More Incompatible DVDs and CDs Coming Your Way

wwwssabbsdotcom writes " More DRM is coming to DVD and CD shelves in the future. Looks like more incompatible discs for players around the world. Rip-proof and self-destructing seems to be the latest DRM craze."

Comments

Yeah.

[spirality]

So quit grousing and don't buy em.

Re:Yeah.

[cshark]

Uhm, I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but this has been tried already. It was called DIVX. It was miserable failure. People hated it. It's still ridiculed today by the few of us that remember it.

Re:Yeah.

[0123456]

I won't. Personally I'm looking forward to the day when I can put all my (legally purchased) movie and music collection on my hard drive and throw away those DVDs, CDs and VHS tapes that take up so much space. If that means I never upgrade any of those DVDs to a DRM-ed HD-DVD format, then so be it.

I note, BTW, that the article says: "The media barons insist that if consumers are going to listen to music and view movie clips and news headlines on any gadget with a screen, then the rights holders must be paid."

So no mention of _the authors_ being paid, only the rights holders (i.e. the worthless middle-men who'd be eliminated if copyright didn't create a monopoly market).

Re:Yeah.

[MartinG]

The artists sign so they can be supported by the massive long-established marketing machine that is the music industry. If they didn't sign, they would be competing against that marketing machine which is almost impossible given its size.

That doesn't mean they want the industry the way it is. They would get paid much more fairly (ie, more based on merit) if those greedy middle men didn't exist.

It's almost like a protection racket:
"You come and work with us and we will look after you. It will cost you a huge chunk of your work, but if you don't come to us we will obliterate you with our marketing power"

Re:Yeah.

[PainKilleR-CE]

This removes one of the two main reasons people hated it. They're hoping to overcome the other with marketing, I'm sure.

I think you forgot the whole 'throwing plastic discs into the landfills at an alarming rate' part that pissed so many people off.

Also, the simple reality is that some DVD players aren't going to play self-destructing discs. There've been 3 revisions to the DVD standard and there are already problems with old DVD players not being able to play some discs that have no deviation from the standard (just that they hit the 3rd revision standard rather than the original standard).

As an added bonus, the number of DVD and CD players (set-top/stereo component boxes) that are using computer-style CD-ROM and DVD-ROM drives has been increasing over the last couple of years (especially the case with DVD players where MP3, MPEG, and other formats are often supported), and in many cases these discs are being made not to run in those types of drives.

As for the DVD Audio format, whether or not it's supported by your DVD player simply depends on what DVD player you own. The older it is, the more likely it is that it's not supported. In those cases where it's not supported you're just as well off buying a player for the new CD format as for the DVD Audio format, and at least the CD format is playable in the majority of CD and DVD players, and the CD-quality tracks on the disc can be ripped to MP3.

Re:Yeah.

[PainKilleR-CE]

Why do you think it's an artist's dream to get a major label deal?

In some cases it is, but in most cases the artist's dream is simply to make a living creating and performing their art. There are many cases where artists have gained a name on independent labels and then had the clout to get major label contracts that worked for them, instead of making them work for the label. In a few cases, those artists were even able to leave the major labels with their work when the labels refused to release and support their work as they intended it to be heard.

Because the label will pay for promotion, advertising, product positioning, radio time, etc.

The label only pays advances for these things. Every bit of it gets charged to the artist, regardless of whether or not the artist approved the methods used (ie paying for radio time, which is illegal if done directly, some artists have had enough clout to force the label to pay for this directly, but it's very rare, and the labels do get billed for every song played every time it's played anyway). Labels will not promote or position artists that they don't want to promote. Regardless of Pearl Jam's musical direction, for instance, they were still getting airplay until they spoke out against Ticketmaster and Clear Channel. Once they did that, Clear Channel shut down their radio play, and the label didn't do anything about it.

