Slashdot Mirror
Studios OK Burning Movie Downloads
SirClicksalot writes "The DVD Copy Control Association has released a statement (pdf) announcing that it will make adaptations to the Content Scramble System (CSS) used to protect DVDs. The association, made up of Hollywood studios, consumer electronics and software companies, licenses CSS to the DVD industry to protect content. The changes will allow home users to legally burn purchased movie downloads to special CSS protected DVDs, compatible with existing DVD players."
...that the MPAA and its members aren't quite as evil as the RIAA and its members. I don't think this will really help anything (what prevents me from making a DVD now?), but it's a nice gesture of sincerity. :)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...to allow us to use our legally purchased content. The movie industry sure is on our side! Maybe next year they will allow us to skip chapters! or fast-forward! Can you imagine how much praise and rejoicing there will be? I can't wait until we have earned their good graces!
stupid
"I'm a Genius!"*
*Not an actual Genius
Anyone want to take a guess at how much these discs are going to cost? I'd wager just about the same price as an actual dvd of the movie itself.
Besides, haven't these morons figured out yet that CSS is borderline useless?
Thanks!
This too, will end.
Did we finally get a message through that the majority of us aren't criminals? It's nice to see at least part of the entertainment industry keeping up with the times. Does anyone know the pricing for these movie downloads before I get too far ahead of myself?
Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
The articles I'm reading suggest the service will be limited to kiosks. This makes sense, as any consumer based DVD burner that can burn CSS discs will be ultimately possible to modify such that it can copy regular DVDs too.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Sounds like you will have to buy special blank DVDs. Unless these blanks are as cheap as existing blanks (or close) this will bomb. Heck it might bomb even if they were cheaper, on the confusion factor alone. There is no reason the CSS data can't be burned directly from the burner, so all this is is a ploy.
I thought it was proven that consumers won't purchase particular media in advance back when it was tried with audio CDs. I am beginning to think that a cursory attempt at digital distribution is all they want, making it appear that they are defending their rights while supplementing income with civil lawsuit extortion. Nothing new, but it gets clearer every day to me.
Dammit Otto, you have lupus.
While, sadly, it is encouraging that the MPAA is trying to find ways for end-users to have fair use of the media they purchase, I still have to wonder what sort of DRM and restrictions they will place in/on this new technology. Will I be able to burn multiple copies? Watch without burning? Or, if I misburn myself a coaster, am I simply SOL?
Finally, someone beside Apple recognizes that there is a Way Forward in the digital age. It may not be all we want, but it is a start.
Give these guys credit. Anything that even smells like it would endanger the all powerful Bottom Line and drop share prices is taboo for all major corporations.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Why are they going through all this trouble? Don't they know that CSS was broken years ago? Haven't they ever downloaded Handbrake?
Crack coming in 3... 2...
What's that? CSS got cracked years ago? Look, behind you - a three-headed terrorist! Think of the children!
*runs*
apterous.org
In a statement, the association said that an updated version of CSS could allow retailers to place kiosks on showroom floors and allow consumers to watch as a digital movie recording is placed on a blank DVD while they wait.
Looks like this is aimed more at the content distributers than the home consumers. now that's the MPAA we've come to know and love!
Why must they put DRM on it? CSS has already been proven not to be effective, so what are the Media Companies afraid of?
This is certainly a step in the correct direction for video downloads. Certainly the movie business must be realizing that customers want freedom to use their products how they wish. Being locked into only "approved" viewing on a pc could only have appealed to a small audience.
I suppose DRM is an attempt to make people buy content more than once, because it certainly will never stop piracy. Studios are finally realizing they can't get away with doing that. Very few, if any, people would be willing to purchase the same movie more than once. If legal video downloading is ever going to catch on, this will make it at least possible
... after all ? So they have started to comply with the times' and people's demands about the matter.
Read radical news here
s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*",_) [20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@2 5,_;H=73;O=$b[4]>8^(P=(E=255)&(Q>>12^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))> 8^(E&(F=(S=O>>14&7^O)- U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV,qb
^S*8^S>=8
)+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D-HO
No doubt one will remaain a felon for watching a DVD on linux but it shows they are thinking of a strategy to adapt.
Whether it is competitive depends on how smart they are. Would they accept a dollar/disk royalty? Even at that, it isn't like 100 disk cakeboxes would be competitive -- $130/box? But wouldn't a lot of people buy 6-packs at the checkout counter for $10? Could work.
