Re: [dvd-discuss] Washington Post Article

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Just put into the mail:




To the Editor of the Washington Post

A Rebuttal to Jack Valenti:
It's not the Movies that are getting Framed

Mr. Valenti begins with the extraordinary statement that " The movie 
industry is under siege from a small community of professors." That a 
$10,000,000,000/yr industry that pays a $1,000,000/yr spokesperson is 
under a siege by the words of a small group of professors, would be 
fascinating reading except surely Mr. Valenti is mixed up. Who now is 
David and who is Goliath? What other things is has he mixed up? Facts? 
Understanding? There is probably little point in asking Mr. Valenti where 
are all the illegal graphics that people download daily, or asking why 8 
out of 10 movies made in Hollywood are bad films that the public has no 
desire to see theatrically,  or even asking him to compute how much time 
it takes to download a DVD quality film on a 56kbps line while one is 
sleeping (Hint:18,000,000,000*8/56,000  seconds and there are 3600 
seconds/hour.). Sadly, Mr. Valenti does not understand what the Internet 
is or what he is proposing.

Mr. Valenti proposes "heightened security, computers and video devices 
must be prepared to react to instructions embedded in the film. Other 
ingredients are necessary to protect digital content, but it gets too 
complex to explain in a few sentences. " Actually, it is quite simple to 
describe in a few words. The computer or set top box makes judgment and 
executes sentence in the privacy of your home without the courts, congress 
or even the police and does so at the pre-programmed instructions of the 
MPAA, RIAA, or whomever they so delegate and in the manner of their 
choosing. That rather sums up it up. Mr. Valenti asserts that "it is 
nowhere to be found in any computer or set-top box? The movie industry is, 
however, consulting with the finest brains in the digital world to try to 
find the answer." If Mr. Valenti did consult with the finest brains, they 
would have told him that it is not technically possible in a free society. 


The key word there is "free". What Mr. Valenti is proposing is a reduction 
of personal freedoms-but only now to a minority segment of the population, 
namely the creators of technology and users of the Internet. Mr. Valenti 
writes of  digital innovations as "legalizing the breaking of protection 
codes, without which there is no protection." Presumably he is referring 
to DVDs. Mr. Valenti is confused about the difference between a DVD, which 
is personal property, and the movies which may be copyrighted. Mr, Valenti 
does not understand that having put forth a technology to the public, 
others may take their personal property, examine it and reverse engineer 
it as people have been doing for centuries. To preserve his so-called 
protection codes, Mr. Valenti would restrict reverse engineering.  Mr. 
Valenti states that he desires "the movie producers are eager to populate 
the Net with movies in a consumer-friendly format?Computer and 
video-device companies need to sit at the table with the movie industry. 
Together, in good-faith talks, they must agree on the ingredients for 
creating strong protection for copyrighted films and then swiftly 
implement that agreement to make it an Internet reality." Neither Mr. 
Valenti or the movie producers truly understand how the Internet was 
created. It was not created by industry fiat but by the innovations and 
creativity of a number of individuals. It was created to be flexible, 
versatile, robust, open for change and improvements. As such it has become 
a revolutionary medium for communications and society. To enhance their 
profits, the movie producers now desire to put restrictions on how the 
Internet operates that are fundamental to its nature and antipodal to its 
development  Furthermore, Mr. Valenti seems to labor under the delusion 
that the only purpose of a computer is to play movies and wants to put 
restrictions those as well. Restrictions are always a reduction of 
personal freedom.  Restrictions on engineering practices, creativity, 
innovations, and industry operations, but especially technological 
restrictions on what people can do with their own property in the privacy 
of their homes are a high price to pay to give the world "another choice 
for movie viewing."  As a lobbyist for a special interest Mr. Valenti need 
not understand this and clearly does not understand that the only solution 
he can propose is ultimately a technological totalitarianism.

The writer is a private citizen.