Proposed Amendment Would Ban All DVD Copying

Ynefel writes in with a PC Magazine article reporting that the DVD Copy Control Association is considering an amendment to the agreement equipment vendors must abide by, which would completely ban all DVD backups, whether fair use or not, and prevent DVDs from playing without the DVD disk being present in the drive. The amendment is being voted on imminently and if approved would go into effect within 18 months. Quoting: "The proposed amendment was made public in a letter sent by Michael Malcolm, the chief executive of Kaleidescape, a DVD jukebox company which successfully defeated a suit by the DVD CCA this past March."

Comments

For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

This amendment is NOT an amendment to the law. It's an amendment to the license agreement between the association responsible for the DVD standard and the companies that create DVD products. As such, its only direct impact on the consumer is that DVD Backup products will have their licenses revoked. Which would make it that much more difficult to excercise our fair-use rights to make a backup of the media and/or space-shift the media.

I think that Kaleidescape is right to worry in this situation. The change to the license agreement appears to be a direct attack on their business. Which, if successful, would represent irreparable harm to the market at large. The convenience aspect of digitally ripping the media cannot be understated. With such devices on the market, consumers are able to place their physical copies in storage while still having easy access to their media. Most of us do it with our CDs without giving it a second thought. Why should our movies be any different? (I know that I can't be the only one who has shelf-space problems with CDs, DVDs, and Video Games.)

As a party being directly harmed by an artifcial monopoly, I certainly hope that Kaleidescape takes this to court should it be approved. Consumers have a right to use their bought and paid-for media as they like. The DVD standard shouldn't be used as a bludgeon to take that away. If Kaleidescape is unsuccessful in their suit, I would hope that a class-action suit could be initiated for the harm caused to consumers.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[TheRecklessWanderer]

I don't know about the laws in the US (IANAL) but in Canada for a contract to be enforcable it must not pertain to illegal elements.

So if fair use is legislated, then not allowing fair use would violate that law, and make the contract (agreement) or perhaps that one segment of the agreement unenforcable within the courts.

Of course, enforcement is one thing, and the DCA is hitting the equipment manufacturers who don't want to rock the boat in most cases. I'll bet Samsung is the only company to have a go at getting around this problem.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Kjella]

Consumers have a right to use their bought and paid-for media as they like.

Wish that was true. It's not specificly listed as a right, and fair use is an affirmative defense. What does that mean? Well, in short it means you do it, they complain, you call fair use, they lose. If you don't get to do it (DRM, DMCA etc.) you complain, they ignore you, you lose. There's nothing to sue the DVD CCA over in the fair use paragraph, it only says that some things that otherwise might be copyright infringement aren't.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Red Flayer]

US contracts do not have that problem; they include a clause that if any part of the agreement is declared invalid, the rest of the agreement will remain in force. This is why even very similar items in a contract are given separate clauses.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

If you don't get to do it (DRM, DMCA etc.) you complain, they ignore you, you lose. There's nothing to sue the DVD CCA over in the fair use paragraph, it only says that some things that otherwise might be copyright infringement aren't.

Actually, there's a LOT to sue over here. According to the fair-use laws (including the DMCA), you can make a backup, but you can't break the encryption to do it. It needs to be an exact backup. Thus the only way to make a legal backup is to use a licensed device like Kaleidescape's. The device complies with both the DMCA and DVD license requirements by backing up the disc with its CSS protection intact. So copying the data out of the device won't gain you much. (At least according to TFA.)

By changing their licensing agreement, the DVD CCA would be demonstrating anti-trust behavior that is damaging to consumers and market competitors. Ergo, they could be brought up on a variety of contract disputes AND anti-trust charges.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once!

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[TheWanderingHermit]

I would say it's more anti-customer than anti-competitive, but I'm actually glad to see it. We've all seen this getting worse and worse. With this, it'll be bad enough that consumers will start to get offended. This could be the step that pushes consumers too far and backfires on them. If it isn't, well, they'll just keep tightening their grip until they do push the public too far, then the backlash will not only shock them, but will tumble many of their "improvements" that are based on greed.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[terrymr]

It's actually a fairly useless provision. Once a judge decides he's going to fix your contract because it's unfair/unenforceable/whatever it's up to him where he stops.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[teh_chrizzle]

So if fair use is legislated, then not allowing fair use would violate that law, and make the contract (agreement) or perhaps that one segment of the agreement unenforcable within the courts.

i don't think that matters in the US with the way things currently stand. that's why DRM and it's ilk, and anti-circumvention laws are so insidious.

i too am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the way things work right now, if a vendor were to put up a barrier of some sort, that barrier stands and cannot be legally circumvented regardless of the fair use or consumer rights that may be violated.

i don't agree with the practice at all, and i think that it will take much civil disobedience to force a change of any kind.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Red Flayer]

True, but it requires that the judge or arbitrator actually edit the contract. Typically, a judge would address all the issues brought before the court, and no others.

In Canada, if part of the contract is unenforceable, the entire contract is void by default (not sure if this can be avoided), so the contracting parties need to draw up a new contract.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[CastrTroy]

But it would still allow backups to be made, because that part is illegal, so the clause that contains the part about making backups won't be able to be enforced. However, I still don't know if this works. Stopping somebody from doing something legal is not actually illegal. For instance, I could license you my patent on the terms that you may only sell the product by people ordering directly via telephone. Normally it would be legal for you to sell the product whichever way you want, but since you're agreeing to the contract, you have to abide by it, or you are in breach of contract.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[GeckoX]

That is not true at all, not even close.

Contracts are merely written accounts of agreements between parties. As such, they can be changed. I have a contract right here that is a legal representation of an agreement between me and my former employer, which has been manually edited by both parties numerous times, and notarized thereafter.

Here's a hint the lawyers don't want you to know: Contracts aren't actually worth the paper they are written on. They can ALWAYS be contested. They can also always very easily be changed, in whole or in part. They can't be invalidated because they are never validated in the first place per se.

There is a reason that contract law is basically a profession in and of itself.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

Stopping somebody from doing something legal is not actually illegal. For instance, I could license you my patent on the terms that you may only sell the product by people ordering directly via telephone.

Contracts still need consideration to be held enforceable. Changing your terms to put an existing licensee out of business does not sound like particularly strong consideration to me. A good judge would have a field day with such a contract change. (A bad judge will simply get it kicked into appeals until a good judge is found.)

There are also anti-trust issues which I addressed in a post slightly farther down this thread.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Firethorn]

Untrue. If you and me enter an agreement represented by a contract written down on paper and signed by both parties, it hold a heck of a lot of power in a civil court. Even better if it's notarized, witnessed, whatever.

It's a large basis of the whole court system.

Now what tends to get software license contracts in hot water is that they're trying to mess over the consumer, the license contract isn't even presented until after the purchase, frequently when the consumer has already set up the equipment. There's no way for the company to prove that the person who clicked through the agreement was a competent adult, or even read it.

Sometimes 'fine print' or deliberately obtuse writings get thrown out.

The simpler the contract, the more visibly witnessed/signed it is, the more proof that both parties understood what they were getting into, the more enforcable the contract.

Just watch court TV sometime, wait for the people to come in where one person has a copy of the contract, copies of past receipts, etc... You'll find that those tend to be very fast cases.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once! I also stayed at one once. I couldn't figure out how to close the curtains in my room!

Needless to say, I didn't feel any smarter the next day.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Firethorn]

Actually, there's a LOT to sue over here. According to the fair-use laws (including the DMCA), you can make a backup, but you can't break the encryption to do it. It needs to be an exact backup. Thus the only way to make a legal backup is to use a licensed device like Kaleidescape's. The device complies with both the DMCA and DVD license requirements by backing up the disc with its CSS protection intact.

Why would you need a license to make an exact bit for bit copy? I thought the license gained you access to information and keys to decrypt the information for playback. If you're making a bit for bit copy, who cares? They can stick the copy into their DVD player to play it.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[91degrees]

Fair use is not a right. It's a defence to copyright infringement.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

what they should do is quit _selling_ devices like this and start leasing them. Then when the law changes, the leasing company could simply then not renew their lease and get the device back which they can then dispose of.

Microsoft is headed this way with pay per use software, and this sort of agreement could also apply to dvd's, ie., we could get it out of the consumers mind that they somehow "own" a dvd rather than a license to view it a certain number of times. Really, after you watch a movie a few times, its not much more use to you unless you have problems with your brain which should remain outside the scope of legislation.

Kaleidescape's device violated the spirit of the law by allowing unrestricted piracy, and so who cares if they get the smackdown?

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Hatta]

I would say it's more anti-customer than anti-competitive

A restriction that prohibits a vendor from providing the customer the best possible product makes that vendor less competitive.

This could be the step that pushes consumers too far and backfires on them. If it isn't, well, they'll just keep tightening their grip until they do push the public too far

What makes you think there is a "too far". As far as I can tell if the public was going to revolt over IP issues they would have done so a long, long time ago. They just don't care and will accept anything *ANYTHING* the media cartels can push through congress.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[pegr]

DVD Backup products will have their licenses revoked.
 
Aside from Kaleidescape, I don't believe any DVD backup vendor had a license to begin with. So other than destroying Kaleidescape's jukebox product, the amendment has absolutely no affect whatsoever...

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

Why would you need a license to make an exact bit for bit copy?

*You* don't. The company that makes the backup device needs a license to the DVD/CSS technology in order to play back the backups made on the device. So in order for the device to exist in the first place, the manufacturer has to meet the licensing requirements. Something that Kaleidescape does.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

Kaleidescape's device violated the spirit of the law by allowing unrestricted piracy, and so who cares if they get the smackdown?

Did you pay any attention to what was said above? Kaleidescape's device does NOT allow unrestricted piracy. As I just said, it copies the CSS protection intact. Since it's licensed as a DVD/CSS decoder, it can play back those backups in a 100% legal manner. It does not, however, provide an easy way to "allow unrestricted piracy".

Hmm... posting as Anonymous Coward... ignoring the prior posts as well as all sense of logic... some sort of vendetta against Kaleidescape... you wouldn't happen to work for one of the involved parties (aka MPAA member companies), would you?

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Red Flayer]

Hogwash. Contracts are binding agreements, even though they are subject to change -- if it is agreed upon by both parties (which, in effect, replaces the old contract with a new one). Yes, they can be contested, but there must be a basis in law for the the contestation.

As for them not able to be invalidated, perhaps you have no understanding of what entering a contract means. If you enter a contract, and fail to fulfill your material obligations as part of the contract, the other party in the contract has legal recourse against you. This is fact in the US. Should you contest some part of the contract, you can have the legal system adjudicate your dispute. This is also fact -- but, you would need to demonstrate to the court that the part of the contract that you are contesting runs afoul of the law or standard business practices. Tpyically in the US, the remainder of the contract remains in force.

In Canada, if you successfully contest part of the contract, the contract is null and void, meaning you have no legal obligation to fulfill non-accrued obligations unde the contract.

Example: A rental agreement for a residential property, where the tentant are required to pay for heat, although the tenants do not have access to the thermostat. In most states (if not all), this clause is unenforceable. If brought before the court, a judge would likely rule that the lease is still in effect to the end of its term, but the tenants do not have to pay for heat. If the tenant moves out prior to the end of the term due to the ill will stemming from the dispute, the landlord can still sue them for the unpaid portion of the lease (however many months are remaining); he will win, assuming there are no other problems, provided that he demonstrates to the court that he made an effort in good faith to get new tenants.

In Canada, however, the clause regarding the heating bill would be considered unenforceable, and as a result, typically the entire lease would be held as unenforceable -- the parties could choose to draw up a new lease (which includes amending the current one), or they could choose to sever their business relationship. If the latter, the tenant is not obligated to pay the rent for future months, even if the landlord cannot get a new tenant.

There is a reason that contract law is basically a profession in and of itself.

You're right, and it's because contracts are legally enforceable.

So, a general question for you: did you bother to think about what I wrote, or did you make a knee-jerk reaction based upon the fact that any legal agreement can be changed with the consent of the involved parties, which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that contracts deemed to be invalid in part by Canadian courts are deemed to be invalid in whole unless otherwise stipulated in the contract?

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Samalie]

IANAL, but I was a politician. Canadian standard contract law contains the same "If one part of this agreement is declared invalid.....the rest is still fully enforceable" as the USA. However, by my understanding of canadian law...backup copies are protected legally under fair use, which would make (in theory) the "meat" of the contracts from the article discussion null and void, so the only things left would be the crappy legalese that doesn't mean shit.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always thought about modifing a credit card contract and sending it in and see if it would get approved. My modifications would include my suggested interest rate, line out the part that states the contract could not be changed, change the fees to my liking, line out the entire arbitration section, place a section in there that states by activing this application and sending my a credit card implies they agree to my terms. Initial my changes and additions, sign the application and send it in.

I'm willing to bet that some minimum wage worker on the other end will not notice anything but the part with my name on it, enter everything into the computer and I'd get my new credit card in the mail.

The only reason I have never done this is I know I do not have the resources or time to fight with them when they do not acknowledge my terms which would technically and legally be a legal binding contract. They would blow me off and I'd be stuck in CSR hell.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Keith_Beef]

Like TheRecklessWanderer mentioned.

So if fair use is legislated, then not allowing fair use would violate that law, and make the contract (agreement) or perhaps that one segment of the agreement unenforcable within the courts.

Which means that if the CCA adds a clause to the contract that the Kaleidoscope signs, and that clause forbids something that is considered "Fair Use", then that single clause is null though other clauses remain in force.

But Kaleidoscope has a very strong claim, that this clause has been drafted with the clear intent of attempting to prevent it from carrying on its business, as is pointed out in the article. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2148802,00.as p

Beef.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[walt-sjc]

if the public was going to revolt over IP issues they would have done so a long, long time ago.

The full impact of DRM and other technologies has yet to impact consumers in any major way. About the most "in your face" DRM mechanism at this point is HDCP, which when implemented poorly causes major problems (you can't watch legit content.)

So I don't agree. Since there hasn't been a significant issue, there is no major backlash. The largest backlash from general consumers is CD copy-protection that installed back doors (Sony,) or caused CD's not to work in computers at all.

Once the DRM systems become ubiquitous and start to become real problems for consumers, we will see a REAL backlash. Maybe it will be when your Sat. or Cable co. provided DVR will refuse to record certain content, or not allow fast-forwarding, skipping at all, or refuse to save recorded content longer than 2 days. Maybe it will be when new DVD players refuse to play old DVDs at all. I don't know when the point will be, but I do see us getting to that point some time in the next several years.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[TheWanderingHermit]

Yes, it doe make them less competitive. I'm not saying it isn't. To me it seems more of a cruelty on the consumer.

They just don't care and will accept anything *ANYTHING* the media cartels can push through congress.

I don't think so. I remember when CDs came out. Vinyl was about $8 per album and CDs were about $16 per album. CDs were cheaper than vinyl, but at the time, it was hard for people to react in any way since home burners were not available at that point. Once they were available, blank media became popular, then, finally, there was Napster. While I think there are always greedy people who will take what they can for free, most are willing to pay a reasonable price for it. Napster was, among other things, a rebellion against the high price of CDs. Even though the prices had not gone up in the roughly 2 decades CDs were out, people still felt they cost more than a fair price. That's why iTunes is so popular. While it includes DRM, $.99 a song is a much more reasonable price to most people.

I remember back in the days of my Apple //e when almost everything was copy protected. Eventually companies gave up on protection because they realized it wasn't worth the money and effort and those that were going to pirate would do so anyway. In that case, they didn't push too hard but realized their version of DRM wasn't worth it. On the other hand, now, the MPAA is pushing too hard. They tried that with VCRs when Jack Valenti told Congress that VCRs were to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper was to women of 19th century London. Eventually, though, they realized they could not control the public and found ways to profit from a new business model. The more they push the public, though, the quicker the public is to pirate or find ways to copy or circumvent the "protective" measures.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[walt-sjc]

The contact isn't between the consumers and the DVD group, it's between the DVD group and DVD licensees. You will still have the right to do backups and other fair use activities, just no hardware will be available to help you do it.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[UnknownSoldier]

I don't need your "permission" to backup "my" DVDs, CD's, and Games. Thank-God for civil disobedience over stupid laws.

There is no moral difference if I lend my original to a friend, or make a copy and keep my original safely tucked away, even though there is a legal difference.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[StargateSteve]

how about now? (I'm talking about the DVD player issue) When the first AACS key was made known, a second key was developed. At some point the the very-near-future, HD-DVD players with the old key will now be able to play new HD-DVDs, unless the user upgrades. I think DRM will always be around, but it will need to get more agressive, for it to work. The problem is, when it gets to the point that it's in-your-face all the time, eventualy the general public will say "enough". I just need to wait untill then. In the mean-time, the cat-and-mouse game will continue with hackers (and crackers) breaking the newest "best" DRM, and the companies pouring more money into a broken system. (IMHO)

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't need your "permission" to backup "my" DVDs, CD's, and Games.

Indeed. And that would be fair use.

They have no obligation to make it possible for you to do this.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[LionMage]

Really, after you watch a movie a few times, its not much more use to you unless you have problems with your brain which should remain outside the scope of legislation.

Unless you're one of those silly people who likes watching a movie over and over again... like my aunt, who watches It's a Wonderful Life every Christmas -- and even bought me a movie trivia game solely about that movie one holiday, yikes!

But yeah, thanks for implying that fans who re-watch movies regularly are somehow brain damaged. I suppose you think people who re-read their favorite books are also similarly mentally challenged... even though many published authors will read and re-read the works of other writers to get ideas and to try and infuse some of the other writer's style into their own. Yeah, they must all be brain damaged too.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Eff you and the CCA!

As long as there are 1s and 0s, there will be duplication.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Hatta]

We've been living with Macrovision for how long? 20 years? It doesn't seem to bother people that much. (pisses me the hell off though) We have DVD players that won't let us skip promos for movies that aired YEARS ago. We have DirecTV suing anyone who's bought a smartcard programmer. We have people bending over backwards to bend over forwards for Apple's DRM. And there's the Sony root kit, what consequences did Sony face for that? They had to replace a few CDs. If hacking a few tens of thousands of PCs won't land a CIO in jail, what will? At this point I honestly believe there's nothing the public won't accept. Piracy is as much a blank check to legislators as the War on Drug Users.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Firethorn]

Hmm... Maybe I wasn't clear. What I was talking about was a device that makes the copies, but doesn't play them.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[jez9999]

The convenience aspect of digitally ripping the media cannot be understated.

Think you mean 'overstated'.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Kjella]

By changing their licensing agreement, the DVD CCA would be demonstrating anti-trust behavior that is damaging to consumers and market competitors. Ergo, they could be brought up on a variety of contract disputes AND anti-trust charges.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once!

May I suggest then a reading of the Anti-trust page? In brief, for the behavior to be anti-competitive, it must be an unreasonable restraint on trade or commerce. Monopoly power in itself, nor using it to make tons of money is not illegal. While keeping consumers from copying is a kick in the nuts, it's not a restraint on their ability to use other formats. Nor is it a restraint on companies providing movies in other formats.

