Playstation 3 Video DRM Only Allows One Download

Nom du Keyboard points out an Ars Technica report that the Sony Video Store on the Playstation Network is running some rather restrictive DRM. When purchasing movies, users are allowed just one download — even if they delete the movie to make space and want to download it again on the same machine. A Sony representative told Ars that users could be issued an extra download as a "one-time courtesy" with help from customer support. Quoting: "When we're discussing a system that seems to release new hardware configurations every few months and a company that actively encourages you to swap hard drives yourself, it appears users are going to run into problems if they ever decide they want to switch out their hard drive or even upgrade into a larger system; the information on the back-up utility makes it clear that video content can't be moved over to new system, although new hard drives should be safe. Sony claims that the PS3 is operating on a 10-year timeline: is one extra download, which you need to contact customer service to apply for, good enough for the next decade?"

Comments

Oliver Twist anyone?

[MaXiMiUS]

"Please, sir, can I have some more?"

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a first post be modded Redundant? Thats like an anonymous post being modded 'insightful'.

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[mcgrew]

How can a first post be modded Redundant?

Um, maybe a Sony executive/stockholder has mod points? But note its mod is now "funny".

Thats like an anonymous post being modded 'insightful'

You post stands at 2, insightful. But why can't an anonymous post show insight? There are a lot of reasons for posting anonymously.

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[Chyeld]

How can a first post be modded Redundant?

Duh!

"Please, sir, can I have some more?"

It's pretty obvious he already has one, 'some more' would be redundant.

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[veganboyjosh]

Feedback (from what I understand/believe) isn't just a way to dole out points for the person posting the content. It's a way users can filter the comments to a particular story, for browsing. If there's a particularly heated discussion, and there are hundreds of comments, then I may wish to browse the comments at +4, so that nothing below that is shown. I would like to include AC comments in that group, should they be seen by 4 others as insightful.

I suppose for some users, it's seen as wasteful to mod AC comments, aside from the negative mods.

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

How can a first post be modded Redundant?

In this particular case, you're right, that shouldn't have been made redundant. That said, it's totally possible for a first post to be redundant. Here are a few examples:

"I just want a cell phone that only makes calls!"

"Does it run Linux?"

"Video game companies do this because you're all thieves!"

"...frickin shark!"

"George Lucas sucks."

"I hate the iPhone, so everybody else should too."
... and so on. There's a lot of repetitive noise here that doesn't become fresh just because it's in a different thread. This doesn't apply in your case, but it could a year from now when somebody carbon copies your post when another company has a policy like this.

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

You post stands at 2, insightful. But why can't an anonymous post show insight? There are a lot of reasons for posting anonymously.

Exactly.... Like if i had posted that comment with my account i would have not received ANY mod points :)

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a first post be modded Redundant?/quote>

If you'll allow a bit of further insight (although this comment is going to be unlikely to actually be moderated as such), that's because "Redundant" (along with "Overrated") is one of those mod options that really mean "I've got mod points and I don't like this comment".

Unlike "Flamebait" or "Troll", which are easy to check in meta-moderation, "Redundant" is impossible to judge in hindsight without actually going to the story and checking the remaining comments, which of course no meta-moderator is actually going to do. Therefore, it's an easy way to downmod comments you don't like without getting meta-moderated as Unfair afterwards.

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[X0563511]

It would be interesting to see how thing would work if we increased the range allowed from -1 to 5, to say -10 to 50.

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[veganboyjosh]

That would be interesting. I remember reading when I signed up and got offered mod points (can't remember how long ago that was) that there used to be an actual karma score, which had no upper limit, or a really high limit, and was an actual number. I'd love to see the scale of mods be expanded. I've often thought that a range of 6 from best to worst is too small.

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[philspear]

"DRM punishes legitimate users."
"There's no real difference between the canidates."

Bumper sticker sentiments like that get repeated as their own justification, so it's good to mark them redundant.

The oliver twist quote was definitely not redundant though.

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats like an anonymous post being modded 'insightful'.

...anonymous post...'insightful'

'insightful'

I see what you did there.

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

The oliver twist quote was definitely not redundant though.

Amusingly, and I mean this in good humor, this particular comment is. ;)

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or this one being modded as "informative"...

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[philspear]

Well, er, uh, what's an oliver twist quote without some bitter irony?

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[sulfur]

It wouldn't work very well, because we would have to increase the number of mod points by the order of magnitude as well to compensate for increased range.

The reason why /. moderation system is superior to all others that I have seen so far is because mod points are scarce, and people supposedly use them to mod only those comments that truly deserve it. If you give everyone 50 mod points, you will have something similar to digg, which ain't good at all.

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[jimicus]

How can an anonymous post be modded "Insightful"?

That's like a comment on an anonymous post being simultaneously modded "Informative", "Underrated" and "Funny".

Re:Oliver Twist anyone?

[veganboyjosh]

You wouldn't have to increase the number of mod points. I think that's the...ahem....point. They'd still be scarce; people (in theory) wouldn't waste them. Imagine browsing at +50. I could see a different effect, though. If I've got my 15 points to dole out, then I may not spend them on a post that's already rated +30, I may mod up something that's got a lower score, to balance it out against the higher posts...

Rental only

[Just Some Guy]

As long as they clearly mark this as a rental, I'm OK with it. As soon as they describe it as a sale, then I think they're conducting felony fraud and should be prosecuted criminally.

Re:Rental only

[Chaos Incarnate]

So if you buy something from a store, and then throw it away, the store is obligated to give you another item?

Interesting.

Re:Rental only

[Cyberax]

If this item is broken, then yes they are required to replace it.

What happens if your PS3 stops working?

Re:Rental only

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing that is interesting is how badly you managed to miss the point...

Re:Rental only

[Ethanol-fueled]

This is Sony we're talking about -- is this really a surprise?

If the content providers keep having their way then we'd be paying for media on a per-track, per-listen basis. Those ideas have been their wet dream even since before piracy was widespread.

That's my rationalization for reaching for the 'torrent, what's yours?

Re:Rental only

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

As long as they clearly mark this as a rental, I'm OK with it. As soon as they describe it as a sale, then I think they're conducting felony fraud and should be prosecuted criminally.

According to the article, they do call it a "purchase" as in "purchased content."

Re:Rental only

[Chyeld]

If I purchase a copyrighted "something" at a store, I dang well expect that it would work on more than just the one machine I used it first in. If it's compatible, it should run in it.

I also expect that should I have to replace it more than once, the item still work.

Additionally, I expect that if someone is selling me something that restricts my rights as the purchaser under the cover of attempting to protect their own as the copyright holder, that those restrictions are reasonable and not simply in place as a surrogate method of forcing me to buy more copies of the item.

For the most part, the only thing DRM accomplishes is that, forcing the 'legitimate' consumer to purchase ever more copies of a work they already own copies.

Re:Rental only

[fermion]

Just read. You buy a movie and download it. It is your responsibility, just like any other purchase, to keep up with it. That may mean that if you do not have a backup, and lost your machines, then you will lose your purchase. Just like if you car is stolen and you left you music in it.

I see no place how this is more restrictive than normal. I don't know any service in which one purchases content to be stores on you own media where a second download is allowed. Now, if one is not allowed to backup the content, or transfer it to another device, then that may be considered more restrictive than normal. But as it stands this is just par for the course for DRM.

Re:Rental only

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Here's an idea - don't like it, don't buy it. Sony isn't forcing you to download videos... just rent it at blockbuster, or mininova ;)

Re:Rental only

[thetartanavenger]

That's not the issue here, the circumstances don't match.. If you buy something from a store you get a hard copy of the cd/dvd. You break it, tough luck.

When it comes to pc's, it's often not us that break them, or you want to upgrade or you've ran out of space. With this method they force you to lose your purchases with no possible way to transfer them, back them up to some form of removable media (the normal way people create more space on their computer) or redownload them. If you can't back them up and you have no space you HAVE to delete them, they are giving you no choice in the matter. These situations are unavoidable with a pc and if you provide a download service you should at least either provide unlimited downloads of your material, or you should be able to back them up easily (and legally).

Re:Rental only

[plague3106]

So if i scratch up my cd or dvd, I'm entitled to a new one? Interesting..

Re:Rental only

[Goldberg's Pants]

Well Sony are the makers of Securom, and also made a DRM for DVD's (ARCOS) that rendered the disks unplayable on their own devices. I bought a movie with ARCOS for my nephews and it wouldn't play. I had to take said DVD and make a rip of it purely so they could watch the movie I bought for them on their Sony DVD player.

So crap like this no longer surprises me and is why, despite being a huge Metal Gear and Gran Turismo fan, I will not be buying a PS3.

Re:Rental only

[Aranykai]

I don't know any service in which one purchases content to be stores on you own media where a second download is allowed. Now, if one is not allowed to backup the content, or transfer it to another device, then that may be considered more restrictive than normal.

The entire point of DRM content is that the content is restricted to approved playback devices. Allowing multiple downloads to the only approved device is not the same as allowing someone to download it willy-nilly onto fifty computers.

The point this article is making is the lack of options to re-obtain your content, as you are not allowed to backup the media, nor can you store it physically on any kind of medium other than the disk in your playstation.

Re:Rental only

[doas777]

if you can't backup the file with the utilities that you are locked in to using, then yes. Besides you still possess the license for that material. having the file or not has no implications on your rights under the licensing agreement.

you did not buy the file, you bought a license, and it is impossible to throw one of those away, except by breaching it's terms. BTW what does that have to do with calling a rental a sale being felonious fraud?

Re:Rental only

[ucblockhead]

So Apple is conducting felony fraud, then? (Given that they do the exact same thing.)

Re:Rental only

[vux984]

So if you buy something from a store, and then throw it away, the store is obligated to give you another item?

If I buy something from a store; for example, a CD, I expect it to work both in my car and in my home. In fact I expect it to work in my laptop too, and if I take it to a friends house and he wants to hear it I expect to work in his car/home and laptop too.

Re:Rental only

[denis-The-menace]

Depends, do you own the copy or did you license the copy.
-If you *own the copy* then you are screwed since you are allowed to do as you wish with the copy short of making copies of it. That includes trashing/destroying the disc.
-If you *license the copy* then you can get a replacement media copy or even copy another Good disc but keep the defective one as proof of license.

Re:Rental only

[Anonymous Coward]

I AM entitled to make a backup copy of my cd or dvd in case it gets scratched in the future...

If this were to happen, I could then make a backup of the backup and ALWAYS have two redundant copies of my cd or dvd for all time. The "ask-customer-service-once" model does give an effective backup, but only once.

Re:Rental only

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I just need to RTFA, but I'm pretty sure they're not going to allow backups. That and the fact that it can only be played on one machine make it FAR more restrictive than other forms.

Re:Rental only

[Tyger]

Personally I'm all for companies like Sony forcing such intrusive DRM on the public.

The quicker they cross the line where it inconveniences your average consumer, the quicker we'll get to the point where DRM becomes a total flop.

Re:Rental only

[Svartalf]

Considering that the item doesn't physically exist, you can't move it somewhere else, and is downloaded, yeah- this actually constitutes more of a rental than a real purchase. Every other place that sells you a downloadable allow you to download it umpteen times if you like.

Re:Rental only

[Svartalf]

No. The CD in question is a physical item.

The DOWNLOAD is not.

Re:Rental only

[Sechr Nibw]

How does Apple do this same exact thing?

Download a song? Authorize up to 5 computers to play it. Burn it to a CD to listen to in your car or keep as a backup. Locate the file on your hard drive and make a back up from there.

Download a movie? Same thing. TV Show? Same thing.

Rent a movie? You can still authorize up to 5 computers to play it, and copy it to whichever of those you want.

How is Apple sell you a single copy of digital media, not let you back it up, not let you play it on any other devices, and not allow you to re-download it?

Re:Rental only

[nschubach]

Well, that and there's a bit of a manufacturing cost involved in a tangible object. I don't feel bad shelling out money for an item I can touch, fell or burn if I see fit. Digital data has little cost in duplicating and maintaining in the overall scope of things. It also gets cheaper every day that goes by, so that would mean that music/movie costs should be going down as time goes on at a much steeper rate than a tangible item. (After you pay the artists, transfer costs, and the electric bill, the data should be pretty damn cheap per copy.)

That's my problem with DRM. Greed. I have no problem with it as long as it follows the model of accelerated depreciated cost.

Re:Rental only

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy a car (yes I am using a car analogy!) and I move to a new house. The car manufacturer cannot tell me that I cannot park my car in the garage of the new house.

