Sony Cutting Back on UMD Sales

Karsten writes "An article in Variety claims that Sony is cutting back on UMD releases. While comedies are doing well, other genres simply aren't getting much traction." From the article: "Some have reasoned that sales may have slowed recently because of a shortage of new titles in the last month and because users may be illegally copying films from DVDs onto a memory chip the PSPs can read. Sony is hoping to combat online piracy starting in March when it begins selling movies online via its Connect digital media store. Users will be able to download a pic and watch it on PSP without a disc."

Comments

Pretty much

[PIPBoy3000]

I think this is exactly what's covered under fair use:

Personal use also permits music fans to make "mix tapes" or compilations of their favorite songs from their own personal music collection or the radio for their own personal enjoyment in a more convenient format, or "format shifting." Another example of acceptable personal use copying of a copyrighted work is "time-shifting," or the recording of a copyrighted program to enjoy at a later and more convenient time.

Personally, I think they're slowing down sales because the PSP isn't selling all that well and people like to watch movies on big screens as a general rule of thumb. The iPod videos generally works because the costs are in the range of $1 or $2, the install base is huge, and sometimes they let people download the tv show the day before it's on television.

Re:Illegally?

[DaHat]

Lets not forget that copying a DVD is a little less clear cut in the US because of the DMCA which makes bypassing a copy control mechanism illegal... just what has to occur to bypass the CSS on a DVD to make the copying succeed.

In short, space shifting is legal, bypassing a copy protection mechanism for such a purpose isn't. Granted its amazingly easy today compared to just 5 years ago... but that doesn't make it any less illegal or wrong in the eyes of the content makers.

Re:Illegal

[Sylver Dragon]

You are allowed to copy music only because of the AHRA. There is no similar law allowing the copying of movies.

Wrong, but thank you for playing. Fair use is embodied in USC Title 17 sect. 107[1]. Title 17 is where copyrights are defined. Title 17 refeers to all copyrightable works, therefore, it follows that sect. 107 applies to all copyrighted works.
The sticky point is that Title 17 sect. 107 never actually mentions personal backups specifically. However, the fourth part of the test provided in the law:
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Would generally seem to allow a personal backup, as this will not have an effect on the "potential market" for a work. Also, since a personal backup is a noncommercial use, the onus will be on the plantiff to show that this personal use does, in fact, damage their potential market.
As always: I am not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.