Content and Ownership (or Who Owns The Entertainment I Possess?)

God I'm so afraid of this blog entry. What I'm about to write goes against my new philosophy of keeping things short so that I can post consistently on a daily basis. However, I'm feeling a blog post coming of Grande Scheme proportions. Here we go.

First, here's what I wanted to tell you that I thought would be quick and easy. It seems like I'm asked on a regular basis by people with video capable iPods how they can get their movies onto their iPods. It's not simple when first time video rippers start out, but once you get the hang of it, it can become second nature.

For someone looking for some cool free content (prior to March 3rd), click here. iTunes is offering the pilot for the new show Conviction for free. What makes this interesting is that the show has not aired yet. Previously, iTunes and a few others have offered "legal" television downloads for a couple of bucks for recently broadcast episodes of tv shows, but to my knowledge, this is the first time a tv episode has been offered prior to broadcast. I believe Conviction will start airing March 3rd and that's when the episode will no longer be free. By the way, I haven't seen the show yet, so you'll need to decide for yourself whether it's good or not. Also, you DO NOT need a video iPod to download the show. In addition to a video capable iPod, you can also watch the file on your computer using either iTunes or Quicktime.

So let me get back to the whole getting video onto your video iPod and why it's a pain in the ass. First, there are format logistics of which I still don't completely understand. I believe I'm correct in saying that your two file formats of choice are either an mpeg-4 file or a movie file compressed with h.264. h.264? I guess all the good video compression names were taken.

Once you have the file format correct, then you have to deal with picture size. 320 x 240 is the way to go for watching a video on your iPod. You can also connect your iPod to your television and watch your videos thru the tv. For that, a higher resolution is better, but I'm not sure how high you can go.

Oh, and let's not forget the sample rate or bit rate. Your video converstion software will likely give you a choice for this. If it's a user friendly software, your options will probably be something like good, better and best. If it makes you type in a number, I understand 400 is acceptable.

Once you get passed file formats and image quality, then you get into the question of "legality". You see, by the time the common man heard of an mp3 file, the illegal infrastructure was already in place. There were plenting of cd ripping softwares available and hundreds of thousands of people were converting their cds to the mp3 file format without any legal presidence. The music industry was caught off guard by the trend and has always been playing catch up. Because video takes up much more computer space than audio does and the fact that movies are 2 hours long vs a 3 minute long song, the film industry had some time to get their act together in the legal sense before people got around to digitally transfering movies to their computers.

So is it legal to rip your cds and not your dvds? I read someone elses blog recently where they were talking about how last year, the riaa went before congress and said that ripping your cd to your iPod was a legal interpretation of fair use. However, the riaa recently went before congress and said that it was not fair use. I wonder what that's about.

Now because the film industry has had the time and been able to watch what's happened to the music industry, the film industry has been very clear to say that you can't copy their movies for any reason whatsoever without giving them more money. On that, I'm paraphrasing. I'm guessing that's the reason you can't put a dvd into your computer and rip the movie using iTunes. Apple would most likely have a large lawsuit on their hands. Plus, it's in Apple's best interest that you don't rip your movies because you are then forced to purchase content from Apple to watch on your iPod.

This is probably a good time to point out that the music industry has failed where the film industry has succeeded immensely when it comes to reversioning their product. Look at the movie veiwing experience. The movie theater is only the beginning. There was vhs and then there was laserdisc and while the latter wasn't very lucrative and limited to the biggest movie lovers, laser set the stage for the dvd. And let's not forget television. You have your pay-per-view, your premium cable stations, network television, and then regular cable which will rerun the film forever. There are plenty of ways to pay for the same movie several times over.

The only big reversioning in the history of music came from the cd. People who wanted to upgrade the sound quality on their previously owned record albums and cassettes, went out and rebought their collections on compact discs. Compact. That's pretty funny now that I think of it. Compared to an 60 gig iPod, the cd doesn't seem so compact now does it. Since the cd, the music industry hasn't had much room to grow. They've tried improving sound quality but unless you are REALLY REALLY into sound, you probably haven't rebought your music in the SACD of DVD Audio format. The only shot music companies have had at making people rebuy their music is thru iTunes and the like getting people that can't figure out how to rip their cds, to rebuy the music in an mp3-like format with limited capabilities on how you can listen to it. Not very appealing.

So, I think I've given you enough history. What I really want to talk about is this so called illegal file sharing and improper interpretation of fair use. What strikes me as odd is that if you purchase a form of entertainment, be it music, film, or tv shows (and by they way, that includes broadcast television as you pay for those shows by sitting thru commercials as well as product placement within the show), ... If you buy any of those things, you are paying for something you do not own. Let me just say that again. You are PAYING for something you DO NOT OWN. You may possess something tangible whether it's a physical tape or disc or something less tangible like a file on your computer's hard drive. But you don't own it. You have purchased a license to use material in a private manner and by the way, that private manner better not stop someone else from purchasing the same exact license.

Forgive me for a moment, but GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE! Where the hell did that logic come from? I'm betting it came from the ease that computers allow us to spread entertainment. Prior to computers, I don't ever remember the music industry telling me that I was paying to borrow music.

Sony has recently caught a lot of flack for this bogus spyware they put on their music cds to stop people from sharing their files. Funny though, because Sony didn't have any problem taking my money when I was younger so that I could make countless tapes of the music I had on cd. Come to think of it, didn't Sony sell blank cds for me to copy my music prior to the mp3 revolution? Now suddenly, their throwing around words like "fair use".

Here's the point that I want to drive home. The entertainment industry would like us to think we are criminals if we somehow manipulate their media to better suit ourselves or to share that media with others. They call these actions illegal. But I ask you, where is this law? Murder is against the law. Robbing a bank is against the law. Speeding is against the law. Get caught for any of those things and there's usually a cop or two involved and more than likely, a judge and a jury consisting of your peers. But copying a movie or a song? Where's the APB on that?

Unless I'm mistaken, file copying and file sharing as acts of an illegal nature are interpretive. There are no hard and fast rules and there's nothing concrete. The entertainment industry wants file sharers and so called pirates to believe they are guilty of illegal activity and they drive the point home by repeating their agenda. There are also lawsuits that have been settled out of court that gives the illusion of presidence. But aside from an entertainment lawyer telling a judge that a file sharer has done wrong, where is THE LAW?

I only ask because unless you're Amish, your kid has downloaded an "illegal" song or movie to his computer. A generation of children is being raised under the impression that they have done something wrong and that they are criminals. I would make the argument that they only feel this way because an entertainment industry with loads of cash (hey wait? where'd that money come from?) has made them believe this to be so. This is not a society mandate. It's the agenda of people with large quantities of cash who would like to have more money. To take their word as law? Now that's criminal.