Slashdot Mirror
Space Shifting DVDs to Cost Extra?
Depending on who you listen to Steve Jobs has supposedly been pitching the idea of selling "premium" DVDs that would include an extra fee for the privilege of transferring your legally-purchased DVD to a different device. "The courts have held that "space-shifting" your CDs to a portable music device is a fair use. So you can legally import your CD collection to your iPod, or any other device, without paying a penny. But Steve Jobs apparently wants to charge you $4 for the privilege of doing the same with your DVDs."
Are you trying to tell me that Steve Jobs wants to make money off of consumers?
Is this Steve Jobs wanting to charge you or the MPAA? I suspect the latter.
Luckily iTunes is not the only tool in town.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I tell you, I *might* be persuaded to pay that price if it was some sort of continuous license w/unlimited downloads. For example, if I could take a DVD from my current collection, get it so if I lose the file I can always re-download from Apple, and if they release an HD version I get it for free, then that might be worth $4. Otherwise, screw you, I'll rip the DVD myself.
While it may still be fair use to copy your DVD to another storage device, the trouble is the disk is normally encrypted. So if you live somewhere covered by the DMCA you may be entitled to move your movie to another format, but only if you have permission to circumvent the encryption for that purpose, hence Jobs can make $$$ selling you what is already yours.
I guess if you don't like it, you shouldn't blame Jobs who's trying to exploit a commercial opportunity, but rather contact your lawmaker and explain in layman's terms why this is messed up.
This might explain why there is a "Deauthorize Media" option in the Features menu of Leopard's DVD Player.
What the /. post seems to miss is that most if not all DVD ripping programs use some form of deCSS, thus violating the DMCA. So if you can do the same to DVD as CD's without breaking the DMCA, you don't need Steve Job's premium DVD's.
Seriously, aren't they just giving that thing away now? I guess Apple's push into the entertainment center hasn't been as strong as he'd hoped, so now it's time to poison the well by making the plastic disc industry suffer.
They really need to make up their mind. Either they're selling us a license to their content (in which case the media should be irrelevant) OR they should be charging us for a physical product, in which case we can do whatever we want with that product including turning it into something we can use in ways they didn't expect.
If I buy some boards and a nails from Home Depot, they don't get a piece of the action if I try to sell the cabinet I made.
I'm all for it, if they change the rules a bit:
Charge me the extra $3-4 and leave off ALL DRM. That includes that macrovision crap and all of it. Don't require special software or hardware. Just don't put the DRM in place.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I really doubt that Jobs gives a crap about which way you view content, as long as Apple made the device your viewing it on. It's more likely a carrot to the studios to get them to let you watch normally purchased dvds on your *pod / *mac. I imagine that if it were up to him, and the rest of us, there wouldn't be any premium.
I don't think it's a matter of charging $4 "for the privilege." Having an iPod-optimized version of the movie available on the DVD is an added value. It's not always a trivial matter to rip a DVD and transcode it efficiently for an iPod. It's time-consuming, if nothing else. Being able to drag a single file from a DVD into iTunes and onto your iPod is definitely more convenient. Whether that convenience is worth $4 is up to you.
i thought, therefore i was...
... I need to buy Slysoft's ripping software: http://www.slysoft.com/. Y'all can take your premium DVDs and shove it. I'd rather pay someone more for tools to protect my property than pay less in extortion money.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Who wants to tell them we've been doing this for years already?
MythDVD
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Yes, customers have rights. Exercising them is up to the customer. I don't have to help them/you. If my help is desired, ask nicely. Payment would help.
Apple is (apparently) offering to help. They would expect payment - natch.
E.g., you have the right to keep and bear arms. If you don't have said arms, they may be provided to you - at a cost. (As a deflection to arguments from people outside of the US, I would say that you also have the same rights. I'm sorry if you don't have the same opportunity to exercise them.)
Jobs usually gets things right, but if this report is true Jobs is pursuing a nonstarter. He wants to make it easier for people to put their DVD collections in iTunes, but there are so many problems with this proposed solution it's doomed to failure. 1) Anyone who wants to time-shift their DVD collection already does it, albeit to the chagrin of the MPAA; 2) The MPAA would never go for any format that is devoid of some copy protection; 3) The MPAA doesn't want to strengthen Apple any more than it currently is; 4) This compromise would only really mean something if it were applied to HD-DVD and Blu-ray, which we know will never happen.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Or you could pay someone to figure it all for you (Buy purchasing commercial software that has a nice GUI)
Or you could watch DvDs on your TV and not your iPod.