Re:Rental only

[badboy_tw2002]

Except bandwidth isn't free. How many 4GB downloads should I allocate per customer? Should I factor that into the cost of the item? When you purchase something, should I factor in a lifetime of bandwidth usage by the customer?

Of course, you hit the nail on the head - you must be able to backup. Not having a backup (and this is probably the case given that the PS3 is encrypted) is stupid. Although, I think given "online activation" DRM seems to be the rage these days I don't think they have a problem with the user burning the content to a DVD for later. I think the fair thing to do is be very up front with the customer as to what the download policy is.

Re:Rental only

[LunaticTippy]

So if i scratch up my cd or dvd, I'm entitled to a new one? Interesting..

Bad example. You can sell a cd/dvd or lend it to a friend or watch it in your car.

Re:Rental only

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I buy a movie from the Sony Video Store, I'll get a hard copy along with it?

Interesting.

Re:Rental only

[prod-you]

So if i scratch up my cd or dvd, I'm entitled to a new one? Interesting..

If you bought the CD, then probably not unless it's covered under the warranty. If you just bought the license, then they should help you get a new one.

Of course, you could create backups of the media you bought just in case you do break something.

Re:Rental only

[Mister Whirly]

Sure. It is the "license" to play the game that is the supposedly expensive part, the actual media isn't worth much. About 10 years ago I had a couple old PC games that the CD became defective (severely scratched to the point of not being able to be read) or broken. In both cases I was allowed to return my defective CD and exchange it for a new one. I was only charged a small fee for postage and handling, and did not have to buy the game again at full price. Not sure if this is still standard practice or not though...

Re:Rental only

[Atrox666]

If there was any corporate accountability then Sony's assets would have been seized when they attacked their customers with malware on their music cds. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation. If companies went out of business for being sleazy then they would stop being sleazy or go out of business. As it stands now sleazy companies do better than honest businesses so honest business is facing extinction.

Re:Rental only

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course your reasoning doesn't make any sense since you're talking about material goods while we're talking about downloads. I work in 3d animation. We deliver our renders on hard drive, or DVD, or ftp. If they should lose the files, do you think we'd tell them "Sorry buddy, you're gonna have to pay us for the whole 3 months of work again if you want the renders" ?

Re:Rental only

[X0563511]

How about the first time you buy something, you are issued a private key to be used for said purchases. This key is linked to your purchases, through that to your credit card, and through that to your name, address, and phone number. Backups are now allowed, and indeed a utility download is given for just such a purpose. I don't know, onto an external drive via USB or something.

Any use of the key to unlock backed up downloads is logged/reported, so that Sony and friends can immediatly see stolen/distributed keys... but you still get to back up your stuff! The key doesn't have to be terribly long, but even if it is, it's better than what we have now.

Re:Rental only

[X0563511]

Oh, wait... my idea would require actual work to be done! Nevermind then, I guess it's not an option...

Re:Rental only

[DigitAl56K]

For the most part, the only thing DRM accomplishes is that, forcing the 'legitimate' consumer to purchase ever more copies of a work they already own copies.

You don't own it. It's hard to argue that you even own a license to it.

It is quite a funny concept that anything protected by authentication-based DRM can ever be "sold", since your use of what you "bought" is entirely controlled by someone else.

All that you really "buy" when you pay for DRM'd content is the right to keep asking, "dear rights holder, can you please tell my device it's okay for me to watch this?", and after that you have to cross your fingers. In most cases the answer is going to be "yes", or the economy of the system will fail massively. However, nothing guarantees that the answer will be "yes", and here we are discussing just one instance where perhaps it should be but isn't.

I agree with the OP, nobody should be allowed to misrepresent a DRM-encumbered transaction as a sale. You don't have most of the rights, use-wise or other, that are normally associated with a sale.

Re:Rental only

[east coast]

I remember back in the day of great game companies like SSI that if your media became corrupt or unusable you could send them back the old disk and they would replace it at a pretty reasonable fee. I think it was 5 bucks to save your 50 dollar game. I don't think anyone around still does this today.

For my part, I stick with Steam. Unlimited downloads. Hell, even if they charged me a buck to cover bandwidth and storage I wouldn't feel bad for a 50 dollar game. I've never had an issue with Steam and as long as they keep up their track record I'm going to keep with it. I've even passed up on several games because I couldn't get a Steam copy.

Re:Rental only

[davester666]

The difference is, when you walk into the store, you are buying the CD/DVD.

When you think you are 'buying' a movie on your PS 3, the PS 3 is what is actually buying the content. You are just commanding a slave (the PS 3) to do it.

Re:Rental only

[denis-The-menace]

Sound more that you are renting Download time from Sony's server.

Re:Rental only

[calmofthestorm]

The electronic copy isn't the thing he bought. The thing he bought is the license to use it. Will people please stop using the bullshit analogy between IP and physical property?

Consider: If I steal a widget from a store, now I have one more and the store has one less. Two things that hurt Big Content (but not the author)

If I make an unlicensed copy on BT, I have one more but the store has the same number. This is, by definition, not as damaging as theft of non-imaginary property, which includes this plus something else.

Not going to argue they're not both illegal, wrong, whatever, but let's not buy too far into the industry propaganda to lose sight of common sense.

Re:Rental only

[elrous0]

I was posting just the other day about Sony's notorious reputation as control freaks and DRM stalwarts. They are truly one of the bad guys in the world of IP.

Re:Rental only

[calmofthestorm]

Yes, obtaining or writing DRM-busting software is legal in the US. So is using it in the case described above.

Just can't distribute or help anyone else. But we cannot help our neighbor. that's not good, Hackers, that's not good.

Re:Rental only

[calmofthestorm]

Yeah that's why Sony invented bittorrent.

Also AIDS, crack cocaine, and Ron Paul:-)

Re:Rental only

[elrous0]

"That may mean that if you do not have a backup, and lost your machines, then you will lose your purchase."

With DRM-crippled content you CAN'T back it up.

Re:Rental only

[billcopc]

If you throw it away, fine.

If the store makes it physically impossible for you to bring the product along when you move into a new apartment, something's definitely not right.

When you own something, you own it. There is no license, there is only possession. You do whatever the hell you want with it.

Personally, I'm going to tell all PS3 owners "I told you so". This is Sony we're talking about. There is nothing nice, fair or friendly about Sony. They are a large company that has always been at the forefront of DRM, and overall customer-shafting tactics. They generate profit, which is their sole contractual responsibility. To expect them to side with the customer is pure folly. Sony has far too much influence on the various entertainment industries, and far too much clout to ever care about acting otherwise.

Re:Rental only

[billcopc]

It is standard practice, but only with the handful of old-school, respectable game houses that remain.

If anyone's bought any EA piece of shite lately, would they care to check the back of the instruction booklet to see if they still offer replacement media ?

Re:Rental only

[mstahl]

So, after the initial purchase, only charge the user for the bandwidth and not the bandwidth plus the license. I wouldn't have an issue with paying a few cents to restore a game to my hard drive if it meant that in the meantime I could have that space free for other things when I'm not playing that game for a long time.

Re:Rental only

[Renraku]

It could be fixed if they sent you a physical copy as well as allowing the download, then they owe you nothing at all.

I never understood why this didn't catch on. I'd be much more likely to pay for a movie from Amazon if you could download the movie before you got the copy.

Re:Rental only

[wumpus188]

IANAL, but if you are referring to iPhone software, then the answer appears to be negative (pdf source):

1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code and other embedded software), documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data that came with your iPhone ("Original iPhone Software"), as may be updated or replaced by feature enhancements, software updates or system restore software provided by Apple ("iPhone Software Updates"), whether in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (the Original iPhone Software and iPhone Software Updates are collectively referred to as the "iPhone Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. You own the media on which the iPhone Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the iPhone Software itself.

Re:Rental only

[stewbacca]

I was thinking the same thing. I rent a movie, I take it back to the drop box, then demand that I should be able to rent that title for free forever? Of course, I didn't RTFA, so I might be outtheasstalking.

Re:Rental only

[Mr_Tulip]

Although I'm not sure of the legalities, I have contacted publishers several times to replace defective audio, movie, game, and application media, and each time I have been sent a replacement either at cost of postage or no cost at all. They will require that you send them the original defective media though, so make sure you don't throw that out :) With regard to software, I once recieved a much improved and upgraded version of the application, without having to pay the rather steep upgrade cost (Rosetta Stone language learning) ;)

Re:Rental only

[passiveNecro]

if you buy a dvd from a store and your dvd player breaks, should you not expect it work on your new dvd player?

Re:Rental only

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I pay for an iTunes download of an album, I'm entitled to copy a friend's CD?

Interesting.

Re:Rental only

[Leynos]

I don't know any service in which one purchases content to be stores on you own media where a second download is allowed.

Xbox Live allows you to re-download the software as many times as you want. Ditto the Wii Store.

Of course, they each come with their own set of restrictions, none of which I am happy about.

Re:Rental only

[syousef]

So if i scratch up my cd or dvd, I'm entitled to a new one? Interesting..

Yes. Why not. Perhaps for a small fee. 50c should about cover manufacturing and shipping costs.

Did you pay $20 for the 50c disk or for the right to view it's contents whenever you like?

Re:Rental only

[rtechie]

The quicker they cross the line where it inconveniences your average consumer, the quicker we'll get to the point where DRM becomes a total flop.

It's already a total flop. These are just recreations of the abject failure that was Divx. Divx SEEMED like a bigger failure due to the useless hardware sitting on store shelves, but the money and development effort pissed away on DRM is beginning to cost media companies.

Re:Rental only

[mabhatter654]

They stipulate you can only use the item as long as you keep it in the environmentally friendly paper bag you left the store with. So when the bag "dies" or is damaged, the product is damaged and you can't use it anymore.

Re:Rental only

[mabhatter654]

That sounds strangely like Apple's iTunes Store. Apple lets you purchase music and movies and once they are on your hard drive you can copy them to whatever media you wish.. you just have to be authenticated to actually PLAY them. So far Apple FairPlay has not been broken, the only "crack" has been hijacking the download before itunes applies DRM.

That Sony ties all the music and movies to a small PS3 only hard drive and calls it "sales" is childish.

Re:Rental only

[Maskull]

I'm pretty sure LucasArts still does this, even for super old games. A few years back I sent in my CD for "The Dig" along with a check for $5 or something and they sent out a replacement.

Re:Rental only

[Anonymous Coward]

If I buy something from a store, I damn well expect to be allowed to take it with me when I move house.

Re:Rental only

[davolfman]

Like the system E-Reader uses for the books I have on my Palm? My credit card and name literally IS my unlock code and I can do whatever I want with the files.

Re:Rental only

[Tuidjy]

EA replacement costs:

# PC-CD products: $13.00 USD
# PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Xbox, or Xbox 360 products: $20.00 USD
# Nintendo GameCube, Nintendo Wii, Nintendo DS, or Sony PSP products: $15.00 USD
# Sony PlayStation products: $15.00 USD
# Nintendo Gameboy, Gameboy Color, or Gameboy Advanced products: $15.00 USD
# Jewel Case Classics products: $7.50 USD
# Manual (Documentation) replacement: $5.00 USD

More than I expected, but less than it could have been.

Re:Rental only

[cgenman]

The comparison would be more like you buy a book from a store, who then comes home with you, nails the book to your floor and attaches explosive ink packs. If you ever move, your book will explode. When you do move, the bookstore charges you full price for another copy. In Sony's case, the company's DRM is going out of its way to stop you from moving or backing up your content in reasonable and legal ways, and without additional downloads the service provides no alternative.

People are getting used to the idea that in exchange for giving up some of their traditional rights with digital media (inc resale), they at least get to re-download stuff without being charged for it. Steam is a master of this, allowing you to play anything anywhere so long as you are signed in. In the case of Sony, the user is both prevented from moving paid content between system or hard drive upgrades, and is charged full price for re-downloads. Bandwidth isn't free, but with wholesale prices near 10c per GB for large organizations, it isn't substantial either.

I have to believe that this was an oversight on their part, and that the situation will be rectified. This just doesn't seem sustainable.

Re:Rental only

[Jeppe Salvesen]

You're able to make a backup of your CDs or DVDs if you want to. With regards to DVDs, that's only because their DRM was broken back in the 90s.. With regards to BluRays, what is the status? Can you rip one bit-by-bit and then make a copy that plays?

To the best of my understanding, making a backup is a no-no with this Sony solution. If they refuse to store information about your purchases and allow you to re-download purchased items then you're much worse off than with DVDs.

