Slashdot Mirror
Copying HD DVD, Blu-ray Discs May Become Legal
Consumers could soon be able to make several legal copies of movies bought on HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc under a new licensing agreement now being negotiated. Rights holders might charge more for discs that can be copied for backup or for use on a media server, however.
...is that we weren't waiting for anyone's permission.
"Since you guys keep cracking our DRM schemes, we're going to be really nice and grant you fair use rights for the stuff you're paying for. See how cool we are!?"
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
I thought it was starting to feel chilly down here
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Neitzsche
Pay more? For our right to read the information you have bought for that specific purpose? Thanks!!!
c++;
Anyone with a real interest in copying a hd-dvd or blu-ray disc is likely already going to have the know-how (and disregard for the asinine DMCA) to do it illegally, while your average idiot consumer will continue doing whatever they do, consume I guess.
its possible to legally play on Linux I'm not interested.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Basically stating, "If you can afford to buy a burner and media, knock your fuckin socks off."
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Excuse me? The RIAA/MPAA people argue that DMCA forbids us from making backups of our media, but that is hardly FACT -- merely their legal position -- and as far as I know one that has NEVER been challenged. I'm sure they'd like for the public to think they are "giving" us something, but in fact what they are doing is saying "please use the item you've purchased from us in an appropriate mannner."
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Will they let me make a standard HD-DVD, Blu-ray, or DVD copy? No.
Will they let me use a standard video format copy for my computer (like mpg, xvid, etc.)? No.
Worthless. They still think that DRM is the answer, when it's the PROBLEM.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
How much of a need is there to make copies if you aren't going to give it to your friend? At about 30-50 gig per movie even the new terabyte drives would only hold 20+ movies. I take care of my DVDs and they stay in good shape, don't really need back up copies.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
For NetFlix's sake, if nothing else... :P
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Ahhhh... "legal" as in an exception made in the DMCA, no.
"Legal" as in the entities that control AACS and MPAA agreeing to 2 copies, yes.
It's still a scoop of gruel in an orphan's bowl. From TFA, it will allow one backup and one media device.
What if I have more than one media device? What if I have one and it gets lost or stolen? Now I can't put it on any others?
One backup? What happens when that backup is too beat up to work anymore. I can't make another backup?
This is just a trick for getting people to say "ooh, well, DRM isn't so bad after all."
They're offering a piddling fraction of the rights we as customers SHOULD have and treating it like we should be kissing their butts for the privilage.
More Twoson than Cupertino
If it is x2 the price or x3 for the ones that can be copied and used on sever then this is point less.
"Rights holders might charge more for discs that can be copied for backup or for use on a media server, however."
Uum, yeah. You just hang on to the $49.95 backup-ready copy of "Finding Nemo" there, and I'll take a "protected" one for $19.95. I don't need to put it on a server or iPod or anything, so I'll just take the cheap, "secure" one.
What's my credit card number?
09 F9 11 02 9D...
This is a sneaky marketing tactic they're using. Everybody feels good about being able to make copies of their disc, but they still maintain control with the DMCA over how we can use those discs. They maintain control by telling us we're buying a license to use the movie we buy in certain ways-- "in the blu-ray player for this disc, but if you want to copy it to your computer, you have to pay extra". Not because there's any extra cost in producing the disc that allows you to copy the data to your harddrive, but simply because they can get away with charging more.
This DMCA crap is copyright abuse. There's a reason copyright wasn't allowed this power-- it was supposed to control who could distribute the product, not how you could use it.
So...if I understand this right, I can make copies now, but my copies will still be as DRM-crippled as the original?
This helps me how?
I think I'll just stick to stripping out the DRM. Thanks anyway.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
First of all, it's a testament to the effectiveness of the media conglomerates that this headline does not outrage ./'ers in general.
Sadly though, most people have thrown away all of their personal use rights in exchange for little more than a high-def picture and an ipod. These people get what they deserve. Higher prices.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It's kind of disigenuous that they didn't mention allowing people to legally copy their DVDs. People (especially parents with young children) have been screaming about this for years.