These are all things which help you SELL MORE UNITS. If you sell millions, YOU WILL GET PAID. Just ask any artist who has sold millions of records... they'll tell you two things: 1, that they're happy they signed with a major label; 2, that they couldn't have accomplished it by themselves.

For #1: see any number of current and past artists who have had fights with the labels over the amount of money they've made off their multi-platinum albums. Look at the whole thing with Prince (though I'm sure most people could care less about him these days, he was doing very well before he started his fight with Sony), or even the more recent battles with some of the current top-selling acts.

As for #2, the main reason they can't accomplish it by themselves is because of the industry. Radio airplay only goes to the songs that the labels will pay for. Clear Channel (and the one or two other radio promoters in the US) will not put up with stations playing music for which they can't bill a label. Most retail chains won't carry independent music, and few will even carry small labels (and WalMart, the biggest music retailer in the country, has many more rules regarding what they will and will not carry). Viacom owns the majority of all video airplay on television in the US (Viacom owns MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, etc; ever wonder why Nick. started the 'Kids choice awards' and other music promotionals?).

Digital music and video are means by which video and audio recording, production, and distribution can be made easily affordable and accessable to every single person that wants to pursue a career. The labels want to do whatever they can to hold on to their position as the only route through which to gain access to these things, before it becomes easy for my next door neighbor to figure out how to make it without them.

Re:Yeah.

[Pig Hogger]

It was called DIVX. It was miserable failure.

No, it's not a miserable failure. I've got upwards of 50 DIVX movies on a hard disk in one of my computers.

DRM for the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Edible DVDs

Hurray!

[-SWL--AcdReign-]

More plastic to add to the AOL CD landfills...

They keep on trying

[letxa2000]

They keep on trying but when will they realize that as long as a human being can see or hear it that it can be recoded in a more friendly format and put online where others will be able to obtain it so that they don't have to go through the same hassle at getting the content in a user-friendly format.

These guys are going to kill their own business. Their copy-protection techniques will only increase the motivation to seek the content through obscure channels. When the "legitimate" version is less functional and more expensive than the "black market version", guess who's going to lose?

Re:They keep on trying

[CaseyB]

They still seem to be highly focused on stopping pure digital copies.

It seems they haven't seen the state of a typical Divx "screener" movie on the net. They're absolutely *awful* quality wise, but are still hot commodities on the net. The slight quality loss in a single first generation digital->analog->digital copy might scare off the audio/videophiles (who buy their media anyway), but it's *not* going to matter to those that are downloading.

DRM for good?

[nacs]

Last year, record label Sony Music came under fire when new European CD releases by artists Celine Dion and Shakira wouldn't play....

Is this really a bad thing? I mean Shakira may be semi-decent but Celine Dion not playing? Who's going to miss that? Chrysler?

Re:DRM for good?

[NanoGator]

"Last year, record label Sony Music came under fire when new European CD releases by artists Celine Dion and Shakira wouldn't play...."

Millions of boyfriends everywhere simultaneously sigh with relief.

Re:DRM for good?

[grub]

Millions of boyfriends everywhere simultaneously sigh with relief.

Two of them are even slashdot readers!

Hmm.

[grub]

So if I buy the "Mission Impossible" DVD, I better heed the warning that says "This message will self destruct in 5 seconds" ?

You'll Just Have To Trust Us...

[vudujava]

The next generation of DRM:
"You'll just have to trust us. Even though you can't play the movie, it was really, really, really good." - MPAA

And then there's this:

[Dark Paladin]

If technology firms like Sony and Microsoft have their way, songs and movies will expire after a single play -- unless you pay the copyright holder their due.

I did - when I bought the friggin' CD!

I know - after all, everybody who uses MP3's and their iPod stole the music, right? Everybody who clicks the little "Rip" button on their computer to store their music CD collection so they can listen to any song, when they want, only got it from some Gnutella site, correct? Any movie in DiVX format isn't there so you can have a media player storing backups of your movies onto your computer so you can watch them when you want and keep your DVD's shiny and new for all time - no, you must be planning on letting the rest of the world download the movies illegally.