I'm in the process of making lossless backups of all my 300-odd CDs btw.

Re:Rental only

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

That's my rationalization for reaching for the 'torrent, what's yours?

My rationalisation is that it's abandonware, but that only really applies to old, unpopular dos games. That's really the best I can do for "rationalisation" without overtly kidding myself.

Re:Rental only

[yodleboy]

For my part, I stick with Steam. Unlimited downloads. Hell, even if they charged me a buck to cover bandwidth and storage I wouldn't feel bad for a 50 dollar game. I've never had an issue with Steam and as long as they keep up their track record I'm going to keep with it. I've even passed up on several games because I couldn't get a Steam copy.

I second that! I've had a few quirks with Steam losing my password and their god awful password reset setup, but overall, I've been very satisfied. I like being able to reinstall a game via download. I've also had a very good experience with Direct2Drive, purchased several games from them over the last couple of years. Unlike Steam, they DO limit the number of installations allowed. However, I just contacted support when I built a new PC and they reset my installation count the next day, so no worries there i think. The only problem with this download model is game size. CoD4 was about 4GB, so you aren't gonna get instant gratification. But i just queue them up before i go to bed and I'm done in the morning...

Re:Rental only

[plague3106]

Well, I could care less about the physical disc, it's the content I want anyway. Otherwise it'd make no difference to me if I bought Metallica or Clay Akin.

Like the first one to respond to me, this sounds like you "own a copy" of the movie, but have not licensed it.

Re:Rental only

[billcopc]

I must say, I'm quite impressed. I was expecting far worse... thanks for taking the time :)

Courtosy download?

[Drakin020]

How kind of them to privilage us with an extra download for something we paid for.

It almost feel like your renting a product, but never owning it.

Re:Courtosy download?

[RichardJenkins]

You pay for the right to download it. Once. To a system that you know is closed. Why would anyone expect Sony to allow their bandwidth to be re-used for free?

It's not like they're being anything other than upfront about it.

If you move to another system where you no longer have the movie in future: just buy it again. It will be cheaper (in terms of YOUR PRECIOUS TIME) than fiddling about with moving files from one machine to another.

*irony ends*

Re:Courtosy download?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I keep writing to Blizzard to include spelling quizzes as part of quests. Oddly, they continue to ignore this very reasonable suggestion.

Re:Courtosy download?

[hardburn]

I expect out of Sony what I believe my money is worth. Why does Sony expect me to buy something so hobbled when I'll almost certainly be able to buy the same thing in a format that isn't so deliberately broken?

Re:Courtosy download?

[Qzukk]

YOUR PRECIOUS TIME

My time may be worth $80 an hour, but an hour of my indignation will run you $120.

Re:Courtosy download?

[Irish_Samurai]

Why would anyone expect Sony to allow their bandwidth to be re-used for free?

Because a direct competitor (XBOX 360) allows me to download multiple times for anything I purchased. In fact, I have bought things, deleted them, and then when surfing the XBOX Live area and looking at those games it asks me if I want to download them AGAIN.

Re:Courtosy download?

[Sechr Nibw]

New for PC (and Mac!):

Thrall Teaches Typing®
Grom Teaches Grammar®
Jaina Teaches Jerking Off® (Rated M for Mature)

Re:Courtosy download?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only you can prevent word mangling.

The word "your" is entirely different than the phrase "you are" and its contraction "you're".

This English service announcement has been brought to you by the letter "e" and the number 5.

Re:Courtosy download?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you're leasing the movie? Or is that the same as renting...

Re:Courtosy download?

[elrous0]

Your a grammar Nazi.

Re:Courtosy download?

[Anonymous Coward]

courtesy. privilege. you're.

Re:Courtosy download?

[dabraun]

In fact, Xbox even lets you download the content again to a different Xbox (the license you get for a purchase allows playback by anyone on the original console, and playback by the purchasing gamertag on ANY console).

You can even transfer all your purchased rights to a different Xbox if you choose and then download the content to that box (or just plug the old hard drive into it) ... limited to once a year, intended for rare circumstances - but clearly they grok that you need a way to keep your rights if your box breaks.

The ONLY thing they don't allow this for is movie RENTALS. Because, well, it's a rental - you download it, you watch it, you're done with it.

Re:Courtosy download?

[kyrre]

looking at those games it asks me

As for games Sony allow you to download any game you bought on 5 different PS3s an unlimited number of times. They can then all be played at the same time. Games are not the issue in this article. Movies are.

Re:Courtosy download?

[p0tat03]

Now MS just needs a not-so-pathetic content library. This is Microsoft's chance to strike while their competitor is down. But who am I kidding. Even the vaunted IPTV still isn't out, despite being targeted at Christmas LAST YEAR!

Apple do the same..

[Channard]

.. because once you've downloaded your music, you can't get it again unless you badger Apple. Couple that with the fact that iTunes doesn't officially support taking music off your iPod back onto iTunes and you've got a system that's a real pain in the arse.

Re:Apple do the same..

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely true.

But I can easily back up my music and video downloads to an external hard drive or DVD archive. When I want to restore them, I just load them back onto the machine.

For that matter, I can copy videos between my computers and still play them. It's true, those computers have to be "authorized" by Apple, up to a max of 5 computers (which I can reset/change each year). But I can still do it.

So Apple doesn't do *exactly* the same. It's DRM, and all DRM is bad. But Apple's doesn't leave quite the same taste in my mouth that Sony's does.

Re:Apple do the same..

[Eg0Death]

You can burn your iTunes onto a CD, transfer them to an MP3 player, transfer them to other hard drives, etc. Not so with this.

Re:Apple do the same..

[CrankyFool]

Yes, I'm frankly surprised this is news, given that iTunes' similar behavior -- with a much greater user base -- doesn't seem to merit a peep.

Re:Apple do the same..

[oahazmatt]

Couple that with the fact that iTunes doesn't officially support taking music off your iPod back onto iTunes and you've got a system that's a real pain in the arse.

Haven't installed iTunes 7 yet, huh?

Re:Apple do the same..

[nine-times]

The main difference is that it's trivially easy to back up your own iTunes library. Especially so if you own a recent Mac, where you can get an external hard drive and use Time Machine. Also, iTunes will allow you to copy your iTunes-purchased music from your iPod to your computer, but it will essentially replace your existing iTunes library. That in addition to being allowed to copy your iTunes purchased music/video to 5 different computers.

Don't get me wrong-- I'm generally anti-DRM and would very much like to see Apple drop their DRM entirely. On the other hand, Sony has really done a worse job here.

Re:Apple do the same..

[MBGMorden]

iTunes doesn't lock your files down to a single machine though - they lock them to an account which can follow you effectively forever. Between computers, between devices, etc. Your account always is good to play your files. This allows you the specific freedom of BACKING UP your information.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like Apple's DRM either, but it HAS been the least problematic I've seen. Amazon Unbox for Video for example lets you play a "purchased" file on 2 machines only, and it has a terrible little Windows service that runs in the background to "authorize" your playback with the mothership. If that service screws up then your media files simply aren't going to play (and I've just deleted the 3 episodes of Battlestar Galactica I bought from them after all the problems I had with it).

I think with Sony, the problem is that you CAN'T make a backup of the file. You can with Apple, and you can with non-DRM'd media. As a matter of fact, I'd be fine with it if they didn't allow redownloads AT ALL if they didn't include DRM. I don't expect the store to give me a new copy of a DVD that I sit on or leave in a hot car, so I don't expect a new copy of a file that I lost either. HOWEVER, I do want the ability to make backup copies of that data so that I can be secure in the knowledge that my entire movie or song collection isn't hinging on a single hard drive crash.

The problem ALL this hits though, is that it's getting too device specific. If I want to play a DVD I buy it. I've been through 3 TV's and about 5 DVD players since I started buying DVD's. Now, digital downloads are looking to be the next bid thing, but look at the current scene: Xbox360 sells movies and TV shows, but they play only on an Xbox360. Apple does the same, but they play only through your computer or an AppleTV. Sony is now doing the same, but they play only through a PS3. Amazon Unbox does it - and they play only through Windows computers or a compatible Tivo.

How many disjointed systems is it going to take for them to realize that this isn't going to work? If I buy a new awesome media player box I want it to play EVERYTHING. I don't want to have to switch devices over and over as I flip between different movies I purchased on various systems. These devices need to operate with a common format. The only way to make this all work long term is to kill DRM. A user needs to be able to "own" and move about their files as easily as they once shifted around their DVD discs or VHS cassettes.

Re:Apple do the same..

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

actually, you can back this up the same way you back up iTunes purchases - you just have to record to video stream. It is exactly the same as copying an apple AAC file to cd, and then re-ripping it as .mp3, or copying it to another hard drive and having to authenticate it over there, too.

Re:Apple do the same..

[Xzzy]

iTunes will even nag you every time you buy a song to back up the files, at least until you check the "don't nag me about this again" box.

I'm not defending DRM either, but to date, it seems like if you have to have DRM, Apple's done it better than anyone.

Well, maybe Valve. They've claimed if Steam ever shuts down they'll issue unlock codes for all the stuff you've purchased, which is a leg up on anyone else.

Re:Apple do the same..

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The main difference is that it's trivially easy to back up your own iTunes library.

From a customer-service perspective it seems to me that it would be even easier if Apple just supported re-downloads. Compare all the effort of each person individually backing up their shit versus the effort for apple to enable the feature and then support the occasional re-download.

Re:Apple do the same..

[Colonel Korn]

.. because once you've downloaded your music, you can't get it again unless you badger Apple. Couple that with the fact that iTunes doesn't officially support taking music off your iPod back onto iTunes and you've got a system that's a real pain in the arse.

Amazon allows unlimited downloads of purchased music.

Re:Apple do the same..

[jonnythan]

I guess you're not quite up to date with iTunes and iPods.

My girlfriend recently switched to a new laptop. She plugged her iPod in and it informed her that there were purchased tracks on it, and whether she would like to transfer them to iTunes. iTunes copied them right over.

I recently somehow lost a few tracks I had downloaded and didn't have on an iPod. I clicked "check for downloads" and it redownloaded the songs I had lost with no further ado.

Hardly a pain in the ass.

Re:Apple do the same..

[ThePiMan2003]

Ah, but in the apple case you can also copy the data files to back them up. That way you don't lose a generation, or have to worry about storing the uncompressed audio.

Re:Apple do the same..

[fastest fascist]

Up until now I was of the opinion widespread distribution of video, music, games on physical media was doomed to die out because digital downloads are just so much more convenient. It seems the people who run the download services are doing their best to make sure that never happens.

Re:Apple do the same..

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

annnnnd ... who says you can't do that? I didn't read anything about not being able to access the download - just not being able to download it again if you lose it. Which is just like iTunes.

Re:Apple do the same..

[Anonymous Coward]

Several things make this completely different on the PS3:

1. Apple is completely upfront about it. You're told, multiple times, that you only get the one download. After you've downloaded a bunch of content, iTunes will bug you to backup the content and offers a feature to do so.

Every other type of PS3 download allows five downloads, so movies being restricted to just one is a bit unexpected.

2. Apple allows you to copy the files around. PS3 content is locked to the console - it can't be backed up in any way, since you can't copy it off the console. (Annoyingly this includes save games!)

3. If iTunes hoses its library, you don't lose your content. I know this first hand - I've had iTunes destroy its library, and got to restore it from backup. This was as simple as copying the backed up files back into iTunes. (So I'm not exactly an Apple fanboy, since this has happened multiple times. Fun. Sadly I'm stuck with iTunes if I want to play my downloaded tracks, which taught me a bit about blindly accepting DRM.)

When a Sony update hoses your PS3, you're screwed: that content is just gone. Since there's no way to get it back, and you can't download it, it's just lost.

Re:Apple do the same..

[pushing-robot]

Amazon allows unlimited downloads of purchased music.

Amazon seems to disagree:

Can I download another copy of my MP3 files after the initial purchase?
Your Amazon MP3 Music purchases can only be downloaded once. After you have successfully downloaded the file to your computer at the time of purchase, we recommend that you create a backup copy.

We are currently unable to replace any purchased files that you delete or lose due to a system or disk error. If you encounter a problem with an MP3 file immediately after purchase, please click the Customer Service button in the Contact Us box in the right-hand column of this page so we can determine how to help you.

If you've re-downloaded files from Amazon, was there an automated method or did you have to contact their customer service?
The iTunes Store will also let you re-download files — if you email customer service — but most people would prefer a more streamlined system.

