Slashdot Mirror
DVD Watermarking On Its Way
Cranston Snord writes: "A group of seven major players in the DVD market has come together to form the Video Watermarking Group, which will be submitting a spec to the DVD-Copy Control Association in July. More info is available from this article on Business2.0. With the recent SDMI Watermark crack saga, it's hard not to see the storm clouds looming..." This article has more information about how the waterworking would work.
2. It may or may not do anything to stop copyright infringement -- but you can bet that if it at all effective at stopping non-commercial copyright infringement (as opposed to exposing counterfeit commercial DVDs), it will infringe on Fair Use rights and make it harder for people to use the movie when it passes into the public domain.
3. This isn't instead of waves of lawyers, this is in addition to lawyers (see recent Slashdot items about 2600 magazine / MPAA / DeCSS case, where the movie-industry-favored DMCA threatens not just Constitutional copyright law, but First Amendment freedoms of the speech and of the press). Even if it was instead of lawyers, who says that copy protection systems which impede Fair Use and eventual public domain use (that is to say, just about all of them) should be welcomed with open arms?
I do not think that word means what you think it means...
This so called "durable media" isn't... when compared to VHS. Yes, virginis, this MORE FRAGILE MEDIA has a far greater NEED FOR CONSUMERS TO BE ABLE TO BACK UP.
I would debate that point. Magnetic media is far more fragile when presented with extreme heat and magnetic fields... things that consumers don't even think about.
Optically, DVDs are far more vulnerable, this is true. But causing damage to the surface of the disc is something which (IMO) happens on purpose -- scratching the disc, dropping it, letting the 3 year old get at it...
I'd also like to see some proof (press release?) that shows that Blockbuster only gets an average of ten rentals out of a disc. I know our little hometown movie store gets hundreds if not thousands of rentals on their DVD media without issue.
No... After these news after genetically modified humans, they'd probably start talking with the genetic engineering folks to produce humans with no ears, eyes or any other senses.
Yet, even that is bound to fail. There's no scientific explanations for sixth sense, and with all other senses removed, such modified humans would develop psychic skills with which they could a) guess what happens in the movie and b) burn DVDs with just those psychic powers.
=)
And yet, the method is still effective. Anyone would be able to tell at a glance whether or not a disk was pirated. With a number for an antipiracy put into DVD boxes, this would provide the movie companies with a very effective method of stopping piracy: consumer policing. Believe it or not, most people actually don't want to pirate movies, and most would probably be more than happy to turn in pirated discs, as well as whoever sold the discs to them. And yet, this method would still allow legitimate copies to be made. It's the best of all worlds. It's not as effective at stopping all piracy as Draconian methods like watermarking, but it doesn't punish a single innocent, and in the end that's what is truly important.
----------
It is currently illegal to sell region-locked players in New Zealand. So they are not locked - so I am told, but I'm having trouble confirming this.
In Australia, all it takes is one court case to decide on prima-facie evidence that region locking reduces consumer choice and restricts competition, and any CE manufacturer importing region locked devices will be up for large fines. The vitamin industry was fined $AUD25.5m because of very similar behaviour, and the fines are relative the ability of the companies to pay. I'd love to see Sony, et al fined lots of $$$ because of their illegal players.
Andrew van der Stock
Well, I buy DVDs, which I play under Linux using Xine. Presumably (unless this hardware-based watermarking scheme is entirely transparent to playback software) these future DVDs would be unplayable under Linux even if I purchased the appropriate watermark-reading DVD drive. Yes, in the DeCSS case, the judge claimed that such fair-use arguments were irrelevant because fully-licensed closed-source DVD-players were in development for Linux, but these players appear to have been just vapor.
Okay, in case it needs repeating -- and it probably does:
Copying is not theft. Period.
That said, if this watermarking scheme were intended to protect the reputations of the people who created the film, then I'd be all for it. For artists, reputation is what's really at stake here. A watermarking scheme would help thwart someone copying an artist's work and passing it off as their own.
As it is, it's going to be used by the DVD player's firmware to determine whether the user has "permission" to view the content on that disc, which is a pointless exercise.
The central flaw here is that the studios are failing to acknowledge that the users don't give a rat's ass about what the studios claim is, "their property."
I mean, think about this: In the mind of the average consumer, posession is nine-tenths of the law, especially when they have a receipt to back it up. Yet the studio claims the receipt is meaningless -- they believe they still get to tell the user what they can and can't do with it after the fact. Name a single consumer who's going to buy in to the idea that they should pay for the privilege of being bossed around simply to protect the pocketbook of a guy who's already filthy stinking rich. Where's the value to the consumer in such an arrangement?