Yes, it would kill some other markets, but in general anti-trust law doesn't protect those unless you're using your monopoly to give yourself an unfair advantage. If a car company came up with a low-maintenance car it wouldn't be "anti-trust behavior" towards car mechanics even though it certainly would be bad for all of them. On the other hand, if they made it talk via a special diagnostic computer which would give them a monopoly on repairing cars, that'd be an anti-trust violation.

As for contracts, quite probably this *is* the process for changing the DVD licensing agreement. Quite probably there's no real dispute here, I'm sure it's spelled out in Kaleidescape's contract that if the forum votes to change it, it changes with an "accept or terminate" option for them. Are you really that surprised? It's quite common for everything you produce on license, unless you bought the rights in full.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[ducomputergeek]

I am just in Law School, not a lawyer yet, but have I had Contracts.

Actually, what a lawyer will say is, "Store bought and contracts that you write yourself have a high probability of being nullified in court." When you hire a lawyer to write a contract, it's not so likely to happen. After all, writing contracts, especially by a lawyer that specializes in the field, is what lawyers are supposed to do. When people do it themselves, they can often confuse terms and might use bad word choices like "bi-weekly" instead of "Every other week". Now there are some store bought contracts that work very well, especially for those in the construction field, etc..

However, if a contract is valid, signed, and especially notarized by an official 3rd party, it can still be contested in court, but chances are the plaintiff is going to loose. In reality, like with anything else legal, what is going to happen is lawyers are going to advise some kind of settlement since that is often cheaper than going to court, even if the defendant is correct. Now that is something people don't like to here, especially those that like principles, but say a $15,000 settlement vs. $75,000 in legal fees to take a case to trail...most businessmen know which of those two amounts are less.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

You can't do that without special equipment or breaking the encryption. The CSS system (redundancy ahoy!) uses a special track which does not exist on rewritable DVDs. In fact, DVD drives have special commands for reading the track. The information on that track is encrypted with a set of "player keys". The Player Keys are contained within licensed software, and are used to decrypt the disc key track. The disc keys are used to decrypt the title keys, which are the actual keys used to watch the movie.

In addition, the DVD drive has to authenticate a CSS disc with its own encryption checks before it will allow the disc to be read.

DeCSS works by brute-force cracking the encryption. (CSS uses a 40-bit key.) So it's not really possible to create a *legal* backup of a DVD disc without a license and equipment from the DVD CCA.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think your changes would mean much unless they are at least initialed by the other party, and you have a copy of that.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

May I suggest then a reading of the Anti-trust page? In brief, for the behavior to be anti-competitive, it must be an unreasonable restraint on trade or commerce. While keeping consumers from copying is a kick in the nuts, it's not a restraint on their ability to use other formats.

I have to disagree with you. This change is an unreasonable restraint on the consumer's ability to make use of their media. Both copyright law and the DMCA provide explicit fair-use exceptions for backups. The Beta-Max case demonstrated that the Supreme Court wishes to uphold the consumer's right to fair-use of content he has a legal right to. This sentiment was echoed in the Grokster case and the Vault v. Quaid case.

Nor is it a restraint on companies providing movies in other formats.

Yes it is. The DVD standard is a monopoly. Kalidoscape cannot be reasonably expected to continue their services in face of a contract change given that nearly all home movies are currently distributed on DVD discs. They have a legal license to provide the service they are providing. Crushing them with a highly targeted license change is the very definition of an anti-trust maneuver.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Lockejaw]

With this, it'll be bad enough that consumers will start to get offended.

Unless they can convince people that making backup DVDs has always been illegal -- then people won't think anything is being taken from them.
You can't protest an upcoming invasion of Eastasia if the soldiers have always been there.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[hal2814]

"What makes you think there is a "too far". As far as I can tell if the public was going to revolt over IP issues..."

And what makes you think revolt would be the end product of pushing IP restrictions too far? I don't think there is going to be any tea in the harbor over this or any DRM. Most likely people will act with their wallets and simply not buy products that are too DRM encumbered for their tastes. Since everyone's tastes are different, not everyone will stop buying over the same issue but as DRM becomes more and more obtrusive, there will be less interest in the DRMd product.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Dancindan84]

"I hereby retroactively ban the wheel! Wait. What do you mean that's useless?"

The technology (hardware and software) already exists and is in the hands of a LOT of consumers. It's already been shown that their attempts at DRM are a mere afternoon hobby for hackers. What exactly are they trying to do here other than piss off potential customers?

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I would hire a lawyer to write a contract for me that mixes up "here" and "hear".

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

thats why its important to support your MPAA representatives

So you do work for the MPAA or member company. Thought so.

No offsense, but how about dropping the charade and logging in? Or at the very least, make an argument of your exact problem with Kaleidescape rather than taking sideswipes at their supposed use as a piracy tool. If you have a good point, then I might agree with you. But as it stands right now, you're not doing anything to reverse the generally poor impression of the MPAA and its members.

(And for what it's worth, I've often defended the MPAA as "not quite as evil as the RIAA". This move is not helping that case any.)

I won't lie to you. This is environment is generally hostile to large organizations. But if you're going to argue your case (which I would actually be interested in seeing) then do us all a favor and go all the way with it.

what happens if your aunts one copy of "its a wonderful life" broke, without the movie companies protecting their back catalogs, who's going to be there to sell her another copy?

What's my guarantee that the company owning "It's a Wonderful Life" will even publish a backup copy? I used to have tapes of a really great show called "Captain Power" that I very much enjoyed. Now they cannot be purchased. Someone has the rights to them, but I can't get a new tape or DVD unless I can find a used copy in good condition or resort to illegal copies.

This situation is the exact situation that fair-use backups are intended to cover. I may have lost my Captain Power tapes, but thanks to such backups I still have original Commodore 64 floppies. The original owners were smart enough to make a backup, then store the original. When the backup wore out, they'd pull the original and make another backup. That way the media lived on for far longer than it would have if the original media had been used.

I wish I had been as dilligent about backups when I was young. If I had been, I might still have a lot of my old tapes as well as nearly irreplaceable software such as Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego. (You may notice that the republished versions are very different games.)

So what is the MPAA member supposed to do to stay in business? Generate new content worth purchasing. Reselling the exact same content with no added value is not a business model. That's merely trying to cheat people out of their hard earned money.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

Yes I did. Good catch! :)

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[TheWanderingHermit]

Read the more recently posted articles here. It turns out EMI is doing so well that even the paranoid companies, like Sony, are considering releasing DRM free music.

Yes, it'll always be around, but at some point the producers realize that it's an unending expense and realize it's better to just drop it and make what money they can. Look at digital media over the past 25 years. In the long run companies tend to drop it.

The AACS will be a good example of consumers getting fed up when they find the players they've paid good money for won't play their HD-DVDs, they'll get upset. Many don't even know what the issue is and haven't heard of AACS. All they'll know is that some discs don't play and they got ripped off. After that goes on for a while, companies will realize they're losing as much in good will as they might be saving in cost.

I am thinking along the same lines as you when you talk about it being in-your-face. When it gets to the point where people can't copy the media they buy for backups or to their own storage, it'll start angering them. It seems that the producers are blind and all they see is their content and the need to control it. They have no respect for their customers and treat them as thieves. The sooner they get high on their own egos and overstep the line, like Sony did with their rootkit, the sooner they'll have to back off.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[CyberLord Seven]

Many of us here at Slashdot tend to trot out the old Betamax decision when talking about our rights to copy media; however, this NY Times article (registration required) suggests that the whole concept of stare decisis is not as sacred a cow as I once believed.

So the question is not whether the Roberts court will overturn more precedents, but how often, by what standard and in what terms.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[jedidiah]

Fair Use is not just a nice idea, it is infact the law. Section 107 to be precise.

It's a bit misleading to say that it's not (a part of the law).

This isn't something that isn't written down in the law anywhere that some member of SCOTUS has to manufacture from somewhere. It's actually in the relevant bit of the law.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[jedidiah]

A DVD is a shiny plastic disk.

There shouldn't be anything preventing you from creating a device to read that shiny plastic disk. A license should not be necessary. There might be some patents in play here but those tend to expire (unlike copyright).

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[falconwolf]

This could be the step that pushes consumers too far and backfires on them. If it isn't, well, they'll just keep tightening their grip until they do push the public too far, then the backlash will not only shock them

Unfortunately I doubt this will make consumers push back. If consumers didn't push back when copyrights were extended pass the creator's life and or DMCA this won't do it either.

Falcon

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

You can modify your DVD's ROM to read it. But how are you going to write it without a shiny plastic disc containing the CSS area?

If you answer "DeCSS", my answer is going to be "DMCA". And that's why you can't sell a 100% legal backup device without a license from the DVD CCA.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[jedidiah]

The disk is just a collection of bits governed by physics.

There is nothing unique or interesting from a hardware point of view regarding those bits that are related to DVD encryption.

Build a feature complete DVD reader and it will "rip" any disc you like.

No license is required, just physics.

Decoding those bits is another matter.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[TheWanderingHermit]

They can ignore copyrights if they want to. They can't easily ignore this.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

this NY Times article (registration required) suggests that the whole concept of stare decisis is not as sacred a cow as I once believed.

As the article mentions, it never was a sacred cow. Courts don't let prior decisions get in the way of a logical decision. If precedent makes sense for the current situation, then precedent will be followed. Especially if it solves a difficult dillema. If precedent would be foolhardy to follow, then precedent be damned. Courts tend to prefer logic over precedent any day of the week.

In the situation of the Betamax, Vault, and Grokster cases, the comments of the judges are in many ways more important than the decisions themselves. Those comments show that the court is extremely keen on not inhibiting the development of technology just because copyright law didn't foresee its development. In the case of the betamax decision, it was practically a stare decisis overturn unto itself.

What I'm getting at is that you are at risk any time you go to court. But with precedent on your side you at least have a strong case. With cases as recent as Grokster's reaffirming the protection of consumer rights through technology, I don't think that it's going to be overturned anytime soon. But I could be wrong! :-)

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

And you still haven't clarified how you're going to make a legal backup of the DVD without the necessary equipment and discs. We've already established that it's possible to read the discs. That's not the question. How are you going to write them to be compatible (or at least decode them into an non-CSS copy) without tripping over a technically illegal step?

I can create backup DVDs all I want. The software exists to do it. That doesn't mean that the steps I'm taking are legal. In fact, they are very much illegal thanks to the DMCA.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[CyberLord Seven]

You make a good case, but I'm concerned about this statement you made:

As the article mentions, it never was a sacred cow. Courts don't let prior decisions get in the way of a logical decision. (Emphasis mine)

From the previously cited article,

"Power, not reason is the new currency of this court's decision making," Justice Marshall delared...(emphasis mine)

Guess we'll just have to wait and see what they actually do, if anything.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Dausha]

"There is a reason that contract law is basically a profession in and of itself."

Because some idiots think that contracts are written documents, are easily mutable, or always contestable. These are idiot clients that end up paying contracts lawyers to pull their arse out of the fire.

The essence of a contract is an agreement between two parties where both sides give something of value. Sometimes, the contract must be written, but the don't always have to be.

As for contestable, not really. This is a question of economics. One of my law professors explained a neat trick he puts into employment contracts where there is a non-compete agreement. Without getting into details, part of the employee's salary is the value given for agreeing not to challenge the non-compete. The non-compete is extreme such that it would not be enforceable. However, the contract also says that if the non-compete is invalidated by the court, then the value given to the employee must be returned. That return of value is easily enforceable.

There was one employee (an executive) who decided to challenge the non-compete agreement. The lawyer for the employee sent a letter informing my professor (a practicing attorney) that he was going to file a suit. The professor responded that if suit were filed, his client (the company) would stipulate (i.e., admit) that the non-compete was invalid. He also told the lawyer to re-read the contract. Upon re-reading the contract, the lawyer discovered that his client would have to repay 2 years of salary upon invalidation. The non-compete was for a year, meaning that it cost more to win than lose. The result was the executive had to quit working for a year---the new company would not buy out his contract. In contract law, there are many pyrrhic victories.

Contract law it a career field because it is extremely intricate, in part because language itself is ambiguous and people tend to argue about the gray areas. Contracts are about enforcing trust. As long as people are untrustworthy, contracts will remain.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[PitaBred]

By them accepting your signed application and putting it through, I'd think that would be as much acceptance as anyone could manage. They have to have had the last look at it before it was approved, and if they didn't read the contract, that's their problem.

Of course, IANAL. I think logically, not legally.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Or "loose" and "lose"

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[notamisfit]

I don't think that fair use is in fact legislated; it's simply an affirmative defense to a complaint of copyright infringement. This is kinda like all of the disk-based copy protections that were all the rage back in the early PC days; they can't file copyright infringement for a personal backup, but there is *nothing* requiring them to make that backup easy or even possible.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[r3m0t]

So this result benefited who exactly?

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[BBird]

for me napster was --
1) the efficient way to find near out of market songs
2) a way to escape the buy-15-tracks-or-none implicit in the cd business

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Checkmait]

I think you are absolutely right here. Businesses in the DVD industry are taking things WAY too far. It's one thing to use DRM, which is hated by most everyone. But it's entirely a new thing to attempt to sabotage our rights under copyright law.

I'm hoping that the DVD CCA gets their penny-pinching a** kicked in court for their rampant materialism and total disregard for the law.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[jedidiah]

It is not circumvention for a disk drive to read bits on a disk. That is what disk drives do.

What the CCA is trying to do is to contractually prevent what it cannot legally prevent Kaleidiscope from doing.

You don't need a contract from the CCA to read bits of an arbitrarily constructed optical disk. Reading one portion of the disk versus another isn't "circumvention". It's just how electronics work.

If the CCA can't keep Kaleidescope from ripping DVD's, they certainly can't keep the rest of the industry from making proper burners and proper DVD drives.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Firethorn]

Let's say that I'm making a 'fark the MPAA' disc copier. Wouldn't it be relativly simple at that point to also contract with some chinese country to also make a 'DVD' disc with a writeable CSS area?

Heck, it'd be a continous revenue stream for me to be selling 'unlimited' writeable DVDs.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Belial6]

It really isn't surprising that a person in a trade would tell people that are not in that trade that they cannot do the work themselves. I have seen some contracts written by people who specialize in the field of law. Most of the time they are boiler plate contracts. No doubt there are times when an individual needs some help with a contract, buy given that most of the ones I've seen have been boiler plate anyway, I'm going to chalk up the advice that store bought contracts 'have a high probability of being nullified in court' to someone who is rationalizing his industries contribution to society.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Lehk228]

a lawyer telling people they shouldn't write contracts themselves, but rather should hire a lawyer? i am shocked.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

It might as well be an amendment to the law. The DMCA makes violating such private quasi-laws a violation of US Federal civil and criminal (including felonies with up to 5 years for a first offense). Repeal the DMCA and stop delegating legislative power to businesses! If you make DRM, you can make such a quasi-law and have the real US law, gov't and its power (courts, police and jails)
  enforce it for you.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[notabaggins]

Fair use is not a right. It's a defence to copyright infringement. No, copyright is not a right. It's a limited monopoly granted by the public to encourage the arts. Read the Constitution some day. Congress is allowed to grant limited monopolies but not required.

This entire matter has been stood on its head by greedy corporate bastards who produce nothing. The artists are not be protected nor benefiting any more than the public is. It's time we realize that we grant copyrights.

And we can take them away.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

You don't need a contract from the CCA to read bits of an arbitrarily constructed optical disk.

You are correct. Until you want to play it back. Then you need to decode it. I will ask you for the third time, how will you do that without taking illegal steps?

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

Wouldn't it be relativly simple at that point to also contract with some chinese country to also make a 'DVD' disc with a writeable CSS area?

Possibly. That would be a rather major effort, however, and you'd need to prove that you're not producing the DVDs and drives as part of a "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" (per DMCA). If a court finds you guilty of doing so, you'll get shut down and slapped with a fine faster than you can say, "What happened?"

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[cfiopus]

The next step in this trend would be to dictate what you are allowed to wear with your designer jeans, or what brand of gas, oil, wax, etc... you have to use on your car. After all they only have to "sell" them under a liscense agreement. This is how they are getting away with this type of control. Average Consumers have no idea that they are not purchasing the movie, game, or music, but instead are only purchasing a liscense for limited use of the product. This type of control was to protect the companies, or individuals from having copyrighted material "shared" and therefore robbing them of revenue. Traditionally these liscenses have not had an expiration, so the only way to have them expire is to not allow archiving (CD's and DVD's have a ten year life expectancy.) This denies the consumer the right to protect thier investment, while increasing revenue for these companies. This denial of protection is secure ground for a class action lawsuit.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

You didn't read anything I wrote, did you? :-/

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[pionzypher]

Isn't the DMCA the reason why there are no commercial software players for linux? If memory serves, every player I've used requires libdecss which is illegal. The act of decrypting CSS to access content is the issue, no?

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Just wow.

Firstly, contract law in Canada is not uniform because a great deal of contract law is wholly within provincial jurisdiction per (among others) the Constitutional Act, 1867 (as amended) ss VI. 92 11-14. The federal government's powers with respect to regulation of contract law are extremely limited, and extend only microscopically beyond contracts directly between The Crown and other parties.

Consequently, for the purposes of contract law, there are fourteen regulatory jurisdictions.

In particuar, Québec uses an entirely different legal structure that is codified in the Civil Code chapter on "Obligations". While much of "Obligations" works similarly to contract law in Ontario, in Quebec there is no requirement for consideration for a contract to be valid.

Moreover, since about 1988 various Revised Statutes have been published in various provinces, in an attempt to borrow the best practices of codification (as done in Quebec) in consolidating common law so as to smooth the flow of resolving controversies of equity, tort and contract by reducing the number of exceptions and disagreements over the applicability of various rulings. This is generally informed by the preamble to the first modern Civil Code of Quebec (1997 version):

The Civil Code comprises a body of rules which, in all matters within the letter, spirit or object of its provisions, lays down the jus commune, expressly or by implication. In these matters, the Code is the foundation of all other laws, although other laws may complement the Code or make exceptions to it.

Jus commune meaning common law.

Some other provincial codifications are partial and tend to follow the best practices of consolidation of the laws of England and Wales that has been undertaken in the past two decades by the UK Parliament, such as the Sales of Goods Act (Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1996).

The nature of common law and different statutes and regulations laid down by the provincial legislatures and governments following their own schedules, has led to differences in contract law from province to province. Noteworthy variations include different rules on fraud, equitable defences, volitions and privity, and issues over which which there can be no meeting of minds.

Severability, however, is well established in all ten provinces. The principal question tends to be whether a contract is severable by default or not, and that varies from province to province. All the jurisdictions allow contracting parties to agree explicitly to consider some, all, or no clauses survive if other clauses are struck down, expire, or are otherwise made unenforceable.

Pragmatically, severability helps both parties in a long term contract in an environment where statute, regulation, and precedent can introduce potentially expensive future liabilities on either party. Moreover, there are many cases where both parties would be damaged by being without a contract because a controversy among third parties lead to a change in law that renders just one clause of a substantial contract unenforceable.