Which of these things is worth less than the $4 it takes to Steve Jobs every time? For most people I'm thinking option 3 will be the only one. A smaller group might opt for the commercial software that does the same thing. Very few people will make the effort to get it all set up with open source tools or to wait the length of time it takes to reencode all the mpeg files. I think that most people (who don't read slashdot) will be happy to pay Steve Jobs the $4. I think Steve knows that, too.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The DMCA does not restrict fair use, per se. You are welcome to decode anything you purchase. You may not help someone else do it, nor may anyone else help you. You're welcome to buy any tool you need to do the decoding. But no one may sell it to you.
That's why having Slysoft off shore is so helpful.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I know this might be a radical departure for Slashdot editors, but have you ever considered only linking to articles that have, I don't know, actual facts? Instead of rumor and innuendo to drive Apple bashing for Page Hits.
Also, did you hear that rumor about ScuttleMonkey? Supposedly he likes to have sex with washing machines. Apparently it's something he does quite a lot...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Steve probably wants to be able to let users who purchase iTunes videos to put them on DVD's for viewing on TV.
That seems like a better argument than releasing an iTunes compatible version on their DVD's- a thing that would take up more space (the movies are not tiny) on the DVD. This would diminish the amount of content movie studios could add on their own.
Simply put, it's in Jobs' best interest to pry away at the DRM that disables the functionality he wants.
He's right on the money. Transcoding takes time, and isn't exactly easy for the average consumer. If the transcoded ipod-ready version were already on the disk, it would is a big leap forward in usability.
$4? Seems fair to me....especially if I were buying the DVD anyway.
If I buy a CD, in my view as a customer, I'm buying that disc and therefore I can use its contents any way I choose which does not infringe upon the publisher's copyright. I don't see an EULA stuck on the front of the case, so I'm clearly not being licenced the non-exclusive transferrable right to listen to the disk in up to three (3) CD players or whatever. When I buy a DVD, I expect that I should be able to stick the contents on a portable video player that doesn't have a DVD drive. I don't want to pay again for the ability to play the same damn thing on a different device, be it through iTunes or as a premium on the disc. However all the usage restrictions (which pirates so effortlessly bypass) mean I have to go and download the show off bittorrent to do that. The result? I've just uploaded copies of the video to people who are just pirating the film. So all that's been achieved is that they've caused a legitimate customer to become a small-scale pirate. Sorry, this is a bit of a rant. I appear to have a head cold.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
If Steve wants this, He ought to have it.
Really, the summary implies Steve Jobs wants to exploit the consumer by convincing other companies to offer content-transferrable DVDs at a higher price. It fails to note that while one currently has the *right* to transfer content, they do not have the right (under the DMCA) to the necessary reverse-engineering involved in that transfer.
So - while I agree it'd cast Steve in a very negative light if consumers were already legally able to transfer their DVDs (note "legally able" as opposed to "legally allowed") this is not the case. Steve Jobs is petitioning studios to increase consumers legal ability to transfer their DVD contents.
Do people imagine that Steve is going to get a cut of that extra price just for pitching the idea? Or that the idea - charging for non or less DRM'd DVDs is going to set DMCA revisionists back 100 years? As a maker of media players, it's in Steve's interest to do away with DMCA restrictions on DVDs, as it only makes iPods look better to consumers as the realm of movies available for them increases. I can't see how Steve's interests and my consumer interests don't align on this one.
Those black turtlenecks aren't free, you know!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
But I think I'll just keep using Handbrake. It won't just let me rip my DVDs to my iPod, but also to my PSP, my computer, my , etc. I'm quite happy with it and needn't pay anyone $4.
You would have thought he would have learned by now. If you just stick a small letter "i" in front of it they would fly off the shelves, and no one would even ask questions.
Dr. Zoidberg says "Star Wars on iDVD? I'll take ten please."
While Steve Jobs has a legitimate interest in the legal download industry (via iTunes and his shares in Disney), I thought he was the one who spoke up for more rights for those who paid their 79p for the music. True, his idea is that piracy 'gives you bad karma', but AFAIK he's the one who has pleaded with the music industry and the RIAA to remove DRM on legal downloads. This makes sense - it gives less incentive to people to download illegally.
I doubt this is true - but nevertheless Jobs has surprised us before. Let's hope we won't be getting a nasty surprise.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
SlySoft.
And I will add that a few of my studio-pressed and paid-for DVDs are beginning to show signs of deterioration. I'm not paying for another copy when I can recover the original disc's file, repair it in the process, and re-burn it (as I should be able to do under Fair Use) to a replacement disc.
Keep the peace(es).