On the other hand, if the encryption/watermarking were there to preserve the creator's reputation so that it couldn't be usurped, I think you'd get a lot of consumers to heartily sign on to that bandwagon.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Yup, indeed. Waterworking. What else could better describe that UNsanitary plumbing that waterMARKing DVD would be. But in any case, it will be LEAKY plumbing...
So, whenever we pop a movie in the player, after the DREAMWORKS PICTURES logo, we'll see the "PROTECTED BY WATERWORKS PICTURE PROTECTION"???
--
Well, it's an inconvenient solution, but there's really no other alternative. Every software-oriented solution gets cracked.
So so most hardware solutions. Home satellite dishes are hacked, hardware protection schemes for software are hacked[0], "fleetnet" style police radio systems are hacked..
At some point in the process the data becomes unprotected, that's where it's vulnerable.
grubby[0] I realize these incorporate software on the computer as well, but some dongles now contain key pieces of the software in them. No matter.
Trolling is a art,
One use of a watermark is to track copies. So if Mr. X buys a DVD and copies it and gives it to a friend and the copyright-police find Mr. X's watermark on his friends copy, they know to prosecute Mr.X.
But that won't work if every watermark is the same, so they won't be able to just stamp these out.
It also won't work if they can't tell which watermark is on Mr. X's DVD. Unless they require registration and outlaw cash sales, they'll never know who the original source of a pirated videos. They would also need to outlaw (or track) after-market sales, because Mr. X should be free to sell his DVD to Mr. Y (who may be the pirate).
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
I think their goal, however, is to make it difficult enough that copying a DVD isn't a commonplace event for the average user.
The trading of online music, for example, didn't become such a hot topic with the recording industry until services such as Napster in conjunction with MP3 rippers and encoders made it easy enough for the guy down the hall who has trouble turning his machine on, to rip, encode and share the latest music with the nation.
However, an even bigger concern for myself is how much trouble too many incompatible copy protection schemes will cause for someone attempting to simply play their legally purchased DVD's. Macrovision on VHS annoys me as it is.
Well first, hopefully Videophiles will come out against it. A watermark, in order to work, has to degrade the picture in some way - they can claim its not visible, but we'll see ... you can tell when you use the digimarc scheme on a photoshop file ...
The real question though - how does watermarking prevent digital copies? If I'm doing a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD, the watermark isnt going to change, and as far as the DVD player is concerned, everything is "jake". Note: this is assuming that the world the MPAA lives in is the real world, wherein anybody with a computer can make a digital copy of a dvd.
Is this designed to keep people from copying dvds to VHS? Isn't that what macrovision does? And, even if macrovision doesn't work (or, is defeated with a $20 box), wouldnt the VHS players have to support watermark detection?
I just dont see when this would ever come into play.
Somebody, fill me in?
Wasn't CSS supposed to "protect" the video information found on DVD's? Oh right, I forgot - it was cracked! Is it just me or do the big 5 just /not/ get it? I understand that they want to protect their ability to maximize profits, however as a consumer I have to say enough is enough. Consumer electronics and otherwise have become sophisticated enough to require some form of standardization (either ANSI or ITU, you be the judge). I mean look at the cellular carrier industry - the only way they could get people to (usually) sign up with service was with a free phone, and even now they (the cellular industry) is pushing for GSM or some other form of domestic standards. This is very different of "industry" standards, such as DVD - where they write the legal mumbo-jumbo so hodgepodge that it is a royal screwjob for the consumer.
Err..no. Lucas has stated more than once he wants to do another special edition upgrade for the movies, since DVD can support a lot more features. He and his studio just doesn't have the time since they're making Ep II. Besides Ep I DVD is slated for late next year when Industrial Light and Magic have some time to update it add scenes, etc. Lucas always adds something new for each release.
Only if copyright law allows you that fair use, for example in UK copyright law, there is no such thing as "fair use".
In the UK, according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act it would be even illegal to make a recording of a song, even for your own personal use. Don't believe me? - look at the section about Infringement of copyright by copying section which states that "This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means".
If you think this falls under "fair use", think again, there is no such thing. There is a section called "fair dealing" which allows certain exceptions and copying for personal use (as opposed to personal study) is not one of them.
Oh, and one of the clinchers is that if you are unprepared, you can be convicted for copyright infringement on a work that has passed into the public domain, because "it shall be presumed [that it was copied illegally] until the contrary is proved, that the article was made at a time when copyright subsisted in the work."
