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
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
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News