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Given Jobs recent letters to the media, I highly doubt this is true at all, and strongly suspect this is a bullshit article made to play right into the fears people have here. There are a number of media entities who dont like Jobs, and I would not be shocked that the same groups suing grandmothers, would also like to see Jobs tarnished for making them look like fools to the public.
Until I see Jobs outright say it, this is bullshit, and anyone who is taking this to be fact is a gullible fool. There is not one shred of factual basis anywhere in the blurb.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
So which Steve is this? Is it Apple Steve Jobs, or Disney/Pixar Steve Jobs?
This guy's the limit!
Lord, oh Lord, the Apple apologists are out in force. Surely Jesus Jobs would never do anything that would lower his saintly profile to less than those of Mother Teresa and Ghandi!
Get real folks. If Apple pulls another $4 out of your pocket of course they're taking a cut. What are we? School children?
And Poor Saint Jobs, forced by the big bad media companies into doing this? C'mon! Jobs sat down with them and together they cut a deal that will hopefully see both of them make bigger profits. It's highly unlikely that Jobs is giving away the farm with no benefit to Apple shareholders. To suggest otherwise is incredibly naïve.
Three Squirrels
The EULA is on the disk itself. It's on those "The FBI and Interpol are going to kill your family if you copy this." screens that precede the commercials that you can't skip past.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
But only if they change that retarded name - "Space-shifting"? Back in the day, we used to call it "moving files".
Apple makes some wonderful products, but people forget the company has a string of failures alongside its string of successes. Not that there's anything wrong with this, you have to fail to succeed, even if you're Steve Jobs, but iTunes video is best understood in the context of failure, IMHO.
There's just very little reason to buy video from Apple at this time. DVD players are overwhelmingly cheap, and DVDs are cheap and easy to buy OR RENT. Netflix, Blockbuster, Wal Mart, Target etc etc are all too happy to put DVDs in your hands. They are making loads of money on them, as are the studios, the only people not cashing in are the writers (see: WGA strike).
The primitive state of broadband means downloads are not pressuring the industry, there is piracy but it's just not like it was for music in the Napster days. At that time you could literally get virtually any song on your hard drive within a few minutes. For video, you need to figure out BitTorrent, then wait wait wait for the download. Or you need to set up iTunes and then wait wait wait for the download.
THEN you have to get your TV hooked up to your computer, and then tolerate visibly worse quality. This was not the case with MP3s, they sounded just as good as CDs to most people, despite the specs, and people already had headphones to plug in to their computers, or a miniplug to hook up to the stereo cost $5 at Radio Shack.
Amid this backdrop, Apple is trying to make a market for video downloads. But the effort is futile until broadband speeds get up closer to FTTP (fiber) levels. Even then, the studios probably won't hand Apple a new market to dominate like they did last time. Wired recently quoted one studio head who said he gave in to Jobs on iTunes because Jobs pointed out that Mac's 5 percent market share mitigated the risk -- if the studio's worst nightmares came true, the impact would still be minor. No one is going to be fooled this time around into thinking Jobs just wants to make an innocent little side service for Mac users. You can bet a Google or Netflix is going to get licensing parity (which did not happen with iTunes).
The main problem, in the USA, with ripping a DVD to your media player, like you can with a CD, is that it against the law (DMCA) to break the encryption on a DVD. CD's don't have encryption, therefore there should be no law against it.
I'd love it if the HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray disks I bought included AppleTV friendly (720p) versions ready to play.. $4 extra for that, isn't *that* offensive...
... I don't want to have to buy a 5th 500GB HD for a few movies I'm going to watch once a year!
AppleTV/iPod friendly 480p versions on standard DVDs should be free...
I'd prefer to see it go the other way as well... I'd prefer to see Apple sell 720p content and allow it to be burned to HD-DVD/Blu-ray for viewing
This would help encourage more HD adoption.. Win/Win... Those that aren't interested in paying extra for lowres content can be happy, and people that want higher quality, and most often are more than willing to pay for it, will be as well.
Shrug. I have doubts we'll see this tho. That would make too much sense. Odds are it will be $4 extra for 480p content *spits*.
The DVD's that I buy or hire from netflix work fine in the DVD player in the bedroom, the DVD player in the kiving room, the one downstairs, and both of our PC's, If we had a portable DVD player or one in the back of the car I'm sure they would work there too.
I don't want to watch movies on a cellphone - the screen is too small.
I bought a Virgin cellphone, thought it might be useful to get the more expensive one that has a camera. Apparently, I have to pay fifty cents to upload MY photo that I took with MY camera-phone to MY computer using MY wireless connection. Can't return it now, hoping the police will pay my uploading charges if I ever capture a bank robbery in progress.
