>>target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me,
would
>>>>>>>eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI
or
>>>>>>>HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and
I
>>>>>>>anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by
then
>>>>>>>(2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years
of
>>>>>>>age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at
high
>>>>>>>prices, it could be
>>>>>>>replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another
reason
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>look for a 1080p second
>>>>>>>generation with HDMI or DVI.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older
model
>>>>>>>TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well
for
>>>>>>>the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no
>>>>>>>market
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids

>>>>>>>room
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to play video games.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On
Behalf
>>>>>>>Of Howard A. Blackstead
>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
>>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>
#12
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Not always the case, Hugh. Some of my clients hold patents personally on
networking ideas developed while they were with a company.

I'm surprised you're so adamant about the benefits of copyrights to the
individual. Look at the storied history of a group like the RIAA. That's a
crime what goes on there, IMO. Who owns most of the Beatles and Elvis
Presley catalog today? Some freak who also owns his own amusement park and
likes to sleep with little boys. The world really seems like a messed up
place sometimes.

I certainly wouldn't use the entertainment industry as examples for how the
individual benefits, because they are probably better examples of how the
system is broken and driven by Corporate greed. Royalties are paid based on
sales figures. And who has sole oversight to the figures?.......the same
people you're relying on to cut you a check.

I believe the shenanigans of the RIAA and the way they manipulate numbers is
fairly well documented. As an example, royalties on CDs were paid on a lower
percentage than cassettes back in the day because CD manufacturing costs
were higher. Think they went back and re-wrote all those contracts when the
mfg costs dropped to near nothing?

Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Hugh Campbell
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:44 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: copyright protection
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Jason, when you work for someone else and you develop something on their
> time it does belong to them and always has, nothing new. If people don't
> like it they can cease being inventive on the job, but few people think
> that
> way. I was a "company" man for forty years and considered it better than
> going out on my own, so we all make choices and live by them. If someone
> in
> the music business signs a contract that doesn't give him anything than
> shame on him. Don't blame the music company for the stupidity of the
> artist. It is not the job of the government to protect people from
> themselves. Most artists do extremely well as they have gotten smarter
> and
> now have lawyers looking over any contracts they sign. I've got a really
> interesting case involving a client of mine that I'll write you about.
>
> Hugh
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email protected]>
> To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:36 AM
> Subject: Re: copyright protection
>
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Hugh, you may be right that the individual benefits (sometimes) instead
> of the corporation when it comes to music, but with most other products
> and ideas, that is rarely the case. Just ask any engineer who came up
> with a brilliant idea while on the clock with ibm or motorola - they may
> get a few hundred bucks in a bonus check. Many artists are in the same
> boat - they sign a record deal to lock in their purported riches, then
> to find out that it rarely trickles down like they were told initially.
> I know that is a whole different story, but wanted to chime in.
>
> jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
> Of Hugh Campbell
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:24 PM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: copyright protection
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Individuals benefit to a substantial degree from copyright laws. Ask
> anyone who has written a song or a book or made a discovery and obtained
> a patent.
> Corporations do not write songs or books and they do not benefit unless
> they have purchased the rights to the song or book, etc. So it is not
> the big, bad corporations that benefit but actually the little guy. It
> is the individual who has the rights in this country and if he doesn't
> like what he has he can always leave and get everything free in one of
> the more pleasant
> countries like Russia or Cuba. Gee, I wonder why that didn't work in
> those
> countries. As to benefiting all, no one is born with a guarantee of
> food, clothing, money or anything else........but in this country if you
> are willing to work you can have anything you want. Those who don't
> want to work should all leave in my opinion, and this country would be a
> better place. I'm in favor of welfare for those poor people who cannot
> work due to a mental or physical disability...........for everyone else,
> get to work.
>
> This will be my last comment on this subject.
>
> Hugh Campbell
>
>



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#13
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

There will always be some idiot, like Jacko, who will pay a ton of money for
stuff like the Beatles catalog. No one forced the Beatles to sell.