So, in the UK, you can only legally access a work in extremely limited ways, and you can be found guilty until you can prove otherwise
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Sounds like yet another scheme that can only prevent hobbiests from copying discs. Real pirates can always just copy the media bit-for-bit, flaw-for-flaw.
Only if copyright law allows you that fair use, for example in UK copyright law, there is no such thing as "fair use".
On the other hand UK law does not have the rather draconian idea of any "derived work" belongs to the original copyright holder, which is the case in the US. (Probably made sense with the original term of copyright in the US, but now is simply another "club" for large corporates.)
Thus in the UK things which would in the US fall under the "derived work" criteria would actually be "original works"...
look at the section about Infringement of copyright by copying section which states that "This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means".
Thus radio and television are now illegal... Using "any medium" is a very very silly definition.
And what's wrong with being tried twice on the same accusation if there is new evidence against you? Too many criminals get away these days because of silly technicalities or due to the incompetence of the prosecution.
That's part of the reason for not allowing people to be repeatedly tried for the same thing. It gives the prosecution an incentive to do a decent job in the first place.
The problem with systems like this is that they rarely do anything to counteract large-scale piracy
Simply because the large scale priates can get access to the same production lines or to the content in unencrypted form.
The average consumer probably doesn't realize the amazing price difference there is between pressing a CD (which is no more than a couple cents per disc) and recording a cassette (which is considerably more).
Compare also the cost of distribution and quality control.
Why should I have to pay (again) for the right to watch Star Wars? I paid at the theatre, and I paid again for the VHS tapes. If I pay (yet again) for the DVD version - now I have to also pay for a player to watch this?
It might make sense for the first case to be different. But with the issue between VHS and DVD it looks like the people involved are trying to have their cake and eat it. Also there is the issue that a DVD costs more even though the actual cost of producing and distributing the media is undoubtedly far less.
As for providing the equipment without the hardware, DVD is rather more tightly controlled. I suspect that you won't be licensed to make DVD players *unless* you agree to the hardware
Except this is likely to backfire, people will soon find out the reasons for the trade embagos this would need to be remotly effective.
The problem with DVDs, CDs, and any other digital medium is that all it takes is one person to make a copy of the data free of the copy protection scheme
Also both the encryption mechanism and any keys are static, the information is valuable for 70-100 years and decryption systems are very common.
It's a matter of when rather than if...
I wish people would understand that it *is* in fact, perfectly possible to have extremely nearly perfect copy protection, as long as you don't care about backward compatibility with existing hardware.
Except that at some point in the chain the data will end up in an unencrypted format. Be it before the DVD is mastered, in the RAM of a player or the electronics driving a CRT or LCD array.
They just hook up their (secure) player to their (secure) digital TV
Except that the TV isn't remotly secure the electronics have no way of knowing if they are driving a CRT or a pile of electronics which outputs in PAL, NTSC and SECAM all together.
The best you can hope for is to make it too expensive to be worth doing (a sufficiently long encryption key would take more compute power to defeat than would be available in the useful life of the data, but that doesn't mean it couldn't (eventually) be cracked).
The more copyright gets extended the longer any "useful life".
Anyway when it comes to security you need to consider the whole system. Encryption has rarely (if ever) been broken purely by brute force. It's more common by expoiting a weakness in the system. Here the weakness is that keys are fixed and embedded in consumer devices. As a whole it's probably a weaker complete system than those used in WW2. At least those cypher machines had the keys changed every day! (Also the information was only valuable for a fairly short time.)
The dongle was "defeated" (well, some of them, anyway) because the people designing it cared more about cheap and mostly effective than in making a really uncrackable system.
Unless you make a dongle which cannot be reverse engineered, produced in a factory where people can only leave in coffins it's impossible to make such a secure device.
Name one other operating system suitable for the average computer user.
The assumption here is that Windows is suitable for the average computer user...
Windows is a mediocre sever platform but UNIX is just plain awful as a workstation platform for the average user.
For many "average users", i.e. those who use a computer as a tool for a job such things are unix workstations, graphics terminals even TEXT terminals could be very good. Because they can't break the thing easily, even if it fails its easy to swap in a spare.
Windows with it's single user, end user is expected to be a sysadmin, store everything possible locally approach is an awful approach for a workstation.
Seems like to me that the MPAA is grabbing at straws here...we'll try this, we'll try that and what not. Maybe the next scheme will be Mission Impossible-esque "This movie will destruct in 5 seconds...4...3...2...1...42...?