The DMCA explicitly prohibits circumvention: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [DMCA]." And any fair use exceptions to this are explicit as well (and there are 6, IIRC), see section 1201(a)(1)(B) and 1201(a)(1)(C). The anti-circumvention provisions are separate from fair use issues, see for example section 1201(d) for how seriously this is taken. Your are correct no one may sell circumvention technology or devices to you, as specified in section 1201(b).
In basic economics classes, they teach that when two items are bundled the price of the two will tend to average toward the price most suited to the item of greater demand.
So, slap a $4 dollar download code onto a $12 dollar DVD and while you might get away with a $16 dollar price for a brief time with strong advertising, it won't be long before the thing sells for $12 dollars again.
Nobody bundles a strongly-demanded product with another strongly-demanded product. If both were strongly-demanded then they'd be sold separately to maximize profit. Consumers see the raised price as nothing more than a price hike on the one item that they would have bought, won't pay the increased price and retailers will have to lower the price to move the bundle off their shelves.
Steve Jobs is not a fool. He has people around to remind him of these things. If Jobs is pushing bundled downloads, it's as a promotional bonus and not a premium.
I'm sorry, I know, you'd think I'd know better by now, but I read the article.
And it basically says Jobs likes the idea of a company selling a "premium" version of a DVD that includes an iTunes download of the same movie. And so TechDirt spins it as "the DMCA at work"-- which is a reasonable explanation, given that technically a tool like Handbrake _is_ illegal.
(Funny, of course, that nobody wants to take the folks who make Handbrake to court yet...)
It would've been so easy for Apple to spin it the other way-- heck, spin's what they're good at. "You can pop the disc in your computer and let it grind for a few hours, or you can buy the premium version that comes with the iTunes download of the thing for you. We've handled all the details for you, so you don't have to know what an h.264 is or what resolution your iPod can handle"
This wouldn't be an issue or topic if people actually just did space-shifting or only made a copy a couple actual friends. The record companies tolerate that. But people started giving copies out to the whole world, while acting all innocent as claiming they just want to space-shift or archive is why prices have never dropped, why so much music is formula crap, and so on. People like to point to record companies and scream they are greedy, but they are reacting to what the public is doing to them. It's a vicious circle.
I would say all this has led to people wanting quantities of music and not quality music. In past when everyone paid for music you listened hard to who you were going to spend your money on. Record companies had to try their best to put out good music so get your money. Now a days people just want to say "I have 10,000 downloads of stuff". How much of that do you actually listen to versus just occupies space on a hard drive and is all that really stuff worth listening to??? I only bring this up because the war between the downloaders and RIAA has many bad side effects and a boatload of crap music is one of those side effects.
And watch the pitchforks come out. Gotta love fanboys
an extra fee for the privilege of transferring your legally-purchased DVD to a different device.
No thanks. You can keep your offer and I can keep my "extra fee". I'll just decrypt my DVD myself thankyouverymuch.
That is, I would... if I ever.... you know... bought a DVD in the first place. EVER. The fact that I don't own any DVDs might have something to do with the fact that.... you know... being annoyed that I would have to bother decrypting my DVD for it to be legitimate and properly usable.
I've never needed to decrypt a VCR tape. I've never needed to decrypt cd. I've never needed to decrypt an audio cassette tape. I've never needed to decrypt a goddamn book or anything else. I don't think it's exactly me being the one doing something new and bizarre and unreasonable here. Someone wants to sell me encrypted crap? And after I bought it, they expect me not to decrypt it?
Fuck. That.
Fuck. You.
Not. One. Mother. Fucking. Dollar.
And if for some reason I do buy something from you, I'm fucking decrypting it.
Want to imprison me under the DMCA? Well that would be interesting. And novel.
After a decade of the DMCA, I would be the first person convicted under it. Ever.
I offer a compromise. Yeah I know my suggestion is is a bit.... EXTREMIST here... but heay, just for shits and giggles I'm going to make my extremist suggestion anyway. And my radical extremist suggestion is... how about good old traditional copyright law. How about we don't criminalize noninfringing people. You know... good old copyright law before the DMCA crap criminalizing innocent noninfringing people, before the DMCA crap criminalizing legitimate valuable noninfringing products.
Yeah, I know. That makes me freak. It makes me an anarchist. It means I want to destroy everything and let people run around murdering and raping each other in the streets. Because I suggested good old traditional copyright law like we've had for over 200 years. I know, extremist and insane. My bad here.
