Slashdot Mirror
Video Information From Disinformation
The movie industry, at least as embodied by the eight big studios that make up the MPAA, has an attitude about home movie viewing of "fair use, schmair use." Just because you bought a movie on DVD, and the hardware to play it back, the MPAA doesn't want you to watch it except with playback mechanisms they've approved. And despite the relative fame (or is it notoriety?) of software to allow viewing DVDs under Linux, or to convert the data-hungry DVD format to leaner alternatives, using it is beyond the ken of most computer users -- Yes, even Linux users. Not to worry.
Nick Hodulik, Director of Technology for disinfo.com writes:
" [...] Anyway, I thought that Slashdot might be interested in a dossier that we are featuring this week. The dossier covers the basics/history of the DivX codec, Video Compression, and DVD piracy. In addition the dossier features numerous links to tutorials and further information. I'm excited about this piece because I feel that it not only is a good introduction to this genre, but it also provides the reader with access to just about everything needed make and play DivX encoded files. The dossier is currently being featured on the front-page of disinfo.com, and is also accessible at [T his page].The brief history and explanation of DeCSS and DivX is geared to readers unfamiliar with them, and probably contains little new information to regular slashdot readers. On the other hand, the collection of links -- leading to information about setting up video playback on your system, about the DeCSS saga in more detail, and about next-generation DivX codecs -- is well-chosen and worth exploring top to bottom.
As far as I'm concerned it's simple. Since DVD is not a consumer friendly product, I refuse to buy into it. I won't buy a DVD-ROM, nor a DVD player, nor will I buy any DVDs. Not only are they restricted in a way I do not like, they are about the same price as two VHS videos.
/. justify posting articles about how unfair DVDs are, followed by articles about new DVD releases?)
Sure, I miss out on some content. I miss out on setting up a digital theatre. But in exchange, I get to tell the MPAA that I don't support their practices, and never will, and I get to tell them in the way that bothers them most -- by not giving them money.
So for all the people that complain about how restrictive DVDs are, and how wrong it is for the MPAA to behave as they are, how do you justify buying DVDs to yourself?
(And how does
I may have problems in the future if games start shipping exclusively on DVD. I don't yet know what I'll do if that happens, but you can bet I won't be buying video DVDs.
--
goldfish
See my point?
That sounds like an ex post facto law.
Hmm, US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3:
An "ex post facto" law is one which affects events before the law went into effect.Example - I cross the street, in the crosswalk, with the signal, but I am wearing a t-shirt which says "I want my DeCSS!" This is legal, I'm crossing the street in accordance with local ordinances, and my t-shirt is legally protected free speech.
But someone *cough* MPAA *cough* doesn't like that, so they get a law passed which says that crossing the street in protest-wear is illegal, and that it always has been illegal. But I'm a nice boy, so I don't cross the street in my DeCSS shirt anymore.
However, the MPAA really wants me, so they use the video tape of my original crossing to haul me into court. I crossed the street before the law was passed, but that doesn't matter, because the law affects acts commited before it was passed. In this way, politicians and companies can make today's lawful act into tomorrow's crime, but still arrest those who committed the act when it was legal.
I can be arrested for acts which weren't crimes when I acted!
The fragment of the Constitution listed above prevents this sort of thing from happening, when it is enforced. It isn't being enforced very well, in my estimation. Copyright being extended on works written before the law which affects them? Sounds ex-post-facto to me. The 1993 tax changes affected income from January 1993 onward, but the law wasn't enacted until several months later. Sounds ex-post-facto to me.
Anything which is retroactive is ex post facto. And un-Constitutional.
Louis Wu
"Where do you want to go ...
Lay off the bad crack, my friend.
News flash: DeCSS was written as a windows program to crack CSS on dvd's, and it was done _because they could_. These guys didn't have dreams of a DVD player for linux in their heads or anything.
Welcome to the REAL world
I sure hope that you're not a manager.