:)
Pity we can't simply introduce the whole lot to a character played by the Mission Impossible leads' daughter
Yes, the law gives you the right to create backups; however, this is NOT a god-given right! Private corporations ARE allowed to come up with copy protection schemes to protect their property.
They don't have a God given right to this "protection" or even to consider this "property" in the first place anyway...
Of course at airport they start looking for DVDs just like they look for certain drugs, guns and bombs. The MPAA introduces another copy protection "feature" scented DVDs. This allows them to train dogs to sniff baggage looking for smuggled DVDs.
Considering how much is spent trying to stop people importing things into the US (including people) and how ineffective this is does anyone seriously expect this to work?
but the best thing the MPAA could do for the pirates would be to give everybody a DVD with a personalized watermark
How is the MPAA going to verify the information they are given? How are they going to ensure it stayes valed, e.g. if people move? What happens when a DVD is bought be a corporate?
It will probably be impossible to do a bit by bit copy of the DVD via a hardware module, simply because the watermark may only be copied by a machine worth millions
Except the relevent issue here is how much does it cost to either gain access to such a machine or to build one which does the same job.
Not only that, a prosecutor could win almost every case he has by withholding evidence and holding trial after trial until the defendant runs out of $$$.
Or alternativly defendants start getting off on the technicality of there being no prosecutor, because so many have been jailed for contempt of court.
but it will make it very easy to determine whether a DVD is pirated or not. That will hopefully protect people from being scammed and buying bootlegs unintentionally
Except for the "bootlegs" which are made on the same production line as the "genuine" ones.
DVDs are cheap to make, especially where they are made in the poorest parts of the world.
If you mishandle it (get fingerprints and food smudges over it, use it as a Frisbee, etc.), a DVD won't last too long. That is Blockbuster's likely problem. I rented a movie once and it wouldn't play at first. A few minutes at the kitchen sink with some water, some dishwashing detergent, and a towel fixed it...maybe they should invest in some cleaning equipment to deal with the slobs who don't know how to properly handle DVDs.
The DVDs I own, OTOH, all look like-new, with no scratches or smudges. I handle them only by their edges, and they're either in the player or in their boxes. I suspect they'll last much longer than 7 to 10 plays.
None of this, of course, negates the fair-use rights of people who buy DVDs to make backup and/or working copies. I don't have kids, but if I did, it'd be nice to rip DVDs of their favorite movies to VCD or SVCD, lock up the DVDs, and let them use the copies. They won't notice the difference, and if they screw it up, you just rip & burn again.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Judge: Okay, RIAA, you win. Napster, you must comply and take down the songs that RIAA says you must take down.
(time passes)
RIAA (in a whiney voice) Your honor, names alone aren't enough, can't you do something?
(time passes)
RIAA: (all cocky) Your honor, we have a program that can automatically identify which songs are ours. Please have Napster remove all songs which this program identifies as ours.
Judge: So this will stop copyright infringement of the major labels, but will allow songs from individual artists who want their songs to be traded to be traded? Sounds good to me. Napster, I order you to comply.
--
Here are the official DVDCCA requests for watermarking proposals. The proposals are due by May 9, 2001. Some of the interesting highlights include a serial-copy-management-like copy protection (ie, ability for producers to designate NO-COPY or COPY-ONCE flags); the fact that watermarking is not a prerequisite - other technologies will be entertained. A preliminary selection will occur later this month. Candidates will be required to pay for their own testing expenses (ouch!).
Notice to Interest Parties (brief, general instructions)
Request for Expressions of Interest (formal instructions and requirements)
Both are PDF documents.
IIRC, DeCSS is the parent of libcss, which is being used in the LiViD (Linux Video) project to play DVDs. I'm sure that's used more than DeCSS in itself. ... What's STL?
------
I'm a C++ guru
10 megabits == 1.25 megabytes. ... What's STL?
------
I'm a C++ guru
[Why is watermarking a hard problem] [mirrored]
Authority Figure: How long till watermarking protection is final?
DVD Crypto Engineer: Sir we're still working on it we're not sure
Authority Figure: Great I'll put out the word to Associated Press that we're ready to go.
Can you find the Mole?
Want Root?
Depending on your drive, you may need to set the region code of your DVD drive before you can read encrypted DVDs at all. This can be an issue if you have never used your drive under Windows. This was the case with my Pioneer.
Heh. Obviously everyone reads that as "If we try to make people upgrade to something that doesn't have significantly better quality, it will go the way of DIVX".
The problem with systems like this is that they rarely do anything to counteract large-scale piracy, but they usually *do* cause problems for individuls who aren't trying to break the law.