I must repent my radical sins. I'll run out immediately and mail the movie studios each a big fat check... to make up for all of the DVD's that I never ever ever bought from them. I've been such a monster... it's so bad that I've completely lost count of how many DVD's I didn't buy.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This proposal illustrates clearly one of the main points that opponents of DRM have long made against DRM and that is that DRM allows the creators or owners of the work thus protected to seize extra rights for themselves or even those rights which have classically belonged to the consumer (i.e. fair use). Of course, the reason for doing this is so that the creator or owner can SELL that "privilege" back to the consumer when in fact that "privilege" is a right which belongs to the consumer and cannot be sold back to them because it was theirs in the first place.
Now, it may be the case that through DRM they have made it difficult to exercise my rights without paying them (i.e. I have to break the DRM to enable my rights), but that brings up another problem with DRM and specifically the DMCA. It is unlawful (technically) to break the DRM (aka access protection mechanism) even if I break it for the purpose of re-enabling my rights to time or format shift or for fair use. As the law is currently written it is unlawful to break the DRM no matter what the intent and that is wrong. The DMCA needs to be changed so that safe harbors for breaking the access protection mechanism are created when the consumer is re-enabling RIGHTS that the creator or owner has seized improperly via DRM (aka the access protection mechanism).
The day is not far off when they will want to charge you for singing a song in the shower.
That Steve Jobs! Charging a premium for what most consider "normal". Kinda sounds like the whole Apple philosophy! :)
The only mentions of Jobs or Apple in the NYT article are: "Disney, of which Steve Jobs is a director and large shareholder, sells movies through the iTunes Store, and the other major studios don't. The issue has been that the studios want to charge more money for downloads than Mr. Jobs thinks they are worth." and "Apple has relented and has agreed to a higher wholesale price for movies."
The following paragraph continues, "More interestingly perhaps, the studios are hoping to create "premium" versions of DVDs that include a copy of the movie that can easily be put on an iPod (and presumably a laptop with iTunes or an Apple TV). Fox has tried this already, with a version of "Die Hard 4 that includes a digital copy. Mr. Greenfield writes that this version costs $3 or $4 more than an ordinary DVD."
This paragraph doesn't refer to Jobs at all, but rather to a DVD that Fox released.
I'm missing the connection between Apple and Fox that Tim Lee's seeing. Can someone explain where this is hiding?
I can. He wants to charge you extra for a right you already have. That's not aligning with my own personal interests.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I heard the law says you have the right not to be punched. So if you pay me $4, I won't punch you. If you want me not to punch you again, it's another $4.
Extortion? What's that?
Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
Let me say first that I am an Apple fanboy and stockholder but I don't have any problem bashing apple when they deserve it.
What I see in this move by Apple is trying to further get rid of DRM. Remember when they let EMI charge more for songs on iTunes if they were DRM free? I think they are trying to do the same thing with the movie industry now. Yes, everyone has their theories about Apple liking fairplay because it ties the music in their store to the iPod exclusively but I think fairplay causes just as many headaches for Apple as it does consumers because they have to keep track of all these keys, # of times burned, etc.
Yes, consumers have the right to copy dvds but obviously there is still some legal issue with it because DVDShrink has been pummeled out of public existence. If Apple can make DRM DVDs free for an extra price, its just one more step towards removing DRM, Macrovision, etc from all DVDs. Just take a look at whats happening to online music right now. The new online stores (such as Amazon) will only sell DRM free MP3s.
I think this just the first step towards the same change in the movie industry and it just happened to be Apple who took it, which really makes sense. The more crap we can put on iPods easily, the more we will want/use them.
He should have priced that $4 into the regular price, then offered a $4 *discount* on non-transferable versions. You'd all be lapping that up.
What a WEAK attempt to smear Apple/Jobs. The cited sources do not cite Jobs at all!
What's Jobs' motivation here? Motivation is important. Anyone who has bought an iTunes movie knows you can't burn it to a DVD - by demand of the movie industry. If this is really Jobs' intent at all, its a solution that makes iTunes movies burnable. Thus *happier* customers.
DRM is not Apple's invention.
Additionally, when you buy a DVD - you are buying the DVD, not the movie. Even though space shifting might be allowed, that doesnt mean that the distributors need to facilitate or make that ability available. Not to mention that space-shift as to be in the realm of Fair Use. Uploading it to the internet, or burning excessive copies is still a crime.
Why wouldn't they license something like this, and include it in iTunes?
Flip4Mac DriveIn
"Drive-in is an innovative application that allows you to store your personal DVD movie library on your Mac. It is now available as a public beta.