A variety of your other claims are very province specific (landlord-tenant law is a provincial matter in Canada).

For example, in Ontario and British Columbia, it is very common to find this wording in premises leases:

All of the provisions of this Lease are to be construed as covenants even though not expressed as such. If any such provision is held or rendered illegal or unenforceable it shall be considered separate and severable from this Lease and the remaining provisions of this Lease shall remain in force and bind the parties as though the illegal or unenforceable provision had never been included in this Lease..

which is suggested wording taken directly from the official supplement and guide to the regulations issued under the Residential Tenancy Act of the latter province. The Act itself

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[jamar0303]

And of course the Chinese manufacturers won't give a crap about this,thus leaving customers with an option for backup. And heaven forbid that the US tries to stop them? the sparks will fly.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't the hardware be sold as an optical disc copier without claiming DVD compatibility?

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Let 'em screw with BluRay - it's just another BS gimmick to get you yo buy more and newer hardware and DVDs. After we spend a fortune to buy into this BS, the next newest DVD standard will come out, and the cycle will start again (of course it's not backward compatible, you idiot!) Ya, ya, I know all about the "pros", but that's like M$ Vista - just buy all new hardware, and you can get the latest unstable and virus prone OS...
The majority of people can't tell the difference between high res and low res video anyway; they are quite content to watch NTSC on their new 50" 16:9 plasma TV and think they have something special.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Ryan Monster]

Or a lawyer that mixes up "trail" and "trial"

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[jedidiah]

You plop it into any CCA licensed DVD player.

This is exactly how Kaleidiscope works.

The representation of the bits is entirely orthogonal to how you get the bits off of and onto the disk. No one needs to cripple their server hardware just because it might become a pirates tool. Although this is something that the RIAA and MPAA salivate over.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[AKAImBatman]

You plop it into any CCA licensed DVD player.

The encrypted binary without the DVD disc? I don't believe that works in licensed players, though I'd be interested if there is evidence to the contrary.

This is exactly how Kaleidiscope works.

Kaleidescape has its own player which has a license to the DVD CSS technology. Without that license, its custom player couldn't exist. Without its custom player, you can't play the encrypted DVD image.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[davetree]

"Consumers have a right to use their bought and paid-for media as they like. The DVD standard shouldn't be used as a bludgeon to take that away. If Kaleidescape is unsuccessful in their suit, I would hope that a class-action suit could be initiated for the harm caused to consumers." Darn right! I'm gettin the shotgun out when they come around to bludgeon all ma CD copies.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[Firethorn]

By my understanding of the legislation, my theoretical system wouldn't be a circumvention device. After all, it copies the encryption right along with everything else.

Re:For those who don't RTFA

[rtechie]

restraint on trade or commerce. I'm sure their argument is going to be that, since this change puts them out of business, that this is an unreasonable restraint on trade. They'd also argue "breach of contract", that the DVD forum deliberately did not give lengthy advance notice (like 5 years) to manufacturers in a deliberate attempt to force them out of business. They had to spent millions in capital investment for their devices based on backups, and now all that money goes down the drain because of this change.

dear execs

[tomstdenis]

suck cock already.

Whether I buy a movie or not is not dictated by whether I can pirate it. It's by whether I can a) play it, and b) want to watch it. Stop making shitty movies and I'll buy/rent more (speaking of renting my last 6 or so rentals were all shitty despite being "highly rated" so I'm a bit pissed off).

Tom

Re:dear execs

[jshriverWVU]

y last 6 or so rentals were all shitty despite being "highly rated" so I'm a bit pissed off.

You must have rented Gigli or Episode 1 right?

Re:dear execs

[TheMeuge]

Firstly, Pan's Labyrinth is in Spanish, not Italian. Secondly, only an American could say that a movie sucks because it's in a different language.

My take on that is that you should kill yourself, for the benefit of the human gene pool.

Re:dear execs

[Anonymous Coward]

"Whether I buy a movie or not is not dictated by whether I can pirate it. It's by whether I can a) play it, and b) want to watch it. Stop making shitty movies and I'll buy/rent more (speaking of renting my last 6 or so rentals were all shitty despite being "highly rated" so I'm a bit pissed off)."

Well, these actions are going to push users to piracy.

Re:dear execs

[tomstdenis]

Whatever, I didn't say it was bad because it's in another language. I said it's bad because it's boring, long, drawn out, and the lead character looks like a dude. And the chirping sounds every 3 seconds from the "creatures from the woods" was really annoying.

And I'm not American, I'm Canadian, bilingual and have a respect for other languages [I watched several movies in arabic [with subtitles] and enjoyed their point of view].

You must be one of them European hippies where if someone doesn't agree with you it's because they're a yankee fascist pigdog. Here's a tip, we don't all think the same over here, and that's perfectly ok.

Re:dear execs

[jshriverWVU]

agree, never saw smoking aces but rented Pan's Labrynth didnt like it either. Epic movie just looked to cheesy even for me, so never rented. Figured it would be as bad as "Date Movie".

Re:dear execs

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Only a pathetic person would tell someone else to kill themselves. A pathetic ignorant person who has not enough maturity to value life. Before you start claiming who should live and who should die you should learn some respect for people and stop acting like a child!

Re:dear execs

[deep_creek]

Completely agree. They should focus their efforts on making good/tolerable movies. I watched an old classic "Smokey and the Bandit" last night and wished Hollywood would bring back the magic of real stunts, etc... While some of the computer-animation is cool, it completely robs a movie of being "real". Today's movies remind me of maybe watching a video game with really good graphics. The technology is there, but not quite. I can detect it just enough to tell the actor is standing in front of a blank screen. That and crappy story lines (the stuff the movie industry will through money at is completely laughable) keeps me from the theatre and buying DVDs/CDs(music industry is in the same mess).

Re:dear execs

[tomstdenis]

Yup you caught me. I has a low educations, and are trying to learns to read. That or it could be a TYPO IN A WORD that I rarely type. No, it must be because I'm an imbecile. How amazing perceptive, I want to subscribe to your newsletter. Where do I find the Anonymous Cowards weekly? Is it at my local newsstand?

Thanks,
Tom

Re:dear execs

[Hognoxious]

I'm Canadian, bilingual

In other words, you speak English and French equally badly.

Re:dear execs

[tomstdenis]

...equally poorly.

But thanks for trying.

Re:dear execs

[Chris Burke]

You thought a movie set in the Spanish Civil War was in Italian, and you thought that beautiful little girl in a dress was a boy.

Yes, you are right, it is completely unfair to generalize Americans, Canadians, North Americans, English speakers, or anyone else as being like you.

Re:dear execs

[Lord Apathy]

Going to have to agree here. Pan's Labyrinth blew big time. And as an American I will say a large part of that was because it didn't have an English sound track. I'm sitting here trying to follow the subtitles but I'm missing most of the video because I'm halving to concentrate on them not to miss anything. And when I do miss something I have to go back and rewind to see what it was. Simply there was no reason not to add a english track other than the producer didn't want to.

Then there was the ending. Sorry, I hate movies where kids are harmed for no reason. The ending was a kick in the balls for me. If I had known that it would have ended like that I would have passed on it. Fuck That, That Sucked.

Re:dear execs

[Hognoxious]

Really? Are you telling me that you don't speak and/or write in an unsatisfactory, inadequate, or unskilled manner?

Q.E.D. That's Latin for "pwned you, luser!" or something.

Re:dear execs

[vux984]

Going to have to agree here. Pan's Labyrinth blew big time. And as an American I will say a large part of that was because it didn't have an English sound track. I'm sitting here trying to follow the subtitles but I'm missing most of the video because I'm halving to concentrate on them not to miss anything. And when I do miss something I have to go back and rewind to see what it was.

If there had been an English over-dub I still would have watched it in Spanish with subtitles. I have never seen a movie that was better with an over-dub. I suppose if you are a poor/slow reader subtitles are a problem, but really that's not the movies fault.

Sorry, I hate movies where kids are harmed for no reason. The ending was a kick in the balls for me. If I had known that it would have ended like that I would have passed on it. Fuck That, That Sucked.

You think she was harmed for no reason? Get fucking real. There was a hell of a good reason. And its not even certain she was even really harmed. You managed to miss the entire point of the movie.

Re:dear execs

[goldspider]

People who make the "I don't buy DVDs because the movies are garbage" argument are pretty sure to reap some karma, but it doesn't hold up so well when those same people download said garbage for free.

Not necessarily saying YOU download movies (because you didn't say so), but there are certainly a lot of hypocrites who do.

Re:dear execs

[tomstdenis]

Or maybe it says something about the quality of movies out of Spain?

Tom

Re:dear execs

[fbjon]

Subtitles are not a problem. You'll get used to them fairly quickly, and when you do, you won't want to go back to poor voice acting again.

Re:dear execs

[tomstdenis]

Yeah it's fairly easy to call it when they have a blue screen going on. The edges don't look right, the lighting is usually off. Some movies that are super hyped have a really amateurish quality when you come down to thinking about it.

For example, the "ghosts" in the water in the LOTR when the hobbit guy falls in. They look like superimposed cut-outs for crying out loud! Most "explosion" scenes are cut from horribly staged shots [e.g. the angles/scene doesn't match up with the action scene that leads into it].

This is what you get when you spend %80 of your budget on the producer, directors and couple of A list actors.

Re:dear execs

[cayenne8]

" I watched an old classic "Smokey and the Bandit" last night and wished Hollywood would bring back the magic of real stunts, etc... "

Yup, and stories that are just plain 'fun'. I still get tickled at some of those Jackie Gleason lines...

• I'm gonna baaabarcue your ass in molassas
• There is no way...NO WAY....that you came from my loins
• Hehehe...well, you sounded a little 'taller' on the radio
• When I get home, I'm gonna punch yo momma right in the mouth
• ...you sum-bitch....(in various situations)
• I'll have a diablo sandwich and a Dr. Pepper, and make it snappy, I'm in a got-damned hurry...

R.I.P. Jackie...

Re:dear execs

[OldeTimeGeek]

I wish I had mod points. Calling Smokey and the Bandit classic is the funniest thing I've heard in weeks.

Re:dear execs

[Anonymous Coward]

In foreign language films I completely agree. You however, don't have to put up with my mother, who makes us turn on subtitles whenever somebody in the film has a British accent. Subtitles for films that are already in English are extremely annoying (for those of us who aren't hard of hearing). It's very hard to will yourself not to read the large letters appearing on screen, even when you know doing so is going to completely ruin dramatic moments or any surprises. Grr.

Re:dear execs

[Lord Apathy]

Nope, not going to happen. I've really tried to get used to subtitles. I watch an assload of anime. 95% of my netflix queue is anime. I've tried it with the orginal japanisse sound track in place with the subtitles. Didn't work. I just cant' get used to it.

Now I'm back to english sound tracks only. Which really sucks because, unlike spanish, japanesse really, really sucks when you translate it to english. You lose a shit load of meanings.

An english sound track wouldnt' have been to hard. Since it was on DVD there really was no reason for me NOT to have an english subtrack. That wasy I could have chosen to watch it in english or with the subtracks. The only reason I can think of them not having one is some bullshit reason like the producer only wanted the movie sown intact for artisic reason.

Re:dear execs

[Lord Apathy]

She was killed for no reason. Don't care what anyone else says that alone is enough to move the movie to the sucks donkey balls list. I didnt' have to have a hollywood ending but it didn't have t end like that.

Oh and for those wonder what the hell I'm raving about. She's 10 years old and he shot her in the right between her legs. Then we are treated to the next 8 mins of watching her bleed to death and die having more strange visions. That was all uncalled for. If he would have shot her between the eyes, that I might have been able to handle. But not like that.

Re:dear execs

[Chris Burke]

I thought we weren't generalizing.

I'm pretty sure you and you alone confusing Spanish and Italian and girls for boys says more about you and you alone than it does about anything else.

Re:dear execs

[vux984]

For those who haven't watched it just go watch it, don't read this post as spoilers follow...

For crying out loud, she was shot in the stomach.

If she'd been shot in the head, death would (at least according to the rules of guns in movies) have been instantaneous which wouldn't have worked as well for the scenes that followed.

The bleeding was crucial to the plot element requiring an innocent blood sacrifice to open the portal to the other world so she could return home. Captain Vidal, by killing her, ultimately frees her from a world she didn't belong in.

If you believe the fairy tale was real, then she didn't really die, her spirit is returned to the fairy world where she was a princess reunited with her parents. And even if you are in the camp who feels that the fairy world was her own invention, and that she simply died a tragic death you still have to accept that she believed herself to have been freed.

As she dies she smiles, showing that she was happy and at peace.

By refusing to sacrifice her infant step-brother she gave up her chance to go home, and demonstrated her ability to think for herself, to refuse to obey the Faun. Thereby demonstrating she was worthy to be a princess of the fairy world. The Faun was very much a parallel to Captain Vidal. And her test to refuse to obey the Faun mirrors the Doctor's refusal to obey the Captain.

There is *so* much more depth to this movie than you seem to have gotten out of it.

Re:dear execs

[mgblst]

I will never but DVDs. My gf bought some, and we watched one last night. All I want to do is watch a movie, I don't want to be told that copying the movie is akin to stealing a car. I want to skip that shit, and watch the movie - no, we have to sit thorugh about 3 mintues of crap, because we BOUGHT the movie. I bet if we did buy a dodgey copy, they would skip all that anti-pirate shit.

Re:dear execs

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do I find the Anonymous Cowards weekly?

It's between "Canuck Wankers Monthly" and "Thick Hosers' Journal", not in the Gay porn section where you usually lurk.

Re:dear execs

[Lord Apathy]

It was cruel and pointless. At no point did it advance the plot or add anything to the movie that couldn't have been done in a better and more tasteful manner. It was bitter disappointing ending to a bitter disappointing movie. Leave Pan's Labyrinth in the trash bin where it belongs.

If you must see a movie with a cute unknown actress try Little Miss Sunshine. Cute kid, complex and thoughtful plot and its funny in its own way. Best of all, nobody dies to make a stupid point. If you must have a movie with maze, a cute actress, and lots of muppets try Labyrinth. It even has David Bowie and a kick ass sound track.

Thank you, drive through.

At last!

[aadvancedGIR]

It might be the first solid argument I see to switch from DVD to BR.

Re:At last!

[Lord of Hyphens]

Funny, I don't see it that way, considering BR would be a hop+skip+jump away from the same thing.

Re:At last!

[Sciros]

If you are truly the Lord of Hyphens, you should say "hop-skip-and-a-jump." Right now you are the Lord of Plus Signs.

Re:At last!

[Lord of Hyphens]

Point-taken.
Unfortunately-the-unbelievers-are-no t-ready-for-the-glory-that-is-excessive-hyphenatio n. Such-wondrous-use-of-the-mighty-hyphen-read-as-inv itations-to-inflict-pain-on-an-author.

Re:At last!

[jas_public]

I thi nk he's ju st Lor d of the spa cebar.

Re:At last!

[pushing-robot]

Slashdot automatically inserts spaces into long words and URLs so they wrap better. Indeed, CowboyNeal is Lor d of the spa cebar.

Hahahah!

[Jaysyn]

Yeah, this will work.

Great Idea!

[crhylove]

Let's make EVERYONE a criminal!

Re:Great Idea!

[Opportunist]

And you don't even have to go into politics for it!

Re:Great Idea!

[ckin2001]

This is the new America. You are already a criminal. They just haven't found a reason to charge you with something yet.

And just how they plan to actually enforce it?

[cpotoso]

Ah! What a waste of $$$ paying lawyers to get regulations that in the end are impossible to enact/enforce... Just watch the "unbreakable" DRM of the HD-DVD be broken in a few weeks. How will they actually force me to have the DVD in the player when I can (and I will) rip it off to a HD? Oh, well, it is their money...

the real reason for a drop in sales?

[night_flyer]

go to your favorite movie rental place... of the hundreds of movies on the new release wall we saw 3 that interested us

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales?

[Sadko]

Oh come on, there's some movies much better than "Saw 3"

Thanks, thanks, be here all week

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales?

[truthsearch]

That's interesting. My girlfriend finds two or three new releases she wants to see. Not me. I roll my eyes at her choices and go find an older movie that I haven't watched in years.

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales?

[houghi]

Go behind the curtain

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales?

[abaddononion]

Yeah, Ive experienced that one. It can be hard having a girlfriend who isnt already jaded. Maybe I need to date someone older than 20.

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales?

[Rik Sweeney]

go to your favorite movie rental place

Does Bittorrent count?

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales?

[robbiethefett]

The same thing happened to me just the other day.. i had some dental surgery so i took a little time off of work. My wife and I went to Blockbuster to get some flicks, and I ended up just renting "Shawshank Redemption" because I knew it was good, as opposed to the 3 walls of "new releases," all of which looked horrible. Keep in mind we went to the video store on the way home from the pharmacy and i had a pocket full of Vicodin. I guess the moral of the story is that even with a ready source of opiates, CGI is no substitute for actual story telling.

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales?

[raw-sewage]

go to your favorite movie rental place... of the hundreds of movies on the new release wall we saw 3 that interested us

Has anyone else noticed that Steven Seagal has a dis-proportionate number of "new releases"? Seriously, every time I'm in the video store scanning the new releases, there's a Steven Seagal flick every few columns.

I used to like his movies as a kid... but if you've seen one, you've seen them all. They always feature that one scene where he walks into a bar with a large front-facing window. The bar is dark and brooding. Someone makes a comment about his pony tail. The camera switches to the street view and someone comes flying out of the bar through the window. Cut back to the bar with Seagal kicking all kinds of ass.

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales?

[NeilTheStupidHead]

Go behind the curtain No, please pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I've got a half dozen recent DVD releases already torrented that I haven't even bothered to watch. I downloaded them because they were popular movies, but every time I turn on my TV and media center, I flip through my movie collection looking for something to watch and invariably I find an old movie that I ripped myself (read: I bought the DVD) that I'd rather watch than that brand new release.

I own hundreds of DVDs so I'm not against paying money for worthwhile entertainment. Hollywood just doesn't release much that's worthwhile these days. Everything is a half-assed sequel or a remake which was better the first time.

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. We'll just clean up after him later.

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales?

[Anonymous Coward]

From that one can only conclude that your girlfriend has low standards.

Well if that's the case...

[Penguinisto]

I hereby amend and propose that all offensive military weaponry be banned from the face of the Earth!

It'll be just as effective, no? (or did these yahoos forget about those little A/V out ports on the back of each player?)

/P

Re:Well if that's the case...

[chill]

Macrovision. Specifically, the intentional degradation of analog signals.

Re:Well if that's the case...

[blhack]

Either that or they forgot that we are talking about digital media here.

dd if=/dev/cdroms/cdrom0 of=/home/john/ohnoesthedata.ruhroh ...oops ;-)

Re:Well if that's the case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever actually tried that? I got "unable to access encrypted sector" error messages from my kernel, preventing me from reading 99% of the data on my _Groundhog Day_ DVD. Turns out the decryption is done inside my little IBM DVD-ROM device and without the key there's not a blasted thing you can do about it.

