Jack Valenti testifies on HR. 107 (DMCRA)

[gitreel]

Posted by CodeWarrior on May 14, 2004 at 11:02 PM (printer friendly)

Mr. Jack Valenti
President and Chief Executive Officer
Motion Picture Association of America
1600 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20006

H.R. 107, The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2003
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
May 12, 2004
10:00 AM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WHY H.R. 107 IS A PRIME HAZARD TO THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

1. H.R. 107 has one unfixable defect: It will legalize the hacking of copy protection measures, which in turn will make it impossible to truly protect valuable creative property.

We must remember that tapes copied on a VCR become progressively unwatchable after the first few generations. Not so in the digital format. The 1000th copy of a digital movie or piece of computer software is as pure and pristine as the original.

If H.R. 107 becomes law, it then becomes legal to sell machines that circumvent, or hack, the copy protections on a movie, whether distributed as a DVD or online, so long as the device is "capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of the copyright work." This would devastate the home sale market, as anyone could use these products to "rent, rip, and return" DVDs borrowed from video stores. In addition, it will greatly diminish the incentive for investment in new and innovative distribution mechanisms for digital content, such as distributing movies online. All legitimate digital distribution of movies depends on encryption and digital rights management technologies to control unbridled distribution. If breaking this encryption is legalized, why would movie studios invest in the infrastructure to deliver their products digitally when devices to strip the content of protection are legal and commonplace?

2. Keep in mind that, once copy protection is circumvented, there is no known technology that can limit the number of copies that can be produced from the original. In a recent symposium on the DMCA, Professor Samuelson of UC Berkeley posed the question: "whether it was possible to develop technologies that would allow…circumvention for fair uses without opening up the Pandora's Box so that allowing these technologies means that you're essentially repealing the anti-circumvention laws."

The question was answered by the prominent computer scientist and outspoken opponent of the DMCA, Professor Ed Felton of Princeton: "I think this is one of the most important technical questions surrounding DRM - whether we know, whether we can figure out how to accommodate fair use and other lawful use without opening up a big loophole. The answer, I think, right now, is that we don't know how to do that. Not effectively."

Moreover, there is no known device that can distinguish between a "fair use" circumvention and an infringing one. Allowing copy protection measures to be circumvented will inevitably result in allowing anyone to make hundreds of copies - thousands - thereby devastating the home video market for movies. Some 40 percent of all revenues to the movie studios come from home video. If this marketplace decays, it will cripple the ability of copyright owners to retrieve their investment, and result in fewer and less interesting choices at the movie theater.

3. It is important for the Congress to understand that intellectual property is America's greatest export prize which comprises more than five percent of the GDP - brings in more international revenues than agriculture, aircraft, automobiles and auto parts - and is creating NEW jobs at three times the rate of the rest of the economy. Why is it in the national interest to put to risk this engine of economic growth? Why?

4. Moreover if Congress creates this enormous loophole in the DMCA by passing H.R. 107, every nation in the world will immediately revise its own copyright rules to do the same. American intellectual property protections will be un-done, not only here but around the world. Why should other countries protect our property in their land if we don't do the same here?

5. H.R. 107 language was proposed in 1998 and was soundly defeated by the Congress.

My colleagues from the Business Software Alliance and the Recording Industry Association of America will elaborate on a number of these points. They will also talk about the "labelling" requirements proposed by the bill, and I want to make sure that the MPAA is clear that we support voluntary, not mandatory labelling. I want to focus the remainder of my testimony on one of the underlying issues driving this debate at this time: the issue of "back-up copies."

There are three reasons why the legislation to permit "backing up" DVDs is unsuitable for passage. Making back-up copies of DVDs:

" Is not legal.

" Is not necessary.

" And allows "hacking" of encrypted creative material, which in turn puts to peril the future home video market.

First, back-up copies are not legal. The Copyright Act does NOT say "buy one movie, get one free." There is no more a "right" to a back-up copy of a DVD than a back-up DVD player, lawn mower or set of wine glasses. (Indeed, Congress included language in the DMCA that mandated that VCRs include technology to block the copying of prerecorded movies.) What H.R. 107 really says is "it's okay to make extra copies, and it's okay to circumvent encryption to do it."

