Copying HD DVD, Blu-ray Discs May Become Legal 188
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.
The obvious problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
strikes me as unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
Ha.. (Score:2, Insightful)
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 "giving" us something, but in fact what they are doing is saying "please use the item you've purchased from us in an appropriate mannner."
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.
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.
how much more? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pay more? (Score:4, 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...
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:How much of a need is there (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a movie server in the basement cobbled together from old parts that plays movies to the main TV through an XBOX. No need to go looking for the DVD (which NEVER seems to get put back in the right container!)
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.
Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (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?
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.
Re:Pay more? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections? (Score:2, Insightful)
However in a world where media is digital, and the cost of replication is negligable (at least, to the supplier - it may take me some disk space or bandwidth to download whatever) then ... well, then the unit cost clearly has to skew. Piracy is much like smuggling. It's always going to happen, but it happens a hell of a lot more when the profit margin is present. If you 'tax' the end user for their product, then they'll consider going to an illegitimate source for a significantly cheaper one.
I don't know of an easy solution, but what I do know is that the genie is well out of the bottle. The RIAA and friends are fighting a losing battle, for territory they just can't reclaim. They need to diversify and 'reinvent' the purpose of the recording industry, in a way that means they can continue to function, rather than trying to stop the tide coming in.
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.
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.
Re:They still just DON'T GET IT (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a real racket, almost like selling "protection".
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
Re:When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections? (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 started *requiring* DRM on HD-DVD/Blu-ray players so that indie companies couldn't publish content freely I'd be concerned. Or if non-DRM content produced by those publishers was degraded in any way. Or if they somehow infected media I do care about with DRM (such as paper books).
But if you're honestly asking saying I should be "outraged" for not being able to copy "300" or any other drek for the masses -- I'd venture to argue you need better things to be angry about.
In short, if you really care this deeply about it, you have a couple ways to fight this. You can (continue to?) pirate the content. Doesn't really help the argument. Or, you could do things the old-fashioned way: with your wallet. Don't buy the content. Don't buy the players. There *are* alternatives out there if you simply look.
Re:Pay more? (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 probably not.
Re:Throwing a bone (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 commercial distribution is still a no-no. Copying for personal use is fine and dandy. (and, for the record, no - I don't know how to deal with P2P in an equitable way from a legal standpoint. From a market standpoint, some people will always copy - if most people are copying, then the media is seen by the consumer as too expensive. For $7, I probably would never bother even looking on line.)
Viewing Vouchers (Score:2, Insightful)
As a bonus, the package includes one Party Voucher (tm), allowing the viewer, and up to three approved friends, to view the movie simultaneously from one screen. If the user has no friends, the Party Voucher may be converted to a Solo Voucher for a small fee. This allows the user to get two viewings from one disc, essentially buying one movie and getting the second viewing free.
This offer is for a limited time only.
Re:The obvious problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why bother making new technology??? Are you serious???
Let's just say I happen to be a large corporate entity with holdings in both the production of 'media platforms' and a large back catalog of 'media content' --- let's call me Sony. Now what would be the benefit to me to produce an new format that would require consumers to purchase new technology and new media to go with it? What's the economic incentive for me, Sony, to do that?
Let me spell it out for you: If I come up with a new media format, I can re-sell you the same shit you already bought. Better on me if I can somehow *prevent* you from carrying over the shit you've already got so that it plays on your new and improved technology platform. That way I, Sony, don't even have to make the new format that much better, because you've got to rebuy the shit anyway if you want to use it. Oh, and I forgot to mention that pretty soon I, Sony, won't be releasing any new media I might happen to produce on that old busted format I invented. Sure, you can keep the old players around, but for how long?
Re:The obvious problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)
All 'affirmative defense' means is that the burden is on the defendant to raise and prove that his use was fair and not infringement.
Fair use is a limitation on copyright protection contained in the statute. It could easily be argued that most instances of fair use are an exercise of the First Amendment right of free speech.
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.