Am I wrong on this?

Re:Well if that's the case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey look it worked now there are only defensive weapons on the planet....unfortunately most see the best defense as being a good offense....It's always the semantics that come back to bite ya.

Re:Well if that's the case...

[blhack]

NO, I haven't ever gotten that error...

from the gentoo article

Even if it does work on dual-layer DVDs (it usually does in my experience) it may still not work on many DVDs. You may see something like this:

dd: reading `/dev/dvd': Input/output error

after it has copied only a small part of the DVD. Opening the DVD with a media player or 'filestat' from the libdvdread package before issuing the 'dd' command can solve this problem. If that did not work try 'cat /dev/dvd > /dev/null', and cancel that command shortly after by pressing 'Ctrl+C', then try dd again. maybe that will help?

Re:Well if that's the case...

[john83]

Yeah, I don't get that - probably I'm missing something. If they output a shit signal, I can pay big bucks to watch a shit signal... or pirate a shit signal. I know what direction that shift would be pushing me towards.

Re:Well if that's the case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your reply.

I have none of the success shown from the Gentoo site. Here's me testing it out from Feather Linux (which I booted failsafe
so I wouldn't have IDE-SCSI emulation):
| root@tty3[knoppix]# dd if=/dev/hdc of=/dev/null
| hdc: command error: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete Error }
| hdc: command error: error=0x54
| end_request: I/O error, dev 16:00 (hdc), sector 1936
[ repeat error messages for sectors 1940, 1944, 1936, and 1940 ]
| dd: reading `/dev/hdc': Input/output error
| 1936+0 records in
| 1936+0 records out
| 991232 bytes transferred in 2.679557 seconds (369924 bytes/sec)
| root@tty3[knoppix]#

Similar IO errors if I mount it and use cp on a file. Also if I use conv=noerror to dd I just get a whole heck of a lot
of IO errors.

I did this before on the same laptop (using a different operating system--Debian Woody or Etch with a stock kernel) and
I got a far more informative error message, which is one of these ones here (from http://lxr.linux.no/source/drivers/ide/ide-cd.h#L7 07 )
| { 0x056f00, "Copy protection key exchange failure - Authentication failure" },
| { 0x056f01, "Copy protection key exchange failure - Key not present" },
| { 0x056f02, "Copy protection key exchange failure - Key not established" },
| { 0x056f03, "Read of scrambled sector without authentication" },
It was one of those. This means that the error message (well, error number) came from the drive, and that Linux was not
refusing me access to the bits on my own DVD, but my own DVD-ROM drive was.

So, is my DVD-ROM drive special? It's the DVD-ROM drive on my IBM Thinkpad T22, I don't know if it has a special name.

I have successfully played this DVD using I think Xine and the libdvdcss2 library.

This is what I mean when I say that I think that the bare DVD hardware is refusing bit-for-bit access (and therefore copying),
and it's not just the software. I think that this means that there is DRM in my hardware. I think that this might be the same
kind of thing as the DRM inside SD flash cards (the SD stands for "Secure Digital" and is the same SD in "SDMI".)

Re:Well if that's the case...

[Danga]

Your drive is not special, this is how DVD drives are supposed to work. I work as a developer on optical drive forensic and burning software so I know what is going on.

There are two main levels of protection on a DVD, the device level and the sector level. You are experiencing a problem at the device level, your drive needs to be "unlocked". Usually the easiest way to do that is to put your DVD in and fire up a player which will then unlock the device or like that gentoo article mentioned:

"Opening the DVD with a media player or 'filestat' from the libdvdread package before issuing the 'dd' "

From there you can't just dd however because even though you can copy the sectors they still have the CSS protection on them so you will need to do some more work if the VOB files are CSS protected to get them to play right.

Re:Well if that's the case...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you still need a CSS-enabled program to access the ones and zeroes on the disc? That means that you might have to use your A/V cables after all.

The more important point I would want to make though is that while Slashdotters are highly DRM, they don't seem to know (well, actually I'm not sure yet either) that all DVD drives are apparently DRM...

You'd think they'd make more of a fuss about that.

Also, your drive-unlocking advice (use a media player) held true! Thank you!

Also you don't need to do that if your DVD is non-CSS.

Ironically, my Slashdot "confirm you're not a script" word image is "retorts".

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it?

[nomadic]

It's not a regulation, it's an amendment to a contract.

The real problem ...

[Anonymous Coward]

is the DMCA. It should be changed to address the rights of consumers to make copies for PERSONAL use. All these assults on our rights by business is way out of control.

Re:The real problem ...

[smittyoneeach]

Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX
These arguably wrong-headed licenses will exist as long as the market for them exists.
Not unlike narcotics.
However, people keeping their wallets closed is an unambiguous signal.

If I can read it,

[grasshoppa]

If I can read the disk, I can back it up. It's as simple as that.

Re:If I can read it,

[houghi]

This is not about wether you can. This is about wether you are allowed to and how easy it is to do so.

I can kill people, but that does not make it legal. I can't fly to the moon, but that does not make it illegal.

Re:If I can read it,

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you are a friggen idiot! You totally missed that guy's point... I don't think he cares whether something is legal or illegal. He is just stating that, no matter what they do to prevent us from backing up DVD's, we are always going to be able to copy them, no matter what. They would have to be so copy-protected that you couldn't even READ them (watch them) before duplication of DVD's could be stopped. And, obviously, we have to be able to "read" the disks.

Re:If I can read it,

[AndersOSU]

Pfft, you must not have tried to get a rocket launch permit yet. I've got my orbiter ready to go, but the damn FAA are still dragging their feet.

Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

By controlling what we do with our stuff they can force us to pay them more money.

This power-struggle between the users and the providers is older than capitalism, and will continue long after all of us are gone.

Re:Figures

[Aliriza]

They can not stop copying there will be always a way.They make free advertisement by so called piracy.

There's just one thing I don't understand...

[Spy der Mann]

Actually 2.

1. How will that prevent the 99% of existing computer users with DVD-R/Ws from using their compies to backup their dvd's?

And 2. How will that prevent the 10% of existing computer users with Divx software from ripping their dvd's?

Re:There's just one thing I don't understand...

[bdr529]

1. How will that prevent the 99% of existing computer users with DVD-R/Ws from using their compies to backup their dvd

My understandnig is that it won't PREVENT "existing computer users with DVD-R/Ws from using their compies to backup their dvd[s]", but will make it much harder to find software to do so. And will make it harder for existing software to get updated as they (the software vendors) will be in "violation" of a contract...

And 2. How will that prevent the 10% of existing computer users with Divx software from ripping their dvd's?

See Item 1.

Re:There's just one thing I don't understand...

[drinkypoo]

My understandnig is that it won't PREVENT "existing computer users with DVD-R/Ws from using their compies to backup their dvd[s]", but will make it much harder to find software to do so.

The internet makes the far-away come closer. It means that in countries where you can make backups with impunity, they will still be selling software... which thanks to the internet will be available to all.

Re:There's just one thing I don't understand...

[weber]

Since the DVD encryption (CSS) has been cracked, is there any need for software or hardware makers to license the technology? I mean, they can make a product that'll play DVD's without access to any information for which they would need to sign a license agreement, or am I missing something here?!?

And if they sign nothing then they're off the hook, right?

Re:There's just one thing I don't understand...

[bdr529]

Since the DVD encryption (CSS) has been cracked, is there any need for software or hardware makers to license the technology?

It's my understanding that YES there IS a need to licence the technology -- as it is patented. To do so without the patent holders agreement could bring unwanted lawsuits.

Like I said, it would make it HARDER to copy/backup DVDs as as current legitimate vendors would be pushed out of business. But, as you say, CSS has been cracked -- so I've no doubt that there WILL be solutions available. They will just not be able to SELL those solutions legally -- plus the writers of such apps may expose themselves to unwanted lawsuits.

Then again, I may be way off the mark, here.

Re:There's just one thing I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid not. It is illegal in the United States to manufacture a DVD player that isn't licensed by the DVD CCA, even if you don't intend for the player to decode CSS or any other DRM in commercial DVDs. It's also illegal to make players in the United States that are not explicitly Region 1, although I believe they can still be imported by the buyer.

Re:There's just one thing I don't understand...

[poot_rootbeer]

My understandnig is that it won't PREVENT "existing computer users with DVD-R/Ws from using their compies to backup their dvd[s]", but will make it much harder to find software to do so.

You mean drag-and-dropping the AUDIO_TS and VIDEO_TS folders from drive F: to C:\DVDBAK in Windows NT might stop working someday?

does this mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, does this mean manufacturers are going to have to stop making DVD burners??

LOL my image-word is PROHIBIT

The DVD CCA can suck my dd

[Anonymous Coward]

my dd if=/dev/acd0 of=/data/dvd-backup bs=512 that is...

Re:The DVD CCA can suck my dd

[Anonymous Coward]

You only have one double D tit?

Who cares?

[stratjakt]

Would you care if someone posthumously added more copy protection or licensing terms to your VHS machine? You know, that black box you use as a stand for your Xbox 360/wii/whatever?

With on-demand download services like vongo, on-demand video via cable/satellite/whatever, XBox live marketplace, moviebeam, and so on, how much longer do you plan to buy and sell these stupid plastic discs anyways?

I mean, I suddenly have 2 good "built in" options for movies - in high def no less, 360 marketplace, and comcast on-demand. I have way more options you want to consider all the online Vongo-type services.

So whatever rights blah blah blah they can put whatever restrictions on those stupid f*cking plastic discs all they want.

They're just hurting themselves. I'll never burn a video DVD again in my life.

Similarly, I could give two shits how many root kits Sony is putting on CDs these days. What is this, 1992, when I gave a fuck about paying 20 bucks for 10 songs on a 6 inch plastic disc? Gimmeabreakpal.

Re:Who cares?

[Puls4r]

I'm not sure who modded you +1 interesting, but it should have been -1 troll. Wait till you live in a local that doesn't offer broadband. Or you don't have the money to pay for all those price "on demand" movies when you want to watch a movie that you've already watched. Your basic assumption seems to be that since it doesn't affect you at this second in time, you don't care about it. That's a pretty shortsighted viewpoint to take - and one that's going to see your rights taken away in a hurry.

Re:Who cares?

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Get with the times man. If you're in the US, there's this wonderful new invention called Netflix...

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait till you live in a local that doesn't offer broadband. Or you don't have the money to pay for all those price "on demand" movies when you want to watch a movie that you've already watched.

You're right. It will be yet another case of the pirates offering a better service. That may not be the case for dial-up though. Since most DVDs are converted to 1 or 2 * 700MB AVI to be burnable to a CD. I think it's a tragedy of greed and short sightedness. But humanity will survive this. It's not the biggest issue facing us as a planet.

There ought to be sensible copyright terms and a reasonable pricing and a lack of DRM, which would probably make most people a lot more respectful of copyrights. But the terms today are BS. I don't have any sympathy for them. The last movie I downloaded was total crap. I was saying "I want my time back!" I feel like they owe me for even sitting through that POS.

I think artists should get paid for their work and ought to be able to make a living at it and continue to focus on making good art, but I think the big corporations are poisoning "art" and "culture". If they lock it up tight with DRM. Good. People will go do something else. If the big corporations collapse and lose control, it will IMO eventually result in a new golden era of creativity. So ultimately I say fuck them. But I will probably go to the theaters and watch the Transformers movie. Argh. But overall what I am willing to pay to see is very few and far between these days. Enough of this BS already. More free time to go play with linux and gcc and stuff right? right? :-p

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yer soo...like bleeeding edge. I am so retro already...

Rock it dude.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, "Who cares" - because you've moved on to other technologies, is not an argument.

Second, "spoonfucks" and "shit for brains" just lacks creativity.

Your post has been moderated appropriately.

Re:Who cares?

[stratjakt]

No, it is not an argument.

It's an opinion. Is there a problem with that?

And as uncreative as "spoonfuck" and "shit for brains" may be, I don't see how you deserve any better.

It's not like I'm going to put on my thinking cap to tell you off.

You wont even argue logged-in for fear of your precious, precious karma.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Similarly, I could give two shits how many root kits Sony is putting on CDs these days. What is this, 1992, when I gave a fuck about paying 20 bucks for 10 songs on a 6 inch plastic disc? Gimmeabreakpal

I pay ten bucks for seventy minutes of music - but then again, I'm buying indie music and have no worries about rootkits. But with a pair of three way JBLs with twelve inch woofers in my house, MP3, even at its highest bitrate, doesn't cut it. Sure, I have my CDs ripped to MP3 and piped to the big amp, but when I feel like making my ears bleed I put in a CD. Playing an MP3 through those big speakers at high volume does nothing but highlight just how bad MP3s sound. Low volume or small speakers they're OK, but if you're playing Led Zepplin or Pavarotti at high volume on good equipment, MP3s suck ass.

Plus I have a 2002 auto with a great six speaker stereo and no way of playing MP3s (which, at the volume I listen to my car stereo, would have the same disadvantages as in the house). Again, you may not need those shiny disks but that doesn't mean nobody does.

And TFA wasn't about music, it was about movies. A DVD is (IINM) what, fourteen gigabytes? How much storage do you have, anyway? If you're watching your movies on a fifteen inch monitor, Divx might be good enough quality but on my 42 inch TV (let alone some folks with sixty inch hi def TVs) no way would that video be acceptable.

Now get off my lawn!

-mcgrew

Go ahead.

[grev]

See what happens. It won't be the least bit pretty.

not gonna happen

[Anonymous Coward]

it's just not gonna happen

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it?

[jimicus]

They don't intend to enforce it against you the individual who has enough clue to be able to do this for themselves.

I think they've looked at the Kaliedescape product and the video iPod and reckon that within a few years, such items could be as commonplace as the DVD player is today. And as soon as the movie can be seamlessly, easily copied from the medium it's distributed on by even the least technical person, the studios start to lose control of what happens to it - something which the MPAA appear to be absolutely terrified of.

The idea of this is to prevent such products ever hitting the marketplace, and thus maintain control.

Not enforceable.

[jshriverWVU]

If the drive is physically able to read each bit, then no matter what you tell the vendors making the drives, it's pointless. Plus this does go against fair use. All it's going to do is hurt the people who are lawful and have a media center. The people pirating , or mass selling DVDs, wont be hurt by this.

Also how will this relate to products like the PSP and iPod? Where people can convert there DVD to a mpeg stream for viewing on the go?

Re:Not enforceable.

[SoulRider]

All it's going to do is hurt the people who are lawful and have a media center. The people pirating , or mass selling DVDs, wont be hurt by this.

Well I guess you now know where their priorities lie. They are a bunch of dinosaurs who are still living in the 70's and pissed off because of the Fair Use laws.

Time

[DanMelks]

And just how long will this magical content protection system last against the now angry black, grey and white hats of the world? Please, because I am just dying to know.
We could make this discussion about the lack of quality movies nowadays, but if you have 11 unlocked doors and 1 locked door, just where do you think we (humans) will want to get into most?

Re:Time

[Neil]

And just how long will this magical content protection system last against the now angry black, grey and white hats of the world?

The (so called) "content protection system" under discussion was broken in 1999 (DeCSS). In some jurisdictions it may not be legal to use the crack, of course (DMCA in the USA, and similar legal restrictions in other countries). The amendment being discussed is a change to the licensing agreement that manufacturer's of DVD playback hardware and software have to agree to in order to be given "official" unscrambling keys.

The Content Scrambling System isn't really a content protection system, of course. It is an attempt to create a cartel of DVD player manufacturers/authors who all sign up to enforcing objectionable usage restrictions (region coding, user operation prohibitions, etc), and excluding the manufacturers/authors players that decline to co-operate.

yeah, right

[machine of god]

Existing hardware aside, they're only going to create a market for un-crippled chinese knockoffs. And by knockoffs I mean after hours fabrication runs in the same factories that make the real thing.

Re:yeah, right

[really?]

"After hours?" Why?

1. Set up shell company
2. Import stuff as you see fit
3. When shut down by *AA close company
4. Set up new shell company
5. Lather, rinse, repeat

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Laws as public contract.

[RyanFenton]

This seems to be an odd thing for a law to do. To force a public contract, where as long as you receive content in the form of a specific type of consumer-oriented layered disk, you suddenly may not read that content and then write that same content to another layered disk - but only in that case. Seems like an absurd way to essentially throw away the DVD format as a source for future (and current) general information use. Sounds like something from the Mercantile age, where protection of companies was more important than the potential of knowledge or any future technology. Ryan Fenton

Go for it!

[TomatoMan]

After this, try to get a law through that prohibits more than four people from watching a DVD at a time without paying additional fees. It makes just as much sense, will be just as likely to get through with all the lobbying muscle and greedy congresscritters, and will have just as much impact in the real world: zero.

I can't remember the last time I bought a DVD. I wonder why?

No Big deal

[DogDude]

It's really no big deal. If the data's there, people will do what they want with it, license or no. There's very little that the RIAA and MPAA can do about this, unless they decide to sue a large portion of the world's population.

Re:No Big deal

[Nom du Keyboard]

here's very little that the RIAA and MPAA can do about this, unless they decide to sue a large portion of the world's population.

Isn't that what the RIAA is already trying to do, one joined lawsuit at a time?

Stupid Rules Degrade All Rules

[blueZhift]

When are they going to learn that enacting unfair restrictions like this will only degrade people's respect for other, perhaps legitimate, restrictions? As others have noted, any such total ban on copying will largely be ignored by those with the means. And those who don't have the means to ignore and get around the restrictions will simply stop buying DVDs if they cannot easily view their purchase on the device of their choice.

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it?

[Anonymous Coward]

its not their money, doofus. its your money. thats part of the reason that this whole idea is so retarded.

fine

[Arthur B.]

If you can't cope with not being allowed to copy the DVD, don't buy it. The movie companies want you to waive your right to copy the DVD before buying it, otherwise they won't sell it to you, you can't force them to sell it to you.

Will that put a dent in p2p sharing of copied dvds (which is fine as long as you're not the original copier)? Certainly not !

How would they enforce this at the end-user level?

[JimDaGeek]

Seriously? There will always be tools to rip a DVD, even if you just read the raw image from the disk with dd or something. As far as requiring the DVD in the drive, that is just silly. There are plenty of programs to mount an ISO image on Mac, Linux and Windows. On WinXP I use Daemon Tools, Mac and Linux have built-in support for mounting images.

This seems bound to fail to be enforced at all, so why go through the trouble?

Is DVD tech dying.

[jshriverWVU]

With Blu-ray and HDDVD out, is DVD a dying technology? Granted I still like DVD and see no reason to dump it. I'm guessing there will be a time when you go to the store or blockbuster and all they have is Blu-Ray with a few DVD's in the bargain bin. Just like DVD's are to VHS now.

My biggest concern is how long till this will happen. With DVD's VHS was obsoleted quickly. But with Blu-Ray/HDDVD it really doesn't negate DVD as a good media.

So maybe this is just a way for them to try and squeeze even more dollars before DVD's go away.

Re:How would they enforce this at the end-user lev

[Viol8]

"This seems bound to fail to be enforced at all, so why go through the trouble?"

