Slashdot Log In
Copying HD DVD, Blu-ray Discs May Become Legal
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu May 24, 2007 09:27 AM
from the but-it-could-cost-ya dept.
from the but-it-could-cost-ya dept.
Consumers could soon be able to make several legal copies of movies bought on HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc under a new licensing agreement now being negotiated. Rights holders might charge more for discs that can be copied for backup or for use on a media server, however.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The obvious problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The obvious problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they take it back and give you (the same) cd back?
If what we are paying for is the content solely, then shouldn't they?
I think it would make the whole industry more credible if they were willing to do that.
Why should I have to pay a second time for content that I already paid for.
Also, if I have it on tape, shouldn't I be able to trade it in for CD, and same with VHS and DVD? Pay a small fee for the upgraded quality of the content, but still, I own the movie, so why do I have to buy it again?
Parent
Re:The obvious problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have all my kid's disney flicks on a home media server. I called disney to report that my disk for beauty and the beast was scratched, and that I would like a replacement. I was denied.
Summary:
me: hi, my disk is scratched
them: buy a new one
me: no, I would normally make a backup copy but your TOU forbids this
them: so?
me: well disney has taken the stance that I as a consumer have not bought any rights to the movie, only a license to the content
them: so
me: well that means under normal IP license schemas I can reasonably expect a refreshed copy of the IP for the cost of media
them: no
me: so I can copy the disks I buy?
them: no
me: will you sell me a disk?
them: no, buy it retail
me: but it's out of print and not in stores any more
them: try e-bay
etc.
etc.
Wasn't very productive, but I'll take it to mean I can copy my disks DMCA be damned.
-nB
Parent
Re:The obvious problem... (Score:5, Informative)
You can for the 'nominal' fee is $6.95:h tml#common0 [go.com]
http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/dvdsupport/faq.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-nB
Re:The obvious problem... (Score:4, Informative)
RMS's essay The Right to Read [gnu.org] is based around reading an eBook for this reason.
Parent
Re:The obvious problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, when you buy a copy of a work, such as a book, or a CD, or a DVD, etc. you are simply buying the physical medium which happens to have a copy of the work fixed within it. It is that simple. It is no different from buying a brick or a car.
You can then use that copy however you like, so long as you use it in a lawful manner, just like with anything else you buy. If you buy a car, then you can drive however you want, but you still cannot break traffic laws with it. When you buy a book, you can use it however you want (read it, learn from it, use it to prop up the bed) but you can't do illegal things (e.g. make another copy of it, if it is copyrighted at the time you do so). When the copyright runs out, fewer things are illegal. Depending on your circumstances, something may or may not be illegal while those circumstances hold.
There is no license. In fact, the various publishing companies don't even claim that there are licenses. Copyright warnings (e.g. it's illegal to make copies of this) are not licenses, they're just restating the law. If your car came with a sticker that said 'don't run over people' that would be the same thing.
Software, and works which are accessed over the net (e.g. iTMS music) are really the only exceptions to this in the consumer market. And it's a bit sad, since software doesn't need to be licensed to end users to begin with; users would be able to use the software and make backups of software without licenses, and developers would still be protected. Licenses are only really useful for things like site licenses, or where the work isn't software. And even then, implied licenses (e.g. as used for virtually every web page, allowing users to make copies of the page as is necessary in order to see it, due to how computers work) could handle a lot of the remainder.
I am just sick and tired of all the crap where people think that Disney or whomever is not selling DVDs, but is instead licensing them. They aren't, and they never said otherwise, even. You know how a EULA for software is relatively up-front and in your face? When DVDs do that, then you'll know they're licensed. Otherwise, I assure you, it's not happening, not for the stuff you get from the store.
The consequences of this are that 1) it's illegal to make copies (often even backups) due to the law; 2) if your copy breaks, you are not entitled to a replacement or to make a replacement if you hadn't (lawfully) done so already; 3) you aren't entitled to get better quality copies merely because you have a lower quality copy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And didn't need to (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair use means *copying of your "content" that we are *legally entitled to do. *Without asking for *permission. We do not have to sit down with you and work on the problem, try and strike a balance that pleases everyone, come to an acceptable price. We get to just do it.
Missed point: it's not the DRM, it's control. (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to solve certain issues with the Front Row software I already have to make reference movies; however, this enables my entire distributed multi-platform (TV and computer client) home set-up hum. Want me to give you odds that this new "licensed copy" won't work?
I didn't think so.