Honestly, this particular proposal, which basically sounds like the SCMS from DAT/CD isn't so bad. What pisses me off is CSS and region coding. Honestly, I don't understand why region coding is legal, and I think CSS ought to be illegal.
Also, while from the description in the article doesn't sound so bad, given the recent history of these IP organizations, I am going to reserve judgement until I actually see it. The fact is, they are a bunch of greedy, arrogant, unethical bastards that should all be thrown in jail.
They don't seem to get it. Every time they encrypt content it gets cracked, same with watermarking schemes. Don't they realise there is only one sure protection against copying? They should be lobbying the gov't to ban DVDs! Since they tell us how much money they're losing from DVDs being copied or viewed in a different country to where it was bought. Surely it would be best if nobody bought any DVDs, then nobody would ever use them immorally.
---
Your absolutely right, but there's more:
The film companies are banking on appliances as maintaining their dominant role as the primary display/storage devices for entertainment. I think the 10 to 15 year outlook will proove that assessment as wrong. Software will become the primary medium (just look at lame things like Tivo). The computer is the future DVD player, not some appliance.
Someone you trust is one of us.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
You're either thinking of patents, or how long copyrights USED to last. Copyrights now last 70+ years (courtesy of Disney's lobbyists). The only DVDs available then are going to be in museums.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
how this will stop bit for bit silver pressed copies again (ie, what the professional pirates have always been doing anyways?)
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Don't expect things to change until the public in general is notified of it. The only thing the public is against the RIAA is for the insane prices they've fixed on audio CDs due to their stranglehold on the market. The average consumer probably doesn't realize the amazing price difference there is between pressing a CD (which is no more than a couple cents per disc) and recording a cassette (which is considerably more).
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Seems fairly obvious to me that a "perfectly copied" DVD would contain the exact same watermark as the original. Why you could copy the original, but not the copy is beyond me, if the copy is indeed perfect.
Do you have a DVD pressing machine? Do Napster-using online pirates have them? The idea is that if the player detects the watermark on non-approved media -- anything that isn't a pressed DVD, like VCD's or DVD writables -- it won't play. The strange part is that this method doesn't affect the "real" pirates, the ones who do this as a business and can afford a pressing machine.
--
No one objects to them trying to minimize piracy. The problem is they are taking it too far and these schemes are interfering with the consumers Fair Use of the product. Under which I have the right to make backup copies in case the original is damaged, I also have the right to listen to/watch the product in any format I choose on any device I choose. For example, I can take a CD I have purchases and record it onto a cassette tape and listen to it in my car or at work. I can make copies of my video tapes and take them to a friends house to watch. I can also use a TV tuner card to convert my video tapes to realvideo and watch them on my laptop. All this is very legal under Fair Use and are by no means a bad thing. The media companies want to deny me the ability to do any of these things with DvD's and this is a bad thing. The media companies and upto this point, the courts, are assuming the only purpose of programs like DeCSS is to pirate DvD movies. The reality is, there are no known cases of DeCSS having been used to pirate any movie, so the correct assumption should be that legal users are using it for Fair Use purposes. DvD Pirates are going to make copies no matter what, so the only people who are being penalized is legal users. This was very likely thier intent to begin with.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Copy protection can never totaly prevent someone from copying something, only make it so difficult most people can't do it. The problem with DVDs, CDs, and any other digital medium is that all it takes is one person to make a copy of the data free of the copy protection scheme. Then that copy can be spread to an infinite number of other people.
Encyrption is useless until we get implanted chips directly into our brain (and not even then realy) since at some point the data must exist in it's unencrypted form somewhere in the users hardware. And as long as that unencypted stream exists it can be taped and duplicated, be it via some software crack or by grabing the stream going to the output hardware. There may be some quality loss, but if anything the MP3 craze proved that people don't care.
You realy have to wonder what the engineers who designed this stuff and claimed they could make it an effective copy protection scheme were thinking. You'd think people involved in things like encyption and whatermarking would be aware of how they can be broken/bypassed and realize that this is one area where they can not be effectivly applied. Of course it may be that the managment and business drones are the one's pushing for it, but if that's the case then shouldn't the engineer's be the ones to step in and give them the truth of the matter? I think that fact that businesses and organizations can so blindly embark on a such project without giving any thought to what the people who actualy know what they're talking about are saying is a much greater indication of the breakdown of our society than the mass copying of data contained on overpriced plastic discs.