Its just another bunch of clueless execs and lawyers who know jack shit about the actual technology puffing their chests and chucking their weight around. Despite DeCSS and the hack of HD-DVD these idiots never seem to learn. God knows what they use to get their MBAs but it can't be brains.

DIY Kaleidescape Style System

[Jonah Hex]

Looking at the Kaleidescape website it appears this system looks like it does everything MCE extenders are going to do, but I'd rather go with DIY (read cheaper) hardware. I've looked at Pluto and it looks to be a decent choice, but I'm not sure it's the best choice. Anyone have any references to DIY slim boxes for playing movies/music from a backend server? I don't care so much for DVR/TV, I'm more interested in playing XViD/Matroska/etc and MP3's anywhere, while making it simple enough for my wife and kids to watch/listen to different media files at the same time in different rooms.
Jonah HEX

Re:DIY Kaleidescape Style System

[BoberFett]

For price and ease of use, nothing beats a modded Xbox with XBMC. If you've already got the video sitting on a server, XBMC makes an excellent frontend.

A Decisive End To The Arms Race!

[CheeseburgerBrown]

Sorry DVD Consortium -- you can't end an arms race that way...you can only up the ante.

Related Thoughts

[AKAImBatman]

Sorry to reply to myself, but I have a few more thoughts on this that really didn't fit in with my other post.

From one perspective, I *do* understand where DVD producers are coming from on this. I positively know of at least one person who uses Netflix by backing up the DVDs when they come in, then immediately shipping them out for new ones. While it's a nice trick for improving one's own convenience, it's not really in the spirit of the service. So there are some legitimate arguments against DVD Backup devices.

However, the solution is NOT to ban good devices in an attempt to nail the edge cases. All you're going to do is piss off your customer base. But what should happen if a report stating that backup-piracy is NOT an edge case crosses an important desk? Should that executive then decide to make the problem go away?

NO!

What that exec is looking at is what I like to call a "Crisitunity". (Shamelessly stolen from other sources.) It's a crisis that presents new opportunities. All that's needed is an analysis of the problem to see where a workable solution might be introduced.

The first question to ask is: "Is this piracy about the money?" I think in most cases you'll find the money to be a secondary concern. Consumers like value (thus why they won't pay for an electronic copy of Pirates of the Carribean when they can get a physical copy for the same price), but they are willing to pay for the media under most circumstances. Ok, then why are they performing backup-piracy?

The obvious answer is: Convenience. Consumers are getting used to having things on their own schedule. Tivos allow them to shift television to a more convenient time. DVDs shift blockbuster movies out of the movie theater and into the convenience of the home. MP3s make jogging or travelling with your music a no-brainer. Gameboys/PSPs let consumers take their interactive entertainment on the go. Laptops let internet surfers work while they sip a latte at Starbucks.

Let's face it. We're an economy that's addicted to convenience. So much so that we will spend unnecessary money just to make something more convenient. Which should raise the flag of new opportunities. If consumers are so addicted to convenience, then why not find ways of providing it? Online movie distribution seems like the most promsing answer. Yet if you log into iTunes (analogous to DVDs in the store), Vongo (analogous to Netflix), or MovieLink (analogous to Blockbuster) you'll have a duece of a time trying to find a movie worth watching. And if you *do* find a movie worth watching, you may feel that the price is too high without a physical backup to protect your investment.

Thus the truth is that the movie industry is killing themselves through risk-adversion. The music industry already made that mistake once. One would think that the movie industry could try paying attention.

Re:Related Thoughts

[Opportunist]

The music industry already made that mistake once. One would think that the movie industry could try paying attention.

It's just like kids and hot stovetops. Just cause Jane already burned her hand doesn't mean that Jimmy doesn't have to try again whether it hurts to put his hand on it.

Unlike with kids, my sympathy is rather limited in this case.

Re:Related Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

From one perspective, I *do* understand where DVD producers are coming from on this. I positively know of at least one person who uses Netflix by backing up the DVDs when they come in, then immediately shipping them out for new ones. While it's a nice trick for improving one's own convenience, it's not really in the spirit of the service. So there are some legitimate arguments against DVD Backup devices.

However, the solution is NOT to ban good devices in an attempt to nail the edge cases. All you're going to do is piss off your customer base. But what should happen if a report stating that backup-piracy is NOT an edge case crosses an important desk? Should that executive then decide to make the problem go away?

NO!

In my entire life, I've only met one person that copied movies - and he was doing it using two VCRs. It was simple, anyone could do it. You buy two VCR's and you record the movie from one onto the other. A grade-schooler could probably figure it out. My point is the same as yours, however, he's the *only* person I've ever known that's done this.

These execs need to be focusing on places like SE asia where burned movies are sold on the street like penny candy. When will they learn to stop biting the hand that feeds them? Do I want to copy my DVD's and CD's? Yes! Why? Because when the original media is scratched it RUINS your enjoyment of that movie / music. I copy as many of mine as I can so that I don't have to worry about it. I also keep burned copies of my CDs in my car to protect me from theft. If some jackalope breaks into my car and steals my CDs... I don't care, I'll just buy a spindle and re-burn them - because the probability of the cops getting them from the thief or of insurance fully reimbursing me for their worth is pretty slim. Ever lent a CD to a friend and gotten it back trashed? Of course you have... that's why copies are great.

As a consumer - if there's no simple, legitimate way to protect the media I've invested my money in then I'll just find another means of acquiring it.

Re:Related Thoughts

[Maxo-Texas]

Primary reason for backing up DVD's after illegal infringement is to avoid losing your ONLY copy to a tiny scratch or physical theft.

I lost 2 backup DVD's on my last vacation- completely shattered disks. No big- I was out only the time to make new backup copies.

Re:Related Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

I know more than one person who grinds through netflix rentals as fast as he can burn them.

In fact, I very typically rip a rental DVD to my HD as soon as I receive it. The reason I do so is that these DVD's are scratched to hell and my player doesn't like them, but my DVD-ROM does. My DVD-ROM is, however, awesomely slow to spin up and seek video DVD's, so I just play it right off the HDD. When I'm done, I delete them. Sometimes not immediately, but I do.

Not that they're going to effectively take that away from me, and I suppose I'm already a criminal. And I know two wrongs don't make a right, but I seriously can't muster the tiniest amount of sympathy for the CCA and the MPAA, given their past and present behavior.

Re:Related Thoughts

[cayenne8]

"In my entire life, I've only met one person that copied movies..."

Dang man, you need to get out a bit more and meet more people. I know TONS of people that copy movies. I've got one friend that goes a step further and doesn't even bother renting them to copy...he just has one of his computers dedicated to running 24/7 downloading and decoding movies off USENET....movie after movie after movie....just for him and his family to watch.

I'm in an older crowd that the avg. slashdotter these days I think, and so are my friends. If we're doing it, I assure you many more younger generation movie/tv/music fans are copying left and right without a single thought that it could be viewed as wrong behavior.

Ps. By the way...yeah, I started years ago doing the VHS to VHS thing..back when VCR's were still not quite a commodity item.

Re:Related Thoughts

[PixelScuba]

When kids burn themselves on the stove, they stop putting their hand on it. The music industry hasn't learned to stop putting their hand on the stove. NO RIAA, STOVE HOT! NO!

Re:Related Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike with kids, my laughter is rather limited in this case.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Related Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Raises hand.

I timeshift (ok, COPY) Netflix DVDs using rewriteable media. Reason? The SO and I never know when we'll be able to watch together. However it usually happens three nights in a row then there's a 2 week hiatus. Right now we're trying to get through the Sopranos.

So the disk comes from Netflix, gets burned and sent back immediately. Same thing when the next in queue comes. We'll watch leisurely while not renting anything for the next 2-3 weeks. So for the $10 a month plan it turns out to be profitable for Netflix albeit the method is "illegal". The content is never kept permanently though since the media is reused.

It's a pretty specific instance related to copying DVDs, but an instance nonetheless.

Re:Related Thoughts

[gosand]

Do I want to copy my DVD's and CD's? Yes! Why? Because when the original media is scratched it RUINS your enjoyment of that movie / music.

Here's another example: I have a 2 year old daughter, and she watches Signing Time DVDs. They teach her sign language, which was fantastic. She was communicating with us before she could talk, and she really learned a lot. She still watches them on occasion. I also recorded some Sesame Street episodes and other shows she likes (Jack's Big Music Show is pretty funny) with my DVD recorder. I rip all of this stuff and convert it to divx files. Then I can burn lots of different stuff to one DVD, and have it ready in the DVD player. If it gets scratched up, we still have the originals. When my wife had to fly with her once, she was able to take a portable DVD player that supported divx and keep her entertained on the plane. (I am sure the other passengers appreciated THAT). It has really been a lifesaver. Technically illegal? I am not entirely sure, and I don't really care.

Re:Related Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I'll admit it - I'm one of those guys who gets movies and immediately copies them so I can watch them whenever, and however many times.

They DO get their money for me watching the movie the first time, and it usually ends up that I almost never watch movies again (so why do I do it? Good question...habit I guess).

What will happen if they implement this and I can no longer copy the movies I rent? I'll cancel my subscription and stop watching movies altogether. And they'll get NO money from me, ever again.

I understand that by watching all these movies I'm really wasting my life away, but I kind of like sitting there and being entertained...if they do this, they'll actually be doing me a favor, as I'll turn to reading and getting more involved in my other hobbies.

Their loss, and my gain. I may do it anyway, without their assistance, as I'm getting really tired of all these games they're playnig with my rights. And if they lose me, they'll NEVER get me back. It's the only way to fight them...take away their funding!

Funny, the captcha is "cracker"!

Re:Related Thoughts

[camperdave]

As a consumer - if there's no simple, legitimate way to protect the media I've invested my money in then I'll just find another means of acquiring it.

As a consumer, I'm more interested in the convenience of storing and accessing the work, rather than the media. I want to be able to place-shift, time-shift, media-shift, format-shift, device-shift, backup, restore, etc, whatever I buy, whether it be a movie, music, e-book, tv-show, or whatever. (Not that I'm not concerned about protecting the media. I'm just more concerned with the content.) I also want to be able to access the desired content without being subjected to undesired content (ie, no embedded ads, no non-skippable content, etc), extra costs, or whatever.

Re:Related Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello.

I copy rental movies. I do it to build a big collection at home - not to share, but to be able to watch when I want to watch. And to watch on portable players. On my computer. In the living room. Wherever.

Copy This "Legislators"

[Anonymous Coward]

Buck Fush.

Regards,
Philboyd Studge

licenses are all set up wrong

[192939495969798999]

all of this stems from a broken business model. The only license sold to watch movies is a movie ticket. If you sell someone the content of the movie on a disc, how in the hell is that equivalent to only selling a license to watch the disc's content? It's their own fault for not realizing this. DVD's are not priced appropriately, and their content cannot be protected appropriately for what people want. Therefore, either abandon the media completely, or realize that you've been selling people the content for years, and that trying to enforce a 'one-viewer-per-purchase, no copying' type licensing scheme on DVD's is ridiculous when movie tickets exist for that very purpose.

Re:licenses are all set up wrong

[TheGratefulNet]

I think (but ianal) that the tv commercials that advertise dvd's say:

"Own it on dvd, today!"

own it? OWN it?

that's THEIR language.

can we not hang them up by their own balls, so to speak?

common language says that 'own it' is NOT a license but is actual property.

seriously - I suggest this tact be taken in any legal defense. at least TRY it. their very language should be enough to condemn this 'license to view but not to view on YOUR intended player'.

lets not even talk about copying dvd's. that's a red herring. lets stay ONLY on the issue of: does the consumer OWN the disc and if so, can he not choose ANY playback means he wants?

once we 'win' that battle, it may not be hard to go from 'playback on any device I choose' to 'my device is a hard disk player'.

Who needs Kaleidescape?

[morgan_greywolf]

Who needs 'em? I got MythTV, dd, DVD ripping tools and Nautilus Burn.

Burning is as easy as:

dd if=/dev/dvdrom of=/data/iso/myfile.iso bs=1024

Right click on iso in Nautilus, click 'Write ISO to CD/DVD' and burn, baby, burn!

Ripping is even easier.

Re:dear execs - mod parent flamebait

[middlemen]

mod parent flamebait please. how can you generalize on all Americans ?

Trade Groups vs. Consumers

[blcamp]

Yet another example of media and technology companies ultimately biting the hand that is feeding them.

Sometimes I think that if they could devise a way to charge for every single time a DVD (other recorded medium) is *played*, they would try to do so. I'm not talking PPV by cable, but PPV by the recorded media that is the consumer's own possession.

Trying this backhanded way of "banning" all copying is not going to matter one whit. If a person is sufficiently motivated and has the means to to do so, they will make whatever copy of whatever media they want. Period.

I'd say this stupid proposal adds to the motivation.

If the industry continues to inflict damage on its relationship with content consumers, and is not happy with the revenue stream that it still has... and is unwilling to accept that every other business tolerates a small percentage of "theft and/or losses" (no matter HOW defined)... if it can't be happy with having a reasonable percentage of the profits... ...it will eventually end up owning 100% of nothing.

Re:Trade Groups vs. Consumers

[Auz]

"Sometimes I think that if they could devise a way to charge for every single time a DVD (other recorded medium) is *played*, they would try to do so."

They did try...

Why "must" they?

[Perp Atuitie]

"the agreement equipment vendors must abide by"? Why "must" they? Why don't they just tell the content peddlers to shove it? When did private monopolies get police powers?

Re:Why "must" they?

[iainl]

I don't want to pay Microsoft when I sell PCs with Windows installed. Should I tell them to shove their licenses too, and see how far I get?

In order to get a distribution license for the DVD CCA code, you need to sign the license agreement. Otherwise, you're breaking copyright law.

Re:Why "must" they?

[Perp Atuitie]

So you tell 'em to shove their license and let them distribute their crap on a Victrola.

Re:Why "must" they?

[Nom du Keyboard]

When did private monopolies get police powers?

When the law made it impossible to enter the market without a license from them spelling out all the terms you had to abide by.

Re:Why "must" they?

[BoberFett]

Patent law makes that difficult. The DVD format and anything required to decode it will be patented for quite a few more years.

Whatever

[jamessnell]

If they do this, it'll just make more of a market for other technologies that enable users to get the same functionality. They can go ahead with this amendment if they like, but the resources being wasted on this exercise should be spent on third world aid or something that'll make a difference.

Also to stop DVD production by little guy

[gsfprez]

how am i supposed to preview my DVD in DVD player on my Mac when i'm making it - the disc is not on a disc, so must i burn my DVDs before playing them in DVD player?

i mean, apple has to use this license for DVD player, to get the legal CCS decryptors, no?

Does this mean the end of Open VIDEO_TS folders?

Definition of physical?

[Fookin]

I don't see a written, legal definition of the term "physical" anywhere in that paragraph they are submitting for approval. Is it physical in the sense of how humans define their interaction with the object or how the computer defines interaction with the object?

Take for example VirtualCD. I would argue that using software which creates both a virtual CD/DVD drive and also allows you to create a virtual DVD disc may be perfectly legal according to this.

A DVD disc is physically placed (via human interaction) in the computers DVD drive and ripped to become a Virtual DVD. Then the virtual DVD is physically inserted (via computer interaction) into a virtual DVD drive.

IANAL, but it would be a fun argument to make ...

Screw'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw the entertainment industry. When did the world get so dependent on being entertained? Get a life.

Listen to the music, and watch the movies, that you already have. Let the money grubbers that have a strangle hold on the artists and consumers go away. It won't take long. Then a new era in entertainment will quickly arise from the ashes. Artist will no longer be dictated what to produce, how to produce it, when the produce it, nor how to market it.

If they are great artist they'll have plenty of money without the need for any DRM. People will willing support them, simply because they want more of what they are doing. Free enterprise works.

The use of draconian tactics is proof that free enterprise works. The money grubbers can't compete on a level playing field so they must cheat to win.

Re:dear execs (Memorable Quotes)

[Anonymous Coward]

Memorable Quotes for Independence Day 1996:

President Thomas Whitmore: What do you want us to do?
Captured Alien: Die. Die.

What's their perceived problem?

[91degrees]

The Jukebox makes it more convenient to have a lbrary of DVDs. That is the main reason people buy it. Are they really suggesting that a significant number of people will go to the effort of buying one of these just so that they can then resell the DVD? And even if they do, it's a maximum possible loss of one sale of each DVD the jukebox owner buys.

Different take on what the amendment means

[milamber3]

I may not be reading this properly but I don't see the blocking of all DVD copying in the amendment:

6.4. Certain Requirements for DVD Products. DVD Products, alone or in combination with other DVD Products, shall not be designed to descramble scrambled CSS Data when the DVD Disc containing such CSS Data and associated CSS Keys is not physically present in the DVD Player or DVD Drive (as applicable), and a DVD Product shall not be designed to make or direct the making of a persistent copy of CSS Data that has been descrambled from such DVD Disc by such DVD Product. I read that they want to prevent a copy being made of the descrambled data stream coming out of the product. As far as I know that is already blocked in most devices. I can't see any interpretation where unencrypted data will be blocked from being copied. I don't necessarily agree with this limitation but I don't see it having much of any impact due to the availability of CSS decryption tools.

Re:Different take on what the amendment means

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they're blocking the copying of the scrambled DVD content,
but the playback of that copy you have just made. Notice that it says you
can't descramble the content without the DVD in the drive. So in this
case you can copy the DVD content onto your Kaleidescape system(or PC),
but can't play it back unless you physically go get the DVD and load it
back into your Kaleidescape(or PC).

DVD's, ripping - personal experience

[RedneckJack]

When I pickup a new DVD, first thing I do is rip it and then I take the .iso image and burn a copy - for my personal use, not given to anyone else. I then take the iso image and put it on a different drive where I can watch my movies without having to use DVD media. Again, it is not given to anyone else.

So the DVD-CCA wants to make it difficult for me to play how I want to play it such as bypass the commercials. Some DVD's, you are forced to watch the ads. No FF, no MENU - all prohibited operation. What better way than to piss off your customers !

DVD Gasping For Air

[TechnoJargon]

It is interesting that DVD/CSS is trying to pass this change considering the MPAA and others are trying to push for some form of fair copying Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs to other devices.Are the DVD folks just dumb? There are many people willing to pay for the DVDs legally. What does it matter where or how they watch the content from the purchased disk. I am tired of being treated like a criminal/priate. There will always be a sub-group of people that want something for nothig but should I be punished because of them. NO NO NO!

You think you're joking, but you're not

[dpbsmith]

Media companies have always worried about how many eyeballs will be watching that screen. That's why the videos you buy are "licensed for home use only."

Sometime before home video turned off (and turned out not to be the "strangler" of movies that Jack Valenti testified it was), RCA developed a system intended for video rental that they thought would overcome studios' objection to putting their content on home video. It was a cartridge with a mechanical design that would not rewind; the tape locked in place when viewing was complete, and required a special tool to release it. You could only watch it once, then you'd have to take it back to the video rental store where they would unlock it, rewind it, and charge another rental fee for another viewing.

