Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Copying HD DVD, Blu-ray Discs May Become Legal

Posted by kdawson on from the but-it-could-cost-ya dept.

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.

8 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. The obvious problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:The obvious problem... by TheRecklessWanderer · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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?

      --
      Mean what you say...say what you mean.
  2. They still just DON'T GET IT by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. Throwing a bone by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. They're going to charge *more*?! by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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...

  5. Tricky by bdjacobson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections? by mpapet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Missed point: it's not the DRM, it's control. by Anderson+Council · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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