The Real Goal Of Regulating Buffer Copies? So Hollywood Can Put A Tollbooth On Innovation

from the insanity dept

As you hopefully know by now, we’ve been talking a lot about the Trans-Pacific Parntership agreement (TPP) that’s being negotiated. That’s because following the SOPA/PIPA debate, there’s been renewed interest in ACTA — which is great — but with ACTA very far along in the process, we think it’s important that people are also paying attention to the next attempt by a few legacy industries to sneak bad laws onto the books via international agreements negotiated in absolute secrecy. It’s been almost a year since the first version of TPP leaked, despite attempts by negotiators (especially the USTR) to keep it entirely secret. We noted many problems with it at the time, but with the renewed interest in TPP, people are once again dissecting the leaked document. Cory Doctorow, over at Boingboing recently highlighted how TPP will seek to regulate buffer copies:

One jaw-dropping leak is that that the treaty contemplates requiring licenses for ephemeral copies made in a computer’s buffer. That means that the buffers in your machine could need a separate, negotiated license for every playback of copyrighted works, and buffer designs that the entertainment industry doesn’t like — core technical architectures — would become legally fraught because they’d require millions of license negotiations or they’d put users in danger of lawsuits.

This isn’t the first time that buffer licensing was proposed. Way back in 1995, the Lehman white paper, proposed by Clinton’s copyright czar to Al Gore’s National Information Infrastructure committee, made the same demand. It was roundly rejected then, because the process was transparent and the people who would be adversely affected by it (that is, everyone) could see and object to it.

This is about legislating chip designs and software architecture, and the only people allowed in the room are entertainment execs. The future of silicon itself hangs in the balance.

This is great background info, and there’s a little more history to go into here. First, what does the leaked copy of TPP actually say? It’s right here in Article 4, Section 1:

Each Party shall provide that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms have the right to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, performances, and phonograms, in any manner or form, permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form).

Note the emphasis, added by me. This would require the blocking of any buffer copies without an extra license. This is actually a really big deal for a variety of reasons, and could create a massive chill on important innovations. What the negotiators here are trying to do is to kill off any cloud streaming service (or require it to pay a lot extra). In the US, a few years ago, the 2nd Circuit ruled that Cablevision’s remote DVR was legal. Basically, Cablevision set up a bunch of servers that could act like a standard DVR, but rather than the box being at home, it was in a central data center. The TV networks freaked out about this and insisted that it must be illegal. But, of course, the only real difference between this and a TiVo was how long the cord between the DVR and the TV was. It seems ridiculous to think that the copyright could be impacted by the length of the cable.

The key, then, to the TV guys’ argument against Cablevision was to show that Cablevision itself was involved in copying works without a license. Since it was the user pushing the button to “record” something that argument wasn’t very strong — so they picked up on a specific piece: that in the process of making this work, Cablevision had to, for an exceptionally brief period of time, buffer the TV streams that it was playing. The crux of the TV networks’ argument against Cablevision was that it was that buffer that violated copyright law. The court laughed this off, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, leaving the ruling standing. The TV guys hate, hate, hate this ruling. What they want is for Cablevision to pay them extra to offer this service to its customers.

Courts in other countries have given very mixed rulings on this. The US and Singapore seem fine with remote DVRs, while Korea and Japan have found them to be infringing. As I was writing this story up, we have a preliminary ruling in Australia that such remote DVRs are legal.

The goal of TPP? To kill all of this and make the ISPs and cable guys pay extra to innovate and offer such services. TPP, as written, would require countries to allow copyright holders to “prohibit” the use of buffer copies. That would effectively overrule the Cablevision ruling here in the US and force anyone who wanted to offer such a remote DVR to negotiate for a license.

That’s what this is about. It’s got nothing to do with stopping infringement at all. It has everything to do with stopping innovation that Hollywood doesn’t like — or rather innovation where Hollywood can’t insert a tollbooth. Of course, the collateral damage here would be massive. Beyond making services like remote DVRs illegal overnight, it would raise significant questions about plenty of other technologies. Think just how often buffer copies need to be made when you’re dealing with digital files. Imagine if you need a separate license for each of those. For anyone who knows anything about technology, such a proposal is pure insanity. It’s an attempt to massively expand copyright law in the age of computers, for something that has nothing to do with the intended purpose, nor components, of existing copyright law. It seeks to put a legal liability for a transitional state of content for no reason other than that Hollywood wants to get paid any and every time a piece of content is touched.