And even that can be overcome. One word: bribery
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Money watermarks exist as an easy way for someone to check authenticity (look for the picture under the right lighting) without adversely affecting the primary image; the watermark is largely imperceptible unless you know what to look for. Likewise, DVD watermarks add something to the image that will normally not be noticed unless you know what to look for (and may need additional technology to observe). Like watermarks on money or checks, they're hard to duplicate and either don't appear in copies (new $ bills), or grotesquely stand out in copies (many copied checks scream "VOID"); new DVD players would look for "watermarks".
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Of all the stuff talked about in the article, the only one that made sense was a holographic image (a la the one on Microsoft product ID cards) that would actually be on the ring on the inside part of the DVD itself.
It won't stop people from copying the DVD's (Which is realistically an impossible goal) but it will make it very easy to determine whether a DVD is pirated or not. That will hopefully protect people from being scammed and buying bootlegs unintentionally and it doesn't require some watermarking or encryption scheme that is doomed to fail.
As the article also mentions it will make it very easy for law enforcement to ID bootleggged DVDs. That's the route they need to take. Go after the scum who are actually profiting off of other peoples work. That's who's costing them real money and frankly, that's a whole lot easier to get a handle on than trying to come up with yet another copy protection scheme that just pisses the customer off...
It says, "...the Content Scrambling System (CSS) decryption key also resides on the physical disc cannot be copied, and without the decryption key, the .VOB video won't play from the DVD or from your hard disk..."
Wrong, wrong. The DeCSS key recovery attack designed by Frank Stevenson can be applied to the .VOB ciphertext directly as in the DeCssPlus application. You can decrypt the .VOB ciphertext without having to access any of the keys on the DVD. The bottom line is that CSS is a very weak cryptosystem, further crippled by the fact that it is based upon the concept of a trusted client.
Further on in that article, they go on to blame Xing for forgetting "..to encrypt its decryption key." What a load. They didn't forget anything. The bottom line is that in order for software to decrypt the DVD, the player key needs to be in plaintext at some point in the software execution.
This just further reinforces Bruce Schneier's valid point about the impossibility of having a trusted client. Watermarking attempts will eventually fail as well.
In a similar vein, the copy protected hard drives will fail. If there is a demand for drives without protection, wouldn't a company show up to provide them? I don't claim to be an expert, so maybe somone with experience in the field could rebut my theory.
----
There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes. -- Dr. Who
Just whoring for some karma, but it does pose an interesting question.
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
No, they're after everybody.
If you buy the DVD they are not trying to punish you.
I'll tell you what I did just today.
My 5-year-old daughter has a CD of kiddie songs she loves to listen to. I noticed the CD wasn't going to survive much longer, so I ripped everything as MP3 into the PC and created an el neato desktop icon for the asociated playlist. Now, when the CD gets scratched beyond redemption she'll still be able to hear it. (I do the same thing with my own CDs of course; the wear and tear is considerably less but there is some)
They want to prevent such a thing, so I keep buying the same product over and over again. For movies, for music (they want to make unrippable CDs too, or migrate music distribution to the DVD format), heck, even for books.
So, can you still say I won't be punished if I buy the media?
I get the feeling that in the future the only way I can be free is by eschewing electronic entertainment altogether and only read books and play music with instruments (unles thay mandate "secure guitars" or something). Might be a healthier life, too. Fahrenheit 451 anyone?
vs
Stupid like a fox!
Blockbuster is PISSED that DVDs are only good for about 7 to 10 rentals before they gradually become unplayable without major skipping and such. Then angry renters demand their money back because their rental has unwatchable segments.
And neither can Blockbuster accuse SPECIFIC renters of damaging the discs because NO SINGLE RENTER caused the damage. It's a cumulative effect.
You bet there's a need to back up DVDs. Legal provisions allowing back ups often don't apply to so called "durable media". Are DVDs "durable"? Real life usage seems to say, no.
(Drat, pressed the enter key in the subject line!)
Does not the sheer number of copy protection schemes on a single disc strike anyone as ludicrous?
So, on my copy of Star Wars Episode III, I'll have:
* Macrovision
* CSS
* Watermarking
and none of that can prevent me from making an easy copy in any way. A modified player disables macrovision. It decodes CSS when it plays the movie back, and the watermark is irrelevent to an unaware format (pick one, there's tons of them out there and they aren't magically going away)
If I as an individual person can so easily copy a disc, how are any of those things supposed to stop pirates? As mentioned previously, bit-by-bit copies circumvent any means of digital protection. Copy protection is a huge waste of money that threatens to drive the price of DVDs higher.
That's the best anti-piracy tool that the industry has going for it - most DVD's are priced reasonably. Sure I can make a copy, but why would I want to? I'm going to buy movies that I like. The price is right. That's all they have to do, is keep prices reasonable.