RCA brought studio executives in for a demo, sure they had a winner. The executives said "We have no interest in this whatsover. You've given us absolutely no way to know how many people were watching it."

Now, in recent years there has been quite a lot of activity in biometrics and eyetracking. It is not at all inconceivable that someone could design a relatively low-cost device that could be built into a DVD player, PVR, whatever, that could tell how many eyes were watching. (And might even be able to discount cats' eyes, although dogs' eyes would be harder). And charge you accordingly. And maybe even charge extra if it detected that nobody had been watching the ads and coming attractions at the beginning.

Re:You think you're joking, but you're not

[TomatoMan]

Yup.

Honestly, I'm not joking. I'm all for it. Let them get as ridiculous as they want. They're going to find out that people aren't as desperate for their crappy movies as the execs seem to think they are. Maybe people will start reading books again at some point... or playing music, or talking to their kids, or learning a new skill or taking up a new hobby... just imagine what could be done with all that media-guzzling time once the laws get so extreme and absurd that people just won't bother with it anymore.

Re:You think you're joking, but you're not

[Esion Modnar]

And might even be able to discount cats' eyes, although dogs' eyes would be harder

Actually, those eyes would be counted too. If the cat/dog was facing away from the screen, only one eye would be counted.

Re:You think you're joking, but you're not

[fbjon]

a relatively low-cost device that could be built into a DVD player, PVR, whatever, that could tell how many eyes were watching

I predict booming sales of sunglasses and ninja hoods.

Re:You think you're joking, but you're not

[hercubus]

OBLIG
in New Amerika[tm] DVD watches YOU!

Re:You think you're joking, but you're not

[mfrank]

I imagine either duct tape or a mirror mounted at 45 degrees would be even more low cost.

Re:You think you're joking, but you're not

[Howserx]

http://www.hml.queensu.ca/?q=node/126 Time to get me some tinfoil glasses.

Yeah, this will stop me!

[Chris Tucker]

I have Mactheripper and several other DVD copying/copyprotection-stripping/de-regionalizing applications, as well as a brand new DVD-CD R/W drive in the PowerMac. (Soon to have another, faster R/W drive in the second bay to make backing up DVDs all the faster.)

My current DVD player, a 4 year old Samsung is shortly to be retired, replaced by a Phillips all region PAL/NTSC player.

I've a 3mbps DSL line and a few BitTorrent clients. When FiOS makes its way to my neighborhhod, I'll exchange the DSL for Verizon's fiber 20mbps broadband.

The only reason I now burn copies of my DVDs is that I have yet to buy a used XBOX and install XBMC on it, along with 25 feet or so of CAT5 to run between the PowerMac and the XBOX.

Once the XBOX is in place, all the copies get copied to the XBOX hard drive and they get stored with the old Samsung.

At some point, I'll have a TiVo, and the ancient RCA VCR goes to live in the closet as well.

So, the question I have to ask is:

How on Earth is this silly amendment to the manufacturers license going to affect me in any way whatsoever?

One way or another, I will have backups of my DVDs. Those that I own now, and those that I will purchase in the future.

Seriously, do they actually expect this to do anything at all to stop DVD copying or piracy?

Re:Yeah, this will stop me!

[Nom du Keyboard]

My current DVD player, a 4 year old Samsung is shortly to be retired, replaced by a Phillips all region PAL/NTSC player.

And that Phillips player is illegal, under their licensing agreement. All region players have been subject to more than one crackdown, with the threat of pulling their license to manufacture in the balance.

Re:Yeah, this will stop me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,Chris Tucker. We now have your name and IP address, and your ISP is going to give us your mailing address. We'll be at your door shortly, and our agents are partial to tea and crumpets.

Re:Yeah, this will stop me!

[Chris Tucker]

"And that Phillips player is illegal, under their licensing agreement. All region players have been subject to more than one crackdown, with the threat of pulling their license to manufacture in the balance."

Well, I suppose I'd better order THIS as soon as possible before the DVD CCA shuits down Amazon.com and/or Phillips!

All it takes is once.

[Colin Smith]

That's the nature of information...

I'd have thought that the shareholders would have figured that out by now. *shrug*

How did he win?

[Nom du Keyboard]

...a DVD jukebox company which successfully defeated a suit by the DVD CCA this past March.

Did he win in court because he pointed out the license agreement didn't prohibit this usage, or did he win on other grounds? If they're changing the license agreement to close up some holes (think GPL 3), he may have a case of unfair and tortorus interference in his business. If he won on other grounds, this might not affect him -- or us, under the same decision -- at all.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm ready to support removing ALL rights from the movie industries. They'd still find a way to survive, and even prosper, but not in the insane taking of public rights they now enjoy.

Remember, everyone who initially came to Hollywood to found the western movie industry did it because they were stealing the use of Edison's patents, and were trying to avoid his enforcers. They were all a bunch of thieves to start with, and that hasn't changed all that much since!

No company is forced to enter these agreements

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an amendment to the license agreement between the association responsible for the DVD standard and the companies that create DVD products.

There's a license agreement only if the companies choose to obtain specs from the DVDCCA. They can also choose to go the DeCSS-way to bypass the DVDCCA license agreement, and if sued under the DMCA argue that the DVD encryption isn't "effective".

Re:No company is forced to enter these agreements

[AKAImBatman]

if sued under the DMCA argue that the DVD encryption isn't "effective".

That only works if you do business in Finland. If you do business in just about any other country (particularly in the US) the judge is going to look at you funny and tell you that you have a fool for a lawyer.

Re:No company is forced to enter these agreements

[norminator]

Actually, there's a couple of US-based Kaleidescape competitors who do point their customers to DeCSS (they don't include it with the system, but the system absolutely depends on it). Their products aren't nearly as elegant as Kaleidescape's either, I might add.

oh noze

[allforcarrie]

0h noz meh dvd are the h4x0r!

Re:Who cares? Weak Argument

[Nom du Keyboard]

Wait till you live in a local that doesn't offer broadband.

That's a pretty weak argument. Broadband is available widely, and being offered even more widely every day. You are getting to the point where you have to intentionally pick a location without broadband (and why would you?) to avoid it now, and it's still coming. Find a better argument than this!

Why Intel and HP??

[moeinvt]

Am I missing something?

I can see why the content providers, and companies like Pioneer who make regular DVD players are all for this. But, why would Intel, HP and companies that make PC-related hardware want to endorse something that restricts the use of computers for DVD view/playback?

Re:Why Intel and HP??

[teh_chrizzle]

intel, HP, microsoft, and all the others want the PC/game console to take root in the livingroom. most of america already has one or two computers in the office, the only way to sell more is to create the need for a PC in another room. currently, hollywood sees the computer as a tool of infringement. if they play nice with hollywood, hollywood (the gatekeeper to the livingroom) will play nice with them.

Re:Why Intel and HP??

[moeinvt]

I'm probably going to feel dumb when I finally catch on, but I still don't see the incentive for Intel and HP to actively support this.

"Intel, HP, . . .want the PC/game console to take root in the livingroom"

Yes, I understand, but exactly how does this proposal advance that agenda?

FTA: ". . . amendment to the current copy protection license ... would ... prevent DVD playback without the DVD disk being present inside the drive."

Therefore, you are NOT allowed to copy all of the DVDs you own onto a computer hard drive for easy playback. This seems like a major dis-incevtive to using a PC as your home entertainment system. If you have to search through the shelves for the DVD you want to watch, then physically insert it into a machine anyway, what's the advantage of a PC vs. an ordinary DVD player? Certainly not expense.

Re:Why Intel and HP??

[teh_chrizzle]

this is just my [somewhat] unsubstantiated conspiracy theory... but i think hollywood and everyone else knows that the physical format is dead. the blu/HDwhatever generation will be the last one. the future will come in two forms: digitally downloaded or streamed in some fashion. have no fear, both will come DRM'd to within an inch of their lives thanks to the PC industy's complicity.

the hardware to receive this kind of media will have to be significantly more sophisticated than the current iteration of the $35 taiwanese DVD player with questionable reigon enforcement. intel, HP, sony, MS, and countless others want to provide the hardware and software that will power those new "digitally secure set top things".

right now, the buying public has two choices, upgrade to the nascent HD/secured/broadcast flagged/DRM/fuxxored platform or continue to stay low tech. this is a swipe at the "low tech" crowd. there will be other swipes, and they will get worse as the 2009 cutoff for over the air SDTV approaches and the pressure to upgrade increases for the "low tech" crowd. if HP, intel and the rest of the gang want hollywood's cooperation to seduce the "HD secured" crowd, then they have to agree to help punish the "low tech" crowd.

when you become "made" by the mob, some families expect you to prove yourself worthy beforehand. it's almost always something personally painful that proves your loyalty, like cutting off a finger or killing a relative.

intel, HP, and the others agreeing to hamstring the DVD format on the PC looks to me like they are cutting off a finger to prove that the PC will not continue to be the tool of infringement that hollywood sees it as today.

like i said, that's just my conspiracy theory.

Re:Why Intel and HP??

[catprog]

The cut of it only analog. To be replaced by digital not SD completely replaced by HD

Not sure if this is a good argument, but..

[wamerocity]

could someone please explain to me how all the steps taken by the MAFIAA and other organizations to lock down digital content is any different than the government trying to lock down alcoholic beverages during Prohibition? Because it seems to be just as effective. All prohibition did was turn everyone that drank alcohol from a legal citizen to an outlaw that drank alcohol. I make copies of all my media, and the tools are very readily available. Only the noob of noobs can not figure how to copy digital content anymore. I hope they do like they did in prohibition and realize that what they are doing is a waste of resources and repeal the law. Although, I honestly don't see it happening.

The Real Question...

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this affect aXXo? I'm good if he's good.

Re:Not enforceable. NOT TRUE AT ALL

[Nom du Keyboard]

If the drive is physically able to read each bit, then no matter what you tell the vendors making the drives, it's pointless.

Sorry, but this is not true. It's not what you drive can read, but what it can write afterwards. For example, your drive can read the media descriptor block on your DVD, but it can't write the block of your choice onto your writable disc. To demand that a DVD must be in a drive, enforced by the drive hardware itself, with a media descriptor that you can't buy on blank discs, or write with any consumer writer, would require the original physical disc to be present for playback. The way around this is to rip the content with an unauthorized player, for which the will then try and sue you. Lawyers will make lots of money over this, notoriously insecure movie studio execs will sleep soundly over this, and the average person's life will become incrementally more difficult than before in a constantly ratcheting spiral.

DRM needs to be banned at the federal level, as an impediment to Fair Use and other consumer rights. Until the public at large is willing to make this a top priority, this garbage will continue.

Message to the CSS and MPAA

[Lord Apathy]

By unanimous decree by all that was ask, namely me. I have been appointed spokes person for the free use of dvd people here on Slashdot and other boards, by that same authority. With all that authority that I have bestowed on myself with glee in my heart and a song on my lips I'm to inform you that you can go fuck yourself.

Thank you, drive through.

I've just stopped

[Anonymous Coward]

With all of this anti-compition, anti-consumer BS, with the realization that my time is valuable, abd with the realization I can pretty much get what I want from a download rental of VOD, I just don't give a damn anymore. They want to kill DVD? Fine. DVD can go away. We'll just find bettre ways of getting out TV-fix, which I need less and less of anyway. I mean, really, there isn't much worth watching anymore as it is.

Re:fine -- Poster is full of it!

[Nom du Keyboard]

If you can't cope with not being allowed to copy the DVD, don't buy it.

And when you can't copy DVD's, how long before the quality of originals degrade such that they need to be replaced -- at full prices -- after only a few playings? Movie companies would love that. They make no guarantee that the DVD will last forever, which is why people copy them in the first place. Leave the kids alone with their favorite disc and you'll be sending Disney a check every month for a new copy of Finding Nemo.

To think that a corporation will be good if we just give them what they want is living in Fantasyland[tm] (used without permission).

Re:Not enforceable. NOT TRUE AT ALL

[jshriverWVU]

Well said. I wasn't looking at it from the perspective of making copies of one DVD to another blank DVD, but transcoding a DVD to another format that could be played on another device like a media center, iPod, PSP, Nintendo DS, etc.

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it?

[jonwil]

Basically the issue is that if you can copy a DVD and play it without having the original in the drive (say, to a video juke box), you can obtain the DVD (video store, borrow from mate, whatever else), copy it and give it back. Ergo, you have a copy of the DVD that you can watch without having the original in your possession.
So the MPAA want to stop companies with CSS licenses from producing devices that can be used to violate copyright law.

Re:How would they enforce this at the end-useEASY!

[Nom du Keyboard]

They would enforce it by requiring all playback software to only playback from a physical DVD drive that contained a DVD with a media descriptor block of a type you cannot purchase on blank, writable DVD discs. The media descriptor information is one thing you CANNOT write to on your writable DVD discs. It's set by the manufacturer, and what you buy is what you get.

And if you believe this has never happened before, you're wrong. The so-called "music blank CD's", which are the only sort your audio component CD recorder would ever accept use exactly this same trick! A music writable CD-R is identical to a computer CD-R, except that it has a special media code that the audio component CD-R recorder recognized, and this indicated that a tax (up to $0.30/CD-R) was charged for this otherwise identical recordable media. It worked there, and would be hard to defeat here if the content industries can force through legislation mandating its use in all equipment and players sold in this country.

Re:Trade Groups vs. Consumers ALREADY TRIED

[Nom du Keyboard]

Sometimes I think that if they could devise a way to charge for every single time a DVD (other recorded medium) is *played*, they would try to do so. I'm not talking PPV by cable, but PPV by the recorded media that is the consumer's own possession.

This was already tried. The original DIVX (not the free software media encoder and player) system allowed the studio to authorize just how many times a given disc could be played in a given player. Pay more and you could unlock playback for an unlimited number of plays BUT ONLY IN THAT PLAYER.

If you were foolish to buy into this system, you now have movies you paid full price for, that will only last as long as your DIVX hardware, with no possibility of ever buying replacement hardware when your's breaks. You were ripped off good, if you were among the few stupid purchasers of this crippled idea.

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it?

[raw-sewage]

Ah! What a waste of $$$ paying lawyers to get regulations that in the end are impossible to enact/enforce... Just watch the "unbreakable" DRM of the HD-DVD be broken in a few weeks. How will they actually force me to have the DVD in the player when I can (and I will) rip it off to a HD? Oh, well, it is their money...

(Emphasis mine) No! It's not their money, it's your money. Unless, of course, you never buy or rent movies, or go see a movie in the theater. But rest assured, the MPAA and friends subsidize their DRM efforts (tech and lobbying) with increased prices. That's what I find particularly irksome: if you buy a DVD (or HD-DVD or BluRay), part of the cost goes to cover the expense of its DRM. We're paying for stuff we don't want. Nobody requested DRM!

I hate to repeat the standard mantra, but... no DRM, lower prices and better content and all this "piracy" would just go away. I mean, we all know it can never be totally squelched, but can easily be made unprofitable enough to be marginalized.

Re:Is DVD tech dying.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you own an HDTV and you've watched HD channels... DVD looks like crap in comparison. It doesn't have nearly the resolution. The problem is, this only affects people with HDTVs. This is different than DVD vs VHS where *everyone* could immediately see and enjoy all of the benefits (better image quality, digital sound, no rewinding, etc).

Between the format war, the increased price, and the decreased difference in perceived value - it'll be a while before DVDs go away.

Re:Not enforceable. NOT TRUE AT ALL

[Nom du Keyboard]

but transcoding a DVD to another format that could be played on another device like a media center, iPod, PSP, Nintendo DS, etc.

And by requiring the original physical disc to be presented and mounted by all licensed software (e.g. iPod et al), this would stop that practice in all licensed players (same list). Apple, Sony, etc. wouldn't dare try to sell unlicensed players. They're too big targets for lawsuits.

Not everyone, just Companies

[abb3w]

The proposal is an amendment to the agreement that all DVD hardware manufacturers must agree to to get access to the DVD standard's specifications. The proposed text FTA:

"DVD Products, alone or in combination with other DVD Products, shall not be designed to descramble scrambled CSS Data when the DVD Disc containing such CSS Data and associated CSS Keys is not physically present in the DVD Player or DVD Drive (as applicable), and a DVD Product shall not be designed to make or direct the making of a persistent copy of CSS Data that has been descrambled from such DVD Disc by such DVD Product."

This, as the article notes, is at essence designed to put Kaleidescape out of business. This is bad; however, the real idiocy might be with the latter half about "persistent copy" making. It is trivial (although not trivially cheap) for a consumer to assemble a dedicated computer with a DVD drive, massive storage, TV video output, and free open-source software to duplicate the functioning of a Kaleidescape Jukebox. The DVD-CCA might use this to try and retroactively remove this capability from the market... despite that I don't see how it might be possible to do so without removing either DVD drives or TV-out computer components.

Of course, I'm not sure that this amendment can prevent someone from making a Kaleidescape-like jukebox; while less elegant, it wouldn't be hard to redesign the Jukebox to use a standard 1-bay 5.25" DVD drive -- at which point, a manufacturer need not be a signatory to the DVD-CCA agreement, but merely buys (bulk, OEM) DVD drives as a component. Therefore, the only impact of this amendment (unless they try to ban the DVD drive — which I don't rule out) is a slight delay (until someone does this) and to try and put Kaleidescape out of business... which, as the company president notes, is likely to be held unlawful.

I suspect it boils down to someone stupidly and criminally trying to be vindictive against Kaleidescape for having previously beaten the DVD-CCA in court. This should go well....

virtual drives

[Skapare]

The proposed amendment would also prohibit software manufacturers to create "virtual drives," running a DVD image from a hard drive. The previous Kaleidescape case touched upon the company's use of ripping a DVD to a large internal hard drive, and playing back the movie on demand without the need for a physical disk to be inserted into the drive.

This is likely why Microsoft backed off their decision to reverse the restriction against running Windows Vista under virtualization. The CCA and/or MPAA got wind of this change and put the pressure on Microsoft to not do this (at least for versions of Vista that have the software to play DVDs and the DRM the CCA licensing requires). A virtual DVD drive underneath Vista, mapped from a file image, could fake the DVD enough to possibly fool the DRM code into believing it really is a DVD. There are also a number of other things that can be done with virtualization to defeat what the DRM media software does, especially if the virtualization is hosted on Linux.

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it?

[ADRA]

Everyone with a DVD-ROM in their computers can perform a bit-for-bit DVD copy while retaining the CSS encryption. Licensees that bit-for-bit copy CSS enabled movies are not violating the forums rules and are not violating copyright law. This change just means that anyone who IS a licensee of the DVD-forum cannot perform such operations that everyone else is legally entitled to perform.

The problem arises that the only way to re-integrate that legal copy is to burn the image back to disc and leave the disc in a licensed player. I know this is a pain in the f-ing ass because I've been looking into large capacity DVD carousel's lately and the selection is anywhere between bad and insulting. If this is DVD-Forum's solution to on-demand DVD, then they're more than supporting piracy by releasing inferior products.

Where would we be without fair use?