Hugh


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Mankin" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: copyright protection


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Not always the case, Hugh. Some of my clients hold patents personally on
> networking ideas developed while they were with a company.
>
> I'm surprised you're so adamant about the benefits of copyrights to the
> individual. Look at the storied history of a group like the RIAA. That's a
> crime what goes on there, IMO. Who owns most of the Beatles and Elvis
> Presley catalog today? Some freak who also owns his own amusement park and
> likes to sleep with little boys. The world really seems like a messed up
> place sometimes.
>
> I certainly wouldn't use the entertainment industry as examples for how
> the
> individual benefits, because they are probably better examples of how the
> system is broken and driven by Corporate greed. Royalties are paid based
> on
> sales figures. And who has sole oversight to the figures?.......the same
> people you're relying on to cut you a check.
>
> I believe the shenanigans of the RIAA and the way they manipulate numbers
> is
> fairly well documented. As an example, royalties on CDs were paid on a
> lower
> percentage than cassettes back in the day because CD manufacturing costs
> were higher. Think they went back and re-wrote all those contracts when
> the
> mfg costs dropped to near nothing?
>
> Bob
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>> Hugh Campbell
>> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:44 AM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Jason, when you work for someone else and you develop something on their
>> time it does belong to them and always has, nothing new. If people don't
>> like it they can cease being inventive on the job, but few people think
>> that
>> way. I was a "company" man for forty years and considered it better than
>> going out on my own, so we all make choices and live by them. If someone
>> in
>> the music business signs a contract that doesn't give him anything than
>> shame on him. Don't blame the music company for the stupidity of the
>> artist. It is not the job of the government to protect people from
>> themselves. Most artists do extremely well as they have gotten smarter
>> and
>> now have lawyers looking over any contracts they sign. I've got a really
>> interesting case involving a client of mine that I'll write you about.
>>
>> Hugh
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <[email protected]>
>> To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:36 AM
>> Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Hugh, you may be right that the individual benefits (sometimes) instead
>> of the corporation when it comes to music, but with most other products
>> and ideas, that is rarely the case. Just ask any engineer who came up
>> with a brilliant idea while on the clock with ibm or motorola - they may
>> get a few hundred bucks in a bonus check. Many artists are in the same
>> boat - they sign a record deal to lock in their purported riches, then
>> to find out that it rarely trickles down like they were told initially.
>> I know that is a whole different story, but wanted to chime in.
>>
>> jason
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>> Of Hugh Campbell
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:24 PM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Individuals benefit to a substantial degree from copyright laws. Ask
>> anyone who has written a song or a book or made a discovery and obtained
>> a patent.
>> Corporations do not write songs or books and they do not benefit unless
>> they have purchased the rights to the song or book, etc. So it is not
>> the big, bad corporations that benefit but actually the little guy. It
>> is the individual who has the rights in this country and if he doesn't
>> like what he has he can always leave and get everything free in one of
>> the more pleasant
>> countries like Russia or Cuba. Gee, I wonder why that didn't work in
>> those
>> countries. As to benefiting all, no one is born with a guarantee of
>> food, clothing, money or anything else........but in this country if you
>> are willing to work you can have anything you want. Those who don't
>> want to work should all leave in my opinion, and this country would be a
>> better place. I'm in favor of welfare for those poor people who cannot
>> work due to a mental or physical disability...........for everyone else,
>> get to work.
>>
>> This will be my last comment on this subject.
>>
>> Hugh Campbell
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#14
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Hugh,

Not that I am sticking up for Mr. Bleach face but that was a really shrewd
buy. That catalog will be the only thing that pulls his butt out of being
broke. I saw some show saying that catalog has increased 4-5 times what he
paid for it.

Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
Hugh Campbell
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:47 AM
To: HDTV Magazine
Subject: Re: copyright protection

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

There will always be some idiot, like Jacko, who will pay a ton of money for

stuff like the Beatles catalog. No one forced the Beatles to sell.

Hugh


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Mankin" <[email protected]>
To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: copyright protection


> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> Not always the case, Hugh. Some of my clients hold patents personally on
> networking ideas developed while they were with a company.
>
> I'm surprised you're so adamant about the benefits of copyrights to the
> individual. Look at the storied history of a group like the RIAA. That's a
> crime what goes on there, IMO. Who owns most of the Beatles and Elvis
> Presley catalog today? Some freak who also owns his own amusement park and
> likes to sleep with little boys. The world really seems like a messed up
> place sometimes.
>
> I certainly wouldn't use the entertainment industry as examples for how
> the
> individual benefits, because they are probably better examples of how the
> system is broken and driven by Corporate greed. Royalties are paid based
> on
> sales figures. And who has sole oversight to the figures?.......the same
> people you're relying on to cut you a check.
>
> I believe the shenanigans of the RIAA and the way they manipulate numbers
> is
> fairly well documented. As an example, royalties on CDs were paid on a
> lower
> percentage than cassettes back in the day because CD manufacturing costs
> were higher. Think they went back and re-wrote all those contracts when
> the
> mfg costs dropped to near nothing?
>
> Bob
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
>> Hugh Campbell
>> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:44 AM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Jason, when you work for someone else and you develop something on their
>> time it does belong to them and always has, nothing new. If people don't
>> like it they can cease being inventive on the job, but few people think
>> that
>> way. I was a "company" man for forty years and considered it better than
>> going out on my own, so we all make choices and live by them. If someone
>> in
>> the music business signs a contract that doesn't give him anything than
>> shame on him. Don't blame the music company for the stupidity of the
>> artist. It is not the job of the government to protect people from
>> themselves. Most artists do extremely well as they have gotten smarter
>> and
>> now have lawyers looking over any contracts they sign. I've got a really
>> interesting case involving a client of mine that I'll write you about.
>>
>> Hugh
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <[email protected]>
>> To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:36 AM
>> Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Hugh, you may be right that the individual benefits (sometimes) instead
>> of the corporation when it comes to music, but with most other products
>> and ideas, that is rarely the case. Just ask any engineer who came up
>> with a brilliant idea while on the clock with ibm or motorola - they may
>> get a few hundred bucks in a bonus check. Many artists are in the same
>> boat - they sign a record deal to lock in their purported riches, then
>> to find out that it rarely trickles down like they were told initially.
>> I know that is a whole different story, but wanted to chime in.
>>
>> jason
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>> Of Hugh Campbell
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:24 PM
>> To: HDTV Magazine
>> Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>
>> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>> Individuals benefit to a substantial degree from copyright laws. Ask
>> anyone who has written a song or a book or made a discovery and obtained
>> a patent.
>> Corporations do not write songs or books and they do not benefit unless
>> they have purchased the rights to the song or book, etc. So it is not
>> the big, bad corporations that benefit but actually the little guy. It
>> is the individual who has the rights in this country and if he doesn't
>> like what he has he can always leave and get everything free in one of
>> the more pleasant
>> countries like Russia or Cuba. Gee, I wonder why that didn't work in
>> those
>> countries. As to benefiting all, no one is born with a guarantee of
>> food, clothing, money or anything else........but in this country if you
>> are willing to work you can have anything you want. Those who don't
>> want to work should all leave in my opinion, and this country would be a
>> better place. I'm in favor of welfare for those poor people who cannot
>> work due to a mental or physical disability...........for everyone else,
>> get to work.
>>
>> This will be my last comment on this subject.
>>
>> Hugh Campbell
>>
>>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same

> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#15
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

He paid $45 M in 1985 and it's estimated value is $400M-$1B today. From an
investment standpoint, not a bad move.

Beatles didn't really sell it. More like their manager gave it away to the
tune of 50% of the revenues as early as 1962. That was in exchange for
promotional help. Little did they know at the time.....

The conspiracy theory has the lawsuit being a move to force Michael to sell.
If there is any truth to that, someone sees value in that ownership. Sony
sits on 50% of it already, so we'll see who steps up for the other half.

Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf Of
> Hugh Campbell
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:47 AM
> To: HDTV Magazine
> Subject: Re: copyright protection
>
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> There will always be some idiot, like Jacko, who will pay a ton of money
> for
> stuff like the Beatles catalog. No one forced the Beatles to sell.
>
> Hugh
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Mankin" <[email protected]>
> To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:38 AM
> Subject: Re: copyright protection
>
>
> > ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >
> > Not always the case, Hugh. Some of my clients hold patents personally on
> > networking ideas developed while they were with a company.
> >
> > I'm surprised you're so adamant about the benefits of copyrights to the
> > individual. Look at the storied history of a group like the RIAA. That's
> a
> > crime what goes on there, IMO. Who owns most of the Beatles and Elvis
> > Presley catalog today? Some freak who also owns his own amusement park
> and
> > likes to sleep with little boys. The world really seems like a messed up
> > place sometimes.
> >
> > I certainly wouldn't use the entertainment industry as examples for how
> > the
> > individual benefits, because they are probably better examples of how
> the
> > system is broken and driven by Corporate greed. Royalties are paid based
> > on
> > sales figures. And who has sole oversight to the figures?.......the same
> > people you're relying on to cut you a check.
> >
> > I believe the shenanigans of the RIAA and the way they manipulate
> numbers
> > is
> > fairly well documented. As an example, royalties on CDs were paid on a
> > lower
> > percentage than cassettes back in the day because CD manufacturing costs
> > were higher. Think they went back and re-wrote all those contracts when
> > the
> > mfg costs dropped to near nothing?
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
> Of
> >> Hugh Campbell
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:44 AM
> >> To: HDTV Magazine
> >> Subject: Re: copyright protection
> >>
> >> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >>
> >> Jason, when you work for someone else and you develop something on
> their
> >> time it does belong to them and always has, nothing new. If people
> don't
> >> like it they can cease being inventive on the job, but few people think
> >> that
> >> way. I was a "company" man for forty years and considered it better
> than
> >> going out on my own, so we all make choices and live by them. If
> someone
> >> in
> >> the music business signs a contract that doesn't give him anything than
> >> shame on him. Don't blame the music company for the stupidity of the
> >> artist. It is not the job of the government to protect people from
> >> themselves. Most artists do extremely well as they have gotten smarter
> >> and
> >> now have lawyers looking over any contracts they sign. I've got a
> really
> >> interesting case involving a client of mine that I'll write you about.
> >>
> >> Hugh
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: <[email protected]>
> >> To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:36 AM
> >> Subject: Re: copyright protection
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >>
> >> Hugh, you may be right that the individual benefits (sometimes) instead
> >> of the corporation when it comes to music, but with most other products
> >> and ideas, that is rarely the case. Just ask any engineer who came up
> >> with a brilliant idea while on the clock with ibm or motorola - they
> may
> >> get a few hundred bucks in a bonus check. Many artists are in the same
> >> boat - they sign a record deal to lock in their purported riches, then
> >> to find out that it rarely trickles down like they were told initially.
> >> I know that is a whole different story, but wanted to chime in.
> >>
> >> jason
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
> >> Of Hugh Campbell
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:24 PM
> >> To: HDTV Magazine
> >> Subject: Re: copyright protection
> >>
> >> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
> >>
> >> Individuals benefit to a substantial degree from copyright laws. Ask
> >> anyone who has written a song or a book or made a discovery and
> obtained
> >> a patent.
> >> Corporations do not write songs or books and they do not benefit unless
> >> they have purchased the rights to the song or book, etc. So it is not
> >> the big, bad corporations that benefit but actually the little guy. It
> >> is the individual who has the rights in this country and if he doesn't
> >> like what he has he can always leave and get everything free in one of
> >> the more pleasant
> >> countries like Russia or Cuba. Gee, I wonder why that didn't work in
> >> those
> >> countries. As to benefiting all, no one is born with a guarantee of
> >> food, clothing, money or anything else........but in this country if
> you
> >> are willing to work you can have anything you want. Those who don't
> >> want to work should all leave in my opinion, and this country would be
> a
> >> better place. I'm in favor of welfare for those poor people who cannot
> >> work due to a mental or physical disability...........for everyone
> else,
> >> get to work.
> >>
> >> This will be my last comment on this subject.
> >>
> >> Hugh Campbell
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
> >
> > To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that
> same
> > day) send an email to:
> > [email protected]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
> day) send an email to:
> [email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]
#16
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

As to Cuba and Russia, I seem to remember many traveling groups that
were rather amazing musicians (ok, maybe not all made it back home,
but, that was not issues with them as artists necessarily--"A Day in
the Life of Ivan Denisovich" was rather chilling, in many ways).
Doesn't really matter if an artist gets compensated if it's in him it
will likely come out (Van Gogh, a failed minister, made incredible
art and was never compensated during his lifetime). The lack of
patents and copyright, hasn't stopped inventors and artist throughout
time (some times in spite what governments tried to do). I think the
whole copyright/patent thing is an artificial construct like so much
of our current world/culture/system?, and maybe it needs to be
rethought--since new things tend to change the old (read any old
stuff about how Sheet Music was going to kill the music?, then the
Piano Roll, then the Record...MP3). It seems that many artists now a
days use concerts to make money and meet with their fans. Or, what
about authors like Cory Doctorow (http://www.craphound.com/), who
release their works on line under the GPL (I think) or at least use
that to get his work out there and it's lots cheaper than the huge
advertisement campaign.
People are doing things new ways due to what we have to offer,
so...do we adapt or hold on to the old?

