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.
I use a little method I like to call "the five finger backup plan."
-
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.
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.
Thanks for 'letting' us do what we have the right to do and what makes us a criminal (unjustly) anyway.
It's nice to see stories like this - stories that can let the rest of us see the corporate conglomerates as the warm-and-fuzzy, civics-minded, environmentally responsible entities that they truly are...
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
"A new trailer warns that buying a pirate DVD is like stealing a car or phone."
Um... no. That is like saying killing a caterpillar is the same as killing George Bush (No troll intended, first name i though of)
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
I do copy DVDs anyway.
SHE does throw dice.
I think it's already legal, DCMA notwithstanding. I'm sure there are many illegal ways to circumvent effective DVD copying (what's the current status of that anyways), but there are legal ones as well. Is buying software that isn't macrovision-enabled illegal?
I mean, I have the right to create a backup under fair-use. I have the right to make a copy for another medium. I'm not attacking the the way the story is posted, but I think it's important to re-iterate that coying your DVDs to another medium is fair-use, and fair-use is legal.
Now, maybe they are in discussions to make it easy. Somehow, I doubt it will be any easier than other methods out there (links anyone?), but it will be sanctioned by the MPAA. This is good, and it shows progress, but the MPAA does not have the power to make things legal or illegal.
English teachers beware: reading the above may induce orifice hemorrhaging.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
... hmm, how obvious isn't this?
Maybe this is what Steveo is waiting for.. An easy rip-to-360x240 mechanism, preferably preserving menus and whatnot..
It'd be great for commuters and tech fetishistes..
[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
Perhaps if I could just borrow the MPAA/RIAA legal documents and color around the edges with a magic marker, all this nonsense would stop!
stuff |
Janus was the Roman god of doors and gates (or beginnings and endings). "January" is derived from Janus; the beginning of a year. Janus is generally portrayed as having 2 faces, one looking forward and one looking back.
Hmm, 2 faces... two-faced...
I'm not sure if I should be concerned or amused that Microsoft chose this name for their system.
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.
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
When record companies started putting out album on cdroms, they were concern about the durability of cdroms. Ever wonder why cdrom dics aren't encloded like a 3.5 inch floppy? Record companies were used to selling tapes, which degrade over time, and they could resell the same thing over and over. So they decide not to put protective enclosure (some drives before this had them) on thier cdroms so they would degrade quicker by scratches, kids, spills and what not.
Thats the role DRM is playing today. So you can't buy a copy and use it forever.
Thats why I refuse DRM.
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.
At least for the time being, this content will (some time in the next century) fall into the public domain. DRM that fails to remove itself after a reasonable time should be illegal. I agree with everyone else who believes that DRM is restricting our current fair use rights, but as someone who deals with archives, this is a major concern. The media industry is technologically destroying the public domain.
That fact that you have a backup is not at issue here. That is fair use.
The fact that, in exercising your rights to create that backup, you probably decrypted the video stream, THAT is where you broke the law. The DMCA classifies that as circumvention of a protection method, and that's the issue that we have with the DMCA (well, one of them, anyways): We retain our fair use rights, but if we want to exercise them, we break the law.
At least, that's how I remember it being explained to me from my Intellectual Property class...
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
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!
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.
The Weather Forecasters Union has decided it's OK if you get wet when you go out in the rain.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
> By your terms about the victim starting to have something, then losing it.
Right, that's the definition of theft.
> In this instance, the victim (movie company) never received compensation due to them.
That's _not_ the definition of theft.
> I hope I made my point clear...
The point is, it's not theft. It's unauthorized copying. That also happens to be illegal (in the US), and there's no argument from
anyone on that point. Incidentally, many of us don't feel it's _immoral_, something which theft is. And if something is illegal but
not immoral, it just means the law is (arguably) wrong. Whether or not you choose to follow the law even when it's wrong is a
personal decision you have to make.
Complicating the whole situation is the fact that the copy-control lobby has made many leaps towards denying fair-use rights,
chilling free expression, and has done a number of other things which many feel _are_ immoral, and so some feel self-righteous
in circumventing the restrictions they impose. That doesn't make it right to use circumvention tools for un-fair use means,
but it makes it understandable that the copy-control crowd doesn't get much sympathy.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
There are somethings in this universe that you just can't control; copying is one of them.
Nathan's blog