If the USTR (or any of the negotiators) actually understood anything (anything at all) about computers and how technology worked, such a request would be a non-starter. Instead, it’s front and center in the copyright section of the TPP.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: cablevision, optus

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Real Goal Of Regulating Buffer Copies? So Hollywood Can Put A Tollbooth On Innovation”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
107 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

“This is about legislating chip designs and software architecture, and the only people allowed in the room are entertainment execs. The future of silicon itself hangs in the balance.”

But.. what the?, this just doesn’t!… *BOOOM*

Not even Hollywood can come up something this stupid. O wait, they just did.

(I’m actually amazed by the contents of the entire article)

Richard (profile) says:

Eh

. This would require the blocking of any buffer copies without an extra license. This is actually a really big deal for a variety of reasons,

Technically clueless beyond belief!

What proportion of a work does a buffer copy need to contain before it qualifies?

All compressed video requires several seconds of buffered storage in order to work at all.

Actually old fashioned copyright law used to outlaw buffered copies – until a few judges and legislators saw sense and carved out some exemptions – that were seen as essential to allowing any kind of digital use of copyrighted material at all.

That anybody thinks it at all sensible to try and reverse this is breathtaking!

Anonymous Coward says:

Basically Intel, Cisco, Memory Manufacturers, storage device manufacturers, all internet service providers would all have to get a license and you bet that license wouldn’t be cheap to acquire, it would be in the ballpark of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Really when politicians will realize that the entertainment industry is not an industry at all but a bunch of real parasites leeching society?

hollystupid says:

This utterly destroys using a computer

makes it using a pc too expensive to use end of story thus when pc sales start to drop like flies and all the investments these idiots put into it go poof ..and people still keep dropping cable tv and satellite for hand sharing sneaker net they might get the hint

FXPING was gaining ground till someone thought hey lets rent the kids servers….as an example, so lets go back to real thieving and steal into your corporate web servers and trade on mass with hand made hosts files that change like the wind…

Anonymous Coward says:

Words like stupid or moronic aren’t enough to qualify this. We need a much more powerful word to completely capture the full extent of this idiocy.

What’s next? Will I have to pay every time I hum a tune or memorize the lyrics of a song?

They are insane. I surely hope that the “pirates” sink their ship as quickly as possible. Although it seems like they are doing a pretty good job sinking it themselves.

A Guy (profile) says:

First Amendment

Is this even legal under the US Constitution? A general purpose computer seems like the very definition of a fair use technology under the Betamax case.

You cannot outlaw fair use without violating the first amendment.

How can those in power be so technologically and legally clueless? Or are they just trying to hand the industry to their campaign contributors as these ridiculous laws are declared unconstitutional by the courts?

Yartrebo (profile) says:

The End of Fair Use?

“Each Party shall provide that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms have the right to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, performances, and phonograms, in any manner or form, permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form).”

If I’m reading this correctly, this also means a complete abolition of fair use and fair dealing. There’s a whole lot of wrong stuck into that single sentence.

Ven says:

This comment is licensed for display on phosphorus stimulated to emissive levels. Any attempt to display this comment on technologies that employ the bending of to allow it to pass or not pass through to perpendicularly aligned polarized screens, or adjusting the position or attitude of a ferrous material to create an apparent change in pigmentation requires a $5 license per view. Under no circumstances may pigment be applied to a substrate to allow persistent viewing of this comment.

tl;dr

This comment can be viewed on a CRT, or for $5 a LCD or E-Ink display. It may never be printed.

Anonymous Coward says:

always has been and always will be about stopping innovation unless it’s under the control of the entertainment industries. when are those in politics, the ones being encouraged to back these industries, realise that as long as fortunes can be gained by those few industries and their execs, by stopping anyone else from getting anything, then those industries will never have to do anything to come into the 21st century. they wont even have to make anything new (instead of the constant remakes) because they are going to be paid til the year dot for the old stuff!

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Goodbye YouTube

But it would also make the computer you’re using illegal, the TV your using, the DVD player, the sound system. All of those have a buffer (if not multiple). You would be legally required to buy all new hardware before you did anything.

The law probably won’t be used like that initially, but as we’ve seen already; if it can be used that way, it will be.

Trails (profile) says:

Eh

Many hard disks and disc readers have their own built in buffers too. One wonders if these would require licenses.

Buffering is a standard part of reading or writing files in most programming languages as well (java.io.BufferedInputStream and java.io.BufferedOutputStream for e.g.). Something as simple as moving a file requires buffering.