Also, since CSS was cracked years ago, there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't have allowed DVD copying already, other than to use as a means of sending otherwise law-abiding citizens to jail. With the advent of Apple TV (along with similar products) and the possibility of ripping one's entire DVD collection and making it available in an easily browsable interface (like an MP3 collection), the outcry is probably getting louder.
Since I live in Canada, there's no DMCA, and I'm already paying taxes on blank DVDs, so this is not yet a problem. Still, I figure Stephen Harper and his cronies will bless us with a DMCA-like law soon.
And, yeah, the timing of this announcement is just a little too coincidental, what with the latest AACS crack.
This space left intentionally blank.
I do like managed copy (even though I think its useless because AACS is busted anyways), but the idea of a central server that would register and track these copies is a bad idea for consumers. It assumes you have internet access at the same place you want to watch the managed copy, as well as providing a mechanism for the movie industry to come in and see the volume of managed copies being used and say, "Well, we need to monitize this activity," and then now you have your pay-per-view system that the industry longs for. $2.99 for every time you create or possibly even watch a managed copy sounds good to them I'm sure.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
You are going to charge me more to exercise rights I already have. Then, on top of that you are going to "manage" (i.e. restrict) those rights with this so-called "managed copy". I am sorry, but I am perfectly capable of managing my own rights. Until AACS is permanently cracked a la DeCSS, I won't be buying either Blu-ray or HD-DVD.
Hardly. I believe it was Valenti who said the way you get a backup of The Lion King is, you buy two copies of the Lion King.
No, they're saying "please use the item you've purchased from us only in the ways we approve."
This comes after attempts 1) to restrict the kinds of technology you can buy ('trusted' computing, broadcast flags); 2) to restrict what you can do with your hardware (anti-circumvention laws) and 3) to redefine "purchase" so that it actually just means "rental" of their 'content', and they retain the right to dictate how the property your renting may be used.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
At least they are listening now it seems. I can agree to have a non copyable product at a lower price, and a premium product that allows me fair use rights so I can legally make copies and have an archival storage, an original, and a media center copy. Although, I think that the pricing of premium should be at or near if not lower than current pricing and the non copyable should be lesser value. I for one am happy to hear something like this is finally being thought about. It will also save me money in the format wars as I can simply buy a reader for my media copier and have a stored digital copy and archived copy in my preferred format (legally).
Movies fly off the shelf at places like Wal-Mart where you can pick up a lot of movies for $10 or under. Economies of scale work at beating back the effects of piracy. If they would charge $15 for regular new releases, they would make plenty of money off of them, and be at a price range where most people would just buy the real thing even if there were no DRM to make them have to buy them.
I wish *one exec from the "content industry" would come by just for a day. In case that happens, here's a message for himher, right up a the top:
Fair use means *copying of your "content" that we are *legally entitled to do. *Without asking for *permission. We do not have to sit down with you and work on the problem, try and strike a balance that pleases everyone, come to an acceptable price. We get to just do it.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
A License agreement is them giving us permission to copy the media we purchased. I'm not a lawyer but this has a bad smell to it, legally speaking.
If they give us permission to do what we are currently legally able to do under fair use then aren't we essentially giving up our right to fair use and giving them the ability to tell us yes you can make a copy, a backup or change the format too something portable etc?
Or more specifically we are agreeing that they have the right to tell us we can make a legal copy. But then they will of course say but we only allow one copy. Or we will not allow you to copy more than one and you cannot change the format type etc. Which when brought to court will not be fought with the argument of Fair use but be fought over our rights granted under this license agreement?
Funny, the last time I bought a DVD, I didn't have to sign anything that gave them any rights to my purchase. There was no EULA, there weren't even any signs at best buy saying what rights I had versus them. If it isn't explicitly listed BEFORE I buy it, I assume that I have full rights to do whatever I want with it, even make a frisbee out of it and throw it at the MPAA members.
today is spelling optional day.