[StrongAxe]

Fair use is not a right. It's a defence to copyright infringement

The only reason that copyright conventions got passed in the first place was that they EXPLICITLY made provisions for fair use.

If you buy a book, can you lend it to a friend? Can you invite you friends over to watch a DVD? Can you donate your unwanted books to a library? Can you even play a music CD with others in the room? Without Fair Use, the answer to all of these would be NO.

Re:Where would we be without fair use?

[91degrees]

If you buy a book, can you lend it to a friend?

Yes.

Can you invite you friends over to watch a DVD?

Yes

Can you donate your unwanted books to a library?

Yes

Can you even play a music CD with others in the room?

Yes

Without Fair Use, the answer to all of these would be NO.

No it wouldn't. None of these uses count as public performances, broadcasts or copies.

Fair use means that you retain the right to make copies for a number of reasons. It is not a right in itself. It's a limitation of rights of the copyright holder. i.e. if they sue you, fair use is a defence.

Re:Where would we be without fair use?

[L0rdJedi]

No it wouldn't. None of these uses count as public performances, broadcasts or copies.

You can't usually display a copyrighted work in any of those situations anyway, even with fair use. Take a movie for example. Fair use says you can make a copy or watch it with your friends. However, it's illegal to take that movie to a large public venue and display it there. The only way you're legally allowed to do it is with the copyright holders permission. But those situations have nothing to do with fair use.

Re:Where would we be without fair use?

[91degrees]

That isn't what Fair Use is about. Fair use is about exceptions to copyright holders control. Copyright is about exceptions to a legal owner's control.

Copyright law restricts the owner of a copy from doing a number of things with a work. Anything that isn't explicitely restricted by copyright law is permitted. This is not fair use. This is a natural right. You can read the book you just bought. You can resell it.

Under copyright law, you may not copy it, at all. You can't even copy a small part of it under a strict interpretation. This is where fair use comes in. Fair use says that for a lot of purposes you are permitted to make copies. For example, I may wish to show people how voilent a film is. I can take a scene from it and broadcast it, and add my own commentary about how awful it is and how this scene demonstrates this (or how cool I think the gore is). They could threaten to sue. I would point out that my use was for criticism, and is a tiny part of the whole that will not displace sales and therefore my broadcast is Fair Use. If they wanted to press the point they would take it to court, and try to demonstrate that my use is a breach of copyright and that my fair use defence is invalid (and probably lose in this case). It may turn out that I'm unable to get hold of a legal copy, and if I can't, they have no obligation to assist.

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it?

[cpotoso]

No, it IS their money. You gave yours to them. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to do so. Hence it is no longer your money. If it makes the product so expensive nobody buys it, so be it. If people still pay for it, then that's all peachy.

Re:Who cares? Weak Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Please hero, find Broadband internet for me. I've been living here for 4 years with no access to broadband, and likely no chance for at least 5 more years. The mountains surrounding my house prevents wireless and satellite. Fiber optic is 50 miles away which means no DSL, to say nothing about the Fiber actually getting into my developement.

His was a prefectly valid arguement. Your's however makes arrogant assumptions.

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it is our money. how much of the initial high price of HDDVD and bluray were due to the work on new unbreakable encryption?

what they really expect

[Skapare]

Seriously, do they actually expect this to do anything at all to stop DVD copying or piracy?

No. Not at all. They expect the public, and more importantly, the politicians they own, to buy the story (that it stops copying and piracy). They expect these kinds of restrictions to force the purchase of redundant copies of DVDs to drive up more revenue ... at least among those people who are not downloading from the internet.

Obviously not targeted twords general users

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this won't effect the general population as the general population don't back up their DVD's. This is obviously targeted at people like us who do, and for the vast majority of people who DO back up DVD's, they (we) have the knowledge to rip them to DivX/Xvid. All we need to do is to burn a DivX/Xvid disk and watch the backup on a DVD player that will read it, or watch it on a HTPC. No problem. It might actually help to put more Divx players on the market.

Self-inflicted hamstringing

[NoAnswers]

I cannot imagine why the people overseeing the DVD/CSS rules think this is a good idea. CSS protection has been compromised for some time. Software is readily available outside the limited jurisdiction of the people charged with enforcing these rules. In an effort to stifle innovation and creative new uses for the existing technology and thereby keep it relevant for a few more years, the DVD folks have decided to dissuade people new to the format from pursuing it. Perhaps the DVD brain trust decided that downloaded content, readily available/affordable storage, and new formats are just not a big enough threat yet. Personally, I cannot wait for the first class action lawsuit against the copyright protection clans when people decide that media failure prevents them from continued enjoyment of their purchase. After all, the industry wants us to feel entitled to only the plastic and bumpy film not its content...

Constitutional Amendment

[Doc Ruby]

We need to amend the US Constitution to protect people's intellectual property rights. The Constitution currently says

Congress shall have power [...] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

on which all US copyright law is based. But "limited times" has been extended well beyond any justifiable "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".

The amendment should state that "Congress shall ensure that the people's right to use their information property for any lawful purpose shall not be infringed". And we need copyright law to respect that protection, and its Constitutional "limited times" basis, by specifying that copyrights expire promptly. The government can analyze the economics to generate backing data, but the copyright should expire after an average human generation (probably the original 17 years), or after audited investment costs registered with the copyright office are recouped with profit, probably income double the investment. Then they can compete without the benefit of a government monopoly.

If you think we shouldn't amend the Constitution because the original language is sufficient, consider that it's now demonstrated to be absolutely insufficient to protect our rights. The entire Bill of Rights is redundant to the rest of the Constitution, which creates only the powers explicitly stated, so the "shall nots" are redundant to the implicit lack of them in the main document. But without those Amendments, we'd have been a lot more screwed by bad application of the "inherently limited government" principles. Just as we've been screwed by the lack of protection from copyright abuse in legislation and licenses.

Until we get high-level protection, we'll get screwed. But with high-level protection, licenses and contracts like this new "DVD copy monopoly" will be illegal and unenforceable.

Re:Constitutional Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we do not need that. Not if you're going to put the word "information" anywhere near the word "property".

Copyrights and patents are not granted on the basis that there are any natural property rights in works. They are just artificial monopoly incentives to get authors to behave in ways that will be good for the public domain.

If you add an Amendment to the Constitution with phrases like "information property", the *AAs of the world would rejoice; they would take that as an overturning of the public interest basis for the existing Constitutional provisions. Then the whining would proceed in earnest to increase the artificial monopoly protection on the alleged "property" up to Jack Valenti's "forever minus a day" (a phrase that you can show to be mathematically equivalent to "forever").

Re:Constitutional Amendment

[Doc Ruby]

To the contrary. Information property already has a basis in the Constitution, as I described, and as abused on that basis. If we don't make property rights protected in both directions, not just of the producer but of the consumer, then producers will continue to get all the rights, and deny the consumers ours. We've been skating too long pretending it's not treated as property.

Unless you can propose some other basis for the rights in a different Amendment. I'm interested, as long as all our rights are protected.

Re:Constitutional Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitution? Don't make me laugh. That old piece of paper doesn't really mean anything, these days (apart from being a historical curiosity. Get over it. Take that old "Bill of Rights", for example:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I could go on, and on (and I have, on occasion, but I believe that this should be enough to prove a point, of some sort). The American Republic is dying, rotting from the core. I don't pretend to know what will come next, but the American Government has completely (IMNSHO) lost any belief in the validity of the United States Constitution.

Re:Constitutional Amendment

[Doc Ruby]

The US government has steadily discarded many of the fundamental protections specified by the Constitution, really going downhill starting with Johnson's undelcared Vietnam War, accelerating with Nixon, kicked into turbo with Reagan/Bush's Iran/Contra, and into hyperspace with Bush/Cheney.

But the people in the government should be expected to abuse the Constitution - it's in their interest. The people and the media have the power to do something about it. The corporate mass media is nearing its peak, if it hasn't already passed it, in favor of decentralized (and mobile) network media. That puts the power right in the hands of the people, where it belongs.

Now we'll have a chance to see whether the people, no longer strictly dependent on the government and the corporate media to administer society, use that power to either reform the government or to make it more irrelevant.

If you give up, then the politicos have won. If you don't, but rather seize on your rights as the Constitution specifies the people's government must protect them, then you have won. Regardless of the paper Constitution, your rights are inalienable - unless you let them alienate you from them.

Re:fine -- Poster is full of it!

[BoberFett]

How long? It's already been tried, don't you remember DIVX? Not the codec (DivX), the disc format. Circuit City tried to sell everyone a format that would only last for a few viewings, after that the content on the disc would be unreadable. We can see how well that did against DVD.

Like, Numismatism, maybe?

[zippthorne]

I've got some friends who do that, too. (well not coin collecting. That's the height of boring. But at least the coins have some value)

Have you ever thought about asking him, why bother? I mean, if he's got Netflix, he can go through more movies in a week than he's got time to watch. Logically, it makes no sense to horde them, especially since you can always re-queue a movie if you ever want to see it again, and doubly especially since if you use Netflix, the HD transition happens transparently: you don't have to re-buy all your disks as they come out again, you can just rent the most advanced version there is.

Later when digital-download is prevalent, there will be even less reason to maintain a huge movie-library.

Irrespective of the backup-copy aspects, I can't see making yourself a criminal just because to satisfy some pointless urge to collect all the mostly mediocre films you watch..

Re:Like, Numismatism, maybe?

[CyberLord Seven]

Star Wars

That's why you might want to save a copy of a particular version of a movie. For instance, I have a legitimate copy of Star Wars (the first movie. You may think of it as A New Hope but it will always be Star Wars to me.) on Betamax tape. A year ago, after I got my Neuros II, I copied the tape to my computer as an MPEG 4 file to preserve the original destruction of Alderaan and the destruction of the Death Star and the fact that Han shot first.

Here's another George Lucas blunder. In the theatrical release of Episode II Jango Fett gets his head cut off without all the pretty little sparks that are evident in the official DVD version. It makes me wish I had bought a bootleg version of the movie so I could compare it to the DVD Lucas pimped.

With all the "Director Cuts" and various versions of movies floating around out there and the new "enhanced" versions of Star Trek: The Original Series coming soon, serious fans of film have a genuine desire to retain versions they may like or wish to compare later versions to. How many versions of Bladerunner are out there?

Re:Like, Numismatism, maybe?

[ShadowsHawk]

I have a decently large DVD collection. Shortly before subscribing to netflix, I considered picking up a DVD burner and copying all of my Blockbuster rentals (it's the only rental shop near me). Shortly after subscribing, I found that I was no longer interested in owning DVDs. Why? I can have it tomorrow if I want to see it again.

Re:Like, Numismatism, maybe?

[fbartho]

because tomorrow is not today (or more accurately now).

It's just not as convenient.

Article update

[Sherloqq]

From the article:

Editor's Note: This story has been updated at 4:20 PM PDT with comments from both the DVD CCA as well as Kaleidescape." Now we know what them folks over there are all smoking...

does this run afoul of fair-use laws?

[MoFoQ]

I'm not sure how kosher this change is in terms of the fair use laws (not limited to the US) or the archiving law

plus the Finnish courts have ruled that a DVD's protection scheme is ineffective. (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/052807-finn ish-court-rules-dvd-drm.html?inform)

A note to DVDCA...

[vidarh]

I have about 400 legally bought DVD's. If they prevent me from playing them from my new file server rather than from the original disk, I will stop buying more and instead download ripped movies, as they'd have taken away an essential feature.

I doubt I'm alone - people who buy large volumes of legal DVD's are the ones who'll be the most affected by this. Actual pirates will easily work around it.

Re:A note to DVDCA...

[gral]

You are not alone. At some point, I wonder if these companies will realize that they are pushing people that WILL buy their product over to downloading.

Re:Not enforceable. NOT TRUE AT ALL

[LocalH]

But said media players aren't designed for playing video that came from a DVD, they are generic video players. They don't decrypt CSS in the first play, so this amendment won't affect them. It's the enduser that decides to rip a DVD and transcode it, and this amendment won't affect them either.

This is solely designed to go after Kaleidescape. I hope the DVD CCA gets their collective balls handed to them on a plate.

Re:Not enforceable. NOT TRUE AT ALL

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM needs to be banned at the federal level, as an impediment to Fair Use and other consumer rights. Until the public at large is willing to make this a top priority, this garbage will continue.

No, people need to STOP CONSUMING these items.

Don't watch what they produce if you don't like how they are selling it to you.

Gaming Utilities Revoked Too

[queenb**ch]

As an avid gamer, I have a utility which stores an image of my game DVD's on my hard drive, allowing faster game play since my SATA II drives are a lot faster than my DVD ROM. It also prevents my DVD's from being scratched or broken since we play at LAN parties.

2 cents,

QueenB.

Re:Gaming Utilities Revoked Too

[PitaBred]

Alcohol 52%. Great stuff. You can actually use Daemon Tools if you want, too. I do the same thing... it makes it quieter, too, since my laptop's DVD drive doesn't need to spin up.

Re:Gaming Utilities Revoked Too

[fbartho]

Which utility do you use? DaemonTools(?) + what?

What about VCRs?

[xgr3gx]

I forget, do DVD players have a filter so you can't record them onto a VCR? So if you did, the video would be scrambled? I can't remember. If it is possible, then this amendment has a loophole.

Re:What about VCRs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Law requires that consumer grade VCRs include a Macrovision filter. So you'll need to get a Macrovision filter or a non-crippled VCR.

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it?

[jimicus]

It's a bigger pain than you imagine.

The part of the disc reserved for the disc's security keys are not burnable in retail DVD-R(w) discs (and even if they were I would be astonished if most DVD burners would burn those sectors).

I never studied business, and I'm no expert, but I was of the understanding that "make life more difficult for your legitimate customers than it is for those who would take your product without paying" is generally considered a big no-no, regardless of if you're selling loaves of bread, electronics or DVDs.

Focus on the anti-trust issues here...

[CodeShark]

Givens:

• The highest percentage of the most profitable world-wide movies originate in the US,
• ,
• The US has fairly effective anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation at the federal level, and
• the DMCA is a federal law that allows fair use copying

the author of the article is absolutely correct in asserting that this amendment to the current DVD copy control license is effectively illegal and will subject any company that goes along with it to legal actions.

Among other things, the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act et. al outlaws activities such as tying, Price Fixing, etc. What the US RIAA and MPAA are trying to do is form defacto monopolies for how digital media can be used in violation of all of these other laws by using strong-armed licensing agreements and trying to bind the technology companies to go along with it. For example, why would Sony Electronics go against the wishes of Sony Entertainment, etc.?

The real question is how long the courts and legislators at the state and federal levels will allow the collusion to continue before it comes to an end, or will the corruption of government by corporate money continue unabated until we have no rights left?

Re:Is DVD tech dying.

[Kjella]

You're kidding me, right? There are almost as many DVD players out and about as there are CD players, and all the online music lets you burn to CD. Yeah, maybe you're going to swap out that DVD player in your home cinema. Are you going to replace that cheap one in your cabin for a rainy day? The one your teenybopper has in her room so she stops hogging your big screen? The DVD player in the back seat of your car to keep those annoying brats quiet? All the poorer places in the world that rarely have big screens worth it? Maybe, one day the standard is dual-format discs, highdef+DVD but even that is way off. I think you can rewind 7 years and say "Now that DVD-A and SACD has been released, is CD a dying technology?". Plus there's a big unresolved format war going on, which is definately a turn-off to the average consumer who has still heard of VHS vs BetaMax. If you want a WAG, I think 2020 before you'll hear talk of it dying, 2030 until it *is* dying.

More laws just means more broken laws

[Rai]

Given all the DRM/DCMA/Patriot Act rules, half the stuff I do on my computer is probably illegal. Lucky for me, words on paper have never prevented me from doing any of it and I doubt putting more words on paper will either.

tvixbox guy

[Anonymous Coward]

I just plunked down $279 for a tvixbox and now this.

Store all your DVDs into the TVIX to create your very own portable DVD library! The TVIX can run DVD image files (ISO), playing backed up DVDs from its memory. Like any DVD player, it will play back DVDs with the full functionality of DVD navigation.

What do I do now ?

Contact the DVD CCA board members

[Anonymous Coward]

The DVD CCA members that proposed the amendment can be contacted at the following e-mail addresses:

Andy Parsons
Senior Vice President Product Development
Pioneer North America, Inc.
2265 E 220th St
Long Beach, CA 90810-1639
USA
+1.310.952.2129
andy.parsons@pioneer-usa.com

David Harshman
Associate General Counsel
Toshiba America
david.harshman@tais.toshiba.com

Mr. Chris Cookson
Executive Vice President/Chief Techology Officer
Warner Bros.
4000 Warner Boulevard
Burbank, CA, 91522-6114
+1.818.953.7900

Jeffrey Lawrence
Intel
jeff.lawrence@intel.com

Ben Carr
Walt Disney Studios
ben.carr@disney.com

Gabe Beged-Dov
Senior Technology Strategist
Digital Entertainment Services
Hewlett-Packard
gabe@cv.hp.com

Silly hackerxorz

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying as long as your DVD playa can read the bits you'll be able to copy them is like saying as long as your ATM card works you'll be able to rob the bank. True, but Sundance, your days are numbered. Better move to Bolivia ASAP.

Barring a ruling from a court with jurisdiction?

[abb3w]

That only works if you do business in Finland. If you do business in just about any other country (particularly in the US) the judge is going to look at you funny and tell you that you have a fool for a lawyer.

IAmNotALawyer; I just argue with them. The DMCA says

a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Processes or treatments only need authority if protected by trade secret law or by patent. The CSS algorithm processes were (AFAIK) not protected by patent, but by trade secret. The California Court of Appeals has ruled that it is no longer a secret in a case the DVD-CCA was a party to; they dropped their case after that ruling and did not appeal. I cannot imagine any argument that the DVD-CCA could bring before any US judge (aside from a large suitcase filled with cash) that would cause him to overlook that ruling under basic stare decisis. Ergo, the workings of CSS are no longer protected.

So, on what basis would you argue that decoding a DVD "requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner"?

Time for a Open Source DVD codec

[Anonymous Coward]

The propriety codecs are the true problem. They are eroding technologies usefulness when trying to keep it pay to use. It's time that people demand a better way. Just like DRM not working with Blue Ray, so will not getting piracy to stop. It's time to just allow a Open Source DVD codec, and everyone adopt it and use it. There is no need to make the codec propeitery when it means only one person or group controls the interpolobility of the codec and how it is used. We should b past this type of thinking of nickle and diming users to make a buck. If technology is going to truely help society then it needs to be adjusted to make it useable. This propreitery junk is slowing everything down. Only because ther corparations want to make an extra buck.

As fairly as anything involving lawyers.

[abb3w]

Did he win in court because he pointed out the license agreement didn't prohibit this usage, or did he win on other grounds?

They won fair and square, and the judge commented on their efforts to stay within the agreement to boot. And yeah, "unfair and tortorus interference" is more or less what the quote from the company president in TFA boils down to.

Private contract, not public

[abb3w]

This seems to be an odd thing for a law to do.