OK. I'm calm. My personal response has been simple: don't buy things in this format. Tell others about the format and what to watch out for (like "Does it have the official CD logo on it?"). When I talk to government officials, telling them "You know, if somebody wants to make a self-destructing DVD/unrippable CD - more power to them, that's they're right. But they damn well better be putting a logo on their product that says so in advance so I can choose to reward or punish them with my own buying power."

Yeah, I use the iTunes store - sure, it has DRM, but doesn't go outrageously overboard, because at least it gets the idea that I buy the music, I own it - so if I want to burn it to CD or transfer it to 2 different iPods so my wife and I can listen to our music in the car, that's my right to do so.

But did "rental" music services ever get my dime? Nope - and see what's happening to them. I predict they'll be gone in another 5 years (except for the last holdouts sponsored by major corporations who won't see the light of day - like how the Minidisk finally exited stage left for 99% of the music consumers, the 3DO vanished, and like the original DIVX standard did).

If technology firms like Sony and Microsoft have their way, songs and movies will expire after a single play -- unless you pay the copyright holder their due.

Yeah - spin another one, folks. Try, try again until you buy the clue.

This is not going to stop piracy

[coolmacdude]

All it will do is result in more boycotts of DRM crippled discs and consumer anger directed at the media companies. I really don't know how long its going to take before they realize this. Killing fair use is not the answer.

What a great way to encourage piracy!

[beee]

You know, I considered myself a pretty moral person -- sure, I've got a few mp3s, but I try my best to purchase albums of artists I've enjoyed. I have never downloaded a full-length movie.

If this is where the future is going, that just might change. I usually play DVDs on my PC, and if I bring one home from Blockbuster and it won't play because the MPAA assumes I'm a pirate, I will feel 100% justified in seeking out a rip of that movie in XViD or SVCD (or DVDR) and watching it.

They're digging their own grave, but then again, maybe that's what they want to do. More invasive media -> More piracy -> More lobbying power to create strict DMCA-like laws.

Either way, you're going to be seeing a lot of people downloading movies who normally didn't. And it's just going to give all the people who do download movies all the more reason.

Thanks for assuming I'm a pirate, MPAA. You might just've made me one.

Re:Does it matter?

[TopShelf]

Problem is, there isn't any mechanism to ensure that "cheap" would become any part of the equation. Within a pretty broad range, items like DVD's aren't really price sensitive. It's not like you're going to go to the store to buy Harry Potter and instead change your mind to buy The Dark Crystal because it's a buck cheaper. This initiative, and the others like it, are merely about protecting top-line sales.

Re:Does it matter?

[Qzukk]

I'd rather have cheap products that sometimes don't work on 10 year old players (and protects rights for a creator of art) than expensive ones that can be pirated but work on all players.

So you consider it piracy if you buy a CD and rip it for the purpose of playing it on your iPod? Did they make you sign a contract indicating that you would only listen to the music using the original CD?

As for "sometimes don't work on a 10 year old player", you do realize that the goal of copy protection is to not work on a computer cdrom drive of any generation? This is why we have discs with garbled TOC tracks, this is a scheme targeted directly at computer drives which read the TOC to determine if the drive is audio or data.

I consider it piracy when a publisher takes my money and gives me a round shiny disc which fails to meet my expectation of being useful (that is, playing in my player which is fully capable of playing other round shiny discs). Companies who wish to break this expectation must either 1) accept returns for defective products which fail to meet consumer expectations or 2) clearly indicate that the round shiny disc is not a standard round shiny disc. Simple absense of a "CD" trademark is not clear indication.