And it seems only inevitable that the DVD store will eventually be a machine.
You might think in context that it is deCSS, but it actually prints "Just another perl hacker" unless an obscure race condition happens, in which case it instructs Google to become sentient and begin the elimination of the human race.
Friends don't let friends execute perl scripts they didn't write.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Although TV is different than DVD's, what are the policies on downloading and burning TV Shows?
... just my thoughts on the matter. :-)
I have Satellite Television and there have been numerous times I have found a show on that I want to watch, and either that channel has very poor reception or none at all. I'm not sure if it's a problem with the dish or the box.
But if I want to watch that episode of a show that doesn't work, is there any way I can legally download [and possibly burn?] and watch it? I'm already paying for the subscription [damn near $80 CAD] for the dish that fails to deliver the content I am paying for.
More on topic: I feel the MPAA is trying to make an attempt at allowing fair use, but why are they being so restrictive? If I own the movie and make a copy for regular use, why can I not easily do this? Or even just create a AVI/MPEG to watch on my computer? Right now I go throught the process of using DVD Shrink or DVDFab Decrypter, stripping everything [menus, extra's, etc.] then burning. Sony discs are by far the biggest pain in the ass to copy... for these, I resort to downloading and burning an already DRM-Free version from TPB or elsewhere.
will they ever be able to stop it... if they really wanna (kinda)stop it then they need to put it on something that DOESNT GO DIRECTLY INTO THE COMPUTER
From the all mighty MissioN of Mass.
I can burn stuff to a DVD and play it in a regular DVD player with no problem. Does Nero use illegal tech to make this happen? I understand that bypassing DRM might be illegal, but how is the encoding of the disc to play in a DVD player illegal right now?
nothing
It actually said, "Studios OK Burning Movie Downloaders".
--- What?
There's clearly a big market for video on demand, and the ability to burn movies at a kiosk would greatly reduce the up-front warehousing, shipping, floor space, and back catalog storage. This is a masterful win for potential sales and increasing sales outlets.
Fromt the desciption and my palty knowledge of the DVD format, it seems like they're simply going to make everybody capable of burning in the key area with approved software. The end user part is to allow electronic distribution through a pay-per-download scheme. That scheme can also be used to digitally watermark the downloads and monitor infringing uploads, which is a bonus for them. More people with bigger pipes will be necessary for that to really take hold.
As for the end user burning a CCA encrypted disc, thay pretty much have to keep that part in order to retain much in the way of legal protections. Consumers keep crying "fair use" as a way to format shift, and to them format shifting is pronounced "lost sale". If drop the encryption, it's just like a CD, and there are already services which will format shift your CDs to MP3. All legal through fair use and unencrypted content. By encrypting the content, they keep their DMCA protections - it's not legal anyone else to help you format shift, in any way shape or form. For the vast majority of the population, that means format shifting is done via additional purchase.
Everyone here seems to think that the MPAA is trying to stop pirates, and we bubble with exhaspiration over the fact that the encryption has been broken and is useless. The MPAA doesn't really care about big time pirates all that much - it's a small market, mostly in asia, and mostly in places where the disposable income isn't high enough for the average person to afford a price that would turn a profit for the member organizations. No, the pirates the MPAA is concerned about are the casual ones - the guy next door who will burn his also-tech-unsavvy neighbor a quick copy on his consumer DVD recorder. That's more likely to be a lost sale than some chick dropping $1US on a pirated Malasian jewelcase on a street corner or a pimply faced 14 year old downloading a torrent. They won't admit it in public, but they know its true. Keeping Jim and Billy Bob from swapping discs will generate more revenue than stopping a dozen teenagers from getting an image off the eDonkey.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
FTA: "In a statement, the association said that an updated version of CSS could allow retailers to place kiosks on showroom floors and allow consumers to watch as a digital movie recording is placed on a blank DVD while they wait."
This sounds to me like their intended market. All the rhetoric about home users is a smoke screen, IMHO, to fool news agencies and some /.ers into believing the MPAA is innovating and becoming consumer friendly. The day the MPAA does anything that would be consumer friendly...well you know how it goes.
YOU need to read TFA:
http://www.dvdcca.org/data/css/DVDCCArecordrlsFIN
"Both would require special blank DVD discs that will use the Content Scramble System (CSS) for encryption and will be compatible with the millions of existing DVD players in the marketplace today."