Second, and more fundamentally, back-up copies of DVDs are not necessary. As said earlier, an encrypted DVD is well nigh indestructible. Most people I know, and I include myself, take a favorite DVD with them when they travel. It is highly portable. Moreover, an encrypted DVD can be watched over and again, hundreds of times without any degrading of sight, sound and color. And if by some very rare happening a DVD should malfunction, another can be bought at ever-lowering prices.

Let's remind ourselves about what has happened since 1998, when this proposal was last placed before - and rejected by - this Committee and the Congress. What has happened is the most immediately successful innovations in the history of how we as a nation enjoy audio-visual entertainment. The American consumer has adopted the encrypted DVD faster and more completely than any previous new consumer electronics product. This DVD revolution has been the key fact of life for making the American movie industry so hospitably received in countries all over the world.

The Copyright Office looked at this entire issue in great detail in last year's DMCA rulemaking proceeding and, for the second time since the DMCA was enacted, denied an exemption for making backup copies of DVDs. Their analysis is correct. There's no reason to reverse the course the Congress set in 1998: to bring the benefits of digital dissemination of copyrighted materials to the American consumer by encouraging the use of technological controls on access and use of those materials.

As you are aware, "321," before being enjoined by two federal courts from carrying on its illegal business, was one of the leading purveyors of hacking technology targeting our DVDs. 321's machines automatically labelled the copy of the DVD "for back-up use only." Yet our investigators and law enforcement officials have found unauthorized copies with that very label being sold in the pirate marketplace.

We return to this one incontrovertible point: there is no way to know, at the moment that protection is stripped away, what use will be made of the resulting immaculate but unauthorized copy. Once the hacker has done his work, the protection is gone forever. The adverse impact of the hacking on the men and women who have invested their time, toil and talent to make the movie in question could be minimal - but it could equally be monumental. There is simply no way of telling in advance.

So let's be frank about the impact of enacting H.R. 107. This is not just about facilitating back-up copies, illegal and unnecessary though they may be. It's not even about enabling consumers to make their own extra copies, rather than to pay for them in the normal channels of commerce. It's about opening a Pandora's Box that our present technological capabilities are powerless to close.

Let me address one final point. This discussion has been about DVDs. But looming much larger is the issue of digital distribution.

Today our ability to digitally distribute movies legally - and the pirates' ability to digitally distribute them illegally - is subject to limits of speed. But there are experiments now going on that will reshape and enlarge the ease and speed of delivery. Cal Tech reported one experiment called "FAST," which can download a quality DVD movie in five seconds! Another experiment, "Internet-2," has dispatched 6.7 gigabytes halfway around the world in one minute! (An uncompressed DVD-movie contains some 4.6 gigabytes.)

With this kind of lightning-fast speeds just around the corner, our dream and our plan is to develop digital distribution systems that will allow you to select and watch any movie ever made from the comfort of your own home. Consumer-friendly choices are promoted by providing consumers with legitimate market-driven alternatives for renting, purchasing or even copying. But these options will never come to pass if the circumvention of technology that provides these consumer choices is legalized by this legislation.

Development of these options all depend on copy protection - encryption schemes - and digital rights management to work. Under H.R. 107, someone will legally be able to develop, manufacture, sell, and use hacking tools. There is no point investing in expensive technologies to safely distribute our products digitally if we know that in moments they will be stripped of their protection. If this bill is enacted, the digital dream will turn into a digital nightmare.

H.R. 107 is not just bad for copyright owners; it's bad for consumers. We urge that this bill be rejected.

[Nilfennasion]

H.R. 107 is not just bad for copyright owners; it's bad for consumers.

When Jack Valenti reimburses me for the cost of the CDs I've had to buy again due to them being damaged by CD players that should never have been allowed on the market due to their disc-damaging potential (those spring-release top-loaders are notorious for it), maybe I will agree with him.

[gitreel]

I agree with you completely

[djelimon]

The 1000th copy of a digital movie or piece of computer software is as pure and pristine as the original.

Now that double-layer is coming, maybe...