People keep posting "Why whine? Just don't buy it!" but which products am I to not buy? I have to wait until someone else buys a cd and determines that it is copyprotected and posts that information to a tracking board somewhere. Even in cases where the CD trademark is missing, which copyprotection scheme was used? Perhaps it is one which is still compatible with my player and my expectation for the music. Not only that, but I have noticed that several of my non-copyprotected round shiny discs do not bear the CD trademark. Is this an intentional attempt by companies to confuse the issue? If no round shiny discs bear the CD trademark, how do I tell the protected and the playable discs apart?

Imagine the outrage that would happen if one in 10 hamburgers served by mcdonalds was actually made from horsemeat, and was served as a beef hamburger with nothing to tell it apart from the rest of the hamburgers. Now imagine everyone knew this, and nobody did anything about it because mcdonalds made money this way. This is what the publishing companies and their guardian the RIAA is doing to us all, only the ratio of horseburgers is going to increase without you being notified.

Do what I did..

[MP*Birdman]

I wrote a letter to the record label after I ran into the first CD (Radiohead's Hail to the Thief) that wouldn't play in the player I wanted, and have now stopped buying any CDs from that label (EMI). In fact, only 1 of the computers I tried it in even could read the data files that allowed you to install the audio player. Since said players are only available for windows and some versions of Apple operating systems, and only installable if you have admin on your computer (making it less than ideal in an office environment) I am allowed under Canadian "fair dealing" rights (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38266.html#rid- 38379) to copy from audio CD to "a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose..". Ie, a computer hard drive, or another CD. This is similar to the fair use rights in the United States.

Unless everyone writes a letter at the least, then it's only a matter of time before every CD will work only in stereos and on machines which have specific versions of software like Windows.

I should add that the CD in question would play on Windows only if you installed "upgrades" to windows media player... I cancelled that, and am ripping it with a line in feed tonight.

Re:Office 2003

[ItWasThem]

And just wait for the first time some idiot CFO accidentally locks himself out of his own files...

Heck, the CFO could just circumvent the copy protection on those files. What's a DMCA violation on the criminal record of a CFO these days anyways? It wouldn't even show up until the 8th or 9th page.

You are still free to use alternative solutions...

[PseudoThink]

Don't want the government to control you? Leave society and become a hermit...but you lose lots of practical benefits, like convenience stores, electricity, the internet, public sanitation systems, health insurance, etc.

However, when there are few or no lost benefits, people won't hesitate to use alternatives. Same thing applies to DRM...the more they clamp down, the more consumers squeeze through their fingers and start using consumer-friendly alternatives like ogg and mp3.

It's a funny cycle...raw CD audio isn't portable enough, so they create MP3s, leading to rampant file sharing and eventually Napster, leading to RIAA's unholy crusade for DRM, leading more people to use MP3...it will only end when consumers have no control over data. A bit late for that...

Maybe someone can explain this to me....

[tx_kanuck]

Lets say I buy a DVD. Said DVD does not work on my computer (which is where I watch most of my movies b/c my computer screen is bigger then my TV). I can't return it to the store b/c they will only exchange it for another copy of the same DVD. I can't return it to the distributor b/c they say take it back to the store.

Where does that leave me? I've just spent $25 on a movie that I can't watch. I can't return it. Hell, chances are the license I had to agree to won't allow me to sell it. So here's the problem....

The movie was advertised as being a DVD. My player was advertised as a DVD player. DVD is (from what I understand) a fairly open standard. By advertising something as being standards compliant that really isn't, would that not constitant fraud, or at the least deceptive advertising?

If I remember correctly, didn't the owner of the CD trademark/patent threaten to label DRM'd CD's as not being CD's b/c they didnt' conform to the standards? Should that not happen with DVD's?

Vote with you dollars and your voices. If you buy a DVD that is not compatible, either don't buy it, or take it back and bitch loudly. Make sure other customers can hear you. Basically, make an ass of yourself so that the manager has to give you your money back to shut you up.

Yes, I know I'm rambling.

Re:Idiots

[Silverfish]

This is exactly how the RIAA/MPAA are shooting themselves in the foot.