erik g

At 10:23 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
>Individuals benefit to a substantial degree from copyright laws.
>Ask anyone who has written a song or a book or made a discovery and
>obtained a patent. Corporations do not write songs or books and they
>do not benefit unless they have purchased the rights to the song or
>book, etc. So it is not the big, bad corporations that benefit but
>actually the little guy. It is the individual who has the rights in
>this country and if he doesn't like what he has he can always leave
>and get everything free in one of the more pleasant countries like
>Russia or Cuba. Gee, I wonder why that didn't work in those
>countries. As to benefiting all, no one is born with a guarantee of
>food, clothing, money or anything else........but in this country if
>you are willing to work you can have anything you want. Those who
>don't want to work should all leave in my opinion, and this country
>would be a better place. I'm in favor of welfare for those poor
>people who cannot work due to a mental or physical
>disability...........for everyone else, get to work.
>
>This will be my last comment on this subject.
>
>Hugh Campbell
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:55 PM
>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>Guess we struck a nerve. I guess I look a bit more to the benefit
>>of all. The trick is, were will innovation come from if we're not
>>allowed to use other works? Will we be charged when we download a
>>copyrighted art, again when it is in our computer's RAM, and again
>>when it is displayed, and for each subsequent display. There needs
>>to be a reasonable limit to copyright.
>>Remember it's the government that gives the copyright older the
>>ability to use that copyright, the individual has no rights other
>>that that which was given to them by the government (they can get
>>income from it because the gov't setup the system)--so if the
>>government decides to adjust those rights it quite capable to do so
>>(since it's quite happy to adjust for the lobbyist from the
>>MPAA/RIAA). I guess my problem is that it's largely the
>>corporations that have the copyright, and the individuals seem to
>>be lost in the process. I've read one interesting idea that one
>>would pay for the 'privilege' of copyright, and those fees would go
>>towards enforcement. Why should my taxes go towards enforcement
>>when I don't directly benefit from the copyright held (i.e. I don't
>>get royalties, etc.)?
>>I tend to agree with those that feel the 'temporary' part needs to
>>be emphasized. I'm not at all offended that you call 'us'
>>socialist, since I'd much rather be know for caring for my fellow
>>citizens, than be a money-grubbing Scrooge;)
>>There needs to be discussion as to which benefits are best for all.
>>This is certainly one of the 'justifications' for the P2P people
>>give, that the corporations "can afford it", and they're screwing
>>the artists (someone noted that the RIAA has millions of dollors in
>>royalties paid that haven't reached the artists--unknowns like Puff
>>Daddy, etc.). But, that's just as misguidedas the MPAA/RIAA that
>>want us to pay everytime we open our eyes/ears. If you don't like
>>the way it's done then change the system. Unfortunately there is
>>much more money behind the status quo, but, all this 'stealing
>>music' may even the playing field. Even Europe and the rest of the
>>world is dealing with this--especially the 'developing' world that
>>his been hit hard by this in things like live-saving drugs that are
>>patented and the companies that hold it are more interested in the
>>principle of money, rather than the public good.
>>
>>erik g
>>
>>I'm off to work so I'll see how this develops, they haven't awarded
>>my patent so this discussion is still 'theory';)
>>
>>At 08:21 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>
>>>When you deprive someone of income that is rightfully theirs you
>>>are stealing from them no matter how you slice it or what you call
>>>it. If you are foolish enough not to copyright something then that
>>>is your fault and not Disney's or anyone else who uses it and
>>>copyrights it themselves. But if you do copyright your own work
>>>then you have an expectation of your work continuing to belong to
>>>you in accordance with the copyright laws of this country. Up
>>>until the copyright expires, which at some point it should, you
>>>should be compensated accordingly.
>>>
>>>You may "cross pollinate" all you wish but I shall follow the laws
>>>of the land and reward the originator who holds a copyright.
>>>Gibson seems to be a total socialist who believes that what
>>>belongs to one person belongs to the entire commune. Or is that
>>>communism.
>>>
>>>Hugh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 7:34 PM
>>>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>>
>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>
>>>>First definition of terms. Copyright infringement is not
>>>>stealing--it's infringement. Think, when you steal something
>>>>from someone they no longer have the use of that object. With
>>>>copyright, they still have use, just others have it two. This is
>>>>the problem. If the industry would recognize this and then seek
>>>>to work with that then maybe attitudes would change. But, as long
>>>>as everybody is talking past each other we'll get no where.
>>>>Admittedly this is a really complicated issue so we need to be
>>>>open and understanding of each other so we can try and reach some
>>>>agreement.
>>>>