Using Drive-in you can create an image of a DVD disc on your laptop or home entertainment system. The image preserves the quality, navigation and special features of the original DVD and can be played using Apple's DVD Player or Front Row."
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
They already did that in Canada with the government charging the media levy.
This sounds strikingly familar to Apple's recent obnoxious attempt to charge people for ringtones from music they alreay purchased.
DRM=bad for consumers
DMCA=really bad for consumers
Blu-Ray/Sony/Fox/Apple=super-duper bad for consumers
Boy, the Apple haters are sure out in force today.
What's wrong in the first place with Apple charging for this, or getting some money from it, or what have you? The world is full of things people pay for that could otherwise be had for free, services or products (just look at water!).
Apple can charge what they like, the people that don't know better can pay. The technical people can continue to simply rip DVD's for free. I'm fine with that world, because it's a realistic one, and one where the non-tecnical people get some benefits that otherwise only the technically ept would enjoy... and a wider audience enjoying technical freedom is what leads to restrictions coming down eventually anyway (see: music) so when people find they CAN space shift DVD's, the pressure will mount to let people exercise fair use without charging them for it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The slashdot article as well as the techdirt article it's based on both imply that some how Steve Jobs is trying to extort money from consumers. That's not beyond the realm of possibility, but the mechanism both use is an increase is the price of DVDs. Some how this money paid to the DVD retailers like Target, Walmart, et al. will end up in Apple's coffers? I don't see it.
By reading further and clicking the link to the NYTimes article that Techdirt based their paragraph on I discovered that the author of the Techdirt article is either retarded or intentionally inflammatory. the NYTimes article indicates that Apple may finally bring more movies to the iTunes catalog by agreeing to higher priced bulk rates for movies. The end result being a price tag of $15 for downloads in comparison to the $18 for physical DVDs. On a tangentially related note, there is talk of the movie studios trying to make more money off of DVDs and justifying it by including a compressed, non-CSS version of the movie on the DVD for use on portable media players like the iPod and iPhone. Nowhere in the NYTimes article does the author indicate that the idea or decision lay with Steve Jobs.
I'm all for calling people down for greed and anti-consumer activities when it's warranted. However, I'm even more in favor of bitch slapping web writers who intentionally misrepresent the activities of individuals and companies in an attempt to start a flame war for the sole purpose of generating massive amounts of ad revenue for their site. Baiting apple fanboys has been a favored past time for many a self proclaimed tech pundit, but I'm surprised that Slashdot managed to fall for it.
2 mouse clicks and 3-4 paragraphs and I had the original article minus the flame bait.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
seriously though, why the hell is he going in this direction after introducing unlocked itunes?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Actually, he is offering a $4 discount on DVDs if you are willing to give up this fair use right.
Oh, right, that's the same thing.
Techdirt got the story completely wrong. To quote the NY TImes, which is the source of the TechDirt story;
"More interestingly perhaps, the studios are hoping to create "premium" versions of DVDs that include a copy of the movie that can easily be put on an iPod (and presumably a laptop with iTunes or an Apple TV). Fox has tried this already, with a version of "Die Hard 4 that includes a digital copy. Mr. Greenfield writes that this version costs $3 or $4 more than an ordinary DVD."
It's not Steve Jobs that is trying to charge more for the content, it's the studios. All Jobs is trying to do is get content onto the iTunes store.
Read the article.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/would-you-pay-more-for-a-dvd-with-an-itunes-copy/index.html
Considering NBC just scored a huge blow against Apple by removing their content from iTunes to an iPod-proof system, it would not surprise me if Apple is looking into such an option to ensure Macintosh/iPod compatibility remains available for this kind of content.
By proposing such a system and pioneering it themselves, Apple could become the first computer manufacturer to offer a user-friendly, MPAA-blessed dvd ripping solution that functions almost identically to the CD ripping tools in iTunes. Also, by creating a product designed specifically for ripping by the end user, it puts the "fair use" argument for ripping traditional dvds into question, as users shouldn't need to play shadow games to move protected video to an alternate device, when a readily-available, legally-rippable source is already available for purchase by the end user.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Why not just use Handbrake? An awesome DVD to MPEG-4 converter for Mac, Windows, and Linux. http://handbrake.m0k.org/ Watch him put the Apple logo on this open source software.