Mike Massee
Even a perfectly copied DVD video would contain watermarks that would prevent a DVD recorder with a watermark detection chip from playing the bootleg copy.
He's right! (If you copy it onto, say, a record.)
"And like that
What I'm wondering is why shareholders with a clue aren't sueing the respective companies for 'fraudulent' behavior, considering copy protection is just a scam!
Like, are they so afraid of P2P technology, that movie sharing and such, will rise that watermarking is worth the effort?
It almost seems like the corporations involved are mixing their signals!
Are they trying to prevent pirate/bootlegs? Why would watermarking prevent that?
Are they trying to prevent people from copying content they legitamately own? Why would watermarking prevent that?
This is ludicrous!
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
Personally speaking, I don't plan to by DVDs until:
- I can take them home with me and still expect to play them. (I live in America at the moment, I'm a British national. If I buy DVDs today, I might as well throw them away when I go back. At $20-30 a go, I'm not prepared to waste that kind of money.
- I can manipulate them with my computer without needing illegal software. For instance, I'd like to turn them into VCDs to watch on my laptop. Or make clips I can email friends. Both, in the real world, are considered "fair use". With the retail price of DVDs being double that of VHS tapes, you'd think they'd let me do that.
- Further to the above, I can make back up copies. I don't want to lose a $25 DVD completely just because someone spilt Pepsi(tm) on it.
Right now, I can't do any of those things. So I don't buy DVDs. I'm not sure what I'll do when alternatives like VCDs dry up completely. This indignance against fatcats wanting to "protect themselves" is because they're fuckwits who can't think of a way of "protecting themselves" without screwing consumers. Like pr0nographers who, not wanting their models to get pregnant, decide to force their customers to wear condoms. It inconveniences the customers but doesn't stop the pregnancies.I say let the complaints continue.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is true. Well, no, not really, but it got really close.
If the MPAA "fought technology with technology" by utilizing CSS that would be fine with me. Great, ok, so people can copy movies, we'll just make it HARD. Thus fewer people will copy movies. Lets leave trading movies P2P out of this, the time involved is prohibitive with most people's connections (56k is still the standard right?).
But when they start using lawyers to press felony charges on kids... they start looking bad. Now, don't get me wrong, they are legaly within their rights. But remember, there are three major court systems in this country. State/Local courts (on the MPAAs side), Federal Courts (also on their side, at least for now), and the Court of Public Opinion. That last one is getting pretty pissed off at them and the RIAA.
We'll see... I think it's going to take one nasty arrest of an otherwise perfectly respectable looking white collar pre-law student with a 4.0 and a lifetime membership in the debate society to destroy the MPAAs credibility with the general public. After that, their lawyers won't be able to stand up to the grassroots outrage.
This has been another useless post from....
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Strange. I used paragraph tags, and it looks fine from here. Not sure why you're only seeing one big block of text.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
You bet it was their intent. You see, all the things you say you want to do with your movies are things that can become profit centers for the media companies. You want to be able to watch a movie on your laptop, perhaps while you're on a plane? Sure, we can help you with that. Just plug your laptop into this Ethernet port here, key your credit card number into the seatback terminal, and you'll have your choice of hundreds of movies, all for one low price, to watch while you fly. Did your DVD get damaged? Oh, sorry about that, but don't worry, they're cheap, so you can just buy another one. Do you need excerpts of this film for a presentation? No problem. For a small licensing fee, we can supply you with a package of pre-selected promotional clips. It's the same story for any other form of media. All this furor over piracy is just an attempt to make sure content is locked down, not from pirates, but from anyone who might want to use it in other than the strictly prescribed way. The media companies know full well that this won't stop pirates. All it will do is limit what everyone else can do with media content, providing the companies the opportunity to sell those rights back to consumers. Don't believe for a second that these guys are stupid. They aren't. They know that if they lay out all their reasons for locking down content, it would become clear that they're trampling all over people's fair use rights, so they hide behind the piracy argument. Not only does this obscure their true motives, it facilitates a heavy-handed crackdown on anyone who gets in the way. It's all about the money. For every way you might use media content, there is an opportunity for profit, if the media companies can erect an electronic toll booth. The more of these toll booths they can set up, the more money they can extract from you. DivX was one attempt to do this, but it failed because there was an alternative: DVDs. Sony's plan to authenticate PS2 games and lock them to one machine will be another. Restrictions on when and where you can play SDMI-protected music files will be another, as