This is a bit like legislating the value of pi. Not quite as egregiously stupid, but closer than we should ever get.

Ransom says:

Depending on your interpretation, signals traveling through a wire or the air could be “temporary storage in electronic form”.

“Sir, we’ve determined that the area inside your house briefly held, in temporary storage in electronic form, your neighbor’s wifi packets in which he was downloading five pixels from Mickey Mouse’s left ear. You’ll need to come with us.”

mischab1 says:

Focus too tight

I think Cory’s focusing in too tightly on this one. Here, let me change the emphasis.

Each Party shall provide that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms have the right to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, performances, and phonograms, in any manner or form, permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form).

They are trying to steal away our fair use rights. It’s like they want to play evil dictator in charge of their IP.

DannyB (profile) says:

Goodbye YouTube

It wouldn’t kill YouTube, nor would it make YouTube have to pay.

YouTube would only carry video uploaded by users, with a license from the users, that covers all activities YouTube must perform in order to offer your uploaded video.

I wouldn’t be surprised but that YouTube currently makes video uploaders agree to terms that already grant YouTube whatever permission they need, even if this ridiculous “buffer” license were to become law.

Now that covers Authorized content on YouTube.

As for Unauthorized content, it would then be every bit as unauthorized as an unauthorized video on YouTube is today. And the blame for it being on YouTube would still lie in the same place it does today — with who uploaded it.

Andrew (profile) says:

Courts in other countries have given very mixed rulings on this. The US and Singapore seem fine with remote DVRs, while Korea and Japan have found them to be infringing. As I was writing this story up, we have a preliminary ruling in Australia that such remote DVRs are legal.

Just for reference, making such temporary copies should be legal in the UK

Making of temporary copies

Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable?

(a)a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or

(b)a lawful use of the work;

and which has no independent economic significance.

DannyB (profile) says:

The straw that broke the camel's back

You think the response to SOPA / PIPA / ACTA / TPP is bad?

This buffer nonsense could be the landgrab that makes the whole copyright house of cards come crashing down.

Can you say Prohibition. Or laws about chastity. Not only are these laws ridiculous for people wanting to do ordinary things (eg use a TiVo, Netflix, rip a DVD to their phone), they are unenforceable without massive intrusion into our private lives.

Delusional Dinosaurs. They’re going the wrong way into the tarpits. They can’t see that instead of trying to restrict digital distribution and streaming, they should be embracing it — and fast. They should be trying to become the mega powerhouses of on demand video — anything that has ever been put onto a frame of film, on any of your devices, any time you want to see it, for a reasonable fee.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

I’m sitting here reading the responses and thinking, to myself, that as I have 10gig of RAM in my machines as I work on photo retouching and stuff in Photoshop or The GIMP I’d need licenses for the parts of the photo held in the RAM buffer while I work on the photo.

Probably even photos I took given the broad way the language is written unless slap a Creative Commons license on the picture before I start doing criminal things like making it smaller or clearing up some parts of it before I slap it somewhere on the Web.

Such fun!

Do the folks who wrote this understand anything about computers or the Internet at all? Or are they still stuck in a print and photocopy world?

Cowardly Anonymous says:

A computer functions on the principle of copy and destroy. You can not build a computer that does not require temporary copies to function. Due to the infeasibility of monitoring such things, any compliant nation would essentially have to outlaw the digitization of copyrighted materials. That or require every computer owner to purchase every license for every copy-righted work.

In fact, I suspect this is what they are targeting. If they can prove that you downloaded and played a copy-righted work without purchasing a license, then they can sue for millions of dollars for playing it once. Context switching, I/O buffers, file-system buffers, paging, almost every last thing a computer does requires a copy and a computer does a lot of things very quickly.

Anonymous Coward says:

Here's an idea...

How about proposing a law that retroactively makes the individual CREATORS only the owners of the IP forever and ownership cannot be transferred… EVER. Included in this law would be provisions allowing a creator to designate representatives that could receive a COMMISSION based on sales for marketing and distributing their work.

That way the ARTISTS always get paid and the middlemen get relegated back to being what they are… MIDDLEMEN.

Furthermore, infringement would also then be relegated back to a civil law matter only meaning only the ARTIST could sue for damages from someone who infringes on their work.

After all it’s all about protecting the ARTISTS isn’t it?

Pjerky (profile) says:

Just another way to steal money from the public and other companies.