Re:Apple do the same..

[nine-times]

Sure, it'd be nice. There are lots of ways that Apple could improve their service, including doing away with the DRM altogether. But they're already doing better than some other people who are providing DRMed downloads.

Re:Apple do the same..

[InsaneProcessor]

Your post is right on the money. This is why I do not own an ipod, xbox, ps3, or tivo. I do have a generic MP3 player that plays non-drm content (audio and video). I rent movies from my cable company which guarantees them for 24 hours and does require any "annual subscriptions".

Re:Apple do the same..

[qzak]

How come no one has mentioned that you CAN back up your PS3 to an external hard drive? So if the hard drive is toasted or you want to upgrade your HD to a larger one, no problem.

On the other hand, if the PS3 dies and you want your content, then you do have to badger them. And if you have 2 PS3s die, then you're hosed.

Re:Apple do the same..

[GarfBond]

Except you can take it to up to 5 computers, and an unlimited number of iPods. Sony's method is quantifiably worse.

Re:Apple do the same..

[mstahl]

Couple that with the fact that iTunes doesn't officially support taking music off your iPod back onto iTunes

For purchased music it does. If you hook up an iPod that belongs with your computer's library that contains purchased songs you don't have on your computer it will ask you if you want to move them to your computer from your iPod.

Re:Apple do the same..

[vux984]

Well, maybe Valve. They've claimed if Steam ever shuts down they'll issue unlock codes for all the stuff you've purchased, which is a leg up on anyone else.

That promise is virtually worthless. Why isn't it part of the EULA and your subscription contract? In the majority of scenarios where Valve would shut down Steam they will not be in a position to honor that 'promise'. This includes bankruptcy, and aquisition by another company.

And valve won't let you transfer your property to another person (except in a single limited instance that doesn't count for shit).

Valve also won't even let you use two titles on your account online at the same time. (You know, if you and your wife or kids want to play -different- games on your steam account at the same time.

Bottom line, the best way to use Steam is to have a separate account for each title you own. I had a lengthy conversation with their support team, and they eventually grudgingly agreed that the ONLY way to be able to actually simultaneously use multiple online titles that you have purchased is for them to be in separate steam accounts.

Doing this also lets you lend, or even give a away a steam game if you get tired of it. Because you can just transfer the user/password for that steam account. (Admittedly this last is strictly against the EULA, but that's a separate argument.)

Re:Apple do the same..

[Anonymous Coward]

But I can back my iTunes purchases up easily to an external drive or another computer. So not really the same as Sony's stance, since you can't do that with the PS3 (or can you?)

Given that it is entirely possible to backup my iTunes purchases, why should Apple allow me to re-download them from the store? I can't just walk into any retail store and ask for a replacement for an item I purchased 6 months earlier but "lost" ... so why should it be different online?

(Now, if Apple *wouldn't* let me backup my purchases, then I'd be in agreement)

Re:Apple do the same..

[_xeno_]

Not according to TFA which links to the PS3 manual as its source, so I'd tend to believe Sony.

From the manual:

If you perform any of the following operations after backing up, copyright-protected video files in the backup data may not restore correctly.
- Format the hard disk
- Restore the PS3(tm) system
- Move copyright-protected video
- Download copyright-protected video
- Play copyright-protected video that has a time restriction for the first time

I take that to mean that swapping hard drives or restoring the PS3 after a catastrophic failure does prevent access to the movies. It's also quite clear that if you change PS3s, you can't restore it, period.

In some cases, you may not be able to use the Backup Utility feature to back up or restore the system correctly. It is recommended that you always copy or move important data to storage media in order to independently back up your data.

Great advice, Sony, except for the part where the DRM doesn't allow you to. This also covers "certain save files?!"

Re:Apple do the same..

[ThePiMan2003]

However, I can use my backup to play my iTunes stuff on any number of computers (well 5 at a time) so if my main computer dies, I can deauthorize it and move my recordings to a new one a listen to it... not so with my PS3.

Re:Apple do the same..

[Anonymous Coward]

How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe that load of shit? Fuck, my great-grandmother could come up with something brighter than that and she's been pushing up daisies since you were a child. Were your parents also siblings?

Re:Apple do the same..

[kyrre]

I think with Sony, the problem is that you CAN'T make a backup of the file. You can with Apple, and you can with non-DRM'd media. As a matter of fact, I'd be fine with it if they didn't allow redownloads AT ALL if they didn't include DRM

No where in the article does it say that you can't backup video files. What it does say is that you can only re-download once. That is one more time than the iTunes Store. Playstation 3 can be backup through a simple built in function. Just connect a USB drive. I have not tried but I am sure the movie will be present if you restore on the same PS3. (No good if you changed you PS3).-

Re:Apple do the same..

[Waccoon]

they lock them to an account which can follow you effectively forever.

Nothing is forever, or even effectively forever.

Is there some kind of written policy as to how long you're guaranteed support of the content you buy? I tend to avoid buying downloads, but so far I have yet to see any written policies as to the availability of purchased content. Things being "delisted", or whatever they want to call it, doesn't help the issue.

I'm pretty sure DRM is here to stay, and all the consumer complaints in the world are not going to convince investors to ignore the siren songs from DRM developers. However, consumers should at least demand some written guarantees, such as a minimum support period, or that the DRM will be opened after the support period has expired.

Endless yelling that DRM is bad won't make it go away. I'm sure the business world would be willing to make changes if they could be convinced it would spur profits in one way or another.

Re:Apple do the same..

[MBGMorden]

Endless yelling that DRM is bad won't make it go away. I'm sure the business world would be willing to make changes if they could be convinced it would spur profits in one way or another.

It worked for DivX. Present regular people with a situation that gets on their nerves enough and it will fail.

You'd have to be mental....

[Dr_Barnowl]

I don't know what the prices are at the Sony Video Store - but if they are any substantial fraction of the cost of the physical media, then you should just buy the disc instead.

With the DRM on DVD a defeated minion of darkness, and BluRay certain to go the same way, the format with the most longevity, barring manufacturing defects, is a pressed ROM disc. You can be sure that you will be able to read, transcode, format-shift and enjoy these to your hearts content.

Not so for something that vanishes in a puff of virtual smoke when some vital component of your console goes "phut".

Re:You'd have to be mental....

[Xugumad]

> With the DRM on DVD a defeated minion of darkness, and BluRay certain to go the same way

AnyDVD HD ( http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvdhd.html ) will let you play fairly much any Blu-Ray disk, irrespective of HDMI requirements or region coding.

Re:You'd have to be mental....

[Dutch Gun]

I was just thinking the same thing... if they actually priced these things as "rentals" instead of pseudo-purchases, then I'd probably consider digital delivery. I may look into the Xbox's Netflix system. After all, who cares what happens to a rental? You just delete it when you need more room.

Or even better, make it a real product worth purchasing. I actually prefer to purchase movies I like, because then I can pull out an old movie from my library when I'm in the mood (and I often do). What's the incentive for me if I have to pay about the same price as I can order a physical disc from Amazon or (insert your online store of choice), while at the same time being locked to a game console? Give me the option to store my purchase on a custom-built media server (which I can backup myself), and you'd have yourself a new customer. I'll probably eventually rip my existing DVD library to do this anyhow. Why not do the planet (and hopefully my wallet in the process) a favor and skip the step of stamping digital bits onto metal and plastic and the cost of physically delivering it my doorstep?

I think the media corporations are so terrified of "piracy" that they are effectively pricing themselves out of any realistic market share in the digital realm. It's only going to be when someone breaks the mold and makes a crapload of money that they'll look into a better pricing and delivery scheme.

Re:You'd have to be mental....

[Anonymous Coward]

Back a few months, Sony sent out a press release, stating "Pricing for rental movies at launch ranges from $2.99 to $5.99, and pricing for purchased movies ranges from $9.99 to $14.99" I'd check the pricing on the video store, but the site requires Java to work at all.

They tout that you can copy these videos to your PSP, but that doesn't sound too hard to do yourself (check here for a more detailed how-to, if the first one sounded too easy =)

So pretty much, it's just like so many other video download sites that don't really offer much of a savings off of buying slightly discounted physical copies. And if you wait long enough, you're bound to find someone re-selling their physical copy for a fraction of retail (or download) price.

Re:You'd have to be mental....

[Chess Piece Face]

"I don't know what the prices are at the Sony Video Store - but if they are any substantial fraction of the cost of the physical media, then you should just buy the disc instead."

Season one of Afro Samurai = $9.95 ($1.99 * 5 episodes) on the PS store. A week after downloading it I saw the DVD at Best Buy for $14.99 ($20 on Blu-ray) and kicked myself for not doing better research.

10 years?

[samsonov]

I have had all three generations of PS boxes in less than ten years time. Seems a bit limiting... okay quite a bit.

How is this surprising?

[ivan256]

Look at the other services out there. Movies on the Xbox live service expire and disable themselves after two weeks (yes, I know, it's different for TV shows). With Netflix, you can't watch anymore after you stop paying the monthly fee.

This really isn't news. Media distribution companies are out of touch with how consumers want to purchase and use their products. We've known this forever. This article is just flamebait to get the PS3 and 360 fanboys at each other.

Re:How is this surprising?

[MooseMuffin]

Its news because not only is it DRM, but its poorly implemented. Steam and the 360 let you delete stuff you've bought and download it later. I can go to a friend's house, log in to my account on his xbox, and I'm able to download things I've bought.

The only reason this isn't really big news is because its something they can fix fairly easily.

Re:How is this surprising?

[Eg0Death]

I can't comment on the Xbox live service, but with Netflix you aren't BUYING a movie, you're paying to watch it (as part of the standard monthly fee). If you are not longer paying for the service, you can no longer view the Instant View movies. With this Sony service you're buying a digital-only copy that can't be moved and can only be downloaded one additional time.

Re:How is this surprising?

[ivan256]

Steam and the 360 let you delete stuff you've bought and download it later.

So does the PS3.... For everything but Movies. Which according the the Xbox live website is the same way it works on the 360. For movies.

Although at least Microsoft is kind enough to market them strictly as rentals.

Re:How is this surprising?

[dazedNconfuzed]

With Netflix, you can't watch anymore after you stop paying the monthly fee.

With Netflix, you know you're RENTING the movie, and have to give back (i.e.: lose access to, returning DVDs and stopping any streaming media) any material they've loaned you after you stop paying the monthly fee. While you _are_ paying your fee, you can hang onto the material (keep the DVD, play streaming media) and watch it on ANY platform you like.

This in contrast with Sony SELLING the movie, but you can only download it to a single device which you will most likely need to erase long before the product's 10-year lifespan is up. Also in contrast with buying the same content on physical media, which you keep indefinitely beyond Sony's control, and can watch on any player anywhere anytime.

Do we really have to spell this out?

Re:How is this surprising?

[MooseMuffin]

Heh, stop modding me up if what Ivan's reply says is true.

Re:How is this surprising?

[nschubach]

Games "purchased" from the PSN have a 5 download limit (unless they've changed it.)

Re:How is this surprising?

[CronoCloud]

It's unlimited downloads, but 5 PS3's can be authorized.

Re:How is this surprising?

[bilbravo]

Correct. Which also means that you can effectively buy a game and share it with 4 friends for the cost of one game download. Sony advertises this fact (not in commercials mind you, but it's been discussed on the Playstation blog, for example).

Re:How is this surprising?

[nschubach]

Ah, then I misread. I've actually been cool with just 5 downloads figuring it's in case you have a defective unit or something. I've purchased a few games on the PSN and shared with my brothers and parents [to try to get them excited about something other than the photo viewer ;) but it's not taking.]

Re:How is this surprising?

[CronoCloud]

They have no interest in the music or video abilities or the web browser? Maybe Linux would impress them. "Hey, look at me crop and print your photos on the PS3!"

Less value for my money

[Adrian Lopez]

I intend to avoid downloadable content until it's at least as flexible as physical media. I want the ability to move my copy of a movie from machine to machine, and to lend it, give it or sell it to somebody else once I'm done with it. A one-time download is a sucker's deal.

Re:Less value for my money

[oldspewey]

Agree

I like the idea of having music and video on a media server in the home, and I like the idea of having MP3s that I can load onto a player when I'm about to go on a long flight. But I want to rip (in the format of my choosing) that stuff from a shiny disc that I can physically hold in my hands and store in a box in my basement.

Re:Less value for my money

[Anonymous Coward]

And even then, with Sony's track record for updates toasting the system and requiring the drive be formatted, forget it. (They did it again with 2.42, but that never made Slashdot.) There's just no way I'm OK with one download for a PS3.