Imagine if books had the same restrictions, and you had to repurchase the book for every different place you wanted to read it in. The DRM on DVDs is akin to saying the reader is only allowed to read the book while sitting on one of their approved chairs in an approved room with approved lighting conditions wearing their approved reading glasses, and anything else is a violation of the DMCA.
| I can. He wants to charge you extra for a right you already have. That's not aligning with my own personal interests. Actually, whether he convinces movie companies to offer less-DRM'd versions or not, there's no changing of your rights, only your ability to legally exercise them. "He wants to charge you extra" - yeah, right - it's in Steve's interest to increase the barrier to getting content onto iPods - I'm sure he'd rather the consumer think "Well, if I buy an iPod I'll spent a ton more on my DVDs." Remember, he's not pitching the idea that Apple should get the $3-4 extra. Unless people are better enabled to move their content with these DVDs, Apple gets nothing - they don't sell more iPods. This is the same thing as when he convinced EMI to start offering DRM-free tracks on iTMS - they charged more for it initially because charging more is the only thing that will convince a copyright-monger to do anything.
but the DMCA outlaws the removal of DRM.
I believe that removing DRM to exercise your fair rights *is* a Right.
The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the issue.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Get it through your skulls. The iPod is successful because it IS the best player out there. And it's the best because it's not the most full-featured. It does exactly what most consumers want. To iterate: Slashdot readers are not most consumers. Apple could give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what Slashdot posters think; they're focused on Joe Sixpack, the poor sumbitch who thinks that setting the clock on a VCR is the bastard child of rocket science and voodoo.
What is it that you fail to understand? Apple's minimalist philosophy is the touchstone of their success in both hardware and software, and I see the hand of Jobs in it. I've used every version of OS X since the Public Beta, and it became clear to me that Apple only adds features if they can do it in a way that's easy and attractive to the average consumer. Case in point: virtual desktops. Of course OS X could support virtual desktops, as the many utilities that enable them handily demonstrated. Leopard only introduced Spaces when Apple came up with a Preference Pane simple and elegant enough (let's not forget "elegant") for the average consumer to grok. I was and am a huge fan of Virtue Desktops, but Spaces makes it much easier to understand and set up.
Same with the iPod. Only geeks actually care about the many "missing" features of iPod, as compared to the many other digital audio players out there. The average consumer only cares that he/she has an easy-to-use device in iPod, easy-to-use media management and synchronization software in iTunes, and a convenient and easy-to-use download service in iTMS. Period.
Do you honestly believe that the average consumer wouldn't pay 4 bucks to be able to have their own DVD's on their Macs and iPods and iPhones? These are the same people who've made fucking ringtones a multi-billion dollar industry. They'll gleefully pony up the extra without thinking about it, and Jobs damned well knows it. It also brings more clarity to their plans for the elephant in the room, Apple TV. Nobody's talking about it, but I think it's going to be much more significant than people realize. What if Apple TV is the only device that you can load your DVD's on? Suddenly that 160 GB hard-drive makes a helluva lot more sense.
They're happy if you purchase content from iTMS. They're much, much happier if you purchase an Apple-branded device to utilize said content.Remember that whole Pixar/Disney thing? Steve Jobs money doesn't just come from Apple.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Rather than do something extra for Steve hows this for an idea.
Content providers just provide a licence to Apple and others to allow their space shifting software to rip the content to the proprietry device? It can be a one off licence for each disc. So I pay $1 to Steve and Co, which they pass on to the content provider (taking a small cut to cover costs), and then iTunes or other software allows me to decode a device specific copy of the content from the original disc.
Saves content providers modifying manufacturing
No lock in to Apple etc
No requiement for massive bandwidth etc (even work on dial up)
Still requires purchase of original so the "artist" is being paid
Would provide a easy way to do this for Joe Sixpack as the software would be provided by the hardware vendor and thus be an integrated process.
Take it, use it, but don't Patent it as I have prior art here.
I use handbrake for transferring my DVDs to my PSP. Works great as long as you use the right settings. Don't even need to remove the encryption from the DVD first.
It's legal to use in that manner. I assume because it reduces the quality of the output and all the extra features from the DVD.
One of my favorite features of Handbrake is it's ability to add sub-titles to the output video. My wife's deaf, and now I can watch videos with her on my PSP.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
It's saying Steve Jobs is trying to make customers pay more for the right to do something that's already a right.
What right is that? To back up DVDs? Where is that case law? The DMCA outlaws such uses until it is amended or the DCRA is passed. CDs don't have encryption or copy protection. DVDs do, so they are covered by the DMCA.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm all for fair use backups, but don't quote law that doesn't exist. There is no case law or statute that legalizes DVD backups or space shifting post DMCA.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Did the profit of the companies concerned go down by $4 per sold DVD? No. So in what way did they accept a loss in price of 4$? Was it they WERE going to up the price by $4 but decided not to at *precisely* the same time as they introduced DRM?