In order to solve certain issues with the Front Row software I already have to make reference movies; however, this enables my entire distributed multi-platform (TV and computer client) home set-up hum. Want me to give you odds that this new "licensed copy" won't work?
I didn't think so.
While it's encouraging that they are noticing that stomping on basic fair use is a Kobayashi Maru scenario for them (as other posters rightly point out, people will just break the DRM and copy it anyway); it should go without saying that a non-interoperable, proprietary system that dictates not just what software (or possibly hardware even) I run on my "media server", but also the software/hardware options for the clients as well?
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd argue they've still dropped the ball, and this does not consitute picking it back up. More like when you see a kid reach for the ball but in reaching for it they kick it with their foot and push it even further out of reach.
Oh well. Status quo I suppose.
--
~AC
I'm pretty sure I read a while ago that one of the differences between HD DVD and BluRay is that this managed copy stuff is mandatory for HD DVD and optional for BluRay. If it's mandatory for HD DVD, and HD DVDs are already shipping, why are licensing agreements still being worked on? Shouldn't that all have been sorted out by now?
Over in Germany, we're paying an extra fee on blank media
as a compensation for fair use rights. Also, we were told
that CDs cost a lot, but that the extra charge covers the
private copies we have an explicit right to create.
Then came the copy protection.
Then came a law that makes it illegal to copy 'protected'
media.
We're still paying the fees.
I think I hate these new offerings even more.
Way I see it is that a new 'standard' gets pushed upon us, crippled with DRM (DRM which is ultimately paid for by us the consumer).
People hack away at the flakey DRM to produce something that works better, whether it be for dvds, games, m4p, wma, blu-ray, hd-dvd etc.
Suddenly the media companies seem to have realized that the DRM they're forcing on us is causing problems and not working in the wonderfully transparent fashion their PR spiel banged on about. What do they do? Do they fix their DRM? Do the admit they screwed up a bit? NOooooo - they relax/remove the DRM and try to sell it for even more - First Apple with the EMI tracks and now this.
This move also introduces Viewing Vouchers, an enhanced feature of DRM. The user will be provided not only with a disc containing the movie, but two vouchers for viewing the movie itself. Each movie comes with a Solo Voucher, for a single, non pausable, private viewing of the movie.
As a bonus, the package includes one Party Voucher (tm), allowing the viewer, and up to three approved friends, to view the movie simultaneously from one screen. If the user has no friends, the Party Voucher may be converted to a Solo Voucher for a small fee. This allows the user to get two viewings from one disc, essentially buying one movie and getting the second viewing free.
This offer is for a limited time only.
Dekker Dreyer
A license to say it's 'legal' is a misdiretion to make people think it is only legal if they say so, nothing more.
The only 'legality' is whether or not I can bypass encryption to make a copy, as opposed to a straight bit by bit copy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
in germany we pay "GEMA" charges for the content - that's 9% of the price
we also pay extra for CD-R, DVD+-R, Harddiscs, mp3 players, flashdiscs, CD Recorders, DVD Recorders, VCRs...
still the MAFIAA keeps telling us we were criminals
they even pay for TV spots that say "copy piracy is a crime"
just to scare people (that don't know about their fair use right, which is a right here), away from making LEGAL copies... so that they don't legally give copies to their friends, so that their friends have to pay the full price...
they even went so far to build prison-cell immitations in cinemas, the games convention and such - where you can test how it feels where you're going if you copy stuff.... (but they don't tell people about their fair use right of course)
AND THEY'RE EVEN PROUD OF THIS GESTAPO MARKETING
they glorify this on their homepage http://www.hartabergerecht.de/
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
In light of the recent lopping off of one of our limbs, we hereby voluntarily agree to withhold one of our limbs from the battle, prefering instead to keep it in reserve as a statement of our good will. However, we still remain firm on our refusal to grant you unrestricted passage across this bridge that you claim to have recently purchased, and, furthermore, we demand that you refrain from lopping off our other limbs, as this would constitute a clear violation of the law.