You, of course, can't backup these DRMed videos (or your DRMed save files!), so you're left with hoping that no PS3 update forces a reformat to restore functionality.

But hey, the updates are only forced if you intend to use the online components of the PS3, so if you never download anything, you won't have to worry about an update destroying your downloaded content.

Re:Less value for my money

[Anonymous Coward]

You, of course, can't backup these DRMed videos...

Wrong. If you're so worried about it, move the files to an external USB drive (yes, the PS3 provides the option) and backup the files off of that. It's not rocket science.

Re:Less value for my money

[VisceralLogic]

I intend to avoid downloadable content until it's at least as flexible as physical media.

Physical media isn't as flexible as you may believe... many CDs were snapped in half to bring us this information. :)

Re:Less value for my money

[magus_melchior]

Here's the rub: According to the "churn" business/service model, a sucker is born every minute. What about the hundreds of customers you piss off? Fuck 'em. Don't waste your money trying to keep or convince them.

I'm hoping Sony sticks to its old-school Japanese roots and not pursue the way of the sagi-shi (swindler).

Re:Less value for my money

[stor]

> I intend to avoid downloadable content until it's at least as flexible as physical media.

Pirated downloads are *really* flexible man! You can do whatever you like with them!

-Stor

Re:Oh my, is it? could it be? A frost post for lil

[theNetImp]

*yawn*

Nothing to see here...

So STUPID!

[SatanicPuppy]

No one learns anything from Valve/Steam. I was against Steam initially, but it's seductive because it's just so damn easy. All I have to do is log in, and it brings my games to me.

The lesson there to be learned is, if DRM makes your life easier, then people are more willing to put up with it. But if it makes your life harder? If it exists to screw you out of what you've already bought? Screw that.

Until the content providers remember that their supposed job is to provide CONTENT, then they're doomed to a declining market share and consumer antipathy.

Re:So STUPID!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was against Steam initially, but it's seductive because it's just so damn easy. All I have to do is log in, and it brings my games to me.

The nice thing with steam is that it is basically unlimited downloads/installs. Don't need to keep track of a disc or anything - just remember your username/password to Steam. You can even download the Steam client. And then all the games you've purchased on Steam are right there, ready to be (re)downloaded and (re)installed.

Very handy. It actually becomes more convenient, if you have a good Internet connection, to buy through Steam.

Of course there are lots of issues if you don't have working Internet...

Re:So STUPID!

[garnkelflax]

I agree completely on the seductive nature of Steam. I'm all for it now too, but I can see where my acceptance is balanced on a knife edge. The first time I am unable to reach my content I will be furious. But in Steam's/Valve's defense they have been very generous and supportive of their early purchasers. I originally purchased half life way back when, and once steam became a requirement all the other games like tfc, ricochet, blue shift, opposing force, and others immediately showed up in my games list. And then I purchased the retail boxed version of HL2 when it came out a few years ago. I recently purchased the orange box download through steam to get portal, episode 1, and episode 2. Since HL2 comes with the Orange box and I already had it, the interface presented the extra license as something I could gift, so I clicked the link to gift it to my son who also has a steam account. They could have just as easily made it a pain in the rear.

Re:So STUPID!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with Steam? I can play my games anywhere and I can let other people 'borrow' the games by just letting them use my login. I've never had any DRM issues with Steam.

Re:So STUPID!

[nine-times]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of DRM no matter what, but if you must have DRM, I think Steam is a pretty good model. As you mentioned, the DRM lets them makes it so they don't really have to worry about restricting downloads or copies. I broke down and bought the Orange Box on Steam, and it is kind of nice that I can have it installed on any machine I want, and be able to download it to additional machines at any time, the only restriction being that I have to sign in before I play it. That paired with assurances that they'll crack the DRM before they drop support or go under keeps me more or less satisfied.

On the other hand, I think part of the reason it works is because it's games. When I'm playing computer games, I'm generally in a relatively stationary situation. I usually use my desktop system, for example, rather than my laptop, because it has more power. Having to connect to Steam to play games might be a deal-breaker if I were in the habit of playing those games "on the go", or in places without internet access.

When it comes to music, and to a lesser degree movies, I do want access "on the go". So in some cases the Steam model might not work. But for my PS3, which sits in my living room all day long? Sure, why not?

Re:So STUPID!

[IndustrialComplex]

The ability to gift the games was a good feature, and if they implemented a method by which you could gift individual games (rather than your entire steam account) I would be 100% for Steam.

One thing that I greatly dislike regarding games is the publisher's insistance that you are purchasing a non-transferrable license. With physical media, there was little that they could do short of trying to limit installs by including phone-home code (which means I'd never purchase that game). So you could loan the disk to your friend so they could play the game for a bit. I know that I wouldn't have purchased the original HL had my friend not lent me his copy.

With downloaded games though, there seems to be this rule that they must be non-transferrable, and it is infuriating. Steam got away with it because they do provide a benefit to me (I've long since lost my original HL CDs), but if you could individually gift or loan games on their service, I'd be 100% behind them.

Re:So STUPID!

[supernova_hq]

Steam works just fine without internet. Just click "Play Offline" and it skips the login check. This works amazingly well on laptops when you are on the bus, in the car, etc.

Re:So STUPID!

[EvanED]

Exactly. I even own two licenses to Portal. (I bought Portal standalone, then decided I wanted HL2 Ep2 and bought the Orange Box at 50% off.)

And I can't freaking do anything with the second one. I know at least one person who I'd have liked to give a license to, and I can't. I even emailed Valve and see if they could make a one-time exception, and they refused.

I put up with Steam, and it has a lot of nice conveniences, but I still think it's inferior to physical CDs by a noticeable margin.

Re:So STUPID!

[RingDev]

Next question: When will Steam start selling music?

I mean, imagine if you could hop in your car in the morning, with a nano-ITX PC w/ WiFi, hit up steam and download a new play list that you picked out and paid for the night before. You head out of the drive way, switch over to offline mode and enjoy a new play list with out any of the hassles of ripping disks, transferring files, or anything, just a few push buttons and done. /joy

-Rick

Re:So STUPID!

[project-nova]

Exactly. Steam is DRM like it should be - Digital Rights, not Restrictions. I bought every single Half-Life game not only because I thought they were great and the devs deserver their money, but because it was so easy to buy it with just a few clicks. Since then I reinstalled Steam about 10 times and really got used to the comfort of installing a game (and playing it while it was still installing!) without ever touching my DVDs.

But even Valve had to make some mistakes in the progress to get it right - one of the main reasons many of my friends still think of Steam as a stupid software choked down their necks when they "just wanted to play Counter-Strike".
But then again, they bought Spore, Crysis: Warhead etc without complaining.
Why do companies that really fuck up (EA) get their Games sold while other companies that protect their IP in a much more acceptable way - even with benefits for the customer - have to justify their choice?

Screw that, I'm back to playing Warhead. Pirated, ofc. ;)

Re:So STUPID!

[garnkelflax]

It did let me gift my extra license of HL2 to my son. So you can gift individual games without giving your entire steam account. But I agree it would be nice if you could gift the things that you only have one license of as well. At least once. For instance, I'd never play blue shift again, but I'm sure my son would like to. But I suppose that would quickly turn into a situation where buyers would organize by cycling games back and forth. And I imagine there would be sites quickly popping up to help that happen.

Your thoughts on a loaning system are interesting. Maybe a system where the recipient account could be restricted to only so many loans, but if they never purchase any games from valve themselves they could be tagged as a sponge and no more loans could be made.

My opinions on drm change drastically based on who the company is and the quality of their stuff. Both of my kids have valve accounts. I also purchased 3 copies of Neverwinter Nights Diamond so I could play with them multiplayer, and they can play solo through the campaigns when they wish. I thought it was fair considering my perception of the game quality.

It would be nice if they could treat software like used book sales, but it would be hard to find a way to let someone down the road find a big green booger smashed between one of the pages. I often decide not to buy a used book because it is moldy or has someone's mucus all over it. But digital is digital.

Re:So STUPID!

[garnkelflax]

That seems strange to me. I wonder if the difference between your experience and mine is that I purchased the earlier products as off the shelf retail boxed versions rather than downloads through steam.

Re:So STUPID!

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> it's seductive because it's just so damn easy.

That's interesting. A month or two ago I bought a game for my PC (actually, MacBook booted in Windows). I haven't bought a PC game in about 5 years. I quickly discovered I hadn't actually bought the game. Even though it came with a big fat DVD, there appeared to be nothing on it apart from some tool to download the game. It took about 48 hours to download it, and then I discovered that I needed a network connection to play it. That's the last PC game I ever buy. Back to the DS and PSP for me. That was my second worst buying experience ever. (Second only to making the mistake of buying from Acer.)

(Note, I may have misguided expectations here. I've made no effort to track PC game culture in the last few years. Maybe I should have already known that bait-and-switch is commonplace in the PC gaming world. Maybe expecting to be able to go to a store, buy a game, take it home, and play it, is not appropriate nowadays. But console games seem to work fine.)

Re:So STUPID!

[nine-times]

Still, what if you didn't think ahead, or you have to reboot?

I'm not saying Steam isn't good, but it's not hard to imagine a circumstance where you could be denied access to you games for some period of time. I think it's worth noting that, for this sort of DRM control, it probably helps that people's game machines are generally more stationary than their audio equipment.

Re:So STUPID!

[SatanicPuppy]

Some are bad...SecuROM is absuively bad, and similar to what you describe.

But a lot of games with extensive add-ons have to talk to the internet a lot. If you buy WoW, you can just set up an account, add the keys, and download the entire game...This'll take a bit, even with their bittorrent interface.

Steam is basically the same thing applied to non-MMOs. You make a steam account, you attach your games to it, and anywhere you log in with that account, you can download and install your games. No more keeping up with keys or media. In a lot of ways, I think it's better than the traditional CD system, because of the whole media/keys issue, though obviously it's still inferior to pirating the game.

Still, I'd rather pay for the game, and if it's not abusive, I'm perfectly willing to do so.

Re:So STUPID!

[Chyeld]

That's odd because there is even an option to specificly purchase 'gift' games now. Have you tried recently?

Re:So STUPID!

[Chyeld]

Steampowered (Valve's website for Steam) is blocked at work, but I'm 90% certain that you can purchase indivual games and gift them without having to buy a copy for yourself first. You just have to specify that at the start.

From google's cache of "https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?p_faqid=549"

What is a Steam gift purchase?
When you purchase a game on Steam, we offer the option to "gift" the item to anyone you choose, whether or not the recipient is a current Steam user. The recipient will receive the gift as an attractive e-mail card with a personal message from you and instructions to redeem the game.

A Steam gift purchase is a one-time transfer--after the recipient has activated and installed the game, it is a non-refundable game in his or her Steam games collection. Also note that you may only gift new purchases--you may not transfer games you already own. That'd be like wrapping up and presenting the toaster you've used every morning for the past year.

How can I purchase Steam Gifts for a different Steam user?
To give a gift to a friend or family member, locate the game you would like to gift on the Steam Storefront and then click the "purchase" button. As you are reviewing your order, you will see a notice that asks "Is this a gift?". Click the check box next to "Yes, it's a gift" and hit "next".

Re:So STUPID!

[EvanED]

You have been able to purchase gifts for a while now, but you can't gift something that you have already used yourself. You also can't gift just part of the Orange Box (modulo if you already had a copy of HL2 or Episode 1).

This was about 5 or 6 months ago.

Re:So STUPID!

[EvanED]

Are you talking about HL2 and Episode 1? If so, that's because they did something special for those games. Portal wasn't released before the rest of the Orange Box, so people in my situation (buying the whole Orange Box when they already have Portal) is probably pretty rare. However, buying the Orange Box when you already own one or both of the earlier episodes may have been more common than not, and I guess Valve said "let's offer the chance to give it away."

(The same thing could have been done if you had gotten HL2 or Ep1 from Steam directly.)

Re:So STUPID!

[garnkelflax]

Good info. And unfortunate. Hopefully they get enough feedback on your situation and change the policy. I'm of the opinion that a license is a license down to each individual piece of the whole and should be transferable regardless.

Re:So STUPID!

[supernova_hq]

Actually, if you don't think ahead, and try to connect, it brings up an error along the lines of "Could Not Connect To Server" and actually asks if you would like to play offline instead! As for a reboot, I don't see how that is relevant. Your authorization is not tied to your running session, the offline mode simply runs (without internet connection) as the LAST user to have logged in.