It won't take long before people want to watch a movie a second time and get denied and grow sick of it. Eventually they will just decide to start copying them instead of viewing them.

With each ratcheting up of digital restrictions, the RIAA and MPAA are placing successively larger groups of people in the camp against them. Eventually, it will be RIAA/MPAA against everyone, and that will spell big trouble unless they ease back DRM.

To paraphrase Princess Leia: "The more you tighten your grip, MPAA, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Re:it bites

[JebusIsLord]

My new radiohead disc has 1300 intentional C1 errors on it, rendering it extremely prone to scratches and (ironically) making a backup copy pretty much a necessity.

Took over 8 hours to rip using EAC though... owch.

Basically I could have stolen it from Kazaa and saved a lot of trouble, but because I am actually a paying customer I was charged $12, 8 hours of labour and was rewarded with an intentionally damaged CD. What a bunch of fuckers.

As return punishment, I have made the CD available for all my friends to download, and I am encouraging them to use my error-free, DRM-disabled MP3s instead of that horrid disc.

Re:Decay of entire entertainment industry, society

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time people stop wasting time watching TV, it really cuts into the amount of time you can waste each day reading slashdot.

The real issue is the lost value

[ShatteredDream]

Nobody I know likes being reminded everytime about the FBI. Nobody I know likes being forced to watch previews. Nobody I know likes being told what to do with their DVD when they use it for their own purposes unless they take it upon themselves to give copies away to everyone.

It's about the content dammit! People don't buy DVDs for previews, for fancy menus or the damn FBI warning. Most people want the movie, not the 2 hours of celebrity mutual masturbation that is the typical "bonus" disk. I have a better idea for them, find a way to reduce the cost to such a point that you can buy **just** the movie for $10 after sales tax. If they want to make it sooo easy for customers to get the movies they want and make them happy they'd make it so that producing a "lite" DVD is so cheap that they could sell them so inexpensively that a $20 bill would buy you 2 movies.

Of course that would require an entrepeneurial spirit, something they have not known for almost a century. That would require them to take a calculated risk, something that they don't understand the need for. The market won't hold back forever. Americans have technological blinders, but we're not blind. When we see nations like South Korea, Taiwan and Japan that have no analogs to the DMCA sticking their tongues out at us when their gadgets are a good 5-10 years ahead of ours because of the DMCA, et al, Americans will be mad. Why? It won't be just silly gadgets, it'll be a lot of things. First it will be the divisions that make the gadgets like the DVD-VCRs, then it will be the rest of the company that goes overseas. More jobs lost because "artists" were being "ripped off."

I'm more musically inclined than Britney Spears and company. I say fuck the "artists" if we have to choose between their copyrights and a functioning free market. It's more important that 5,000 musicians not get paid for their songs downloaded illegally than 2,500 more manufacturing jobs or any other jobs go everseas because the companies found our copyright laws too stifling.

Everybody has ignored the most obvious factor of musical growth: the advancement of science. The most scientifically advanced societies on Earth also have the most musically diverse cultures as a general rule. The more science has made our lives better, even in peripheral ways, the more musicians have benefited. In 100 years science took us from having a society with only a few major types of music (in no small part because so many modern musical tools hadn't been invented like electric equipment) to having dozens. It made it possible for tens of thousands of musicians to at least effectively supplement their income with their skills. Excuse the hell out of me, but science has done more for copyright holders than copyright law. It was not economically feasible for so many musicians to make a living off of their music 100 years ago, but now thanks to the explosion of technological growth it's definitely possible if you're good.

I have one final proposal for the closet socialists and fascists of the **AA: lobby against budget deficits, pork barrel spending and the peacetime income tax if you want more money. All of the yuppies get the other 30-50% of their income back. What do they do with it? Invest it all or give little johny or suzie more allowance? A lot of the former and probably a lot of the latter as well. What is little johny or suzie going to do, buy blue chip stock shares? Hell no! They're going to go down to Sam Goody, buy an extra $100 worth Nelly, Jay Z, Britney Spears and Metallica.