This is a sham, this is just another way for the entertainment industry to suck as much money as possible from other businesses and individuals. These greedy bastards need to be beaten to death. There is no sane reason why a fucking buffer copy needs a license. The license to view the video or hear the audio should be sufficient for all ancillary data storage needs.

You know what, I think that our country should charge them for the right to present to us crappy movies, remakes, etc. As well as for the right to have us see and listen to anything they make. We should charge them per ear and per eye. For 3D we should charge them per eye and per dimension. For “interactive” movies (with seat rumbling or the water that sprays at you to make you feel more involved with the movie) we should charge them per body hair and muscle that feels the interaction.

We should also charge them per taste bud that senses the food and drink in the theater. They should also pay for the privilege to have their movies shown on our home screens and equipment. Maybe then they will understand just how much bullshit these money grabs are.

Hollywood is more greedy and corrupt than any of the companies and individuals that they have ever criticized for greed and corruption.

Nic (profile) says:

Gee, that'll only kill the tech industry overnight

Jeez, talk about delusional execs and incompetence and computer illiterate politicians.

Pass this law and the entire tech industry comes crashing down. Why? Because buffering/making temporary copies is such as vital part of computing itself that the entire tech industry would turn illegal overnight. The same tech industry that employs.

And then it would naturally affect almost anything that plays stuff electronically with the use of a computer chip making dvd players, tvs, phones, etc… basically every electronic device you use these days illegal to use without a license.

The geniuses behind that idea should just go hang themselves and purge themselves from the gene pool. That would be the greatest service they could do for mankind.

MonkeyFracasJr (profile) says:

I am against regulation, but...

I have no problem with remakes, other than they are rarely as good as the original. And I actually like reboots.

Not limited to movies, I enjoy the re-telling of stories, re-interpretations or adaptations. Its really too bad that everything is locked up in copyrights. Allowing anyone to retell a story would lead to a much richer story-land, even if there would still be a shortage of NEW stories.

The root problem with capitalism is that its practitioners have forgotten there are other quality reasons to do things other than aquisition of financial wealth.

Anonymous Coward says:

This isnt even possible

This nonsense would fundamentally change how a computer actually works. It’s simply impossible to even imagining implementing this. With Disk caches and CPU caches it’s not even possible to know how many buffers something has been copied into.

A separate license for L2 and L3 cache? I mean this is just absurd. It’s not even feasible to litigate if it was made into law

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Every router would have to pay a licencing fee

routers, yeah but think about your home PC. The nic software in your machine has a buffer, the hard drive buffer (read and write), the OS memory buffer used to cache the video before playing, and the video card driver, all have buffers, some with multiple layers.

SOPA and PIPA woke up web companies and people online, this is going to wake up the hardware companies. The MPAA and the RIAA seem to be out to destroy the content industry.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

The straw that broke the camel's back

“This buffer nonsense could be the landgrab that makes the whole copyright house of cards come crashing down.”

I have been feeling the same thing, deep in my bones, for over a year now. I have said that here on multiple occasions. The pendulum is going to swing in the other direction and copyright will come crashing down.

Here is the other thing I have been feeling. That pay to play – crony capitalism is going to come to a screeching halt in the next few years as people have gotten so absolutely fed up with what our federal government is doing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Goodbye YouTube

” It wouldn’t kill Youtube, it would just make Youtube have to pay. It would limit the number of players to the ones with lots of money, “

Yup. And once again the only way any band can be seen or heard globally would be to sign themselves into Indentured Servitude to a label. Status Quo is maintained, level playing field abolished.

THIS is the bottom line, what the ‘industry’ really wants.

Grover (profile) says:

JIHAD

M1 Garands, Lee-Enfields, SAWs, RPGs. . .the list is endless. What we really need is a jihad against the entertainment/news media. I’m doing my part by never going to the theater any more, never buying another music album/cd, or movie, and I’ve cancelled my newspaper. These power-hungry control freaks need to understand that WE are the ones in control of THEIR money; and we can collectively hurt their asses a lot by doing that alone. Really, though, these power-hungry control freaks just simply need to be taken out. Here and now, I am going out on a limb and advocating assassinations. I, among millions of others, are sick and tired of these greedy, corrupt, dickbreath a-holes buying our already corrupt officials through ‘contributions’ to pass laws that only benefit themselves. No law should ever be passed without a majority constituant approval – and that means to me, in particular, no bill be brought up for consideration that wasn’t supported by a majority of the voting public from the affected state of the bill’s proponent.