The only time you would ever really run into a problem is if you tried to play online while in offline mode, which is pretty much the main place they are trying to prevent piracy (multiple people using the same account simulataniously). As for local-network-multiplayer, I don't remember the circumstances, you may need the Internet, but I can't remember exactly.

Re:So STUPID!

[nine-times]

So you're saying I can play my Steam games from a freshly-booted computer without ever connecting to the Internet? I didn't know that.

Re:So STUPID!

[drspliff]

I found Steam to be even better than pirating the games, if only for the statistics to show off and to keep track of friends & clan members (even when not playing online).

Re:So STUPID!

[supernova_hq]

Yes, you can do exactly that, in fact I used to do that with the original half-life all the time.

Re:So STUPID!

[dupont54]

That's for now. But as everything is on Valve's servers, they can change their mind at any time.
Remember the asian CD-Keys : one day they were perfectly working everywhere in the world. The day after, Vavle decided their prices in Asia were too cheap for Western countries : thus they retroactively enforced region-locking, rendering thousand of copies completly useless and letting their own customers handle the mess...
After all, their EULA explicitly says that they have the right to kill your access to their games at any time, for any reason, with no compensation whatsoever.
Though Steam may allow backup on CD, but I bet that once you install those backup on a different computer, it will require activation, which render the backup system almost useless.
Every download system based on "online activation" is a rental in disguise, no matter how lenient the rules seems.

Remember kids, digital downloads are the future!

[Xugumad]

DVDs are dying! Blu-Ray is going nowhere! Why would anyone buy a real physical disk when for almost as much money you could use your limited bandwith allowance downloading a copy which will last unti the hard drive, or the console dies. Oh, and you don't get the extras. Erm, and it's unclear what happens if something goes wrong with the download. Oh, yeah, and you can probably download about 10 before you have to delete one.

WTF?

Yup, this sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I love my PS3 for the games. But I have never bought even one movie from them (did buy an episode for $2 before I found out about this suck).
I guess its ok for rentals though. But for buying media, I would rather stick to good old DVD's or BD disks.

Yes, it's good enough.

[beaviz]

1 download ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Remember kids, digital downloads are the future

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be neat to purchase for example, the rights to movie content. You could either pay cheap for a limited disc, pay more for the movie over different mediums, or pay a much larger amount which would cover all media types, and potential special/director/ultimate editions down the road rather than paying more the same content over and over. Just seems like they want people to be repeat customers of the same downloads.

Pretty Insane DRM

[ExtremePopcorn]

But from their point of view, anyone can log in to your account if you give them your info and download the movie if they don't restrict it. Not that I'm saying it's okay to be this selective, but I'm just saying they overreacted at first and it'll probably get better. After all, games have 5 downloads, I think. A good solution would be for only one PlayStation 3 to have these movies at a time. I'm surprised Sony hasn't think of that yet, seeing as since they control the system they have a lot more control over it than PC movie download services.

Re:Pretty Insane DRM

[CronoCloud]

Games don't have only 5 downloads, it's unlimited. It's the number of PS3's they're authorized on that's limited to 5. For example, I can download Castlevania SOTN as much as I want, it's tied to my PSN identity. But I can only have it on 5 PS3's. (that may include PSP's too) So I could go to a friends house with a PS3 and download SOTN via my PSN identity and show it off, or if I had multiple PS3's (which I wish I did this one's hard drive is pretty much dedicated to Linux)

Their copyright should be toast

[rtfa-troll]

This is not okay even for rental. When you get a rental video, there's still a real physical video and often the video store ends up selling that off at discount. The most important thing about this is that they are breaking the trade which makes copyright acceptable. In return for their ability to restrict other people's right to copy they should be delivering works that people can keep forever. If they deliberately make that impossible they shouldn't have any right to control other people's copying.

Re:Their copyright should be toast

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

and often the video store ends up selling that off at discount.

.. We're not discussing that. We're discussing the fact that it *is* a rental, not the fact that the physical object get sold at a later point in time. Thanks for coming out, though.

Re:Their copyright should be toast

[rtfa-troll]

Well, everybody's allowed to discuss whatever you want, and don't let this post stop you from discussing the difficulties of geranium growing in the mountains of Afghanistan, but the grandparent and I are discussing whether it's "OK" if "they" "clearly mark this as a rental". I'm saying it's not "OK". Sony expects us to pay for protecting their business from unlicensed copying, but they aren't providing the social gains that are meant to be their part of the bargain. I guess if they made sure that all libraries had a non-restrictions managed version or something similar then it could be okay. I doubt they are doing that though.

Re:Their copyright should be toast

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, everybody's allowed to discuss whatever you want

Hello.

You must be new here.

Re:Their copyright should be toast

[timbck2]

So if you rent a video from Hastings, and you decide you want to rent the same video a year later, the rental should be free? Interesting.

Re:Their copyright should be toast

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

yes, so ... let us discuss the realities of renting a movie. You're talking about the entire rental business from end to end... Which is a different topic all together.

So, yeah... thanks for coming out, but next time get your argument in line with the discussion.

Re:Their copyright should be toast

[Smauler]

The point is not that people want stuff for free. If you think that you're either being deliberately obtuse or are ignorant. The point is the scope and extent of copyright, especially in regards to consumer "purchases" which are actually just licenses according to "the man". There has long been an argument by "intellectual property" owners that we, the consumer, are not actually buying anything when we purchase a CD or game (fortunately book publishers do completely admit that when you buy a book, you can do what you want with it). The trouble is, if you're buying a license to use said music or software for any period of time, you should know your fucking rights beforehand. This is absolutely impossible now for the end user with the licenses and EULAs etc. Legalese has made it impossible for end users to make informed choices about purchases - the reason everyone just clicks yes is because they simply do not have enough time on this earth to read everything they agree to. Any kind of restrictive license aimed at end users is inherently shit purely because end users will not read the terms.

Video and DVD rental is obviously different because everyone already knows the basic terms of the rental. However, unreasonable terms on DVD rental (like, for example only being able to play it on one machine) are not expected.

Also, finishing each snide question with interesting? Shit.

Sony is a media company and an electronics company

[dpilot]

Sony is one of the few companies that does both media and electronics. There have been many questioning which branch of the company has more clout, and speculation that it would all revolve around DRM.

It appears that those questions have been answered.

Way to go, Sony.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the first time in my life I've got the money to at least consider owning every console in the current generation... and I'm just not getting sold. Sure, Nintendo suing Lik-Sang annoys me, if not enough to stop me from owning a Wii. But Sony...

Sony has actually managed to fuck up having me buy Final Fantasy. Really! Good job! Way to go! I'm not going to reward that Blu-Ray DRM garbage, and that's all there is to it. No. Not even used. (By the time FF13 hits I've got no goddamn proof it would even WORK used. Maybe it'll be tied to some garbage online account, and I'll get to reregister the game at an amazing $5.99 discount off retail. Who knows!)

I can't buy a 360, either, just because I've got no faith the damn thing will live out the warranty.

So here I sit, playing Super Mario Galaxy and waiting on Disgaea DS. Maybe gen-8 will work out better?

Re:Way to go, Sony.

[CronoCloud]

There are no restrictions on Blu Ray game discs, at all. Buy all the used PS3 games you want. Buy all the Japan release only PS3 games you want.

SONY? With DRM?? NOOOOOO!!!!!

[mcgrew]

Sony would NEVER do anything like that!

Next you'll be telling me banks are acting irresponsibly and the government doesn't act in my interest!

1 Download OR ship out 1 DVD

[digitaldc]

Okay, one download is fine as long as they offer an alternative of shipping you one DVD.

Otherwise, you haven't really bought anything.

Yikes. Just this weekend I upgraded my PS3 drive.

[Dr. Manhattan]

I backed up everything to an old 10GB drive I had, and swapped out the drive. The restore failed - I got back a few non-DRM'd videos, and some game saves, but it lost network settings, the actual games (I'd better be able to re-download them, haven't tried yet), and the new 'Life With Playstation' thing. I haven't been tempted to download videos yet... and I probably won't, now. Certainly not until after I install Linux on it (one reason I bumped up the drive in the first place.)

TWO DOWNLOADS!

[doctor_no]

I know Slashdot has become another trash site filled with sensationalism, but get your facts right at least. This is essentially the same thing as iTunes.

Its even on the site you linked to:

"you have one download, one redownload, and that's it."

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080921-playstation-3-video-drm-two-strikes-and-youre-out.html

Re:TWO DOWNLOADS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except I can make a backup of my itunes music/videos and I can move it to another computer by transfering back to my computer. Not so with PS3.

Re:TWO DOWNLOADS!

[Carlosos]

But you can make a backup of your movie to any USB device and play it on the same console.

The article is very messed up. The title alone has 2 errors. First like "doctor no" said do they allow two downloads and second the download limit has nothing to do with DRM. The DRM only has the one device limit.

In my opinion should Sony bind the movie to your account so that any device that is logged in with that account can play the movie and they should add a redownload fee (or make it free) after the second download of my one dollar to cover the bandwidth cost.

Re:Xbox 360

[nine-times]

You mean because Microsoft has never had any issues with crappy DRM schemes?

Re:Treasury Bailout Package from the horse's mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention that the $700 billion isn't the final total, it is a line of credit. Paulson can buy $700 billion from anyone he likes for whatever price, then sell it to whomever he wants for whatever price. He can do this as many times as he wants. Its essentially an epic money laundering scheme.

His actions can not be pursued in court or investigated by any government entity.

Re:Xbox 360

[spire3661]

Whether you like or loathe sony, there is no denying the PS3 is an incredible piece of hardware. While its market positioning may not be the best (gaming console trying to be high end home theater jack of all trades), it is an outstandingly well engineered home entertainment device. Anyone that dares say its overpriced has no concept of value and cannot see the whole picture. Its high price is very well justified by its much broader level of functionality compared to the competition. Game politics aside, the machine itself is killer. Disclaimer: I own all 4 modern gaming systems, I regularly compare 360 to PS3 to PC on dual 24" 1980x1200 monitors, please save us some time dont attempt to undermine my credibility or call me a fanboy in this instance.

Simple Solution

[DaveV1.0]

Don't download movies from Sony.

No downloads means no profit which means Sony will rethink their policy.

Re:Simple Solution

[Stormwatch]

No downloads means no profit which means Sony will rethink their policy.

Sadly, the usual reaction is: z0mg teh evil pirates are stealing from us! Quick, let's buy some laws!

Re:Simple Solution

[CodeBuster]

No downloads means no profit which means Sony will rethink their policy.

And their conclusion will be: "Nobody is downloading our wonderful movie products because evil pirates are stealing them. Therefore, let us select x random customers (you filled out your registration cards right?) because all customers are pirates anyway, and sue them for copyright infringement settlements because each copy we find on their computers is equal to at least 1000 lost download sales".

Re:Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

NEWSFLASH

"SONY BLAMES PIRACY FOR POOR SALES ...Executives demand more excessive fines for consumers breaking DRM... demand futher extentions to the DCMA to make copyright laws more balanced {towards content providors}..."

Re:Simple Solution

[stpk4]

I think you should be more proactive and let sony know that their policy sucks, by not using their service (using typical uppermanagement thinking) they will be hesitant to try out new things, that in the end starve us from inovation. If you want things changed speak up, like a previous commenter said, when it hinders the enjoyment of the end user, they are not doing DRM properly

I was a sony fan

[Coraon]

I love the PS and the PS2...this is enough to get me to buy a Wii...congrats Sony you made one of your long time customers leave because your being stupid...keep it up.

Re:I was a sony fan

[Anonymous Coward]

...your being stupid...

LOL

Re:I was a sony fan

[bilbravo]

If this is the only reason you won't buy a PS3, that's pretty silly. I am a fan of the system, but honestly there have been plenty of other bigger reasons not to buy it (price, initial lack of games, etc).

This is not DRM

[mweather]

This isn't DRM. All this is is a limit on the number of times you can download the file. Even if the file had no DRM at all, you'd only be able to download it once. Get your terminology straight.

Re:This is not DRM

[GuldKalle]

Not being able to transfer your movies to another PS3 if your old one breaks down? Sounds like DRM to me.

Re:This is not DRM

[mweather]

I didn't say the file had no DRM. I said the download limit isn't DRM. If you were able to copy the file to another PS3, you'd still only be able to download it once.

Re:This is not DRM

[paniq]

You are right.

This is not DRM.

This is SPARTAAAAAAA!

Re:This is not DRM

[mcgrew]

This isn't DRM. All this is is a limit on the number of times you can download the file.