-- The Black Knight
CEO, AACS Inc.
I have bought around 40 DVDs over the past six years and I have a few DVDs which are simply have corrupted or bad spots on them that you cannot visually see, but when you play the disc when it gets to a particular spot or some spots it confuses the DVD player and causes it to freez or even crash on some software DVD players. One such DVD is K-19 (has several bad spots) and another one that I can remember at this time is Beetlejuice.
I have always wondered if it were possible to get a new / fully working DVD disc replacement from the movie distributors since they claim we have only licensed it, and it is their fault that their product is basically defective and we should have the right to get a replacement by law you would think.
This space is not for rent.
This is not a concession, we always had this right. The DMCA created a catch 22 by making it illegal to decrypt the item in order to exercise this right. Now they want to make this a for pay privilege. What is worse, being able to copy once DOES NOT = fair use by any means. Fair use means being able to work with the content in any number of ways in addition to being able to copy it. For example, taking clips and making presentation for a class, copying the sound tracks and mixing them for you own entertainment, creating a parody, and editing out objectionable content.
What they are trying to do is turn a fundamental right into much weakened for pay privilege so they can have control and power over it. They want is to have their cake and eat it to. It should not be up to them to determine what is and is not fair use is. Fair use should be any use that our populace finds to be on average fair to both the consumer and rights holder. Yep that is as nebulous as it sounds and it does change from time to time. That is what they have to accept living in a free society, not this managed copy crap MS is trying to use to keep their walking corpse moving.
But whatever the object, you must keep him praying to it. To the thing he has made, not to the person that has made him.
Attach a little note that says "I know you could already eat (expletive), but now I'm being gracious and allowing you fair use - feel free to eat it and to share it with the rest of the office."
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
I should've read the entire nested thread before commenting. I feel dumb for posting (unknowingly) nearly the exact same things as the person above me.
Anyone have a paper towel I can use to get this pie off my face?
Insert Sig Here
Don't buy the content
That's what I do now. But the point is not what you or I do. The point is how influential the media conglomerates are.
Here's another way to get a sense of how pervasive the media conglomerates and their messages are: Try going one week without, watching any tv, going to any movie distributed by the media conglomerates, watching a movie _not_ distributed by a media conglomerates, playing a game that the media conglomerates have _not_ produced or funded, reading a magazine not owned or funded by a media conglomerate.
The average American sniffs derisively at the notion that North Koreans have one media outlet. We may have more media, but the message is coordinated in a very similar fashion as in North Korea.
One week. Try it... I dare you.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
You didn't think you could get a copy with as light a protection as the physical discs have, did you? After all, you can loan out a physical disc - not so with the "managed" copies.
Managed copies are a crock and I have been saying since day 1 that people touting this ability as a "feature" of HD-DVD or Blu-Ray are fools.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You know, now that I think of it, the fact that there are these two standards fighting to win dominance and singular acceptance, there is one aspect of this that makes me a little optimistic.
Since the SCOTUS ruled that copying for the purpose of changing format is legal, acceptable and protected use, this whole HD-DVD vs BlueRay thing will likely raise the same issues as the matter begins to come to a head.
Now I know that it's not completely on topic since the offering is to sell you the right to copy at a higher price than the original. But ultimately, the format of the media is irrelevant and the "right to copy" isn't something the media producers isn't a right they have to remove from the consumer. They are at will to make it easier and charge more for it of course, which is what they are really doing.
And here's a stupid question I'm sure. But has it been determined with finality that the DMCA has effectively overrides fair use such as that which allows copies for personal use? I mean after all, it's supposed to be illegal to kill another person, yet we have the right [in Texas] to kill an intruder in our homes. So the fact that the DMCA outlaws 'circumvention devices' should not be a means by which the DMCA should circumvent user rights. I'm guessing no such ruling has occured at this time since I haven't heard of one... but you know, I could have missed that somewhere.
We've been here before.
