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.

Comments

The obvious problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is that we weren't waiting for anyone's permission.

Re:The obvious problem...

[TheRecklessWanderer]

Have you ever brought back a CD to a store that is maybe 2 or 3 years old and told them it was broken?

Do they take it back and give you (the same) cd back?

If what we are paying for is the content solely, then shouldn't they?

I think it would make the whole industry more credible if they were willing to do that.

Why should I have to pay a second time for content that I already paid for.

Also, if I have it on tape, shouldn't I be able to trade it in for CD, and same with VHS and DVD? Pay a small fee for the upgraded quality of the content, but still, I own the movie, so why do I have to buy it again?

Re:The obvious problem...

[cpt kangarooski]

Sigh. I really, really hate the software industry for using copyright licenses so much. They've completely confused so many people as to how things really work.

Look, when you buy a copy of a work, such as a book, or a CD, or a DVD, etc. you are simply buying the physical medium which happens to have a copy of the work fixed within it. It is that simple. It is no different from buying a brick or a car.

You can then use that copy however you like, so long as you use it in a lawful manner, just like with anything else you buy. If you buy a car, then you can drive however you want, but you still cannot break traffic laws with it. When you buy a book, you can use it however you want (read it, learn from it, use it to prop up the bed) but you can't do illegal things (e.g. make another copy of it, if it is copyrighted at the time you do so). When the copyright runs out, fewer things are illegal. Depending on your circumstances, something may or may not be illegal while those circumstances hold.

There is no license. In fact, the various publishing companies don't even claim that there are licenses. Copyright warnings (e.g. it's illegal to make copies of this) are not licenses, they're just restating the law. If your car came with a sticker that said 'don't run over people' that would be the same thing.

Software, and works which are accessed over the net (e.g. iTMS music) are really the only exceptions to this in the consumer market. And it's a bit sad, since software doesn't need to be licensed to end users to begin with; users would be able to use the software and make backups of software without licenses, and developers would still be protected. Licenses are only really useful for things like site licenses, or where the work isn't software. And even then, implied licenses (e.g. as used for virtually every web page, allowing users to make copies of the page as is necessary in order to see it, due to how computers work) could handle a lot of the remainder.

I am just sick and tired of all the crap where people think that Disney or whomever is not selling DVDs, but is instead licensing them. They aren't, and they never said otherwise, even. You know how a EULA for software is relatively up-front and in your face? When DVDs do that, then you'll know they're licensed. Otherwise, I assure you, it's not happening, not for the stuff you get from the store.

The consequences of this are that 1) it's illegal to make copies (often even backups) due to the law; 2) if your copy breaks, you are not entitled to a replacement or to make a replacement if you hadn't (lawfully) done so already; 3) you aren't entitled to get better quality copies merely because you have a lower quality copy.

strikes me as unnecessary

[Spazntwich]

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.

They still just DON'T GET IT

[elrous0]

So what? So they let me make a "managed copy" of a disc. What good does that do when the "managed copy" is so locked down and crippled by DRM that only a special player will play it? What good does it do me if I can make a copy for my computer or video player, but it's in a nonstandard DRM'ed format that almost no media player or media extender will play?

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.

Throwing a bone

[Applekid]

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.

Re:Pay more?

[Caiwyn]

Actually, if they offer it in a format that doesn't need to be cracked, then yes, I would consider paying more for that. I often buy CDs -- even used CDs -- at a higher price than the iTunes Music Store offers. The benefits are a lossless physical hard copy that I can then transcode into any format I choose.

They're going to charge *more*?!

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

"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...

Tricky

[bdjacobson]

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.

"Managed" copies?

[TripMaster Monkey]

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.

When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections?

[mpapet]

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.

Re:When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections?

[radtea]

You can (continue to?) pirate the content.

What part of, "Fair use is not piracy" do you not understand?

The OP is pointing out, quite correctly, that we have a legal right to fair use, which may include the right to make backup copies. I neither know nor care what you or anyone else feels about the necessity of backup copies. Your experience, needs, desires and wants are totally irrelevant to the legal fact of fair use rights.

DRM is a failed attempt to prevent me from exercising my fair use rights. Again, whether or not you think I'm a moron for wanting to do so is irrelevant. It is not piracy to do so. It is a matter of legal fact that I have those rights. Even the RIAA once admitted that, in front of the Supreme Court no less.

Re:Heh

[morgan_greywolf]

"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!?"

** for a small fee of course. That's right we're going to CHARGE YOU for exercising your RIGHTS under Fair Use, including the right to make a backup for archival purposes and to use your legally purchased media on your own devices.

They can blow it out their ass. I'll just keep cracking the DRM, thanks.

Let me get this straight...

[edbob]

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.

Price reductions work

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:Pay more?

[eln]

The problem is they introduced technology to take away our fair use rights, and are now going to charge us more to give us back the rights they shouldn't have been allowed to take away in the first place.

Re:How much of a need is there

[pluther]

It's not just backups.

I currently occasionally watch movies on any of:
My DVD player, connected to a standard TV set
My Linux desktop machine, when I'm in my home office
My Windows laptop machine, while I'm traveling (sitting around in airports)
My PDA, while I'm riding the train to work

My music-playing choices are even more varied. According to ??AA, every time I watch a movie on my PDA, I'm breaking the law, if I bought that movie on DVD.

Re:Pay more?

[Scrameustache]

Actually, if they offer it in a format that doesn't need to be cracked, then yes, I would consider paying more for that. You're still waiting for your flying car, aren't you?
You're gonna be paying more for a DRM scheme that allows a limited number of copies, IF all your gear is "trusted" and expensive, of course. They have been consistent in their efforts: they want control.

Missed point: it's not the DRM, it's control.

[Anderson Council]

So, we may be permitted to make a copy or two of product we purchase. How exciting. If I make a copy to put on my media server (for example, as suggested by the article), is this going to preclude me making another copy later if I trash my media server? Does this include *my* media server (which is currently a linux box), or some idealized media server that no one actually owns? Will this all work transparently with my linux server, linux + mac + windows clients thing that I have going right now?

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

Re:Exactly

[TheRaven64]

They want to charge more for the version you can make copies of. That means, they want to charge less for the version you can't make copies of. That's also fine, because the version you can't make copies of isn't covered by copyright law.

Copyright law is a bargain that is made between creators and society. Society agrees to enforce a temporary monopoly on distribution. In exchange, the creator agrees to allow certain fair-use rights during their period of exclusivity, and release the work into the public domain at the end. If the creator is now allowing fair use rights, then they are unilaterally nullifying the bargain, and their copyright should no longer be enforced. They can't have it both ways.