will the concept of limited-time-use books on CD-ROM. I'll even dust off my crystal ball and predict some others: PPV movies will be un-recordable, unless you pay a higher fee. Actually, SkyPix, a failed DBS venture in the early 1990s, was going to do this using Macrovision. If you paid a lower fee, Macrovision would prevent you from recording the movie. For a higher fee, the Macrovision would be turned off. For anyone who's wondering, this was done by sending instructions to the customer's receiver. You'll become unable to fast-forward through commercials recorded on your PVR. The networks have hated the fact that viewers could zap commercials on taped shows. Now, they finally have a way to stop it. How will they manage it? My guess is they'll say that their schedules are copyrighted material and demand that if the PVR makers want to use them, they'll have to meet their demands. Some shows will, like PPV, become un-recordable. The technology to do this has already been mandated for digital set-top boxes by the FCC. This will let the content owners sell copies of these programs to consumers who would otherwise just tape the shows. Music fans will be given the "opportunity" to buy different listening rights for their favorite songs. For one amount, you can listen on your home computer/stereo system, for a small additional fee, you can copy tracks to your car's audio system, and for yet another small fee, you can download songs into a portable player. But forget about sharing your tunes with your friends. These songs will only play on devices licensed to you. The fees won't be any lower than what you pay for standard CDs, even though the music companies' distribution cost will decrease dramatically, but that's OK because you're paying for the "convenience" of instantly downloading albums from the Internet. Electronic books won't be sold to you; they'll be leased. Are you in college? All you have to do is pay a subscription fee to whichever publisher your school has selected, and you'll always have access to its most up-to-date texts. But don't forget to get that payment in on time, or all your textbooks will suddenly disappear. Oh, and about those used textbooks, it was always a pain to go back to the bookstore and sell them at the end of the semester, wasn't it? Well, don't worry, that's no longer a problem, since you have nothing to resell anymore. Now repeat this aloud three times: "It isn't about piracy--it's about maximizing profits." Careful, though, because I believe that fact is a trade secret, so you might get sued if you say it too loudly.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Slashdot story: Self-Destructing DVDs: Son of DIVX
There's not much info there, but you can also check SpectraDisc's own site.
Scary, huh?
-Jade E.
Before anybody freaks out.. bear in mind that this is not a troll/flame.. Well.. not intended to be anyways.
This article is going to bring out the 'Why this/that' arguments about bad laws and such. I only want to point out that they are going after people that are STEALING movies. If you buy the DVD they are not trying to punish you. They are also doing exactly what many people in here asked for, fighting technology with technology.. Instead of sending waves of lawyers out they are trying to make it less 'plausable' to steal. Now, if they are trying to take away any fair use then I am going to complain, but to make things harder to steal is called security. My personal thoughts on the impact? None.. people will STILL be able to rip movies off DVD'd and download them over the net. It only takes ONE person to destroy there encryption scheme.. it takes hundreds of lawyers to defend the people.
The sad fact is it is WAY to easy to copy a DVD or rip it to DivX right now. Now while it's great if you are actually backing up your DVD's or making VCD's so you can watch them on a Dreamcast or something (which btw is a GREAT feature) but when you can take a DVD and turn it into a 400-600meg file and still retain decent quality, something is wrong. With Smartripper and FlaskMPEG, ANYONE can rip a DVD to Divx in about an hour, and I mean ANYONE. Divx trading has become a huge thing on the internet with hundreds of gigs being moved around each day. The problem I have is, if new copy protection is imposed, for a brief while this will prevent DVD ripping. Are we not allowed to make backups of ANYTHING we pay for? A DVD is just like a CD, it can be scratched, damaged or otherwise made unplayable, but if you contact a movie company with "My DVD is scratched and will no longer play" do they offer to send you a new copy??? No. So let me make my own backups, and send your lawyers after the people who are not buying the DVD's.
It will be interesting to see, in the longer term, how these types of schemes are affected by fair use claims like RIAA vs. Napster and DVD Cabal vs. 2600. I.e., will it be permissable for content owners to go ahead and encrypt/restrict their content in such a way as to prevent fair use? My bet: Until/unless we can develop some friendly-faced people who do not look like me, but instead look like everyday people, the public and the courts (as well as the legislatures) will continue to think of those of us pushing for freer access as just a bunch of thugs wanting to bring down the order of things as it's know today. The Good Guys did a fantastic job of this sort of thing -- lining up friendly-faced plaintiffs -- in case like ACLU v Reno (the Communications Decency Act case), but I have yet to hear about such a diverse and socially respectable group of plaintiffs assembled for a challenge to the DCMA.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.