>>>>But, I got the impression that you wanted indefinite copyright.
>>>>I gave the example of Disney, because they take works (say Song
>>>>of the South) that don't have copyright, and then once they have
>>>>a copywrited work the pursue everyone and anyone who even thinks
>>>>of using that work.
>>>>I guess I'm a socialist, or maybe if it really was the person who
>>>>had the copywrite, but, it seems it's the coproations that are
>>>>the worst offenders, they so pursue the law that they forget the
>>>>'public benifit'. Check out the essay by the author William
>>>>Gibson (he coined Cyberspace for his novel Neuromancer):
>>>>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/gibson.html, here he
>>>>notes that copying and transforming other works is ingrained in
>>>>our culture, and that even more interesting things come from all
>>>>this 'cross pollination'.
>>>>I guess I attribute the 'death of hip-hop' to the
>>>>authoritarianism of the MPAA. Hip-hop was fresh when it was
>>>>sampling other artist (and the were willing to compensate, just
>>>>the record companies are not so flexible) creating a new art
>>>>form. But, now it's all that lame 'Dirty South' and 'Crunk' that
>>>>doesn't seek out the history of music to 'borrow' from. Didn't
>>>>someone say that "good artist borrow, great artist steal."
>>>>
>>>>erik g
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 07:10 PM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>
>>>>>My attitude is that what belongs to one person is not the
>>>>>property of others as stated in the constitution in so many
>>>>>words. I'm not a lawyer but I believe there is a time in the
>>>>>future when a copyright ends. Since we are only talking about US
>>>>>citizens your examples of authors are a little off.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hugh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Gaderlund" <[email protected]>
>>>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
>>>>>Subject: Re: copyright protection
>>>>>
>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, when's the ammendment. I seem to remember the word
>>>>>>'temporary' used in the Constitution on copywrites, trademarks,
>>>>>>patents. Now a adays there are works that are languishing
>>>>>>around that others are quite willing to reintroduce to the
>>>>>>public, but, the companies won't give up. And if your attitude
>>>>>>was implemented then Disney would go bankrupt since it wouldn't
>>>>>>have a bunch of fairy tales to 'plagerize' for their movies
>>>>>>(along with Shakespear, Hugo, Homer, etc.).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>erik g
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At 11:31 AM -0400 07/13/05, Hugh Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jason,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I must disagree as I believe that if I write a song it belongs
>>>>>>>to me forever and should never become part of the public
>>>>>>>domain. To belong to everyone smacks of a socialist society
>>>>>>>and eventually stifles invention. If people are not rewarded,
>>>>>>>or corporations for that matter, than we become nothing more
>>>>>>>than a communist country and you see how well that works. We
>>>>>>>must protect the works of others and always allow people to be
>>>>>>>compensated as much as the market-place will allow if we are
>>>>>>>to remain the greatest country on the planet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hugh Campbell
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>To: "HDTV Magazine" <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:18 AM
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're right Dale - I wrote quickly without much thought.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I believe in the rights of artists. I also believe that our copyright
>>>>>>>system has gone way too far to protect even long dead artists so that
>>>>>>>generations of their family for centuries to come profit from their
>>>>>>>creations. Just like drugs eventually go generic, there comes a point
>>>>>>>where it belongs in the public domain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I also believe that changing the world's behavior in regards to copying
>>>>>>>digital material is simply not going to happen. You may curb some
>>>>>>>behavior here and there, but technology just doesn't work that way. Kids
>>>>>>>always learn faster than their parents, which means they can't be taught
>>>>>>>right from wrong the same way they can about other things. A good
>>>>>>>example is immigrants who come to the US with children. The kids learn
>>>>>>>English in weeks/months, while the parents often struggle far longer.
>>>>>>>Those kids walk all over their parents and are often a real discipline
>>>>>>>problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Like you, I believe that the distant future involves a major digital
>>>>>>>product launch with residual revenue from alternate distribution. Look
>>>>>>>at Netscape, or Red Hat Linux - they give the product away to consumers,
>>>>>>>but charge for companies. This is a very successful model, and the movie
>>>>>>>industry can learn from it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Another point is perhaps Sandra Bullock doesn't deserve $20 million for
>>>>>>>each picture. The film industry is basically running on fumes. It's
>>>>>>>hardly worth $9 to see a movie, but as someone pointed out, it's such an
>>>>>>>ingrained part of our culture (I think they used 'herd mentality') that
>>>>>>>it's still alive and kicking. If everyone had a real home theater and a