Sure it is. It's Dumb Restrictions on Media, which is what all DRM is.

Re:This is not DRM

[mweather]

This isn't a restriction on the media itself. It's a restriction on how you obtain the media. Is it DRM if the record store won't replace your scratched CD? No. Granted CDs cost more than bandwidth, but the principle is the same. It's shady, but it isn't DRM.

Re:This is not DRM

[syousef]

This isn't DRM. All this is is a limit on the number of times you can download the file. Even if the file had no DRM at all, you'd only be able to download it once. Get your terminology straight.

DRM = Digital Rights Management

You pay for a movie and secure the right to download it. This is a technological mechanism that limits your ability to access the movie you paid for. It is in every sense DRM. How about you get your terminology straight.

Re:This is not DRM

[cgenman]

DRM is an ecosystem, not a file format. Part of most people's DRM systems is that you're not allowed to move content between systems, but the vendor will through downloads and / or rights transferrence.

By not providing re-downloads and by extension transferrence between systems, Sony's DRM ecosystem suddenly becomes a lot more restrictive. The successful digital download DRM systems allow for some method to maintain your content indefinitely. With 5-year modern hard drive lives, this particular DRM system puts an explicit and short end-of-life on your files.

No surprise - its sony

[unity100]

they have tried to get away with anything including what they did with rootkits on cds and even swg screw up. If they are let to get away, they just do it.

Just stick with your PC

[Dan667]

Sony vendor lock-in so they can do this stuff at their whim? Forget it. I will never own a console, they are just an over priced bad deal.

Steam = DRM I can live with

[billlava]

I, too, was initially opposed to Steam. I can deal with it now, and can even appreciate some of its benefits. I first got a Steam account so I could keep on playing old CS and TFC many years ago. Now, on the same Steam account I play TF2, BioShock, CSS, DoDS, on a newer PC. I really like the fact that I can still download and play ALL the old Valve games I ever owned (right back to HL, Blue Shift, etc...) on any computer I have now, or will have in the future. Now THAT'S content management that doesn't jack you out of something you bought!

I just rented my first movie through the PSN Store

[HiVizDiver]

Yesterday I rented "The Usual Suspects" as an HD rental. It cost $4.50. I feel I got my money's worth, since it would have cost me at LEAST that in gas/time/rental price to go to the video store to rent it. It expires today at around 4:00 pm, after which I'll delete it (if it doesn't delete itself first). The rental is good for up to 14 days after you rent it, but once you play it the first time within that 14 day period, you can only play it within the next 24 hours after that. Just a heads up for anyone renting - they do tell you this before you click "Confirm" on the purchase, however, so I didn't feel "taken".

I will say, however, that this ONE download per purchased movie stuff is utter BS. Have they learned nothing from the Steam/Valve model?

But more damning, I think, is that the selection absolutely SUCKS. You could not cobble together a more random selection of (mostly) shitty movies/TV shows if you tried. It's really pathetic. There are some gems, but most of it is utter shit. I guess their target demographic are pubescent teens who think Wil Farrell is funny and "Step Brothers" should be on AFI's Top 100 list. There are a couple of Kubrick films (Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange) which add a heavy weighted value to the selection, but still...

Re:Oh my, is it? could it be? A frost post for lil

[Oktober Sunset]

This frosty seems to have melted and slid down the page 6 places.

Re:Xbox 360

[bri2000]

The 360 is just as bad. I recently bought an Elite to replace my failed and just out of warranty original Premium unit and discovered that you couldn't re-download purchased Live Arcade games or game add-on content so I'm still having to use my old 20GB HD with it while the 120GB drive which came with the Elite sits gathering dust in a drawer.

Re:Xbox 360

[Cheeko]

The perceived value is relative to what you want. I don't give 2 craps about Bluray or even downloadable video. I buy a gaming console for gaming, and possibly playing a DVD here and there.

With that said the PS3 is giant waste of money for me, because I'd be buying a ton of hardware I just don't need or want. Thats not value for me.

Value is a reasonable price for a device the matches the feature set I want as closely as possible. I'm not interested in shelling out more money for something I'll never use, even if that extra feature is cheep for the additional cost. Its still more money.

One download's enough for me

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I buy a DVD, and for whatever reason, I decide I don't have room for it in my collection and throw it away, I should be entitled to a free replacement disk from wherever I bought it if I decide I want it back? Only a retard would erase a file and assume it would be available again for free. It's insanely easy to back-up your PS3 hard drive.

Re:One download's enough for me

[mweather]

I've backed up my drive, but have not had need to restore any backups as of yet. If I fill up my drive with movies, then back it up, and delete them, can I restore just one movie from that backup, or will it overwrite everything I put on my drive since the last backup?

Good

[frovingslosh]

If people pay money to support DRM products, this is exactly what they deserve. Maybe if enough people pay enough for this kind of low quality junk and then the DRM gods take it away from them, they will finally learn to not buy into the scheme. As long as the studios can see a revenue stream from this kind of crippled product they are not likely to deal with their customers on a more reasonable basis. So "hats of to Sony" for trying to help show the consumer just how bad DRM can be if you buy into it.

Re:Yikes. Just this weekend I upgraded my PS3 driv

[dannycim]

I upgraded my PS3 drive from 80 to 120, then 160, then 320 just the other day. Every time the backup & restore process restored everything; game saves, game data, images, songs, videos, and system settings, including network. The only thing it didn't copy (and I didn't expect it to) was the "Other OS" (Linux), but that's a quick re-install anyway.

Re:Xbox 360

[not already in use]

You're exactly right. The PS3 is an amazing piece of hardware... for running folding@home and playing BluRays. Too bad it doesn't fare so well in the gaming department. Beside the fact that it has not proven to be technically superior in the sense that it has more impressive games than the Xbox 360, the controller is antiquated. The head of their ergonomics department should be fired. Microsoft got it right with the offset thumbsticks.

Who cares!

[houbou]

Seriously, not to be flamebait, but I have a Wii, and I can download.. uh.. wait.. GAMES!! and, the beauty is, if I delete it, I can download it again, for free, anytime, as long as it is on my console only.

That's the type of DRM I can live with. I mean, sure I wish I could load up my SD card and bring it to my friend's place who also has a Wii, but hey, you know, let's face it, I understand Why Nintendo stops me from going on with my SD card from machine to machine, and it's ok.

Now I don't get to play movies on my Wii.. boo hoo.. like I care, that's why I have a DVD player anyways. Beside, if the Wii ever went defective and it was my sole means of watching a movie, I would be in effect pretty damn bored!

Now, The PS3 let's you download movies only 1 time. That's Gestapo like DRM for you uh? :)

But who would want to download a movie for the PS3 anyways? especially with that type of DRM?

Better off buying a program like AnyDVD-HD which also support Blue-Ray and simply rent a movie and make a copy if you wish it.

DRM makes people's life a living hell, it's why it's not working.

Re:Who cares!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you can live with the Wii DRM, but I certainly can't. My Wii is acting up now, having bought it a few years back, and the games I downloaded to it cost about $12.00 each.

That's $12.00 for Punchout, Mario 2 and 3, etc.

Or I can play the roms free on my pc.

I will not be replacing the Wii when it dies, none of the games I bought for it will be there.

Re:Who cares!

[pandrijeczko]

That's the type of DRM I can live with. I mean, sure I wish I could load up my SD card and bring it to my friend's place who also has a Wii, but hey, you know, let's face it, I understand Why Nintendo stops me from going on with my SD card from machine to machine, and it's ok.

I don't understand why anyone would see this as being okay.

If you buy a music CD, you can take it over to a friend's house to listen to. Or a board game to play over at a friend's house. Or a bottle of wine to uncork and drink at a friend's house...

Are people *really* starting to become so allied to brands of products that they are prepared to put up with more restrictive usage rights just because they can proudly display a "Nintendo", "Apple" or "Sony" logo?

There may be a degree of difference between the way Sony implements DRM from the way Nintendo does it - but the fact is that it *all* smells of clever marketing to get DRM in through the back door by playing on the needs of a lot of people to feel like they belong to an exclusive little club.

Re:Who cares!

[houbou]

Actually, since you are a registered member of Nintendo (being able to purchase online and/or having a Wii anyways), say your Wii dies and you buy a new one, you can get all your games transfered, I'm pretty sure of that. Prove ownership of the old one and they will more than likely remap your account to the new Wii, meaning download for free.

You should check it out now, while it's acting up but still playing. Seriously, I'm sure you can transfer your rights.

Call them!

please contact Nintendo's Consumer Service Department by calling 1-800-255-3700. Representatives are available to speak to you between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Pacific Time, seven days a week.

Re:Who cares!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really get the problem. Compare it to physical media, are you entitled to a free replacement when you lose/toss/damage a disk?

How does the digital equivalent differ?

But who would want to download a movie for the PS3 anyways?

People who use it as a less-expensive Blu-Ray player?

especially with that type of DRM?

What, do you expect a video rental store to give you free rentals of stuff you've already rented? All they''re really doing is making the digital stuff work more like the physical stuff. Just because copying is easy, doesn't mean you're entitled to free copies.

Re:Who cares!

[Super_Z]

Seriously, not to be flamebait, but I have a Wii, and I can download.. uh.. wait.. GAMES!! and, the beauty is, if I delete it, I can download it again, for free, anytime, as long as it is on my console only.

The PSN offers the exact same functionality.

Re:Who cares!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, actually you can play movies with your wii. Just check the growing homebrew scene at http://www.wiibrew.org. You also can copy your Games to an SD. So thanks to the homebrew scene I own it and I control it.

Re:Who cares!

[stpk4]

Well copying a rental would be piracy which is kinda illegal. I think DRM is in its infancy and its having its bubble(like the internet) all the companies are jumping on it, wait long enough there will be the bubble burst and only the good DRM (Steam is a good example) will be around.

Lesson in property

[Rinisari]

If you don't control it, you don't own it.

Re:Lesson in property

[CodeBuster]

"He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing" - Paul Atreides

Strange

[Is0m0rph]

The same company that lets users share their DLC with 5 other machines (for example 1 person buys Rock Band DLC and it can be downloaded to 5 other PS3s) restricts videos to 1 download. Makes sense.

Re:Strange

[CronoCloud]

Not strange at all, SCEfoo and Sony BMG have different ideas about things. Sometimes SCEfoo gets their way and we get Linux on the PS2/PS3 and AAC + MP3 on the PSP and not just ATRAC. Sometimes Sony BMG gets their way and we get overpriced UMD's and limited movie downloads. I love SCEfoo, but Sony BMG annoys me.

Re:Remember kids, digital downloads are the future

[oGMo]

Blu-Ray is going nowhere!

If by "going nowhere" you mean "constantly getting new releases of everything, from remastered old videos to digitally-filmed new releases," then yes, Blu-Ray is "going nowhere". Personally I don't buy anything now unless it's BD. Anything less than HD looks like crap now.

(Hint: just because you don't have a player or never look for new content doesn't mean it doesn't exist, anymore than putting your hands over your eyes makes something go away.)

It's one more battle in the Sony Civil War

[mr_mischief]

The hardware and software folks want you to be able to do cool stuff. The content and media portion of the company wants to make extra sure you're not doing it with their stuff. Until Sony's supper-level management tells the content people to STFU, the hardware and software folks at Sony have no choice.

Re:Yikes. Just this weekend I upgraded my PS3 driv

[Dr. Manhattan]

Every time the backup & restore process restored everything

I'm not blaming Sony particularly, but I hadn't had problems with that hard drive before. Now, if I upgrade again, I'm going to need to make two backups, and hope at least one of them works.

If it wasn't copy-protected you could transfer it

[argent]

Even if the file had no DRM at all, you'd only be able to download it once.

If the file had no "copy protection" you could transfer it to your PS4 when you dump your PS3, and then to your PS5 when you dump your PS4... even if you watched it on your PSP and your Playstation Wearable and Playstation Implant. Instead, look at these restrictions on backing up and restoring copy protected media:

If you perform any of the following operations after backing up, copyright-protected video files in the backup data may not restore correctly.
- Format the hard disk
- Restore the PS3(TM) system
- Move copyright-protected video
- Download copyright-protected video
- Play copyright-protected video that has a time restriction for the first time.

The types of data that can be restored on another system are as follows:
[...]
- Video files under (Video) *2
[...]
*2 Does not include copyright-protected data.

What kind of backup is it that you can't restore if you replace the system you backed up?