If you had a clue about what you're talking about, you would know that CSS keys cannot be written existing DVD blank media, which is what makes CSS semi-effective in the first place. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to decrypt a DVD to copy it; you could just copy the whole encrypted disk, including keys, which would kinda defeat the entire purpose of CSS.
... but what's stopping us from just burning it to a regular one?
K this works, you need a reader and a burner /dev/dvd1 and /dev/dvd, I call it dupedvd:
/dev/dvd=stream.dvd && ... \"I feel empty\" :Zorak *"
... Standards and Practices !
#!/bin/sh
echo " * Eyepatch On!! Straight data dump to da DVD recorder *"
echo
rm stream.dvd
mkfifo -m 666 stream.dvd &&
sleep 1
dd if=/dev/dvd1 of=stream.dvd &
sleep 1
growisofs -dvd-compat -Z
echo
echo " * Eyepatch Off
What he said eh'. Eat your heart out windose users, you MAC puppies could prolly get it to fly.
PenGun
Do What Now ???
I believe it is time to call DVD Jon, and have him do his magic again.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
It's nice to see that the movie industry is wisening up. They see the RIAA attempts at spam-suing and how badly the consumer backlash is, and are trying a different approach.
For the average joe, this is probably exactly what they would like to do- make copies of their expensive discs. People will feel better about taking their DVDs along with them on a bus ride, to a friend's, or on a plane (well, I guess that last one doesn't apply anymore). If it breaks, they can just take it the "master" to a kiosk and make another copy.
There are a few questions, though:
1) Cost of the DVD?
This is the big one: how much will it cost to not only buy the special DVD, but make a copy? If it's anything more than a buck, I doubt there will be much interest. If it's, say, 50 cents, I'm sure you'll get lots of takers.
2) Number of burns allowed?
Will the kiosk(s) track how often a certain copy of a movie is copied and limit the number? Obviously, you don't want to allow someone to make a hundered copies and hand them out to friends, but at the same time you don't want to limit it just one or two copies, because shit happens.
And, granted, this won't allow you to rip the DVD to your hard drive to put on portable media or watch from your PC, but a far smaller percentage of consumers are interested in this than just having a regular copy for normal use or in case the first goes belly-up.
Where do I get those? And do I have to give DNA samples? How many can I buy before being put on the FBI files?
Oh wait. I'm already on the FBI f
As the other replies indicate, he misread TFA.
Score:5 Informative should be Score: -1 MisInformative.
Yes all nerds do is download britney videos and movies and watch their brains rot and turn in too bloody rashes ::scratch:: ::scratch:: ::scratch::
No thanks, I'll just keep breaking CSS and burning DRM-free movies. It's well within my rights (at least what they should be), and anyone who says differently will be mocked in the future.
or else!
I don't like to flip thru my dvd/cd binder and see handwritten titles. I like to see the movie/music are on the actual disc.
How many people have their DVD or CD collections on shelfs? It's nice to look at. It's easy to find the movie/cd you're wanting. Not the case with download-n-burn processes where, even tho the purchase was legit, still looks like crap and looks copied/stolen. People are much more impressed (and so am I) with a shelf of a few hundred movies all in their nice cases than a bunch of dvd-r's sitting in a spindle.
I'll always be for going to the store and buying my media if it costs the same as teh digitally delivered version. No compressed downloads for me. I can guarantee the movie downloads aren't filling DVD9 discs. And if they're not, you're losing quality. Why pay for less?
Future ruler of a small Asian-Pacific island
How will this stop a person from renting a DVD from blockbuster down the street and making a copy of it. Much cheaper than buying the orginal DVD to begin with.
Can we please get an automatic -1, Troll/Flamebait mod on any post that uses terms such as "Slashdot position", or "slashbot"? Contrary to what some believe, there are actually differing opinions here. There is no "Slashbot position".
In fact, the rest of the parent post pretty much confirms the subject line: "whine", "whining", "whiny babies", "cheap bastards"...
Grow up.
For the record, charge me money for a product with no restrictions and no ads. I'll pay. I'll pay a lot, as is evidenced by my large CD collection that I purchased during the Napster days, before all this non-standard DRM crap started showing up on CDs. And my large VHS collection. And my large book collection. Guess I'm not a "Slashbot", whatever that's supposed to be.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Content Scramble System? That's why! Microsoft's Internet Explorer team just had the wrong definition!