I can't think of too many things worse than a manager who is a fan of Machiavelli.
Except once I worked for a guy who absolutely loved the Godfather series of movies. He would quote from them constantly, and he'd use examples from the movies to illustrate his points in meetings. I still remember the day when the guy in the cubicle across from me came to work and there was a horse's head in his chair.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Anyone read this on the FAQ.
Q: What is DeCSS, and how does it work?
A: DeCSS is akin to a tool that breaks the lock on your house.
Exactly. Some are trying to get into their own house, but MPAA sold them locks with no keys.
Mark this as off topic please.
DivX is a microsoft creation, right?
deCss allows you to rip movies off of DVD's, but the resulting movie file is way too large to be useful to anyone for transportation. And they get sued for making a utility that allows for piracy.
I'd say that DivX's ability to make the movie size small enough for transfer (at least more reasonable than before) makes me curious why MPAA isn't going for them. I mean, RIAA is going after mp3 and all.
Let me guess... Because microsoft is too big? Gah.
DivX is a real hack of a standard - basically, it's just a leaked version of the MPEG 4 codec from Microsoft, and a MP3 audio stream. You need a pretty fast computer to decode it, and it's only decodable on computer. I personally would rather use my nice big TV to watch movies.... SVCD is far better in my opinion - it offers most of the features of DVD (menus, overlayed subtitles, multiple audio tracks), and nearly every DVD player out there will play an SVCD. SVCD compression isn't as good as DivX (space wise, not quality, which depends on the encoder). SVCD is MPEG 2 compression which is fairly standard across all computers - the DivX codec on the only linux player is a hack on the Windows codec, making it x86 only. DivX seems like a fad to me - the codec is so new and not standardized that I doubt it'll last too long before the next fad compression technology comes out. Seems like the old audio compression format battles of a couple years ago - the open standard (mp3) prevailed over others (AAC, .rm, etc)
We are losing a right by not being able to watch a movie.
No you are losing a privelege(sp).
Did you not read anything he wrote? The basic system of copyright is a privilege granted to people who create things so that they may restrict what the public does with it. There are exceptions to exactly what they may restrict, which falls under fair use. If copyright did not give the creators the privilege, then you would be free to do whatever you wanted with it. You have the two concepts mixed up - it's the copyright holders that have the privilege, not the public.
This is one of THE most important cases in the history of US civil rights law, yet most people are unaware or uninformed... Last night, I watched the "futuristic" movie "Rollerball" (for those who haven't seen it, it stars James Caan and is about a future world controlled by corporations who ask only one thing of citizens "don't interfere with management"). On Turner Classic Movies of all places too;) Anyway, IF a cartel like the MPAA is allowed to control not only distribution, but HOW a movie is played, this is a VERY Bad Thing (tm). Imagine General Electric selling you a light bulb, but including a shrinkwrap license informing you it could only be used in an approved Light Fixture (tm). GE and all the other makers of Light Fixtures require confiscatory royalties of any company wanting to produce one, which keeps the prices of them artificially high (due to lack of competition). One day a 16 year old kid decides to make his own light fixture to use the light bulb he's bought from GE, because for whatever reason he's unhappy with the choices in the market. He discovers that it isn't any harder than connecting two wires to the light bulb. He spreads this information on the Internet, and gets sued by GE and all the other light bulb manufacturers... How is this example, as facesious as it is any different from what is actually happening in this case? This is about the fundamental cicil liberty of an individual to USE a product that is purchased in a non-destructive, non harmful manner, in a similar manner in which similar products have been used for many years. If the MPAA wins, the fantasy of Rollerball may be more real than ficton.
In 2000 America, is a non-lawyer truly free?
>closed standards like that only hurt business.
How? It's not like this is Sony saying that only Sony products can use a memory stick while their competitors stand by watching. There are no competitors standing by watching helplessly. They are all in on it. The hardware producers make sales, the movie format producers make sales. You don't want to buy DVD? Buy a VCR and video cassette tapes... it doesn't matter the money goes to the exact same place.
