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?"
Now, if they'd let us make backup copies and leave the originals in their cases, we'd be talking..... It will eventually happen, it's unfortunate that it is technology that forces it due to widespread use of copying techniques (and the "declining" sales due to this piracy), not consumer need.
-
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?
I suspect the whole thing's a ploy by the MPAA and it's member companies to make it look like they're preserving fair-use rights while tightening their technical and legal stranglehold on copyright is all. After all if they can point to something like this when we cry foul about the loss of fair-use rights then they can largely fend off that line of attack. (At least in Congress.)Your fair use rights are still being thrown out a window. I would rather continue to fight the battle and refuse all DRM related technologies when they fail to address my rights to fair use ANYWHERE on ANY DEVICE of my choosing.
I would, of course, encourage the rest of the community to do the same. Don't compromise on your rights. Instead, continue to fight for them.
Thanks for 'letting' us do what we have the right to do and what makes us a criminal (unjustly) anyway.
[snip]
Northern Irish paramilitaries and Afghan Sikhs are among those involved in selling DVDs in the UK, according to the Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact), the industry's anti-piracy unit.
I remember we (on /. ) used to joke a few months back that it won't take long for pirates to be labelled "terrorists" and puppy killers. Now this is *actually* happening.
From Orrin Hatch labelling piracy as "anti-children" to this latest FUD, I can't believe they'd go so far (in cahoots with the government ofcourse) to spread their lies.
I could argue that the Record companies and "artists" are culprits in the first place, because they *produce* the music/movies which these "terrorists" pirate in the first place to fund their activities?
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
You have a state A where you have the original media. This is (doh) legal. You have a state B with the original media and a back-up. This is also legal.
:p
However, any route between those two states have been made illegal, mostly by the DMCA. So, you have technically not lost any right, only any and all means to exercise that right.
To take the Orwellian analogy: You still have freedom of speech. Except you have to express it in newspeak. Now isn't that doubleplusgood?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
> Uh, no. Buying pirated goods is theft.
Nope, sorry. Theft means that your "victim" starts out having something, and ends up not having it anymore. It's really that simple.
If you can explain how unauthorized copying meets that standard, *without* invoking some parallel dimension where I buy an authorized copy of every single movie I see and then claiming losses relative to that alternate dimension, then you win.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Did anyone else take offense at this statement?
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. These rights are not something to be graciously permitted by companies who only exist by the virtue of money I pay for their products!
Not to mention that this scheme will almost certainly grant Microsoft a virtual monopoly on every playback mechanism for any recorded material. Do you really believe that there is any chance in hell that this DRM scheme will ever run on any platform but Windows?
Vote with your dollars, people! I for one am not going to purchase any damned part of this scheme. And I am an electronics engineer. If it comes to pass that no playback device for any recorded media in the US can be bought without this DRM scheme, then I will make it my sole purpose in life to determine how it may be defeated and spread it throughout the Internet.
Fuck 'em! Just fuck 'em.
Stealing a car is exactly like stealing a DVD. I just run my handy deCAR utility, stick the car into my trusty duplicator, and voila, my stolen car is ready for me to drive away. Sure is handy, and much less likely to attract the notice of the authorities since the owner doesn't even know his car has been stolen....MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
The right to drink beer anywhere you want isn't, so you can drink it at home but not at the park or on the beach or in your car.
As I may be held criminally liable for saying certain things in certain situations, and civilly liable if I say certain other things in certain situations without a license.
The right to listen to a CD is granted by the purchase of a license.
No. The right to play a CD is granted by the purchase of the physical object. There is no license attached. My wife may listen to the same CD without purchasing anything and the CD, as my property, can be resold with no transfer of the nonexistant license because I have a right, by law not license, to play and transfer ownership of said CD.
If I wish to make 100 copies to distribute to my neighbors I'll need a license, because someone else holds the copyright.
KFG
As if I have to ask for permission to copy something that I own in the first place?
I rent my apartment. I read and signed the lease prior to occupation. I crossed out the parts I didn't agree with, and the landlord accepted the modified lease. I don't pretend that I own my apartment, and the landlord didn't pretend he sold it too me.
But, this DVD thing, is apparently different. According to the MPAA:
When I see the the billboard movie ads says "own it today", I think of actually owning a movie. But after I've shelled out hard cash and pop in the disk, the MPAA informs me that this movie is licensed for home viewing... Wait a minute? - I thought I was buying the DVD, as in, I NOW OWN THE MOVIE. How can the MPAA impose terms on the use of something they no longer own?
What it comes down to is this: If the MPAA can impose terms on me after I've bought something, I don't really own it. And why would I buy something I can't own?
The communists didn't believe in private ownership either. Given Hollywood's leftist leanings, the MPAA's attempt to erode private ownership of goods comes as no surprise.
I'll think about buying a DVD when the MPAA can tell me exactly what, if anything, I own after the purchase
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.