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

[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

[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

[91degrees]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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!

[pushing-robot]

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

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?

[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.

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

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.

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,

[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.

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...

[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: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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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!

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!

[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!

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!

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.

Re:Great Idea!

[Opportunist]

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

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: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.

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....

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?

[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.

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.

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..

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...

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:Figures

[Aliriza]

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

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.

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

Dear Hollywood...

[Mal-2]

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