[Cobra]

There are three reasons why the legislation to permit "backing up" DVDs is unsuitable for passage. Making back-up copies of DVDs:

" Is not legal.

" Is not necessary.

" And allows "hacking" of encrypted creative material, which in turn puts to peril the future home video market.

First two points - if I buy a DVD from them and it gets damaged due to kids/accidents/pets will they promise to give me as many new copies as I need? Hmmm, thought not...

Third point is scraping the bottom of the barrel, it really is.

Well, they can't stop me from making backups of my DVDs. I have a dog who has a taste for them, and I'd rather she eats the copies.

This drop in sales is due to them charging £20 for a DVD that costs around 50p - £1 to produce and ship. They've had their customers over a barrel and laughed about it for too long now, and they're whining that there's the possibility of their customers biting back? Oh, and remember that DVD I got with an album I bought recently that was awful quality and unprofessionally encoded? That's why I am hesitant to buy again...

'Nuff said.

Cobra

[Nilfennasion]

Here's an idea: let's all email the MPAA and Valenti, asking him if he will reimburse us for all the discs that have been destroyed by bad players or treatment they were falsely advertised as being able to withstand. CC congress, and ask him/them to do the same. Who's with me?

[Cobra]

Unfortunately, I don't think the efforts will get us anywhere. Let's just enjoy the niche we've got here. We can back up, they can't touch us for it and they can't stop us.

Having said that, there isn't a single thing to stop you making yourself heard. More power to you, and all.

However I think that we have the last laugh in this situation.

Cobra

[Nilfennasion]

Well, the point of the CCing was to bring this inequity to the attention of Congress. It is likely that they are unaware of how consumers feel, and since Mr. Valenti wants to assert that it is to our advantage that we be prohibited from making backups, I think it is a good idea to at least set them both straight. I don't mind laws that are made with a clear goal in mind, but laws based on ignorance...

[mecg]

Here's an idea: let's all email the MPAA and Valenti, asking him if he will reimburse us for all the discs that have been destroyed by bad players or treatment they were falsely advertised as being able to withstand. CC congress, and ask him/them to do the same. Who's with me?

I'd settle for reimbursement for all the crappy movies & music I've paid to see, rented, and purchased due to overhyping. It's kind of comical, They always speak of how much money they are losing, but I have to believe that most of the stuff that is copied and downloaded would NOT be purchased if it wasn't available through other means.

[Moloko_Plus]

And if by some very rare happening a DVD should malfunction, another can be bought at ever-lowering prices.

So going from $19.99 to $17.99 six months later is described as "ever-lowering"?
What he seems to keep forgetting is you're not really paying for the dvd itself, the dvd costs less then 50 cents. The 99% of what you're paying for is the movie itself. You're paying for the right to own a copy of the movie, the license, if you will; If you've paid for that license to own and view that movie, and the dvd media goes bad, you've been scammed and your right has been taken away by what I would refer to as unfair corporate business practices.
Its hard to have a realistic attitude over intellectual property rights when you're sitting there making a six figure salary telling america (who only has a paltry 25% piracy rate overall) that we need to listen to what he says. He's a complete megalomaniac that reminds me of the grinch if he had a lot of money and a big mouth.

[FOO]

download a quality DVD movie in five seconds

Where can I get this service ? It requires a bandwidth of at least
10 Gigahertz.

If they had any brains , they would simply offer to replace
a dead DVD that people send in. But Noooooo
they want you to buy it again.

You can't copy a lawn mower , but they have warrantys. DVDs do not

[lordsmurf]

Valenti is a moron. A law is being posed that will make formerly illegal actions a perfectly legal action. His defense? "That's illegal." What a damned fool. Senile futz. Did he even read the bill?

[mujahid7ia]

download a quality DVD movie in five seconds

Where can I get this service ? It requires a bandwidth of at least
10 Gigahertz.

lol

5 seconds? thats like 5-9 GB... he must have a nice internet conn. @ least 1GB/sec

[FOO]

Valenti is a moron

Dunno about that. He's got a hell of a lot more money than both of us.

[Nilfennasion]

He's a complete megalomaniac that reminds me of the grinch if he had a lot of money and a big mouth.