Devil Ducky
Devil Ducky
MY peers would get out of jury duty.
I guess the idea is really who cares? So the MPAA doesn't want you to watch stuff on whatever. Ok just don't buy the hardware in the firstplace. Sometimes it seems that people act like you are losing some right by not being able to watch a DVD movie. It's not like your day is incomplete without the 15th anniversary release of Teen Wolf with extra footage.
It has been in the courts many times, and the good guys usually won. But with the DVD situation, they didn't start in the courts, they bought some legislation first: DMCA. With the legislation there to back their court cases, the threat these assholes pose should be taken very seriously. This strategy successfully worked to suppress DAT.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Actually, the biggest thing I learned from the double-nickles law is that the "law is an ass." Just like first-year law students. :-)
A bit more details: I grew up in Orlando, and Florida was experimenting with metric speed limit signs due to the large number of international tourists. (They've since gone back to stone-age units alone.) So we had plenty of street signs like "30 (50)", but one always stood out as being very odd: "55 (88)". The problem was that the obvious sign, "55 (90)" couldn't be used because it would legally permit a speed of 56.1 mph (or thereabouts) and That Was Not Permitted. I guess we were expected to believe that a cop would pull us over if we were going 56 MPH and ticket us if we had a domestic driver's license, but let us go if we had an int'l license.
But this teaching us that some laws are optional - nah. People, teenagers especially, have considered speed limits optional since the first speed limit signs were posted. Hell, I'm almost 40 and I still think that today (albeit for other reasons - I now focus my wrath on the yuppie neighborhood that got a major street's speed limit dropped from 40 to 25, not the wide open rural street where the speed limit is "only" 75).
Nope, teenagers have always learned that laws are optional from their parents. It's disgusting that people walk into the front door of the porn shop - they should use the back door like all self-respecting citizens! They should crack down on drunkards/druggies/whatever, not social drinkers/potheads like us!
Hell, consider one of the canonical teen movies - "Porky's." A key point is catching the moralizing preacher and mayor watching a porn flick. That was pulled out of real life, and it's why (imho) most people are somewhat cynical about the law and law enforcement.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
we must all remember that this is not the first time 'the law' has been used as a device to throttle new technology
Not true. 'The law' is a frequent tool to stifle new technology. For example, one law in the early days of the automobile required that a driver, when coming to an intersection, dismount, look for traffic, shout a warning in each direction, fire a pistol in the air, and only then proceed. This was obviously an attempt to make the use of 'horseless carriages' such a pain to use that no one would want to. Another example was the early suits again Sony for the Betamax, claiming that it was going to be used as a piracy tool. Even more recently was the suit again the Diamond Rio (the MP3 player) for the same reason. The establishment has a long history of whacking threats with the law, and they're frequently helped by our political 'leaders'. As Machiavelli said in The Prince: We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous, or more doubtful of success, than an attempt to introduce a new order of things in any state. For the innovator has for enemies all those who derived advantages from the old order of things while those who expect to be benefited by the new institutions will be but lukewarm defenders.
Woops. The first sentaence should say, "Unfortunately, all too true."
For a site speciallizing in "disinformation", I was rather surprised/disappointed that disinfo.com has done just what the MPAA has done and equated decryption (and the accessibility it gains) to piracy. Wrong! As has been discussed here (many many times) bypassing CSS does not automatically lead to piracy.
Unfortuantely, the DivX part of the article seemed to be a "Ha! You can't stop us pirating movies any more than you can stop us pirating music!"-type rant. This is not helping...
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
I guess the idea is really who cares?