-- If unsure, say "Why?"
A good idea would be for them to produce a kit that requires you to have a PC/mac, printer, and a DL DVD burner.
The kit could have blank 'movie' DVDs that people have bitched about it requiring, blank labels, and blank cases.
Or perhaps you could integrate it all into a kiosk. Go to kiosk, tell it what you want, it prints the case, label, and DVD. You get a new movie for $10. All the profit goes to the MPAA except for however much they use to pay-off the property that the machine takes up.
Prices go down, selection goes way way way up..
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
This issue is exactly what the documentary ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM is about. Support people like Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig, and organizations like EFF, Creative Commons, and the Free Software Foundation. Just say no to the mass media who want this film silenced and support technology not greedy executives and politicians!
Also features Danger Mouse of Grey Album and Gnarls Barkley fame:
http://alternativefreedom.org/
Check out the new documentary ALTERANTIVE FREEDOM to hear RMS rip the MPAA! (He also rips the RIAA for kicks!)
"No, the pirates the MPAA is concerned about are the casual ones - the guy next door who will burn his also-tech-unsavvy neighbor a quick copy on his consumer DVD recorder."
you mean like recording hbo with your vcr? copying your friend's vhs tapes?
look, people have been doing this for decades and now they want to claim it's "casual piracy".
bullshit, it's established fair use under the spirit of the AHRA (1992) and the betamax decision (1984)
don't start spewing their loaded terminology, all it does is serve their agenda of trying to strip your rights in order to profiteer off the public by selling them back to you.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I thought that the studio executives had given the go-ahead to perform a massive public bonfire of all of movie downloads.
"Let's round up all them downloads, then put them bits and bytes in a big ol' pile and light 'er up!!!"
See, here's one way to look at the problem. Let's say I subscribe to HBO. HBO plays "Tears of the Sun," to use an example. I record it on my VCR. That's legal. If I take an A/V output from the satellite box and record it, that's fair use as well. If I then convert the VCR or whatever recording and convert it to a DIVX so I can play it on my PC, that's legal. But if I skip the work myself and grab a copy off the Internet, that's illegal.
The person who is effectively breaking the law by default is the guy who is uploading the movie, not the person downloading it. That isn't to say that the guy downloading it isn't breaking the law as well, but there are plenty of legitimate ways that he could have obtained the same exact result, legally, making the entire argument stupid.
Seems like a back-door to temporary ownership/licenses to me. Convince people they can burn their DVDs themselves after paying for a downloaded copy, only to have the disc fail a few years down the road.
Now you can have the fun of shopping for your favorite movies every 3 years!
What?
The aim of this move is simple: costs saving for the majors:
....
- They don't need to edit a DVD structure with bonuses and such
- They donc have to create the media, the jacket and such
- They don't have to manage media storage
- They don't have to manage media transportation
But you pay the same: They earn 35% more.
Same for downloadable manazines and news papers: same price, but the company saves paper, printing costs, transportation, unsold idtems,
I don't know what all this crazy talk about the studios and CSS is about, I just want to be able to use CSS to center things vertically without positioning hacks!
How about not require expensive blanks that are going to include, built into their price, a surcharge for using them with your purchased, downloaded movie? That's all this is -- there's no reason why you can't use a regular DVD-R blank (that's what they were designed for, after all); the only purpose this whole scheme they're cooking up with the special blanks serves is to chisel a few extra bucks out of you. You want a downloaded movie? Fine, that's $9. You want to burn it? Fine, but you have to buy one of these expensive blanks.
Either way, you're paying them twice.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
No, copying a friends tape is infringing. Making an extra copy to take with you in the car is fair use. Recording a show off of HBO so you can watch it later is fair use; giving it to a friend - even one who subscribes to HBO, is not, as far as I can tell. There's a fine line where fair use is concerned.
Making a copy of a work for your neighbor to watch is no more fair use than making a photocopy of a novel for him to read.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
BTW, what is this "Slashdot position" you speak of?
It's kind of like the Missionary Position, but without the other person.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
No movie studio on my home world would say "We want to give people the entertainment they want and offer it to them in the ways they want to use it."
I'm sure this is a nice place to vist, but could someone direct me home?
