Slashdot Mirror
RealNetworks To Introduce a Simple DVD Copier
langelgjm writes "The New York Times reports that RealNetworks will begin selling RealDVD today, a software program designed to make copying DVDs a trivial task for the average user. Unlike free alternatives, which generally require some technical knowledge and make it difficult to copy an entire DVD with extras, etc., RealDVD claims to be able to copy the entire DVD, menus and all. While sure to raise the ire of Hollywood, the program does have significant limitations: the DVDs it makes will only be playable on the computer where they were created; or, users can pay $20 per computer to play the DVDs on up to five additional computers."
Even though it will have limitations to make the DVDs playable on a limited number of computers, the fact that the software cost you money and it isn't open source, because this sort of thing usually spawns free alternatives. I mean, it's not really rocket science to make a software that creates DVDs, but inspiration to make easy to use alternatives is needed.
"the DVDs it makes will only be playable on the computer where they were created"
Doesn't this make it *not* an actual DVD, but rather an encoded video on a disc that just happens to be shaped like a DVD with the capacity of a DVD? Kind of like how all those DRM'd CDs can't actually be called "compact discs" because they don't adhere to the red book standard?
People who want hassle-free DVD copying are usually the ones that like to watch DVDs in a DVD player, sitting on the couch of their living rooms. Why? Because they are not very computer literate (or can't be bothered, doesn't matter which).
Make It Secret Protect your privacy
AnyDVD + DVD shrink is brain dead easy to use if you really want to copy all the crap on the DVD.
Want just the movie on your laptop use handbrake. easy as pie.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm assuming they get by the legality of selling it by stating it is for use for the single copy you are allowed to make. Still, I'm sure they'll see some pressure from the content providers.
Most "average" users I know play they're dvds on their tvs, not their computers. I hope they explicitly state only plays on a computer on the label, or a lot of average customers will be rather annoyed.
Finally, I remember something about dvd shrink (which is extremely easy for average users when used with dvd-decrypter, though not legal in the us) may be actually legal in the EU since CSS does not effectively protect the content. Here is a link to one of the articles. Any way we can push this through in the US?
This is nice software, but I don't usually copy the whole DVD.
I only copy individual episodes, and store them as AVIs or XVIDs. What I need is a program that can automate that process so I can (for example) quickly and easily insert a Stargate DVD, and come back an hour later to 4 episode AVIs on my C: drive.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Right. Like the customs people will actually know the difference. Do you really expect them to distinguish between a legal copy of a DVD produced by this tool, and an equally legal copy of a DVD produced by another (illegal, according to the DMCA) tool?
I wouldn't really consider the DRM to be a restriction of rights, since the only thing thats being limited is the functionality of the company's own program, gimping their own program was a stupid thing to do, but as long as their upfront about the functionality, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to.
That being said, I'm sure there are numerous DRM free, nearly one-click dvd cloning programs available for free, so I doubt this'll be purchased by any but the ignorant, which kind of makes any debate of the fairness of this companies practices moot.
I don't think anyone was questioning why anyone would want to copy DVD's - just why they'd want to do so with this program. Doing so with the free stuff out there isn't THAT hard.
The only 'real' advantage to this program is that you can go into a store and buy it. It comes from a semi-legit company and probably doesn't have too many spyware and popup modules included.
Take an objective look at say "Doom9.net - The definitive DVD backup resource". The home page is covered with jibberish about things called "eac3to" and "DGAVCDec" and "AviSynth". Even aside from the vaugely hackerish feel of the site, this is hugely intimidating for the average dumbass.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The studios and copyright holders have it all wrong, in my opinion. Instead of charging $20 for a movie with all kinds of copy protection that doesn't prevent piracy (the pirates will ALWAYS find a way around copy protection), they should take Steve Jobs' approach (where do you put the apostrophe on a name that ends with "s"?). Charge $5 for a movie on a media that contains all the copy protection in the world. Charge $20 for the same movie on a media that has NO copy protection. The average viewer doesn't have the technical prowess to copy either type of movie so it doesn't matter anyway. The low price for a movie will mean that it won't make sense to pirate some crappy quality movie and waste the time downloading and burning it onto a disc, so most viewers won't bother; they'll just pay the $5 and purchase it legitimately. For those who feel that non-DRM is somehow better, they'll pay $20. And for those who are going to pirate the movies anyway just because they feel they need a library of 10,000 movies they'll never get around to watching, well, what difference does it make? Suppose they copy the movie. Even if it were NOT available for easy copying, chances are they would NOT shell out any money, even if it were a penny, to buy the movie legitimately. So the studios don't really lose money in this case. Yes, an additional copy of the movie was made and they weren't paid for it, but they wouldn't have been paid for it even if the copy were not made. In other words, make the movies cheap to buy legitimately and the majority of the population won't bother to pirate them because there won't be any incentive to do so. Chances are the studios will make more profit even though the price per unit is lower because more movies will be sold. Would you pay $3 to rent a movie when you can buy your own copy for $5? Would you bother to burn a copy from a friend that costs $1 for the disc, more if the burn fails a bunch of times and you have to re-do it, and waste the time bothering with it and jumping through all the hoops to make a watchable disc? No way! You'd just drop five bucks and get the damn movie!! I think it's a win-win. Any economist will tell you that when prices are higher, demand is lower and vice versa.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
You can rip any unencrypted DVD you like via a 1-click tool. For free. It takes 2-5 hours after which you have a lovely H264 or AVC file to do with as you please.
Who would pay MPEG-LA and various other patent holders for a license to use H.264 and friends? Or did you mean s/H264/Theora/g?
> I don't think anyone was questioning why anyone would want to
> copy DVD's - just why they'd want to do so with this program.
It's simple, really. There are a lot of people out there who are sufficiently gullible and forgetful that they are simply not aware of Real's long history of overtly user-hostile schenanighans. The website says, "these audio clips are in Real format, which you can play with the Real player, download it for free [link]", and the naive user just *believes* that the website is giving them a way to listen to audio clips, without asking "What's the catch?"
Of course, after they click the link they find out that it's a lot of hassle, and it has the worst user interface in the history of computing, and they never do actually figure out how to listen to the stupid audio clips on the website, but they do get prompted eighty times a month to upgrade the Real player, and the upgrade is a bait-and-switch in that there's a newer freeware version, but the upgrade thing tries hard to get them to buy the non-freeware version instead, and any audio you play with the thing sounds terrible, if you can ever even get it to play audio, which you often cannot, and the computer runs noticeably slower now, and...
Sure, everything Real has ever produced has been like that, so people who have been around the internet for a while theoretically *ought* to know what they're like. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows, right?
But normal users don't know. After a bad experience with RealAudio, when they see a website that has *video* in Real format, they come to me (since I'm the computer guy) all excited and say, "Can you install this video player for me? I need it to watch the video clips on [site]." And I say, "Umm, this is Real. Their software is terrible. You don't want this on your computer." And they look at me funny and say, "But I want to watch the videos!" End users don't think about things like who made the software, and what implications that might have. To them, that's highly technical, and they think it's irrelevant to their lives. All they want to know is what button they have to push to listen to the stupid audio clips, watch the stupid videos, or copy the stupid DVDs.
My advice to sysadmins is to preemptively install some half-decent DVD-copying software now, even if it's not needed. Because you don't want your users trying to install a Real product. Nothing good can come from that.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.