While it's encouraging that they are noticing that stomping on basic fair use is a Kobayashi Maru scenario for them (as other posters rightly point out, people will just break the DRM and copy it anyway); it should go without saying that a non-interoperable, proprietary system that dictates not just what software (or possibly hardware even) I run on my "media server", but also the software/hardware options for the clients as well?
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd argue they've still dropped the ball, and this does not consitute picking it back up. More like when you see a kid reach for the ball but in reaching for it they kick it with their foot and push it even further out of reach.
Oh well. Status quo I suppose.
--
~AC
Parent
Heh (Score:4, Funny)
Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me? The RIAA/MPAA people argue that DMCA forbids us from making backups of our media, but that is hardly FACT -- merely their legal position -- and as far as I know one that has NEVER been challenged. I'm sure they'd like for the public to think they are "
appropriate? (Score:3)
No, they're saying "please use the item you've purchased from us only in the ways we approve."
This comes after attempts 1) to restrict the kinds of technology you can buy ('trusted' computing, broadcast flags); 2) to restrict what you can do with your hardware (anti-circumvention laws) and 3) to redefine "purchase" so that it actually just means "rental" of their 'content
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright law is a bargain that is made between creators and society. Society agrees to enforce a temporary monopoly on distribution. In exchange, the creator agrees to allow certain fair-use rights during their period of exclusivity, and release the work into the public domain at the end. If the creator is now allowing fair use rights, then they are unilaterally nullifying the bargain, and their copyright should no longer be enforced. They can't have it both ways.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate those fuckers.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
** for a small fee of course. That's right we're going to CHARGE YOU for exercising your RIGHTS under Fair Use, including the right to make a backup for archival purposes and to use your legally purchased media on your own devices.
They can blow it out their ass. I'll just keep cracking the DRM, thanks.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All 'affirmative defense'
Pay more? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pay more? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Pay more? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Pay more? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're gonna be paying more for a DRM scheme that allows a limited number of copies, IF all your gear is "trusted" and expensive, of course. They have been consistent in their efforts: they want control.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they put a few hundred million dollars into developing the new scheme, this time it might even last long enough for some discs to be released in the stores before it's cracked. But
strikes me as unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Until... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just because they tell you it's illegal, it's not. Fair Use is a LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE reason to break the law. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure it's like an asterisk on all laws relating to copyright that says that of course people can protect their copyrights, but copyright doesn't apply a
They still just DON'T GET IT (Score:5, Insightful)
Will they let me make a standard HD-DVD, Blu-ray, or DVD copy? No.
Will they let me use a standard video format copy for my computer (like mpg, xvid, etc.)? No.
Worthless. They still think that DRM is the answer, when it's the PROBLEM.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a real racket, almost like selling "protection".
Throwing a bone (Score:5, Insightful)
"Legal" as in the entities that control AACS and MPAA agreeing to 2 copies, yes.
It's still a scoop of gruel in an orphan's bowl. From TFA, it will allow one backup and one media device.
What if I have more than one media device? What if I have one and it gets lost or stolen? Now I can't put it on any others?
One backup? What happens when that backup is too beat up to work anymore. I can't make another backup?
This is just a trick for getting people to say "ooh, well, DRM isn't so bad after all."
They're offering a piddling fraction of the rights we as customers SHOULD have and treating it like we should be kissing their butts for the privilage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The idea is that the content companies could charge a premium according to how many copies are allowed, Ayers said."
That just rankles. Seriously. This is NOT the way to get the rights to make copies - I predict this will be as popular as DAT.
What I want is for the numbnuts we elected to stand up to the showers of cash being thrown about by the content comglomerates and say "DRM is illegal - you sell a product, not a license. Don't like it, don't sell it!" Illegal copying for c
how much more? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're going to charge *more*?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Uum, yeah. You just hang on to the $49.95 backup-ready copy of "Finding Nemo" there, and I'll take a "protected" one for $19.95. I don't need to put it on a server or iPod or anything, so I'll just take the cheap, "secure" one.
What's my credit card number?
09 F9 11 02 9D...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tricky (Score:5, Insightful)
This DMCA crap is copyright abuse. There's a reason copyright wasn't allowed this power-- it was supposed to control who could distribute the product, not how you could use it.
"Managed" copies? (Score:5, Insightful)
This helps me how?
I think I'll just stick to stripping out the DRM. Thanks anyway.
When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly though, most people have thrown away all of their personal use rights in exchange for little more than a high-def picture and an ipod. These people get what they deserve. Higher prices.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The powers that be are putting their thumb down on copies of content intended for mass consumption. They're not putting a gun to my head and saying "Buy this Adam Sandler HD-DVD". They're not infringing on my free speech in any way (I'm belittling them right now in front of a potential worldwide audience). They're simply preventing me from making extra copies of content that I had no intention of watching anyway.