Re:Vote with your dollars!!

[pmz]

Excuse me but I would prefer not to live in a world without entertainment.

A world without entertainment is not possible.

For example, I find watching a trail of ants to be much much more entertaining than shit like "Real TV" or "CNN Headline News". Ants are really amazing (I'm serious).

Here are other things that can be entertaining:

1) Talking to a spouse. If the marriage is right, then talking to a spouse is like talking to a best friend. Talking to children is a good thing to do, also. Kids might even be more amazing than ants!

2) Climb to the top of a small mountain (1000 ft. should do it). Now, look.

3) Go to a museum. Train museums are very nice, because they usually have a big train set in the basement. Good family fun.

4) Good authors write good books. Perhaps there is a book out there whose plot hasn't been done 50 times over and ruined by a made-for-TV studio.

5) Taking a small boat or canoe out on to a lake is fun, good excersize, and can be a confidence builder for people who are otherwise shut-in.

6) Lots of people go bowling or square dancing, etc.

7) It's been a long time since I've seen a really good set of stars, due to light pollution. The last time I was really out in the boonies, a friend pointed out some really neat stuff (some satellites are visible with the naked eye, for example).

Results you can count on

[MattW]

A lot of the early bugs have been dealt with, and record companies say they will continue to roll out new copy-protected discs and offer online downloads that expire after a few listens based on the latest DRM systems.

And consumers will continue to buy less and less music. You have to love the recording industry; they're probably the only group that constantly FUDs itself.

All sarcasm aside...

[MsGeek]

Upon further examination, you're completely right! Artists get absolutely no money and the label keeps everything! How foolish of me to overlook this universal truth! I had no idea that artists were signing with major labels simply because they have no desire to get any money out of the deal. Thank you sir, I have learned much from you.

...this is actually the way it really works out on a lot of recording contracts.

Read the article I have linked to very, very carefully. Record company "advances" are considered loans against future royalties. You have to "repay" a laundry list of expenditures made on your behalf before you make a dime of royalty off of your music.

In other businesses, those kind of expenses are considered part of doing business. In the recording industry, they are considered the employee's problem. Imagine the uproar that would happen if all the copier paper, copy toner, pens, pencils, internet bandwidth and other "cost centers" of a business' budget were charged to their employees and, as a condition of getting paid, the employee would have to pay their boss back for all of it. You would have general strikes, you would have rioting in the streets, it would not be pretty.

Because of the high-glamour nature of the recording industry, however, and the strength of the recording industry lobby in governments around the world, they have had the unique, special right to charge off almost all their expenses to the recording artists.

And the big record companies are not the only ones who use this kind of chicanery. After SST Records lost their major distributor, Jem/Greenworld, all of a sudden bands who had been in the black on royalties found themselves on the hook to SST for promotional expenses. Bands like Saccharine Trust, Paper Bag, Zoogz Rift and others basically were screwed out of being paid for their record sales by a switch to a more "industry standard" set of billing practices. I was there to see this all happen...my husband was in Zoogz Rift's band and I was very good friends with Paper Bag.

This way of doing business has been standard operating procedure with major record companies since the 1930s. It is only now, with the record companies going after their customer base for "piracy" and adding hideously restrictive measures to safeguard their ill gotten gains that the word is getting out.

Sure, some people get ahead with their record company. That's why you hear Metallica and Elton John and Madonna and all these other mega-millionaire recording stars whining about people "ripping us off". But the vast majority of recording artists, including some, like Prince and TLC and Don Henley, whom you would think would be in this Millionaires' Club, have been basically given a deal that is exactly as you describe. Yes indeed, artists get absolutely no money and the label keeps everything. That "advance" money is not really theirs...it is a loan from the biggest, nastiest loan sharks the world has ever known.