Proposed Amendment Would Ban All DVD Copying 354
Ynefel writes in with a PC Magazine article reporting that the DVD Copy Control Association is considering an amendment to the agreement equipment vendors must abide by, which would completely ban all DVD backups, whether fair use or not, and prevent DVDs from playing without the DVD disk being present in the drive. The amendment is being voted on imminently and if approved would go into effect within 18 months. Quoting: "The proposed amendment was made public in a letter sent by Michael Malcolm, the chief executive of Kaleidescape, a DVD jukebox company which successfully defeated a suit by the DVD CCA this past March."
If I can read it, (Score:5, Interesting)
There's just one thing I don't understand... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. How will that prevent the 99% of existing computer users with DVD-R/Ws from using their compies to backup their dvd's?
And 2. How will that prevent the 10% of existing computer users with Divx software from ripping their dvd's?
Who cares? (Score:1, Interesting)
With on-demand download services like vongo, on-demand video via cable/satellite/whatever, XBox live marketplace, moviebeam, and so on, how much longer do you plan to buy and sell these stupid plastic discs anyways?
I mean, I suddenly have 2 good "built in" options for movies - in high def no less, 360 marketplace, and comcast on-demand. I have way more options you want to consider all the online Vongo-type services.
So whatever rights blah blah blah they can put whatever restrictions on those stupid f*cking plastic discs all they want.
They're just hurting themselves. I'll never burn a video DVD again in my life.
Similarly, I could give two shits how many root kits Sony is putting on CDs these days. What is this, 1992, when I gave a fuck about paying 20 bucks for 10 songs on a 6 inch plastic disc? Gimmeabreakpal.
Is DVD tech dying. (Score:4, Interesting)
My biggest concern is how long till this will happen. With DVD's VHS was obsoleted quickly. But with Blu-Ray/HDDVD it really doesn't negate DVD as a good media.
So maybe this is just a way for them to try and squeeze even more dollars before DVD's go away.
licenses are all set up wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For those who don't RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there's a LOT to sue over here. According to the fair-use laws (including the DMCA), you can make a backup, but you can't break the encryption to do it. It needs to be an exact backup. Thus the only way to make a legal backup is to use a licensed device like Kaleidescape's. The device complies with both the DMCA and DVD license requirements by backing up the disc with its CSS protection intact. So copying the data out of the device won't gain you much. (At least according to TFA.)
By changing their licensing agreement, the DVD CCA would be demonstrating anti-trust behavior that is damaging to consumers and market competitors. Ergo, they could be brought up on a variety of contract disputes AND anti-trust charges.
Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once!
You think you're joking, but you're not (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometime before home video turned off (and turned out not to be the "strangler" of movies that Jack Valenti testified it was), RCA developed a system intended for video rental that they thought would overcome studios' objection to putting their content on home video. It was a cartridge with a mechanical design that would not rewind; the tape locked in place when viewing was complete, and required a special tool to release it. You could only watch it once, then you'd have to take it back to the video rental store where they would unlock it, rewind it, and charge another rental fee for another viewing.
RCA brought studio executives in for a demo, sure they had a winner. The executives said "We have no interest in this whatsover. You've given us absolutely no way to know how many people were watching it."
Now, in recent years there has been quite a lot of activity in biometrics and eyetracking. It is not at all inconceivable that someone could design a relatively low-cost device that could be built into a DVD player, PVR, whatever, that could tell how many eyes were watching. (And might even be able to discount cats' eyes, although dogs' eyes would be harder). And charge you accordingly. And maybe even charge extra if it detected that nobody had been watching the ads and coming attractions at the beginning.
Re:dear execs (Score:4, Interesting)
Thanks,
Tom
Re:For those who don't RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Contracts are merely written accounts of agreements between parties. As such, they can be changed. I have a contract right here that is a legal representation of an agreement between me and my former employer, which has been manually edited by both parties numerous times, and notarized thereafter.
Here's a hint the lawyers don't want you to know: Contracts aren't actually worth the paper they are written on. They can ALWAYS be contested. They can also always very easily be changed, in whole or in part. They can't be invalidated because they are never validated in the first place per se.
There is a reason that contract law is basically a profession in and of itself.
Re:Is DVD tech dying. (Score:1, Interesting)
Between the format war, the increased price, and the decreased difference in perceived value - it'll be a while before DVDs go away.
Where would we be without fair use? (Score:4, Interesting)
The only reason that copyright conventions got passed in the first place was that they EXPLICITLY made provisions for fair use.
If you buy a book, can you lend it to a friend? Can you invite you friends over to watch a DVD? Can you donate your unwanted books to a library? Can you even play a music CD with others in the room? Without Fair Use, the answer to all of these would be NO.
Re:For those who don't RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
Like TheRecklessWanderer mentioned.
Which means that if the CCA adds a clause to the contract that the Kaleidoscope signs, and that clause forbids something that is considered "Fair Use", then that single clause is null though other clauses remain in force.
But Kaleidoscope has a very strong claim, that this clause has been drafted with the clear intent of attempting to prevent it from carrying on its business, as is pointed out in the article. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2148802,00.as p [pcmag.com]
Beef.
Re:There's just one thing I don't understand... (Score:2, Interesting)
And if they sign nothing then they're off the hook, right?
Like, Numismatism, maybe? (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever thought about asking him, why bother? I mean, if he's got Netflix, he can go through more movies in a week than he's got time to watch. Logically, it makes no sense to horde them, especially since you can always re-queue a movie if you ever want to see it again, and doubly especially since if you use Netflix, the HD transition happens transparently: you don't have to re-buy all your disks as they come out again, you can just rent the most advanced version there is.
Later when digital-download is prevalent, there will be even less reason to maintain a huge movie-library.
Irrespective of the backup-copy aspects, I can't see making yourself a criminal just because to satisfy some pointless urge to collect all the mostly mediocre films you watch..
A note to DVDCA... (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt I'm alone - people who buy large volumes of legal DVD's are the ones who'll be the most affected by this. Actual pirates will easily work around it.
Re:For those who don't RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't protest an upcoming invasion of Eastasia if the soldiers have always been there.
Re:For those who don't RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it'll always be around, but at some point the producers realize that it's an unending expense and realize it's better to just drop it and make what money they can. Look at digital media over the past 25 years. In the long run companies tend to drop it.
The AACS will be a good example of consumers getting fed up when they find the players they've paid good money for won't play their HD-DVDs, they'll get upset. Many don't even know what the issue is and haven't heard of AACS. All they'll know is that some discs don't play and they got ripped off. After that goes on for a while, companies will realize they're losing as much in good will as they might be saving in cost.
I am thinking along the same lines as you when you talk about it being in-your-face. When it gets to the point where people can't copy the media they buy for backups or to their own storage, it'll start angering them. It seems that the producers are blind and all they see is their content and the need to control it. They have no respect for their customers and treat them as thieves. The sooner they get high on their own egos and overstep the line, like Sony did with their rootkit, the sooner they'll have to back off.