I'm not altogether concerned about it being movies, so much as information that's being restricted. What happens when some publisher decides to start distributing e-books in DVD-like format? According to the logic of (and precedent pursued by) the MPAA, even if the information on that disc is in the public domain, by accessing the data thereon in either an unanticipated or unintended manner, the reader would be committing a federal offense. (This in spite of the legality of the purchase said reader made in the first place.) Again, who cares, so long as the information is available in other, less restrictive formats? There's always the potential that those formats could cease to be available, for whatever reason; although the likelihood of that happening in some cases isn't all that high, it's still concerning.
All that aside, it's a ridiculous restriction on published information and private property; would you buy a book for which the publisher demanded that you read with their special reading lamp? And if, for whatever reason, you bought the book (perhaps because it was the only format in which it was available, or the best, cheapest, most easily available, etc.), would you really restrict yourself to buying and using their lamp? I bet I'd be out under a shade tree on a nice day, reading by natural light, or using some awful department-store bedside lamp - and I think most people would, too.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
They'd react by passing anti-trust laws that forbid collusion in doing business. Which is exactly what's happened. Unfortunately, it either doesn't always apply (professional sports leagues like the NFL have gotten themselves exempted, for example), or it isn't equitably enforced.
With minor differences, this is a standard lease agreement. It turned the car industry upside-down, for a period of a couple years. Now, it's about equal to the purchase-outright agreement. The benefits and problems are a personal decision to the buyor/lessor.
If offered a choice, some people WILL choose the option that YOU wouldn't.
[
He was being a bit facetious there. Disney consciously disables the fast-forward controls at the start of their DVDs so that you actually have to wait through the ads before you can watch the damn movie.
As they say, "It's not a bug, it's a feature."
I do vote, but the candidates generally suck. As for getting into politics, not likely. I don't go to church or follow any particular religion. That alone is probably sufficient to keep me from winning any elections in this country.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The thing is, they won't be prosecuting anyone for breaking an ex post facto law. Since they extended the term before the original term ran out, the copyrighted works will always be covered by current law. That's not the reason this is so disgusting. The reason is that it doesn't follow the intentions of copyright, which are:
"To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
If the works are already created, then extending their copyright term cannot provide anymore incentive to create them. The authors created the works under the copyright laws at the time, which obviously provided sufficient incentive. To extend the copyright term on them does not serve any useful purpose to the public, and therefore should not have been done. Additionally, Congress provided no evidence or justification for extending the copyright term. Why was it needed? Do they have evidence that the current laws weren't providing enough incentive? The US has long been the leading creator of copyrighted works. I think Congress would have had a very difficult time justifying their law with the intent of copyright as written in the Constitution. So they just decided to claim that it was done in order to harmonize US copyright law with the international community. This doesn't fly either. They aren't allowed to do whatever they want just because other countries are doing it. I'd love to see the justifications for ANY of the copyright extensions that have become law.
If anyone is interested, here's a couple links:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/ eldredvreno/
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
DivX, as far as I know, is a hacked version of Microsoft's MPEG4 codec. The homepage for DivX is here, and not on Microsoft's site.
The entertainment industry defines our entire culture
I groped around for a witty response and then decided that there was really nothing more to say.
"I will gladly pay you today, sir, and eat up
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Well, DAT tapes are still hopelessly crippled to this very day, with the recording undustry getting money for each one sold to cover the cost of "piracy". True, the RIAA has won some of the battles, but like a parasite, tends to kill its host. But I wonder to what extent?? The RIAA still gets a bit of revenue for every DAT sold, whether it is for computer backup, studio use, or otherwise.
How long can the hardware manufacturers keep this up?? The R&D is considerable, and then the RIAA comes through and makes these devices unattractive to consumers. Yes, people want to record music, and most of them for non-illegal reasons. I have ripped my CD collection to MP3 so I can keep a copy at work without having to lug around the CD's and damage them. I never have the song playing more than once at a time, etc...
Also, record and movie sales are boosted by the availability of new technology. Just thinking of all of the old vinyl that I have replaced with CD's over the last 5 years makes me cringe. With DVD as a new "standard", many VHS movie buffs will have to have "Army of Darkness" on DVD now.