I’ve sent this same message to a number of my representatives, with the added note that should their name ever appear on a bill that supports this level of insanity, their name goes to the top of the list for recall, impeachment, or whatever it takes to remove their sorry ass from a job that they promised to uphold with integrity.

Seriously, if it wasn’t for the masochist in me, I probably wouldn’t be visiting Techdirt any longer because it just totally flames me out seeing all this crap being done in secret, behind our collective backs, with damn-near impunity. God, I wish I had the power to strike all these idiots dead in their tracks.

Ok, rant over. . .for now, the migraine is becoming unbearable – until the next time.

Anonymous Coward says:

Goodbye YouTube

Yes, and when IP packets are in transit, they are usually in a cable. Every long cable is a buffer, capable of holding many packets. A similar technique was used on very early computers with mercury delay lines used for storage. Likewise, every piece of free space is capable of holding information in the form of electromagnetic waves. So every part of space is a buffer. As soon as you make buffering something needing permission, you open a vast can of worms.

This is scope creep on steroids.

Just Another Day says:

Just another way to steal money from the public and other companies.

This is a sham, this is just another way for the entertainment industry to suck as much money as possible from other businesses and individuals. These greedy bastards need to be beaten to death. There is no sane reason why a fucking buffer copy needs a license. The license to view the video or hear the audio should be sufficient for all ancillary data storage needs.

The real pirates are in Hollywood.

The day we all start recognizing and labeling Emperor Chris Dodd and the entire MPAA/RIAA cartel as “pirates” is the day the truth happens, and we can finally start focusing on progress. These entertainment cartels are trying to steal every fucking ounce of progress just to line their useless middleman pockets.

Ed Allen (profile) says:

Every router would have to pay a licencing fee

It gets more complicated thann that…

The “copyright” involved here would be for a string of bytes of varying length. Raises the question of how
short a copyrightable packet would be allowed to get.

Bit mapped fonts, 10 to 500 kilobytes, were held to be non copyrightable because not enough creativity was in them.
So what makes an arbitrary string of bytes in a compressed video stream different ?

What happens if your song and my photo have a few ethernet packets with the same bytes in both streams ?

Who “owns” the copyright and what happens to the other one ? If the route changes and the MTU
shortens so that my photo is divided differently do you get your copyright back ?

How do you get notified of it being valid, invalid, and then valid again ? If no notice is required
then how do you know this is not the way it has been being done for years ?

No thought given to the guys in Hollywood being slashdotted with notifications ?

Before the AT&T breakup a long distance phone call cost about three times the hourly minimum wage for a
minute of connectivity, now that minute is less than ten cents in todays’ wages. I read somewhere
that 75% of the cost of every minute went to bookkeeping to track who owed how much and when they paid.

Crap like this makes me believe it.

Oh the joys of design by folks with the “just make do the right thing” attitude !

Matt (profile) says:

Internet rules

Technology is allowing us to do amazing things- including our ability to escape physical limitations, or scarcity in many respects. Senator Orrin Hatch, and all the rest of em- want to arbitrarily assign scarcity to things that aren’t naturally scarce. Senator Hatch received MILLIONS over SOPA/PIPA. http://sopatrack.com/congressperson/H000338-sen-orrin-hatch
He’s one of the most outspoken advocates for Internet regulation. He’s said that a few hundred thousand computers ought to be destroyed to help people “get the picture.”
http://www.dethronehatch.com/orrin-hatch-is-no-friend-of-the-internet/

Ed Allen (profile) says:

Re:

MPAA produces about 800 movies per year 1600 hours
RIAA I have no idea about (lets say 10,000 hours).

So Hollywod emits less than 12,000 hours per year.

YouTube adds one hour of video per minute.

365.2425*24*3600=31,556,952 hours per year.

31556952/15000=2103.7968

Theses guys are less than one tenth of one percent of the content the Net cares about. I agree with Falkenvinge, they are becoming less important and it scares the shit out of them.

The Moondoggie says:

I am against regulation, but...

Should be the f.f.

1. Cinema and 3D tickets must cost the same
2. No more remakes

…lets make it sillier:

3. You cannot film a movie anywhere except in Hollywood
4. If you want to film in a public place, there is a $200,000 dollar fine for every scene.
5. All establishments whose name will be caught on film when filming publicly must be censored.
6. No car chases, the movie must adhere to traffic rules.
7. Selling the movie in DVD/BluRay they must state the manufacturer of the CD and the specifics.
8. In the credits, they must name everyone who appeared in the movie. Even the extra people in the background.
9. The studio MUST PAY everyone that APPEARED in the movie, even all the people in the background, the same amount they pay the actors, because they both appeared in the movie anyway.

