Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Space Shifting DVDs to Cost Extra?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the digital-restrictions-monkeybusiness dept.

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."

10 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. No way... by hax0r_this · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are you trying to tell me that Steve Jobs wants to make money off of consumers?

    1. Re:No way... by RDW · · Score: 3, Funny

      'It's saying Steve Jobs is trying to make customers pay more for the right to do something that's already a right.'

      And the concept is old news - it's really just an extension of this program:

      http://www.theonion.com/content/news/itunes_to_sell_your_home_videos

    2. Re:No way... by Neffirithion · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Come on, that'll never happen. Next thing you'll be telling me that in the future when I try to buy a book it'll be tied to a single device"

      a majority of all book sales are restricted to a single device... its called paper

  2. Um.... by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!
  3. Hey, buddy! by operagost · · Score: 3, Funny

    Those black turtlenecks aren't free, you know!

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  4. Re:"supposedly", "apparently" by Myopic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Something that is supposed is not factual, or is possibly not true. Something that is apparent is factual, or is probably factual, in that it appears to be factual.

    It's "Apparent", as in "obvious". Something that is apparently true is obviously true (though possibly untrue, if appearances deceive). On the other hand, if you merely suppose something to be true, then you are much more likely to be wrong, in that you don't have evidence, you just have a supposition.

    More to the point -- dude this is Slashdot. I've been here for ten years and Slashdot has never reported hard news. It does that more now than it ever has before. Back in the day it was a veritable rag.

  5. Re:"supposedly", "apparently" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You say that as if there is something inherently wrong in having sex with washing machines.

  6. An analogy. by jsiren · · Score: 2, Funny
    (The following is satire, a form of humor. No actual persons have been or will be punched as a result of this post.)

    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).
  7. Re:"supposedly", "apparently" by mdielmann · · Score: 1, Funny

    Supposedly he likes to have sex with washing machines. Apparently it's something he does quite a lot... If your sex toys' power isn't measured in horsepower, you aren't getting your money's worth. And there aren't many things as...energetic...as an unbalanced washing machine in spin cycle. That only applies to upright washers, of course. This is one situation where european-style washers are clearly inferior.
    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  8. Re:"supposedly", "apparently" by pegr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Back in the day it was a veritable rag.
     
    Yesterday?