What the RIAA is looking for is not a preservation of their time-worn business model, but revamping of their buisness model. Not only the control of the medium, but the use of the medium.
The belief that we as consumers will pay $300 for a machine, $10 for a disk, and $4 per view is insane. However, people do it all the time. The DVD's will still be laden with commercials and product placement, and the companies will make money each time you play a movie or DVD.
The only benefit over the above scenario is that the companies are trying to do away with the physical medium, i.e. the $10 disk. In their world, the disk would be replaced by your net connection, but the price per view is $8 per. They defend this pricing by saying that more than one person could be watching at a time, hence it's still a bargain...
Our entertainment industries are clearly out of hand, and the forecast is grimmer for the future.
Wow, did I stray off topic or what??
~The Ham Man
As far as I'm concerned it's simple. Since DVD is not a consumer friendly product, I refuse to buy into it. I won't buy a DVD-ROM, nor a DVD player, nor will I buy any DVDs.
.001% of the potential DVD market for whom the politics have any bearing at all on their purchasing decisions. And of them, you comprise the 10% who actually refuse to buy DVDs as a result (as you notice, even the extreme Slashdot anti-DVD crusade obviously wasn't important enough to prevent wide-eyed praise of MPAA member Disney for their DVD release of Princess Mononoke in Japanese or something (who knows, I'm no anime guy)).
Congratulations! Clap, Clap, Clap, encore!
You now comprise the
Congratulations for not prostituting your ideals, but I hate to break it to you: the MPAA does not care about you one bit. Your boycott does not make a difference.
Perhaps you boycott simply because you coulnd't live with yourself seeing a DVD player proudly displayed atop your television. In that case, more power to you. But I hope you're not deluded into thinking that boycotts of you and people like you will bring the MPAA to its knees anytime soon. Boycotts must be MASSIVE before business even blinks an eye.
hell, ill nitpick too. the full name is DivX ;-), the smilie apparently designed to impart a knowing wink that DIVX used to be designed to be piracy proof...
and btw, the nova story is an urban legend.
Yeah, I guess I haven't run into this, but it certainly does suck. My Apex seems to be able to skip through ads that don't allow going to the title screen (it has other issues, but that works). I've also never played the regular version of Tarzan, which seems to be the most notorious offender. But unskippable ads are a disc-by disc issue, just like bad encoding and lame menus.
I mean, it's a reasonable thing for the format to provide hard-to-skip "this film has been formatted to fit your TV" blurbs, the infamous FBI/public performance warnings, licensing screens, and the like. Creating a hard-to-use disc by abusing that feature is the studio's decision. I think per-disc quality issues are likely to take care of itself.
The region coding thing, as goldfish mentioned in another reply, is probably the most egregious feature of the DVD format itself. Myself, I guess I've been living with this in video games for years and made my peace with the fact (and it's certainly easier to get a region-free DVD player than a region-free PlayStation), plus I'm in Region 1. But that's what I'd call DVD's most inconvenient feature. So I bought a region-free player last year and have yet to watch any out-of-region movies on it. :)
I respect your strength of conviction on this issue - however, I had thought taht if you bought a DVD burner it was possible to produce DVD's on your computer that any player could read? I know that some companies produce region-code free DVD's that will play on any player. I could be totally wrong about that as I have little Practical knowledge of creating DVD's.
I forgot to add one more thing, I think the strongest way possible to say you DO mind them trying things like region lockouts is to give money to the EFF - I have donated a fair amount of money to the EFF and will donate more this year. Supporting the legal fight is the most direct way to attack them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes, a DVD is a wonderful thing, but you cannot call it consumer friendly with the restrictions it has. Region locking is not for the consumer; see the recent Princess Mononoke article, for example -- the region locking prevented fans importing the DVD, and the only region 1 edition was dubbed. That's not consumer friendly. Why don't you try and get the original version of Run Lola, Run, or Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels? Seen Asterix and Obelix on DVD yet?