This is probably the only way they can get the content providers to agree: Show them the money carrot. Make it legal for your customers to move movies to different media, and you'll get money. I think it's not so bad; everyone wins:
I guess the next logical step would be for them to sell white noise!
ALL HAIL HYPNOTOAD!
Bite my shiny metal... oops... Nevermind!
Now that I think about it, I've only run Handbrake on a Mac...does the Win version also do H.264?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
BS. You can buy a portable device which plays DVDs today. They are cheap and do not interfere with any "rights" either the consumer or content creator has.
However, give me a way to take DVD content and make it into a transferrable file and I'll show you how many movies I can download without paying anyone. See, it is all fine and good to be able to exercise your "fair use" rights, but some folks consider it fair to take anything in digital form and provide it for the benefit of the planet. Too bad the folks producing these movies do not agree with it being a benefit.
Sadly, at the present time it is not possible to discerne between legal uses of a DVD and illegal uses. If you enable DVD ripping, you enable DVD ripping. Period. Once the protection has been removed it is then possible to send the material out to the rest of the movie-craving planet. There is no halfway measure that enables it to be used locally without being able to be also shared.
I think that some people here have used the opportunity given to us by the usual Apple-bashing rumormongers -- is Steve Jobs REALLY acting in a way to make profits for Apple, Inc.? The bastard! -- to consider what should become of video releases of movies in the digital age. Right now, if you want a DVD, you buy a DVD. It is copy-protected. You can download a Windows-only DRMed version, but why bother? You're not buying the DVD. Instead, how about this model? An H.264 "low-def" file to play on your device, or your computer, or streaming from your computer to your TV. What if you could then upgrade that copy to DVD resolution, with extras and so on, for $4.00, and then legally burn that overnight download to your DVD? Not a bad model, possibly.
If you start at the other end, of course, and buy a full-priced DVD, then I believe you should have the same right to rip and transcode that you have with a CD. If I was a smart studio head, and I'm not sure there are any of those, I'd sell my DVDs with a pre-ripped, optimized h.264 version right on the disk, saving the consumer the time of doing it himself.
Don't like it, don't buy it...
And you're done.
Like copy protection on CDs and DRM on iTunes if it sucks that bad the market will kill it.
I'm not saying the market is perfect but it works well enough to cut the knackers off the real dumb stuff.
I'd like to openly thank Steve Jobs for helping to make music, videos and other protected works available to me in digital form and where I can purchase them legally. I would also like to thank him for working with the media companies in a way that avoids an all-out-war of resistance by compromising while still keeping an eye on the final goal of making these items more freely available in full quality, without restrictions.
Be as you would have the world become.
There should be a law that not only forbids the bullshit that makes it inconvenient to copy DVDs, but furthermore there should be a law that anyone who copies a movie for any reason is entitled, by filling out a simple web form on the web, to have the MPAA, RIAA, and Microsoft pay Steve Jobs (personally) triple the cost of the DVD media onto which they copy the movie. There should be no need for proof. Whatever people fill in on the honor system will be considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. In other words, you could simply log onto the website and fill in that you copied a trillion movies last night, at a cost of a billion dollars per DVD disc, and the MPAA, RIAA, and Microsoft would instantly, by law, each owe Steve Jobs whatever three times a trillion times a billion equals (which would appear on a sheet of paper as a three with a whole shitload of zeroes after it) in United States dollars. Furthermore, the law would call for all of Darl's possessions to be confiscated and offered as a reward to the "pirst-foster" who enters a number larger than a googolplex on this website. The law should furthermore state that the debt is collectable immediately upon the data being entered into the system, with no grace period allowed between the instant the "submit" button is clicked and the moment payment must reach Jobs' bank account, and that failure by any of the three organizations to pay in full and on time shall constitute breach of the law by all three organizations and that said breach entitles RMS to confiscate everything those three organizations have and donate it all to Linus, whereupon Linus would be required by law to accept this donation and apply it towards the technical improvement of Linux. What? Didn't you read the subject line? It said this is stupid. But no, you didn't believe it, you stupid idiot. You had to read the whole thing and see that it's totally, completely, and in all other ways retarded beyond description. And so are you, because obviously you have nothing better to do than read this shit. (I, on the other hand, have MUCH better things to do than write this shit, but we'll ignore that for now and just keep insulting you.)
Either provide a link to some actual document connecting Apple to this scheme of FOX's, or take out the speculation (based on nothing but other speculation) about a connection between Jobs and FOX.