>>>>>>>high speed internet connection, it would only be a matter of time before
>>>>>>>the movie theater industry starts to really die.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My point here is that the film industry mega corporations are dinosaurs.
>>>>>>>They better change with the times in a drastic manner or they will fail
>>>>>>>spectacularly. I fully support the rights of any artist to make a living
>>>>>>>selling their work, but if the process can't protect the group of people
>>>>>>>(us) that made this transition happen in the first place, then line me
>>>>>>>up with the pirates downloading their precious copyrighted works. If
>>>>>>>they want us to spend millions on their equipment, then not come up with
>>>>>>>a solution that enables us to actually use it, then they are looking for
>>>>>>>a war that they will surely lose. If they had done more than boardroom
>>>>>>>talking over the past five years, we would not be in this situation.
>>>>>>>That being said, I do think the lack of innovation is partly due to the
>>>>>>>downturn in our economy. Had this transition happened from 98-2001, we
>>>>>>>had an incredible number of companies and talent who could have
>>>>>>>participated. Instead, we are doing it in this mild recession.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If the guy from the MPAA really wants to have a discussion, I think we
>>>>>>>would all choose words carefully and engage in a very civil
>>>>>>>conversation. I did want to make it clear that I don't think anyone
>>>>>>>would accept "we are working very hard to protect the early adopters"
>>>>>>>but would need more concrete info.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And don't forget "when fun is outlawed, only the outlaws have fun"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jason Burroughs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:23 AM
>>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have asked the MPAA to be utterly frank and candid with the American
>>>>>>>consumers and to open a dialog with you that will lead to a peaceful
>>>>>>>position which provides optimum delivery of content to the consumers
>>>>>>>over
>>>>>>>the longest possible period of time with the least aggravation. There
>>>>>>>will
>>>>>>>be nothing constructive happen until we realize our full partner in this
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>supply and demand system rather than living as if in some siege where it
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>"them" against "us". The term "Whitewashed" is typically interpreted as
>>>>>>>unflattering and suggestive of deception. It is a prejudice which when
>>>>>>>heard must set up a defensive atmosphere in our invited commentators.
>>>>>>>Nothing new has ever been learned as long as a prejudice predetermined
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>outcome. Let me urge you to open yourselves to whatever message is
>>>>>>>delivered
>>>>>>>in whatever way it is delivered and then make your own constructive
>>>>>>>decisions and responses. I cannot in good consciousness continue to
>>>>>>>invite
>>>>>>>guest into an atmosphere of prejudicial chellenge. The stakes here are
>>>>>>>much
>>>>>>>much higher than whether you can copy a program without hassle. Our
>>>>>>>nation
>>>>>>>and world runs entirely on digital data and if we as a people want to
>>>>>>>break
>>>>>>>every lock and destroy our civilization bit by bit, we can. Not every
>>>>>>>DRM
>>>>>>>objective is technical. We need to also open ourselves to a dialog about
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>human choices and not limit the debate to whether we can pick a cheap
>>>>>>>lock
>>>>>>>or not, or how fast, We have to understand what supports this era and
>>>>>>>then
>>>>>>>act congruently and morally to the natural order inherent to that
>>>>>>>support...or be consciously counted among those on the destructive side
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>life. I think we do act congruently with things we clearly understand,
>>>>>>>such
>>>>>>>as our automobile traffic rules. We stop at the red light. We park at
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>curb. We pay to license the vehicles and we buy insurance. We don't
>>>>>>>feel
>>>>>>>abused by these acts because we understand them. There would be no need
>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>a lock upon our digital vaults if all of us obeyed the rules that
>>>>>>>maintain
>>>>>>>high economic order as well as we do our traffic laws. We grew up
>>>>>>>understanding the order that makes the automobile possible. The few
>>>>>>>violators of those laws we treat as an anomaly and not the norm. We do
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>imprison the average citizen because the anomaly has run amok on the
>>>>>>>highway. But when we entered the digital age we created a monster and
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>monster is us or related to us. Large scale countermeasures have been
>>>>>>>taken
>>>>>>>and we complain. Not until we understand the stakes and act more like
>>>>>>>good
>>>>>>>chauffeurs on the digital highways will we be free of the entanglements
>>>>>>>designed to limit widespread malevolent economic decisions and behavior.
>>>>>>>A
>>>>>>>student of freedom learns quickly that individual responsibility is at
>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>heart. -Dale
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would love to hear the MPAA's case on DRM, and not a whitewashed press