Thanks.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
that's a fat steaming load.
they assert it, but it's not true, and youre buying their big lie.
they get levvies on blank media and have forfeited the right to pursue that kind of activity as infringing, so no.. it is not "casual piracy".. it is "fair use"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Can we burn movies other than movies we buy from MPAA (i.e. a movie that we filmed ourselves), to CSS-protected DVDs with this? And if so, then what's to stop me from granting permission to the whole world, to bypass the CSS scrambling on my movie?
If I grant permission to bypass the protection on my content, then bypassing is not circumvention. It becomes legal to bypass the protection, and possibly legal to traffic in tools that bypass my protection.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
To add to this, even the most conservative of pro-copyright advocates in the US congress have acknowledged in public interview's that "dormroom to dormroom" or "person to person" copying is perfectly acceptible.
any assertions otherwise by these powerful interest groups is nothing more than power mongering and greed.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I don't know why everyone always throws such a big fit about CSS. I think it's about time that great standard expands from the interweb. Imagine how good our movies can be now!
Content Scramble System. Of course! How could I have missed it for so long.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
For the average joe, this is probably exactly what they would like to do- make copies of their expensive discs. People will feel better about taking their DVDs along with them on a bus ride, to a friend's, or on a plane (well, I guess that last one doesn't apply anymore). If it breaks, they can just take it the "master" to a kiosk and make another copy.
No, no, no, and no. You can't copy a disk with this. This is to allow kiosks to sell a wider range of media.
And, granted, this won't allow you to rip the DVD to your hard drive to put on portable media or watch from your PC, but a far smaller percentage of consumers are interested in this than just having a regular copy for normal use or in case the first goes belly-up.
Amazing that you say that. It also does NOT (repeat, NOT) allow you to burn cake and cookies in your DVD player. Shocking, really.
I pretend to know more than I really do by mooching off google and wikipedia.
Yes, but what if my Internet connection happens to lose a bit of CSS data? I'll just get a mess on my screen!
References?
(Trustme, I'd really like to be wrong about my reading of the fair use doctrine, but I've yet to see legislation or court cases which definitively assert that you are correct, and delinieate the limit of fair use person-to-person transfers of copyrighted works without permission.)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
it's been ages since i've seen the articles pertaining to this, but you can read the text of the AHRA online.
The AHRA was expressly written to address concerns by copyright interests that people would use recording devices to share recordings with friends. To remedy this in a balanced manner, they charged a small levvy on recording devices/media in return for the cartels forfeiting their rights to pursue cases of individual copying as infringing. This preserved the much more important concept of individual rights while addressing the potential of lost revenue, unlike the DMCA, which allows companies to essentially behave as vigilantes, legislators, judge, jury, and executioner in the form of robotic police known as DRM schemes, which obey only one side of a debate with 3 or more sides and ignore all established legislation and case law before hand.
further, unless the supreme court's interpretation copyright law expressly prohibits private copy of this matter then they cannot claim it as "piracy", they have to put this kind of thing through judicial review, which is where fair use is either established or discounted.
They did not succeed in doing this for the decades of history in recording before this period, which indicates to me that they did not consider it worth the effort of going through judicial review. now that DRM allows them to unfairly skip the whole process of judicial review and oversight of copyright law which used to legitimately preserve balance, theyre trying to assert this activity is illegitimate simply because the law allows them to use DRM to deny any and all rights to individuals. That does not represent a legitimate claim.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"it's been ages since i've seen the articles pertaining to this, but you can read the text of the AHRA online."
It's also known as Title 17, Chapter 10. Here's a copy, for anybody who's interested.
"The AHRA was expressly written to address concerns by copyright interests that people would use recording devices to share recordings with friends. To remedy this in a balanced manner, they charged a small levy on recording devices/media in return for the cartels forfeiting their rights to pursue cases of individual copying as infringing."
You are referring to 1008:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
I believe that you are correct that the specific case of copying a friend or neighbor's tape is exempt from action.
As an aside, many Slashdotters take this "noncommercial" notion and run with it. They state -- incorrectly -- that this makes piracy via P2P legal, as it's just making a copy for 10,000 of one's closest friends. When it became viable to distribute thousands of copies of an item at practically no cash (and thus not requiring that cash be paid for the pirated item), the DMCA closed this loophole.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
They state -- incorrectly -- that this makes piracy via P2P legal, as it's just making a copy for 10,000 of one's closest friends. When it became viable to distribute thousands of copies of an item at practically no cash (and thus not requiring that cash be paid for the pirated item), the DMCA closed this loophole.