The simple fact that there are workarounds to the restrictions put in place show that those restrictions are not good for the consumer. So the product, no matter how shiny and exciting, also has features that hinder the consumer.
--
goldfish
Not. Here is how to get a VOB file off a CD so we can actually watch what we paid for. (quick example, don't expect it to work for you).
s /livid && cvs login && cvs -z3 co -P css-auth
/dev/dvd && ./reset /dev/dvd && ./tstdvd /dev/dvd /dev/dvd /mnt/dvd && ./tstdvd /dev/dvd /mnt/dvd/video_ts/vts_01_1.vob /dev/dvd /mnt/dvd/video_ts/vts_01_1.vob | ./css-cat -v1P -> 01_1.vob
export CVSROOT=:pserver:anonymous@cvs.linuxvideo.org:/cv
cd css-auth && make
umount
mount
mv title-key title1-key
dvdinfo
cat
mpeg2player -vob -f 01_1.vob
Just replace 01_1.vob with - in the last two lines to watch it realtime.
Let's just say this is one CLI program that doesn't warrant a GUI interface.
The players and movies are cheaper and of higher quality than LaserDisc, and they allow very straightforward access and many special features. I just don't see how DVD is not consumer-friendly. Now, the format's not hacker-friendly, granted... oh wait, yes it is. Now Divx, that was consumer-hostile. Now it's gone. DVD, so to speak, rules. I'm waiting for another box full to arrive this week (thanks, DVD Talk).
Earlier this year however, two European hackers discovered that Xing inadvertently exposed the elusive CSS encryption key in their latest DVD player. Within weeks the anonymous team released a small software program named (appropriately) DeCSS, which allowed anyone to access the contents of a DVD
They don't have a clue, do they ?
This whole thing is not about DeCSS , CSS has be cryptanalyzed to the death, but MPAA is going after DeCSS because if they can use the DMCA to ban distribution of curcumvention devices, then they have a better change of bannig this stuff
Basicly, with the link above, you can download sourcecode for programs that will retrieve ALL the 408 playerkeys on your DVD disk!!!
That's playerkeys. Keys that will work on all DVD disks. And you can do this even if you don't know a single key in advance. All this takes just about 15 minutes on a Celeron 550 MHz
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
You can download the DivX sourcecode here.
DivX Related Files Updated 05/08/00
Microsoft MPEG-4 source code (775K)
ISO MPEG-4 source code (775K)
MPEG-4 Encoder/Decoder source code (9MB)
Windows Media Player For Mac (2MB)
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
and they allow very straightforward access and many special features. I just don't see how DVD is not consumer-friendly
You have to wait ten minutes for e.g. Disney discs to even load while your television is turned off while the disc's ads play.
<O
( \
X Adopt a bird today!
Will I retire or break 10K?
You can never hope to profit from your ideas. Not even from the effort you expend to realize those ideas. How can you? You shoulder the burden of realization while the hanger-ons reap the benefits. Yep. Recognition sure feels good on an empty stomach.
Anti business? Sure. But RMS's slant doesn't hurt big business. It hurts the little ones. It hurts the guy who want's to spend more times with his kids by letting the distributors do the work. It hurts anyone who don't already have the assets to compete.
Why? Because RMS can't see IP pass its present form. Think about it. If copyright goes away, but I still want you to pay for some creation, I make the expression of the creation tangible. Like a book. But I go even further because a book you can scan and still redistribute. What if your next book came on silicon? Or your next movie? Or your software?
What if your silicon book came with its own embedded processor and executed itself with the output being an AV stream. (And now, you won't be able to simply copy the stream. Check out Intel's patents on crypto. They advocate a method of encrypting a stream and decrypting it by the display circuitry itself.) You reader could then be as dumb as your TV. What if your computer's CPU was simply there for horsepower? And the real program resided in a card half the size of a credit card?