>>>>>>>release. It needs to address the tricky aspects such as what happens
>>>>>>>when it gets broken on day 3 of it's public release? Or how do they
>>>>>>>ensure it's not so onerous as to prevent our legal use of their
>>>>>>>material? Etc..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jason
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>>>>Of Dale E. Cripps
>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:25 AM
>>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have invited the MPAA to come to our site and make their case (in our
>>>>>>>articles section) for copy protection and whatever else they think is
>>>>>>>critical in the digital age. I want them to give the public the reason
>>>>>>>why whatever they want is crucial to our mutual future. They realize
>>>>>>>that their PR is now at rock bottom on these protection issues and they
>>>>>>>have engaged a firm to help them explain to the public why protective
>>>>>>>measures have been taken. I am sure they want to gain a sympathetic
>>>>>>>appreciation from this 'now-cynical' audience. Certainly, Digital Rights
>>>>>>>Management in general is not something you just toy with or or abuse
>>>>>>>because of access. The entire economic future rests on the respect we
>>>>>>>show for the digital backbone. If its quite alright to use another
>>>>>>>persons property any way you like, it is then right for all property.
>>>>>>>Why not rip off the power grid of their customer list or deface their
>>>>>>>home page so it looks like Linda Lovelace is giving you a charge instead
>>>>>>>of your power company?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't know how successful they (the MPAA) can be in forming a view
>>>>>>>that our consumer markets can share with them. Right now they are
>>>>>>>weighing the risk of coming into such hostile grounds as we might appear
>>>>>>>to be. Nothing they say or do can penitrate a closed mind. If you have
>>>>>>>them already pegged as greedy bastards who should have been exterminated
>>>>>>>in the Bastille when sharp blades were in style you will never hear
>>>>>>>their position nor give it consideration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I used to raise money for the motion picture business in a previous
>>>>>>>life. It was never easy. Short of making the movie itself the money guys
>>>>>>>always dictated the terms. That is not any different today but what is
>>>>>>>different is our technical society. I have written of the fanciful day
>>>>>>>when so many TIVO-like devices will be attached to very wideband ports
>>>>>>>on the Internet that a copyright will have a life-span no longer than
>>>>>>>its first distribution. Once its out on the net for massive distribution
>>>>>>>the endless recording of it places it effectively in the public domain.
>>>>>>>Why? Because no one can police such a gargantuan amount of theft. So we
>>>>>>>just call theft normal and the new extended distribution scheme the
>>>>>>>compensation for that human decision. Such a huge capacity "pipe" to
>>>>>>>everyone alive makes the production still profitable from its premier
>>>>>>>showing. How much more if they continued to have control over it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I hope you will welcome with an open mind the MPAA should they decide to
>>>>>>>use our platform as a means for communicating their own and real
>>>>>>>concerns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dale
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Howard,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The MPAA is not going to let you cut back on the ant-acids, make sure
>>>>>>>>you have a bottle handy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you read my email correctly, component analog connections are a
>>>>>>>>target and HDTV early adopters that use them, like you and me, would
>>>>>>>>eventually have to consider an early HDTV upgrade suited with DVI or
>>>>>>>>HDMI to been able to watch protected content.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It might take another year or two for the matter to be solved and I
>>>>>>>>anticipate that it would not be in favor of legacy displays, by then
>>>>>>>>(2007) most of those legacy sets would have between 4 and 9 years of
>>>>>>>>age, and because they were purchased by real early adopters, at high
>>>>>>>>prices, it could be
>>>>>>>>replacement time for that type of consumer anyway. Another reason to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>look for a 1080p second
>>>>>>>>generation with HDMI or DVI.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The problem I see is that it would not be like selling an older model
>>>>>>>>TV when trying to get rid off, the sets would not function well for
>>>>>>>>the next owner with copy protected content, which could mean no market
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>for those and no resale value, other than moving them to the kids room
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>to play video games.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rodolfo La Maestra
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>From: HDTV Magazine On Behalf
>>>>>>>>Of Howard A. Blackstead
>>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:39 PM
>>>>>>>>To: HDTV Magazine
>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Component HD output with Dish 811, 942, 921?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks to those of you who have put that issue to rest, especially
>>>>>>>>Rodolfo! I can