It's not a law; it's a proposed contract amendment. However, if enforced to the extreme, the effect would be the same, since they'd have to ban the DVD drive.

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it?

[Anonymous Coward]

WOW. I think you said it just right.

This is 1999 all over again. It was music, now it's movie.
RIAA has been going at it for nearly 10 years now. We should expect the same for MPAA.

Funny how this is the exact scenario software manufacturer was the first to face; The fight is ongoing for some but overall is barelly mentioned excpet for a smile thinking how long this'next copyright protection' will actually work.

Agreed... and also...

[norminator]

I myself thought it was funny that early on in the lawsuit, one of the DVDCCA's reps claimed that the Kaleidescape allows wholesale copying of DVDs, which the CSS was specifically designed to prevent against. Of course, the system at the time had a starting price of $27,000, and the amount you paid for storage far outweighed the "savings" you'd see by copying DVDs that didn't belong to you. Not to mention the fact that the types of people who would buy such an expensive toy, aren't the types to sign up for an unlimited rental plan from Blockbuster, and rent 2 movies at a time, repeatedly trading them in, in order to fill up their DVD server.

The system actually has 3 distinct parts: the reader, the player, and the server (although I believe they sell a combo reader/player now). The only part that actually does any decrypting, thus requiring the CSS license, is the player. The reader transfers the DVD contents bit-for-bit to the server, which transfers them bit-for-bit with encryption to the player, which then decrypts internally, just like any other DVD player.

And on top of that, the server where the movies are stored is a proprietary, locked down black box where you can't just pull the movies from a Samba share or anything. Contrast that with some of their competitors, who use a Windows XP PC as the server, and everything is stored decrypted... you can just hook up a monitor to the server, share the folder, and do whatever you want with the movie files. It's amazing that those other companies can tell their customers where and how to get DeCSS off the internet, and how to install it, and their existing software completely depends on DeCSS... but Kaleidescape got sued for licensing the technology and using it in a responsible manner. Oh yeah, and Kaleidescape also sells large collections of movies with their players, so they are actually providing additional revenue directly for the MPAA.

It's important to remember, though, that the DVDCCA is not only made up of MPAA reps, it's also comprised of electronics manufacturers, which means that part of the whole initiative to shut down Kaleidescape was from long-established companies that just got left in the dust when a start-up company made an excellent, functional, and easy to use high-end product that they hadn't thought of yet.

Re:How would they enforce this at the end-useEASY!

[JimDaGeek]

They would enforce it by requiring all playback software...

This only comes in to play for commercial products since the commerical products buy a license and then are held to the contract. I personally have never used a commercial playback app. I use VLC for most everything. VLC cannot be touched (currently) because they are not based in the U.S.A. wich allows crappy software patents.

The so-called "music blank CD's", which are the only sort your audio component CD recorder would ever accept

Again, I have never purchased a "music blank CD" here in the U.S.A. and I have never had one problem burning my own audio CD that plays just fine in all of my players. Future players may not want to play my personally burned audio CD. That is fine since most new and future players support MP3/AAC discs. I will just burn a CD-R with a bunch of MP3 files on it.

This whole silly thing is not about changing laws, it is about changing contracts that non-commercial companies/software/products will not have to comply with since they never signed a contract. So, there will always be millions of users that can bypass anything these contract changes are supposed to enforce at the contract level only.

Re:Is DVD tech dying.

[josh_miller]

The difference there is that when DVDs came out, you didn't have to buy a new TV to get the most out of 'em. Having an old skool TV, I'm totally uninterested in HD content. Check back with me in 5-10 years when it's time to replace my TV.

Re:Good! Fair-Use == facilitation of Piracy

[moeinvt]

"I pay for every single movie I have and I have yet to encounter a situation where I would need to use a "backed up" a movie"

Have you ever had a situation where you would need to use a backed up b movie?

Re:How would they enforce this at the end-useEASY!

[the eric conspiracy]

So what happens to legacy commercial DVD's? They just stop working? I'm sure that would go over big. Music CD-R media were designed for another reason altogether - to cash in on people buying CD recorders for their home audio system. Totatlly different application.

Re:Is DVD tech dying.

[Fastball]

Blu-ray and HD-DVD are dead on arrival, and standard DVD is going the way of the dodo too. The future is digital on-demand over IP. An iTunes model of sorts. Go to the store? Not for long.

Fair use is not a right.

[falconwolf]

It's a defence to copyright infringement.

Copyright isn't a right either, despite what it's called. Copyright is a government granted monopoly of limited duration.

Falcon

Re:Barring a ruling from a court with jurisdiction

[AKAImBatman]

The CSS algorithm processes were (AFAIK) not protected by patent, but by trade secret. The California Court of Appeals has ruled that it is no longer a secret in a case the DVD-CCA was a party to; they dropped their case after that ruling and did not appeal. I cannot imagine any argument that the DVD-CCA could bring before any US judge (aside from a large suitcase filled with cash) that would cause him to overlook that ruling under basic stare decisis. Ergo, the workings of CSS are no longer protected.

Patent protection is not necessary to have an "effective" copy prevention mechanism. So we'll just discount that one off the bat.

If the courts had decided that CSS is no longer effective, then you would have a very strong point. Unfortunately, that's not the case. From the California court decision at your link (emphasis mine):

First, Pavlovich's knowledge that DeCSS could be used to illegally pirate
copyrighted motion pictures on DVD's and that such pirating would harm the
motion picture industry in California does not satisfy the express aiming
requirement. As an initial matter, we question whether these effects are even
relevant to our analysis, because DVD CCA does not assert a cause of action
premised on the illegal pirating of copyrighted motion pictures.

Basically, the court was not asked to rule on the basis of the DMCA, so it didn't. It was only asked to rule on the basis of trade secret protection. I honestly don't understand this as the DMCA explicitly states:

[It is illegal to] (2) "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in" a device, service or component which is primarily intended to circumvent "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work", and which either has limited commercially significant other uses or is marketed for the anti-circumvention purpose.

Why didn't the CCA go for the kill? They would have had a much stronger case than trade secret protection. My only guess is that the veil of Open Source actually worked in Pavlovich's favor. The CCA was concerned that suing over a potentially legitimate use might force a judgment about the effectiveness of their copy protection, under which fair-use could win the day. The effects of such a decision could be devastating, so they obviously didn't want to risk the legal test.

It's also possible that the CCA felt itself unable to file such a suit as it was not directly damaged by circumventing its CSS protection. The CCA does not own the works protected by the CSS system.

As it stands right now, the CSS system has not been declared ineffective. So anyone who dares to violate it does so at their own risk. Which, if you're just an average citizen, probably doesn't mean much. But if you're in the same business as Kaleidescape, you would have a lot riding on the line.

Re:Is DVD tech dying.

[dmclap]

Conversely, could they be trying to kill the format? After all, if everyone transitions to HD-DVD or Blue-Ray drives, they're more likely to replace their old DVDs with the new disks, making them even more money on replacements. It stands to reason that if they make it illegal to copy DVDs (leading to it being less likely that people will be able to do it effectively), then it loses one of its best selling points over the high-definition formats (which to the average user are difficult to copy). It's rampant speculation, but I wouldn't put it past them to do this in order to promote their new, more expensive formats, getting us to buy everything all over again.

This fails the test of making any sense whatsoever (since people will be able to copy DVDs whether these people want them to or not), but we all know that they routinely fail that test when coming up with new ideas anyway :).

backups

[falconwolf]

The original owners were smart enough to make a backup, then store the original. When the backup wore out, they'd pull the original and make another backup. That way the media lived on for far longer than it would have if the original media had been used.

Years ago that's what I used to do. The first tyme I played a brand new vinyl LP, record, on my turntable I'd record it on my reel-to-reel tape deck. I'd then put the record away for safe keeping and play the tape. When the tape eventually wore down I still had the record to make another tape of.

Falcon

Great

[justinlee37]

This just means there will be less DVD-rip torrents and more .AVI torrents.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be baffled as to why people would create a movie library in their homes.

Netflix and Vongo are not yet replacements for a home movie library. There are latency and bandwidth issues to consider. With Netflix in particular, bandwidth is limited to X movies being out at the same time. Latency is huge compared to a home movie library. In order to get a movie you want now you have to send a movie back, put a movie in your queue, and wait a minimum of 2 days. Even with a decent pipe, downloading from Vongo is going to take time. You can't exactly just pop in your copy of Pi for your friend who has never seen it. Not to mention if you rent a movie again, you're paying for it again. Even with Netflix, it means you've lost an opportunity (which you've paid for) to rent a different movie.

So there's a perfectly good reason to desire a movie library, and a perfectly good economic incentive to pirate Netflix movies. I, myself, only collect DVDs I absolutely love and could not live without the materials that accompany the DVDs. But I'm not much of a TV/movie junkie, either. It's easy to understand why someone more passionate about movies would resort to this behavior.

That's just great

[retrogameguy]

What wankers. Why make people criminals because that want to create a disk image of a game? e.g I don't carry around DVDs of games with my laptop, I make a disk image and run it from there. So now I'm breaking the law, to want to play a game without having my DVD drive running constantly in the background?

God I want to kill people some days.

owning dvds

[falconwolf]

I have a decently large DVD collection. Shortly before subscribing to netflix, I considered picking up a DVD burner and copying all of my Blockbuster rentals (it's the only rental shop near me). Shortly after subscribing, I found that I was no longer interested in owning DVDs. Why? I can have it tomorrow if I want to see it again.

Yeah, rent it. I prefer to own not rent. I too have a lot of movies, both on dvd and tape. I pay for a movie once and it's mine no matter how many tymes I watch it, and I've watched a number of movies a number of tymes. For instance "Hellfighters" I watch maybe every other month, first the tape I got of it and now the dvd. Another movie I like to watch is "To Catch A Thief" which I've watched maybe half a dozen tymes in the past year.

Falcon

Legitimate Usage

[drunken_pirate]

My sister lives with my family in my house. She is 33 years old and was born with spina bifida. She has the mental capability of a 5 year old and the emotional capabilities of a 13 year old and she LOVES movies and music. We keep her very active but she loves to watch her movies. She can load the tapes into the VCR her self and she can rewind and fast forward to her favorite parts. However, DVD's and CD's are a different story.

Because she has limited agility (due to her condition) she has wrecked every single DVD and CD she owns. We are lucky that there are some re-surfacing technologies out there for CD's but not so much for DVD's. DVD's and CD's are not near as tough as a VHS tape. And VHS is becoming obsolete. We are reduced mostly to garage sales, ebay and craig's list to find replacements for warn out tapes and many new movies that she really likes are not released on VHS (Happy Feet).

My solution is to buy her DVD's and then make a few copies from the origional purchased DVD. She can then control her own movie selection and when the dvd is broken, scratched, or just beat up I can easily replace it.

Isn't this fair use? Isn't this normal and natural usage of products that I have purchased? Why are some of you haters saying that Fair Use = Piracy Facilitation. In my world the only way to exercise our consumer rights is to pirate and break the laws of big corporate interests.

I am indebted to the community of people who have taken to "illegal" activities to give me the capabilities to back up a $15 movie stamped into a DVD so that my sister can find happiness and usage in the things she already owns.

And to all of you who question backups as nefarious I hope that you look outside your self-serving world and think about what your view of the world would cost others. You who are so quick to judge.

Re:Legitimate Usage

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy a TON of kids movies for my kids, and for every movie I buy, I make 2 backups:

One that I can play in our minivan on trips (so if someone does decide to break in, they won't be stealing my originals!) and one that the kids can watch around the house that I don't have to worry about them scratching, breaking, etc.

Obviously, these movie execs and the idiot politicians who buy into their schemes have never had children or are so filthy rich that they can buy their movies with pocket change.

NOTE: One added benefit is that I can get just the movie and none of the previews, so the kids don't have to break the remote, either (not to mention for movies like Shrek 2 that had the most annoying preview of Madagascar that you could not skip).

Re:Is DVD tech dying.

[Anonymous Coward]

No way. The advantages of DVD over VHS were much more apparent than HDD/BR over DVD.

DVD vs VHS: Analogue vs digital. No need to rewind? No tracking/tape getting chewed.

HDD/BR vs VD: The movie...vs the movie in hi-def if you spent £2000 on a tv.

DVD is going to hold out a lot longer than VHS.

Nothing is more liberating then ripping your DVDs

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I swear, the best forms of functionality has come from the hackers. Thanks to the Xbox hackers, we have the Xbox media center which can play just about anything, in hd, standard def, and i can rip all of my dvds and put them on my home network and watch them without ever having to put a disc in or take a disc out.

Its amazing that the industry is so hell bent on destroying innovation, that it forces inventors to become criminals. Inventors who invent the better mouse trap are now criminals.

Something about that says to me, that the American Dream is dead.

Talk about anti-competitive practices.

I guess if you want to be an inventor now... you have to become an employee for some company and make shit pay and get none of the fame or the rewards that come along with it.

I'm just glad there are inventors out there willing to become criminals, and give away their hardwork and ideas for free in the face of injustice. Perhaps the real American Dream is alive and well, with in the the underground hacking/cracking/coder movement... and ironically America has deemed them criminal.

So much for freedom.

Keep hacking. Lets just encrypt everything. It's time to go to war. Freedom is at stake. The last revolution was fought on grassy fields with single fire shitty rifles... and the next one will be fought online. It's already begun, and they're winning.

Have Netcraft confirm it

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean all of them, or just the ones with a *BSD on them?

Speak Easy

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> Proposed Amendment Would Ban All DVD Copying

This is a great idea. They should also add an amendment banning the brewing, consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages.

What about DVDs you own the rights to ?

[Sam Nitzberg]

So, if my camcorder writes direct-to-dvd, I can't use off-the-shelf software to make copies?

What if I take my mini-dv format digital camcorder tapes, and VHS (home-made) tapes and convert these over to dvd-format - I can't then image these and put them up on my filserver or make copies of these?

Re:What about DVDs you own the rights to ?

[catprog]

I think this only prevents software from decoding CSS if the disk is not in the drive . You disks don't have CSS so they should be fine

Re:Is DVD tech dying.

[ivan256]

The future is digital on-demand over IP.

Digital on demand over IP is dead on arrival. It's too DRM encumbered, too expensive, and pay-per-use in most cases. It will be generations before a sizeable number of people are willing to spend their entertainment dollars on content with no tangible media attached. (yeah, yeah. iTunes, etc. Call me when there's an online video service with a "Burn to DVD" button.)

Unless you mean pirated video on demand. That's another story entirely.

Dear Hollywood...

[Mal-2]

...the horse is in Beijing. Good luck with "Operation Barn Door".

Severability

[Mal-2]

Practically any contract worth the paper it's written on will have a severability clause, stating that if part of the contract is ruled invalid, that does not invalidate the entire contract. That is also why contracts are written as a series of clauses and are often convoluted -- if a contract term is thrown out, this limits the damage.

Like code recycling, this practice also makes time-tested clauses appear in many different kinds of contracts. Some of the clauses in a Cargo Insurance policy date back to the 17th century. Standard Fire clauses go back to the 1850's. There is power in a piece of code (be it legal code or software) for which the meaning and interpretation is precisely known. I am certain there are antiquated clauses in every line of contract law (though I can only speak of insurance contracts), but they stick around because there is no debate about what they mean.

The priority now should be to show that the contract terms of the DVDCCA are inherently one-sided and unfair, though I don't hold much hope of this in today's pro-corporate atmosphere. Chances are, the clauses are deliberately written so as to leave little or no wiggle room, so Kaleidoscope probably can't poke holes in them -- they have to get them invalidated entirely.

Mal-2

Don't forget...

[feedmetrolls]

In-Soviet-Russia-word s-hyphenate-you!-----

Mod Parent Up!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Even though he's a prejudiced, racist asshole, he's perfectly right in ridiculing the GP for his "criticism" of Pan's Labyrinth. I think he at least deserves a score of 1 for his... erm... "insight".

Re:Is DVD tech dying.

[salimma]

Conversely, could they be trying to kill the format?

Mod parent insightful!

It stands to reason that if they make it illegal to copy DVDs (leading to it being less likely that people will be able to do it effectively), then it loses one of its best selling points over the high-definition formats (which to the average user are difficult to copy)

The HD-DVD standard actually requires the ability to make a digital backup of the disc's content (the backup is copy-protected, however), so this ban will make HD-DVD much more attractive in comparison with standard DVDs (minus the larger amount of disk space required to perform a backup).

Blu-Ray discs, on the other hand, do not necessarily allow back-ups. Hopefully Sony won't manage to carve up the market with their abominable PS3s.

Maybe instead of watching DVDs

[Anonymous Coward]

...you should pick up a fucking English dictionary and learn how to spell 'times'. Sheesh.

Piracy will not be hurt by this.

[master_p]

DVD pirates will not be touched the slightest by these regulations. As long as computers with DVD recorders exist, piracy is safe. I wonder why all these regulations exist. The people that write them must be really out of touch with reality.

Re:Barring a ruling from a court with jurisdiction

[abb3w]

Patent protection is not necessary to have an "effective" copy prevention mechanism. So we'll just discount that one off the bat.

No; however, it is one way to "require a process with the authority of the copyright owner to gain access to the work." Which is my point; in the context of the DMCA, "effective" does not mean what the dictionary says it does; it only means what the Law says it does. (Welcome to the Wonderland of Law.) Patent and trade secret would seem to be two ways for protection to qualify.

If you believe an alternate interpretation is more appropriate, please elaborate on your understanding of the DMCA's definition of "effective" in 17 USC 1201.

Why didn't the CCA go for the kill? They would have had a much stronger case than trade secret protection.

My guess is that lawyers are a cautious bunch. They do not want an explicit ruling saying CSS does not qualify as an "effective" tool, which would be an obvious defense if they attempted a direct DMCA charge. Ergo, they tried for the lower risk maneuver of trying trade secret law first.

On the other hand, CSS did at one point qualify as a trade secret. However, due to reverse engineering, it has since lost its secrecy — as the judge eventually ruled. If they had won the case on a trade secrets basis, they could have gotten court orders so that anyone who used, uploaded, or downloaded the DeCSS code via US network computers (and possibly other jurisdictions) to cease&desist, and possibly even gotten them to forfeit the computer they used to do it.

Trade secrets law allowed for a possibly bigger win, and would not make a loss completely final. This is also probably why they dropped the case when they did; with that ruling, appeals would risk some other judge adding "CSS is ineffective" to the ruling -- which (in the dictionary sense) is pretty much what they were told by the cryptographic experts they consulted when they were developing the standards.

As it stands right now, the CSS system has not been declared ineffective. So anyone who dares to violate it does so at their own risk.

Correct. However, I(AmNotALawyer) argue that such a case looks very possible, as the DVD-CCA's position has been badly weakened, and that the DVD-CCA risk that if they have to bring a case. And, given the nature of the modern business world, and the nature of corporations to try anything for a profit that they can at least argue is legal (until it's explicitly ruled otherwise)... I suspect it's only a short matter of time before someone tries.

oh, that's nothing new

[freaker_TuC]

in Old Amerika[tm] the DVD consortium watches YOU!