The point is that large companies have the ability to nullify RMS's entire argument. In doing so, they would make the barrier to entry almost insurmountable to all but organizations just as big. In such a situation, the Internet wouldn't mean squat. Are you going to press your own wafers to make a copy of a video?
So what's the ultimate end? A fringe group of idealistic creators who labor for the masses (who, incidentally, could care less).? More likely, a fringe group of idealistic creators who labor for each other. Hm. Sounds familiar.
But this will only happen should RMS machinations succeed. He already has his merry band of followers who chant the "is it GPLed?" mantra. Nevermind, "does it work?" or "who the hell is this programmer anyway?"
RMS hasn't left school. He's a college kid, albeit an old one, with too much time on his hands. He receives an allowance (grants, fellowships, etc) from his daddy (universities, companies, whatever). The only stipulation is that he has to get off his butt and go talk to a crowd already sold on his ideas.
If this rant is a little harsh, it's because I'm tired of all of this us vs. them rhetoric. There's nothing wrong with coding for free or profit. Nothing wrong with using free or proprietary software. What ever scratches your itch.
...some discs take 10 minutes to load? For example, insert a Disney disc and the player locks up (becomes unresponsive to panel or remote control input) for 10 minutes while displaying advertisements.
<O
( \
X Adopt a bird today!
Will I retire or break 10K?
I disagree with what the MPAA is trying to accomplish, but some DVD's are just worth the money.
Without even going into the piracy issue, it's simply a plain fact that a DVD can be marvellous. When you really are a movie fanatic, DivX doesn't cut it:
Sorry, but I won't settle for DivX.
While all of this seems outrageous behavior by the MPAA, we must all remember that this is not the first time 'the law' has been used as a device to throttle new technology.
When records were introduced, musicians decried the invention as the end of live music. They fought to prevent music form being sold on the 'dictating machine' that had just been invented. Records won.
The movie & television studios went after VCRs when they first arrived. "How dare people record television?" they asked. VCRs won.
The RIAA went after Diamond when the Rio was released. Guess what? The MP3 players won.
So who will win the Napster/DeCSS wars? The new technologies will. The genie is out of the bottle and it can't go back in.
Big business will always rather use 'the law' to fight changes to business modles rather than reinvent themselves. They will eventually have to accept the idea of people copying movies just as making cassette mix tapes is accepted.
We, the consumers, will win out in the end. We have the dollars/pounds/rubles they desperately want. Eventually they will give us what we want. record companies WILL sell MP3s of live performances and movie studios will sell enhanced DVDlike movie on the net.
Look at what happened to a bad technology, the Divx DVD system. Consumers saw it for what it was, an attempt to wring every last dollar of out of the consumer with no benefit. Divx is out of business.
The most important thing we can do as individuals is write our government reps and tell them our views. The MPAA & RIAA have lobbiest in their offices all the time. Make sure they see more than one side of the arguement.
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
Doesn't matter to me why DeCSS was created. As long as I have full access to the DVDs I purchase. Just as I have access to VHS tapes and CDs, etc. I don't plan on having the MPAA or anyone else tell me when, where, or how I can view the material on those DVDs. If I want to rip them to my hard drive, then I will. If I want to watch them using Linux, then I'll do that too. It doesn't really matter what they want me to do with the DVD anymore than it matters what a book publisher wants me to do with the book. I will do what I want (within the bounds of fair use rules) because I bought it and it's mine. As long as I'm not distributing copies or holding public screenings of movies, then I haven't broken the law (except the DMCA perhaps, but hopefully that bit of idiotic legislation will get dumped by the courts). Of course I'm rather tempted to throw all copyright laws out the window seeing as how we've all been screwed over by the government as they keep extending, even retroactively, the copyright term. They're ripping us off, we should be able to rip them off too.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
(and might not to certain others!) :)
... it's illegal to unscramble cable, too.