If they start
Re:When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections? (Score:5, Insightful)
What part of, "Fair use is not piracy" do you not understand?
The OP is pointing out, quite correctly, that we have a legal right to fair use, which may include the right to make backup copies. I neither know nor care what you or anyone else feels about the necessity of backup copies. Your experience, needs, desires and wants are totally irrelevant to the legal fact of fair use rights.
DRM is a failed attempt to prevent me from exercising my fair use rights. Again, whether or not you think I'm a moron for wanting to do so is irrelevant. It is not piracy to do so. It is a matter of legal fact that I have those rights. [arstechnica.com] Even the RIAA once admitted that, in front of the Supreme Court no less.
Parent
What about DVDs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, since CSS was cracked years ago, there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't have allowed DVD copying already, other than to use as a means of sending otherwise law-abiding citizens to jail. With the advent of Apple TV (along with similar products) and the possibility of ripping one's entire DVD collection and making it available in an easily browsable interface (like an MP3 collection), the outcry is probably getting louder.
Since I live in Canada, there's no DMCA, and I'm already paying taxes on blank DVDs, so this is not yet a problem. Still, I figure Stephen Harper and his cronies will bless us with a DMCA-like law soon.
And, yeah, the timing of this announcement is just a little too coincidental, what with the latest AACS crack.
Re:What about DVDs? (Score:4, Informative)
I believe the levy is not on DVDs but on CDs and media playing devices as it DVDs are not considered Audio recording media (see table in link [neil.eton.ca]). And don't blame Harper, well at least not for the copyright law that the govt is trying get through as this was introduced by the previous residents of parliament.
Parent
Central Server? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Price reductions work (Score:5, Insightful)
"rights holder"? (Score:4, Funny)
That was supposed to be the deal in Germany (Score:5, Informative)
as a compensation for fair use rights. Also, we were told
that CDs cost a lot, but that the extra charge covers the
private copies we have an explicit right to create.
Then came the copy protection.
Then came a law that makes it illegal to copy 'protected'
media.
We're still paying the fees.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fair use goes way Beyond Copying (Score:5, Interesting)
What they are trying to do is turn a fundamental right into much weakened for pay privilege so they can have control and power over it. They want is to have their cake and eat it to. It should not be up to them to determine what is and is not fair use is. Fair use should be any use that our populace finds to be on average fair to both the consumer and rights holder. Yep that is as nebulous as it sounds and it does change from time to time. That is what they have to accept living in a free society, not this managed copy crap MS is trying to use to keep their walking corpse moving.
Who will ENFORCE the deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Audio Home Recording Act of 1991 gave consumers the right to copy CDs as long as they were copied onto specially-encoded blank media ("Music CD-Rs" or "Audio CD-Rs") whose price included a fee paid to the music industry.
I owned a home audio recorder (computerless CD copier) that fell within the scope of that act. I bought the prescribed media. It worked quite well for a number of years. It used a technical mechanism called SCCS which sounds very similar to this "managed copying." It allowed first-generation copies from original media, but would not copy the copies.
Then the music publishers came out with copy-protected CDs. My home audio recorder would not copy these CDs. Basically, the SCCS mechanism cut in, insisting that the copy limit had already been reached and that further copying was prohibited.
It was all well and good that the law gave me the right to copy them, and that I paid for every copy I ever made (in the form of the extra costs of the "music CD-Rs"). But there was basically no way I could take advantage of this right.
I made numerous calls, send emails, and letters to the CD publisher (UMI) and the recorder vendor (TEAC) trying to resolve the issue. I was never able to get satisfaction, beyond returning the CD for a refund.
It's the usual consumer problem. These guys were breaking the law, but it's awfully hard to stop a big company from cheating consumers if they only cheat each individual consumer by a small amount.
What's to stop the DVD publishers from making this "managed copying" available for a while, then using technical means to renege on the terms a few years later?
What's the good of a reasonably fair-sounding deal if David has no way to hold Goliath to the terms of the deal?
Re:How much of a need is there (Score:5, Insightful)
I currently occasionally watch movies on any of:
My DVD player, connected to a standard TV set
My Linux desktop machine, when I'm in my home office
My Windows laptop machine, while I'm traveling (sitting around in airports)
My PDA, while I'm riding the train to work
My music-playing choices are even more varied. According to ??AA, every time I watch a movie on my PDA, I'm breaking the law, if I bought that movie on DVD.
Parent