I concede that current law holds p2p sharing to be illegal, and that this was not what I was arguing to be legal, but I disagree with the sentiment behind this opinion and the laws comming from it because it's based on logical fallacy.
10000 people trading 1 to 1 or 1 person trading 1 to 10000 produces the same result, as does selling millions of vcr's to people who will record millions of tv shows. Aggregate effect is a fallacious argument. Additionally, each upload is not instantaneous, so it would take weeks or months to share 10000 copies of even songs with people.. about the same time it would take to hand copies off physically.
I don't consider what the DMCA is doing "closing a loophole" either.. i think a more accurate expression of what it does would be "propping up a business model whose time has come.. and gone".
Nonetheless it is the law, and while one can argue a case for the morality of civil disobedience, no case for legality can stand.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
by the way.. it wasnt the DMCA which actually effected the change you mention.. it was the "NET" act of 1997 which actually made large scale noncommercial distribution illegal.
the DMCA's function is purely to give media companies a means to extort playback license fees from technologists, and to act anticompetitively upon them by issuing unilateral regulation independently of any legislative or judicial process.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The changes will allow home users to legally burn purchased movie downloads to special CSS protected DVDs, compatible with existing DVD players."
Last I heard, the whole point of the CSS system was to prevent us from making HIGH quality copies? So they are going to let us make DVDs, and yet be sure to prevent us from VCR'ing them... I know they're a little dim, but have they just TOTALLY LOST IT?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
... and for downloaded content.
I'd be fine with a "no-nonsense license" akin to Borland's:
"You may rip, burn, format-shift, edit, mangle, karioke, or whatever the hell else you want to do with this CD or DVD, within the privacy of your own personal equipment. However, you may not redistribute it in any form, except as permitted under Fair Use."
That's all either users or the content providers really need. Watermark the damned things if you like, I don't care. But don't inconvenience me beyond what I expect from an ordinary non-DRM'd purchased hardcopy, or I won't buy it at all.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Well, it's arguable that the DMCA doesn't make any additional restrictions, as it does not impede fair use, and I believe (danger: going from memory) specifically allows fair use. What it does, effectively, is make circumvention of DRM practically impossible for the typical layman.
Although I'm not going to send the RIAA a picture of my "borrowed" tape collection of Eagles albums, I'll bookmark some of this for later reading. I'd rather see case law where this has been tested and found in favor of the fair-use defendant, but I suspect the RIAA has tried their best to make sure cases that would support the law don't exist.
Personally, I still don't think it's a fair use (that's "fair" as in, "it's not fair to allow a 120 year term on copyright," not in the legal sense) of a work to give a copy to someone else without the author's permission, except as informal advertising. But maybe that's just me.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I realize you may be joking quite sarcastically, but I think the authors of the original script should be credited. Affording credit for the script may have been an oversight by the original poster, which is quite unfortunate (unless the individual happens to be one of the authors; I doubt that, however).
Qrpff, according to this link, consists of two scripts, both of which are capable of performing DeCSS. The version posted by the OP is the six-line version.
Always remember: When in doubt, ask the oracle.
He who has no
Well, it's arguable that the DMCA doesn't make any additional restrictions, as it does not impede fair use, and I believe (danger: going from memory) specifically allows fair use.
Major correction time here:
The whole point of the DMCA is to provide a legal support structure for DRM, which is specifically designed to restrict people from excercising rights they should have under the law***,it is explicitly designed to deny fair use, and no.. it does not in any way "allow" fair use, it's point is in fact the exact opposite.
*** (weather through explicit court decisions, explicit legislation, or through a "by intentional design" virtue of it being both unregulated and too expensive for it to be worthwhile for these cartels to put to court)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
From the DMCA, to suport my statment you feel is false:
"Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title"
In Universal City Studios Inc. v. Reimerdes, Judge Kaplan wrote, "The fact that Congress elected to leave technologically unsophisticated persons who wish to make fair use of encrypted copyrighted works without the technical means of doing so is a matter for Congress unless Congress' decision contravenes the Constitution."
So, as I said, the DMCA does restrict fair use to those who can create the cracks themselves, but it doesn't explicitly ban fair use. Someone giving you the tools is forbidden, but using them is not as long as the result is a fair use of the work. That's a shitty thing to do, and anyone who voted for it should be publically evicerated. But my point stands.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?