Slashdot Mirror
Industry Group Would Permit (Some) DVD Copying
Zocalo writes "The BBC is carrying the story that agreements have been made to permit legal DVD copying for use on portable devices and The Register appears to have the same story too. While extremely light on details, the mention of Microsoft and AACS leads me to believe this has something to do with Microsoft's Janus system which has been discussed here before. Perhaps more interesting though is that Disney and Time Warner are apparently on board... Can it be that the MPAA has learnt a lesson from the RIAA's heavy handed tactics or has Microsoft convinced them that Janus will work, despite their recent record of bug free coding, and we're going to have a repeat of the DeCSS fiasco?"
An article on cnn.com is reporting something similar in the works for the "Next-generation" video discs. The amazing part about their article is how it specificly mentions Disney as part of the alliance. Granted, it looks all encumbered with DRM (here called the Advanced Access Content System)-- but this is a far-cry better than their attempts to push disposable and subscription-based media (DIVX).
So, does this mean we're winning? Or just that we're not losing.
When I buy a legitimate copy of a CD, DVD, or other recording, I obtain a limited copyright. I can make as many copies as I want, provided I don't distribute them to anyone else. That would be unfair competition with the copyright holder - redistribution is not included in the limited copyright I have bought.
Some copyright holders (RIAA) have tried to reduce my rights, preventing me from making copies for my personal use. They never anticipated the bonanza from CD reissues of vinyl records, and they want to reissue incompatible formats every few years to get me to buy more copies. Digital copies for personal use threatens that gravy train, and rights be damned. But they can't stop us from exercising our rights, so they'd better get with the program.
--
make install -not war
DMCA, not DCMA.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Microsoft DRM for WMA seems to be holding up pretty well. All the cracks I've seen are equivalent to "burn a CD and rip it". E.g., it seems successful in limiting people to doing exactly what they are licensed to do.
Probably best to save the snide remarks for when someone actually cracks it.
Look, fair use rights are not something corporations grant to us. They are what the government grants to us, the same government that also governs corporations.
It is not industry's place to "grant" us this. It is our right to do so regardless of their wishes.
Where'd you get those defs? By your #2, I can "get something surreptitiously" by, say, putting on a disguise and going to an adult bookstore and buying a video; is that theft? Seems like it is by your definition, though I didn't steal anything and nobody's been wronged. Your def pretty clearly indicates that aquiring something while being sneaky is theft, and does not regard whether a legal transaction occurred or not. I submit that your definition is not just flawed, but wrong.
Here's Mirriam Webster's def:
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property.
It's clear under this def that you must deprive the rightful owner of their ownership of property.
Why can the music/movie corporate people figure this out?
:). Again, its supply and demand. So keep doing what your doing guys. We really sympathize with your business model.
Is there any equivalent to an MP3 or DIVX that takes hours to days to download, of questionable quality, and random completeness to what you buy in the store?
No, hell no there isn't.
Who here has "upgraded" their tape/album collection to CD? I have. Who benefited from this? Yes, the music people (doubful the artists did, maybe a little). I personally have bought 3 copies of "Dark Side of the Moon", on LP, the original release of the CD, and the Original Master Recording CD (out of print now). Once I get my surround system hooked up again, I will buy the SACD as well.
My point being, is that people are willing to sacrifice quality for quanity, and they realize this. I'm not much into pirated stuff, but I know it exists. I know where to get MP3s, I don't know where to get CD quality rips of CDs (except for killer live stuff!).
The music/movie people bitch and complain about bootlegging and pirating, yet they simply refuse to change. Currently (and from here on) there will be a supply from the "traded" (0 monitary cost, low quality, large time investment, no liner notes, etc), the used marked (lower monitary cost, harder to get "what you want when you want it"), and the store bought route (you know what goes here).
The thing that really kills me is that Sony is being a pussy with this opportunity. I mean, damn, they own a vast majority of the material, and they manufacture hardware of varying quality from junk to pretty damn good stuff.
What do I know? I'm only a consumer that has spent thousands of dollars (probably about $6k) in electronics and hundreds a year on music and movies.
People will always want music, and the market demands the price. Go to ebay and look for Coventry Phish tickets. They are going for about $400 a pop (I've got 4
Theft means that your "victim" starts out having something, and ends up not having it anymore.
Exactly!
With shoplifting the victim loses two things:
1. Property of value
2. A potential customer for that property
With copying, the victim only loses the potential customer. These are not the same thing. They never have been the same thing. They never will be the same thing no matter how many times the RIAA/MPAA tries to claim they are.
Losing a potential customer is not the same as having something stolen from you. Also, since with copying, the potential customer doesn't actually own what they have a copy of, they are still a potential customer, just a less-likely one. In all the "we lost this much money" arguments the industry groups put out do you think they factor in how many people converted from unlicensed versions to paying for licensed ones?
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
That's a common RIAA/MPAA lie that appears to be sticking. Fair Use is stated legally in 2 places that I know of.
1) Section 107 and of the US Copyright Act. This act defines US copyright law and discusses derivative works, transformed works, etc. This law determines what is and is not a copyright violation, and mentions backups, copies for educational use, etc.
2) It is clarified in several supreme court cases. These rulings were later made into laws after they were upheld several times.
Some links:
Fair Use at the US Copyright Office's web site
Fair use explained by BitLaw
Stanford Copyright & Fair Use
Don't be fooled. This announcement is not saying that the MPAA will agree that you are within your rights to backup and/or time/device shift your legally obtained media (you are). Instead, they are saying that they are going to implement (with the help of Microsoft) technologies that ensure that that is all you are able to do with the media.
So forget about taking a backup copy of your movie to a friend's house and trying to play it on their equipment (ain't gonna happen -- although you have the right to do so).
And forget about trying to play the movie on a non-Microsoft device -- say a Linux PC for example (sorry, not permitted - although it too is perfectly legal).
So do not be fooled into thinking we have won. The MPAA is not agreeing to expanding any of our rights! In fact they will be taking away rights through technology as opposed to through laws (although the DMCA will serve to enforce the technology as if it were law).
If you haven't yet read Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture , do it now!
Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
agreements have been made to permit legal DVD copying for use on portable devices
Permit? It is not these companies' place to permit me to do anything! The rights to use recorded material has been defined by the Supreme court of the United States.
Given that this is a British article you're quoting from, what on Earth does the US Supreme Court have to do with it?