a) reverse engineering. The DMCA has some bad provisions in it. I've got nothing against the MPAA's members getting together and making it so annoying and inconvenient to view movies with other than approved hardware that doing so isn't worth the bother. Well, actually, I do have *something* against it, but I say that's within their rights. To make this into a point of law ("You're not even allowed to *try* to watch that movie on other than our approved hardware, mister!") I think is a terrible precedent. Not that it's alone
b) I've bought quite a few movies, but have no DVD player, having returned the two crummy Apex 600s which at least allowed me to briefly watch Casablanca and Annie Hall before dying. I'd like to watch movies on my monitor, or in the living room, without spending a few or several hundred more dollars on a player which does nothing an 80-dollar internal drive ought to be able to do.
c) Big studio releases -- is there really a 15th Anniv. edition of "Teen Wolf"?! Horrible! -- are one thing, but if the DivX format is widespread, we could see more independent, small-time filmmakers able to cheaply distribute their work on cheap CD-Rs. HOw many do you know who could mass-produce DVDs? With the right coupons, you can usually find blank CD-Rs for what, 30 cents apiece? Same goes for computers-as-VCRs; if I could put a few hours worth of shows onto a CD-R instead of a VHS tape for my personal timeshifted viewing, I'd prefer it. I could watch it on my desktop, on a laptop (when I get one -- anyone have a G3/400 PowerBook for sale, cheap?;) ), and I bet soon on DVD players which also playback the DivX format. Yes, I know it's not the same as the CircuitCity P.O.S. -- but how long did it take for DVD players to also play V-CDs and (finally) MP3s? Why not (the new) DivX?
So it's not the movies per se that are all that important (to me), it's the availability of readable formats and of high-quality compression for all the various uses it could be put to.
There could be a DivX-Plus (again, why not?) which mimicked features of DVD like greater interactivity / scene selection, etc -- would make a good format for instructional videos, say.
Them's my thoughts, which may have large holes in them.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Believe me, the only person you are causing grief for is yourself. By waiting, you are going to end up paying hundreds of dollars for special editions of things like Army Of Darkness, Repo Man, Spinal Tap, and so on. And shut yourself out from widescreen editions of almost every movie you can imagine in the meantime (perhaps you see that as a benfit, some do).
Given the benefits dervied to the user from DVD's, there is NO WAY for a boycott like that to be successful or even noticable.
If you really don't want to feed them money, buy a player with the ability to undo region controls and macrovision, then buy all your DVD's used. I personally think supporting a player that removes the controls over DVD you dislike is the only viable way to send a message. I personally though of this angle to late to help myself, but it is not too late for you!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The record, movie, and software companies must be stopped by legistlation before it's too late.
After the battle against Circuit City and DIVX ended with victory for the righteous, I think we all celebrated in some way. Like a vampire with a stake in its heart, or a werewolf finally slain with a silver bullet, DIVX would be forever dead.
(mild rant)
So, what happened? Apparently someone with a really sick sense of humor decided that this Microsoft code rip should bear the badge we have come to hate and despise. Even Microsoft doesn't deserve that...
Ok, ok, they changed the capitalization from DIVX to DivX. By that argument, it would be perfectly fine to call someone a nAzI or FAscisT because the difference in case indicates we really are not talking about 19th century dictatorships here.
Or to turn this around, using the term DivX would tend to dilute the connotation of concentrated evil that we have painstakingly built for the (Circuit City) DIVX.
Why is this irritating to me? Because the purpose of language is to communicate, and words have meaning in order to facilitate understanding. Why would someone choose to promote ambiguity?
(/mild rant)
A dingo ate my sig...
but almost-DVD-quality movies fitting onto a single CD is great...especially because dvd-rips now look much better and are less than half the size they used to be ;-). DivX isn't meant to be a replacement for a real DVD...it's a pure piracy issue when you're talking about DivX.
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.