The Audio Home Recording Act of 1991 gave consumers the right to copy CDs as long as they were copied onto specially-encoded blank media ("Music CD-Rs" or "Audio CD-Rs") whose price included a fee paid to the music industry.
I owned a home audio recorder (computerless CD copier) that fell within the scope of that act. I bought the prescribed media. It worked quite well for a number of years. It used a technical mechanism called SCCS which sounds very similar to this "managed copying." It allowed first-generation copies from original media, but would not copy the copies.
Then the music publishers came out with copy-protected CDs. My home audio recorder would not copy these CDs. Basically, the SCCS mechanism cut in, insisting that the copy limit had already been reached and that further copying was prohibited.
It was all well and good that the law gave me the right to copy them, and that I paid for every copy I ever made (in the form of the extra costs of the "music CD-Rs"). But there was basically no way I could take advantage of this right.
I made numerous calls, send emails, and letters to the CD publisher (UMI) and the recorder vendor (TEAC) trying to resolve the issue. I was never able to get satisfaction, beyond returning the CD for a refund.
It's the usual consumer problem. These guys were breaking the law, but it's awfully hard to stop a big company from cheating consumers if they only cheat each individual consumer by a small amount.
What's to stop the DVD publishers from making this "managed copying" available for a while, then using technical means to renege on the terms a few years later?
What's the good of a reasonably fair-sounding deal if David has no way to hold Goliath to the terms of the deal?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
... and you get to exercise your constitutional rights to Fair Use.
So, basically, if you are poor, we consider you a criminal and you don't deserve to have the constitutional rights due to everyone else.
Two interesting ways of interpreting the scheme where you pay more in order to be allowed to do something that's legal anyway.
As long as people keep buying no matter what these companies do, we'll continue to see our rights eroded away.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
I'm not giving them my money until they've made it possible for me to exercise my rights.
In my case, it's not copying I care about so much as ability to play on an HDTV with component video input, not HDMI.
Any word on if this proposal would allow that?
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Goddammit, I want recognition of my right to access information any fucking way I choose. Stop "granting me permission" to use *your* approved methods. Fuck you. People have the right to access data that they legally possess. Period. It's very simple to understand. http://www.bytesfree.org/wiki/index.php/RightsPape r
What? Huh?? Permission?? What are you guys talking about? I will make backups as I see fit, just like I always have with tapes, cds, dvds.... /rolls eyes at silly media companies
Fair use is a legal defense, not a right.
The media conglomerates are not obsolete. They own distribution to movies and music. Artists are the fodder for their sh_t pipe.
Try getting your favorite non-label artist onto the airwaves or into Walmart sometime.
This is why they got the fcc to kill internet radio. If they don't kill it outright, it's okay. They'll raise the barrier to entry so they can control that too.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
And copyright is a granted, temporary monopoly on distribution, not a right.
Today it's content you don't care about.
Tomorrow, it will be content you used to care about.
It has nothing to do with new ideas because there aren't any.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
The statement sounds like Blu-Ray and HD DVD are massive successes, and this is a new "bonus" feature. People don't want corporate cameras or tracking technology in their homes. This is just a desperate *market* concession. My bet is DVD sales are well past peak, and this is just further gimick to get you to to buy The Matrix again. People don't have enough time for all the content that is out there as it is. Supply gets more and relatively infinite, and demand is limited by time.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
It means the publishers are starting to feel a noticeable amount of heat on the subject of DRM provisions.
The bad news is, this move will successfully defuse quite a lot of that heat. One of our simplest, most easily understood arguments was "we're not allowed to make backup copies of our own media". They're neutralizing that argument, or at least making it much harder to explain (which is the same thing).
I don't understand. This is already legal. And there's even a tax for this that you pay when buying CD's and Tapes.
Oh wait, not everyone of you is living in Sweden. Sorry about that, i shouldn't have used such general terms as "it is legal" etc. when in fact i only know that it's legal in Sweden.
I wonder in what country these new laws will apply, the author didn't say.
Mattias