… Meh, I’m out of ideas.

Rekrul says:

I am against regulation, but...

No movie is allowed to end on a cliffhanger unless a sequel is guaranteed.

Horror movies are not allowed to end on the standard ‘twist’ ending where the killer magically comes back during the last 30 seconds to finish off the supposed survivors.

Roles cannot be recast for sequels, they must either use the same actor or write the character out of the movie.

Movies must be released on DVD/Blu-Ray exactly as they were in the theater. No cutting out scenes or changing music. Minor fixing of goofs, such as removing boom mics or flipping reversed shots is allowed, since those are mistakes that should have been correctly before the movie hit theaters.

No actress must be cast for the role of a stripper unless she’s willing to at least take her top off.

3D movies must stop with the ridiculously fake scenes where CGI objects fly directly at the camera for no other reason other than to showcase the 3D effect.

Paddy Duke (profile) says:

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 6th, 2012 @ 11:50am

No one has suggested they should.

Instead we?ve regularly tried to point out ways to improve on their current business model.

Examples include getting rid of release windows, charging more reasonable prices for content (to buyers and commercial licensees), simultaneous worldwide distribution, getting rid of DRM, etc.

How many times?

PT (profile) says:

Eh

That buffer copies are subject to copyright was a wholly novel idea that was first introduced in the US case of MAI Systems v. Peak Computers, 9th circuit 1993.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc.
MAI Systems maliciously sued one of their former service engineers for leaving to work for a competitor, and convinced the court that in order to fire up a computer to run diagnostics it had to load the operating system, and when a competitor did so it was making an unauthorized copy. Congress subsequently amended the law to remove this interpretation, within narrow limits, but the wider copyright implications were left untouched. It was taken up by a US government working group on intellectual property headed by Bruce Lehman, the Patent Commissioner and former copyright lobbyist, and staffed by numerous other former copyright lobbyists, who thought the Mai decision was an excellent idea that should have wider application. The Lehman group’s report was issued in 1994 and although it was rejected at the time, this opinion obviously has nine lives.

Boo Boo says:

Buffers WTF !

Buffers ? WTF – these guys are truly insane, we all know that.
But whats more insane is that the law makers are actually listening to Big Content and drafting this shit into the current blizzard of copyright related bills being thrown at us.
Its just so freakin sick and twisted I can’t believe its true, but it is , and if we are not careful one of things will pass into actual law and make no mistake, Big Content will go to war on the internet if its ever handed one of these weapons to play with.
The backlash I believe would eventually destroy Big Content , but this will take time , and the cost will be horrific , human and financial , as the war rages in the courts taking down or bankrupting 1000s of legitimate companies in the process.
With all the problems facing the world why is the US giving Big Content such a high priority right now ?
It seems that they have connections at the highest level and are turning the screws to get what they want.
It aint healthy whichever way you look at it.

wvhillbilly (profile) says:

I am against regulation, but...

Hmmm… About this idea of requiring a separate license for each buffer copy your computer makes to show an image… Videos generally run at 30 frames per second. Now think of a 10 minute You Tube video… this would be 1800 separate images per minute, or 18,000 separate licenses for that 10 minute video. If the MPAA decided to license these copies at $10.00 per each, it would cost you $180,000 just for licenses to watch that 10 minute video. Now suppose you wanted to watch a 90 minute video. $1.8 million clams for that 90 minutes.

Yes I know this is ridiculous, but this whole idea of requiring a license for buffer copies is just as ridiculous and I want to show just how ridiculous it is. If this passes, no one will be able to afford just to turn his computer on, let alone access the Internet in any meaningful way. Or we’ll be criminals and they’ll have to build thousands of new prisons to house all of us. But these entertainment industry pointy haired bean counters never think of things like this, all they think about is how can they milk more $$$$$$$$$ from the public and everybody else.

Noob says:

say hello to cloud and box rentals

this will probably strip personal devices of all streaming contents (games, movies, music, youtubers, etc.) ,

instead it will force us to buy or rent devices from the content providers the old fashioned way – assuming buffering goes all the way down to the chip level – think set-top boxes from cable co.s

gotta buy appletv’s, ebooks, amazon kindles, samsung smart-tv’s, ipods and the ilks?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...