All the more reason he should be emailed with a CC to Congress seeking reimbursement for all the times an optical disc failed because it was less indestructible than the RIAA and MPAA would like us to believe. Laws for opt-out spamming were defeated because the people who rightly favour opt-in forced their way in and made legislatures understand why doing nothing is preferable to opt-out. Sometimes you have to be aggressive.

[lordsmurf]

Valenti is a moron

Dunno about that. He's got a hell of a lot more money than both of us.

Money doesn't mean smart. Look at Paris Hilton for our first example. I can think of dozens.

[Roderz]

encrypted creative material

If only it was ......... then ppl might pay for it.

Valenti is a moron

Dunno about that. He's got a hell of a lot more money than both of us.

In my experience, the more money = the more moronic, ignorant & arrogant twats they become.

Hmm.

in the word of **** Sparrer .... "Take 'em all, take 'em all, Put 'em up against a wall and shoot 'em......"

[sillyfaget]

See, it doesn't matter if that law gets passed. The software is still out there. You can still find copies of the old DVDXCOPY, DVDShrink, and all the others. By them passing the law, that doesn't automatically mean that our software is gone. We have it, we're keeping it.
Also, most CDs do not have copy protection on them. Despite what the RIAA says, they are still selling amazingly well. A ton of people copy DVDs now, and the movies are still selling.

[Nilfennasion]

It does matter if this legislation is passed, because it will be the first in a long time to state that the consumer has rights, rather than giving the companies more license to try and put them over a barrel.

[Capmaster]

Where's a nut with a sniper rifle when you need him :P

[indolikaa]

Where's a nut with a sniper rifle when you need him :P

You rang?

[Capmaster]

Where's a nut with a sniper rifle when you need him :P

You rang?

Dust off that .220 Swift - I have a mission for you

[indolikaa]

Where's a nut with a sniper rifle when you need him :P

You rang?

Dust off that .220 Swift - I have a mission for you

"those who actually have experience with Winchesters big .220 consider it to be the finest factory loaded cartridge available for shooting varmints at extremely long ranges."

Sounds good to me!

[Capmaster]

Where's a nut with a sniper rifle when you need him :P

You rang?

Dust off that .220 Swift - I have a mission for you

"those who actually have experience with Winchesters big .220 consider it to be the finest factory loaded cartridge available for shooting varmints at extremely long ranges."

Sounds good to me!

It's just too bad you have to spend a buck-fifty for the cartridge

[VCDHunter]

Valenti is a moron. A law is being posed that will make formerly illegal actions a perfectly legal action. His defense? "That's illegal." What a damned fool. Senile futz. Did he even read the bill?

I was pondering this myself. "We want to make this legal." "You can't do that its illegal." complete prick.

[indolikaa]

This here, I say this here brings to mind a famous Foghorn Leghorn tune...

Jack Valenti is a prick,
Do-dah
Do-dah
Jack Valenti can suck my dick,
Oh do-dah dae!

[Nilfennasion]

Oh well. I guess he can't be blamed for throwing a fit when his gravy train is threatened. Our capitalistic society teaches us to take and take at the expense of all those around us, so it is no surprise that he sooks about legalities when he feels vaguely threatened. Maybe someone should remind him why the law is designed to be changeable.

[indolikaa]

Oh well. I guess he can't be blamed for throwing a fit when his gravy train is threatened. Our capitalistic society teaches us to take and take at the expense of all those around us, so it is no surprise that he sooks about legalities when he feels vaguely threatened. Maybe someone should remind him why the law is designed to be changeable.

Now, now. Don't confuse the truth with Jack's version of reality.

[lordsmurf]

This here, I say this here brings to mind a famous Foghorn Leghorn tune...

Jack Valenti is a prick,
Do-dah
Do-dah
Jack Valenti can suck my dick,
Oh do-dah dae!

[Nilfennasion]

I wasn't aware Jack had a reality.

Honestly, does he just not buy optical discs, or does he have a special arrangement with their makers to get them replaced whenever they get scratched after he turns his back to them for two seconds? Does he have some kind of deal with DVD-R makers for information regarding which media types not to buy?