I can only download videos from the iTunes store once, but once I download them I can back them up and copy them and play them on up to 5 concurrently activated computers... and deactivate a computer and activate a new one when I need to. And even THAT level of "copy protection" is annoying enough that I haven't bothered with it after buying several episodes of Eureka I'd missed.

DRM-protected Windows Media videos have similar or stronger restrictions, but even those aren't as bad as Sony's.

Business as usual.

[Sasayaki]

10 DRM product launches.
20
30 Legitimate users are punished while technical
40 users quickly bypass the protections without a
50 second thought. Sales suddenly decline and the
60 latter are blamed for it.
70
80 Harsher restrictions are dreamed up to safeguard
90 the former against the skills of the latter...
100
110 GOTO 10

Re:Business as usual.

[dorix]

?SYNTAX  ERROR IN 10
READY.

Why watch video (let alone go online) on your PS3?

[doas777]

Why do we want everything to be our PC these days? Personally I don;t want every device I own connected and online. just doesn't seem like a good idea.

Re:Xbox 360

[pixelate]

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/support/systemuse/xbox360/licensemigration/

one-time courtesy

[nurb432]

Makes it an easy decision NOT to use their service with that attitude.

No, no, a thousand times no!

[Puffy Director Pants]

Wait, I only get to say it the once?

Feel like?

[nurb432]

No, it really is that way.

DRM on downloadable games is broken too

[daggre]

I made the mistake of buying Warhawk online instead of retail. The problem is that my user account on the system is the only one tied to my PSN network login (of course) so if my kids log into their PS3 accounts, they can't even start the game. That means that they need to log on as me whenever they want to play, even offline. XBox Live has a better system for DRM - purchases are tied to the serial number of the device that purchased them, ALONG WITH the userID of the purchaser, so the purchaser can go to a different device (friends house, replacement system) and as long as they're logged in still access the content, or anyone who's on the same system that originally made the purchase can access the content WITHOUT LOGGING IN TO XBOX LIVE. This is a huge oversight on Sony's part and I really hope they fix it. For families with more than one game player it will never be acceptable to tell each member of the family to purchase the same game if they want to play it. They are shooting themselves in the foot with their own DRM for DLC.

Re:DRM on downloadable games is broken too

[mweather]

I'd rather it be tied to an account than to a device, especially if the device has a high failure rate. But I bought the Warhawk disk so I can resell it.

Re:DRM on downloadable games is broken too

[CronoCloud]

That's funny, if you download the game with your master account any user should be able to play it. That's how it works. Did you create a second user account for yourself besides the master account? Also you might want to check the Parental Controls, that in itself could prevent others from playing it.

Re:DRM on downloadable games is broken too

[cgenman]

For the record, Microsoft recently added a tool to transfer licenses between system serial numbers. This was a major issue with their DRM early on (especially with all the system failures), and it is nice to see it being addressed.

Hopefully Sony didn't tie their hands with licensing, and can make some similar improvements of their own.

Re:DRM on downloadable games is broken too

[Yeef]

Warhawk also keeps you from playing the same 'key' on 2 different consoles in a 24 hours period.

Just to be clear, Warhawk is the only downloadable game with such restrictive DRM on PSN. All of the other games are pretty loose when it comes to DRM. You can play them on any account on the system and even download them on up to 4 other systems. A lot of people take advantage of that fact to share games amongst their circle of friends.

I think the reason Warhawk does it the way it does is because it was one of the first 'full' games up on PSN while also being available through retail. I believe they're putting Burnout Paradise up for download on Thursday, so we'll see if the ultra-restrictive DRM is a mandated thing or just a bad decision by the publisher (Sony, in this case).

quit whining, people

[j1mmy]

i don't buy groceries and expect to use them more than once

Re:quit whining, people

[pant]

Yes, you do. Do you buy a box of cereal and eat one bowl? Do you buy a carton of milk and drink one glass? Do you buy toilet paper and wipe just once?.............. No

Sympathy for Sony?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a lot of sympathy for Sony and the PS3: they're the underdog in the console battle with Microsoft, and I like the hardware much better.

However, this story reminded me that even when they've taken a good beating, the old corporate DNA will never change.

This is the same company that does the rootkits and tries at every opportunity to lock you into inferior, expensive proprietary standards.

This is just another example of disdain for the customer, assuming they were even thinking about a customer when they were designing this.

At least Microsoft satisfies customer desires when they are trying to extinguish the competition.

Bigger problem

[dilvish_the_damned]

Well, maybe not a bigger problem for most people, but for me my biggest complaint is lack of surround sound for movies. Until this is fixed, all other problems are secondary since I do not like paying higher prices for inferior products.

Sony = Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

After the Sony/BMG civil lawsuit from 2005, I'm surprised that anyone purchases anything made by Sony. When you purchase something that is defective by design, and find out it's broken, well, that's by design.

It won't take long for someone to figure out how to "unbrick" a PS3 movie. There can't really be that many combinations of keys anyways. It is probably something along the lines of a unique key+serial number ran through a SHA512 algorithm.

Re:Xbox 360

[bri2000]

Thanks.

More like

[TheAxeMaster]

If your DVD player stops working, do you expect that your DVDs will work in another DVD player? Yes you do.

If the download is priced and sold as a rental then limiting it to one machine with a single re-download is reasonable. If they sold you a video (like paying $15 for a DVD download) you should be able to keep that as long as you want and play it wherever you want.

Misleading headline.

[gravis777]

This seems to be just for video rentals and purchases. Movie rentals annoyingly stay on your HD, even after the rental period is over - you have to manually delete them. I am assuming though if you rent the movie again in the future, it will let you have another download, or just reactivate it on the HD if you already have it downloaded. Have not really tried - $4.50 for a 24 hour download just seemed really high, and I only tried it to see one movie that they have yet to release on Blu-Ray.

The article makes it clear that this is just for movie purchaces. I have yet to make any, as HD stuff is only available for rental.

Trailers and gameplay videos seem to allow you unlimited downloads.

I have had one PS3 brick on me with the 2.42 firmware, and the one they replaced it with is starting to go out, and it looks like I may be replacing it as well before too long. However, GAMES and add-ons I have purchased seem to have let me have more than 2 downloads, as I keep so much on my PS3 I delete whatever I am not playing at the time, and redownload when I want to play again. Has always worked quite well.

Video downloads will never really take off

[jamyskis]

This is a key example of why downloads will continue to be a niche product and will probably not replace physical media for at least the next couple of decades. Content providers are refusing to release their media without strict DRM controls, and customers are refusing to "purchase" this media at purchase price when it is technically a rental.

Even five years after music downloads have entered the market, they are still a niche market, covering less than 20% in the US and even less here in Europe, even though most people listen to their music on MP3 players (ripped from CD or downloaded illegally, of course - most people I know do the former). The record labels are finally being forced to give way because they know that DRM encumbered music does not sell anywhere near as well as they would like it to).

I personally will never pay for a video or music download with DRM controls - knowing that I am limited in where I can watch or listen to the media, I would much rather pay a much smaller rental fee for a DVD. I tried download rentals once, and I was not at all enthusiastic about the quality of the video either.

Your Limit is...

[Nom du Keyboard]

So your limit of purchases is your PS3 hard drive capacity. How wise is that?

Thanks for the warning.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, thanks for the warning Ars. I guess I won't be purchasing any PS3 videos... but then why the fuck would I even do that when I can download anything free of DRM off the internet?

These people need to get the fuck with the programme.

Re:Why watch video (let alone go online) on your P

[Killjoy_NL]

Because not every pc is hooked up to a giant HD lcd screen.

Re:Why watch video (let alone go online) on your P

[mweather]

Then don't put it online. I still want my media to be transferable among the various devices I own, and tcp/ip seems to be the easiest way to go about it. Being able to transfer to a device not currently attacked to my home network is a nice bonus of putting it online, though.

Re:Remember kids, digital downloads are the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Blu-Ray is going nowhere!

If by "going nowhere" you mean "constantly getting new releases of everything, from remastered old videos to digitally-filmed new releases," then yes, Blu-Ray is "going nowhere". Personally I don't buy anything now unless it's BD. Anything less than HD looks like crap now.

(Hint: just because you don't have a player or never look for new content doesn't mean it doesn't exist, anymore than putting your hands over your eyes makes something go away.)

Your sarcasm meter is broken. Please perform the necessary adjustments and read the parent post again carefully.

Remember to have your meter checked every 15,000 miles!

Re:Xbox 360

[Lord Apathy]

You mean because Microsoft has never had any issues with crappy DRM schemes?

No, because it's not a fucking sony.

Oh.. Troll -1. Looks like my original post pissed off a few Sony fanboys.

Retarded Sony Management Strike Again

[hattig]

This is absolutely ridiculous!

The only valid reason for such restrictive DRM and rights (it's just "rental for the life of your hardware or until you run out of space" - thank god it's not a 360 I guess) is to put people off the idea of digital downloads.

Apple have shown that DRM can be applied in a light manner that works for most people. Stick it on up to 5 computers, deauthorise computers in order to authorise others, back up the media. There is simply no excuse to implement anything less.

Call it a rental. Charge rental prices. Delete it after 30 days. Fine.
Call it a sale, charge full price, and then limit how you use it? No. No fracking way.

Re:Xbox 360

[Lord Apathy]

It maybe an incredible piece of hardware alright but to bad no one ever though that it might do to much. A fiend of mine compared the PS3 to a computer. Every time he wanted to load a game on it, it had to go out and get patches. He says because of that he only plays his Xbox now. The sony is a BR player and that is it.

I don't want a jack of all trades, or a game console trying to be a high end home theater. I want a game machine. I want to put in a game an play it with out it having to connect to the internet to see if it legal or if there are any patches.

Wait a sec

[polyp2000]

Admittedly this is a bit shit. But before the Sony Bashers kick of - Remember Apple, EA , Microsoft and many others are also guilty of restrictive DRM.

Thankfully there is this thing called BitTorrent :)

N.

And that is exactly why

[greymond]

I will never use their playstation store to buy anything. The one thing I do download are the game demos. Otherwise, all my tv shows and movies are downloaded, copied over via El Gato and shown on my TV for free...

Re:Remember kids, digital downloads are the future

[Xugumad]

The basic theory is sound, the business models right now are a nonsense though. Until multi-terabyte drives become common enough that I can download movies and not even think about the disk usage, they're generally going to be not worth the hassle to keep.

To rent may work, but I haven't actually seen anywhere that will give me a rental for a film (which is odd, in retrospect, I'm sure I've heard of places that were going to offer it). Even then, tying up my Internet connection while it downloads isn't going to make me all that happy.

Mostly what I'm really getting at is that all the people standing around saying "Oh, the PS4 won't have a drive, why would it when you can download everything" are deeply out of touch with the reality of the situation.

Anybody surprised?

[HerculesMO]

You'd think that with the BluRay+ features, that people would have a hint?

You'd think that with the rootkit fiasco, people would get a clue?

You'd think with the ATRAC format, and the way Sony MP3 players behaved in 'converting' ALL YOUR MUSIC, that it would be an iota of a hint...

Nope. We are all just idiots and want "bluray". It's exactly why I supported HD-DVD at the time. You reap what you sow.

Either way, I've been boycotting Sony on all fronts until their ways change.

Re:Xbox 360

[Dr_Barnowl]

I'm tempted by a Sony Reader, it would be perfect for me on the train.

This is a point against it.

Fair Use as a requirement of copyright protection?

[mlwmohawk]

I think for the full weight of the law to protect copyright, an original work must be provided in such a way that the right of first sale exists and/or "fair use" is preserved.

If neither of these exists, then the "IP" will not be protected by copyright.

Does anyone want to start a political movement?

Sony

[Skatox]

This is so Sony!! when they'll learn that DRM sucks!?

The solution is obvious

[David Gerard]

The GNUstation! Displays to an 80x24 ASCII screen and is programmed in eLisp macros.

Fuck that

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing else really needs to be said...

Valve Steam

[slimjim8094]

It's not that hard. Steam is value-added DRM - which means the impetus to crack it is low. I've had pirated Half-Life, Half-Life 2 and Ep. 1, but Steam was easier than managing that (well, that and the games were worth every penny)

Steam has seen me through 3 computers and 8 OS reinstalls. I double-click a game and come back when it's 60% downloaded, and play it. That's worth money to me, even if it is stuck in my account and linked to their servers.

I don't see what's so hard about re-implementing Steam, aside from the fact that it doesn't allow the producer to double-dip (sell you a license when you try to copy it, but change it to a product when it breaks)

And I fear that's the crux of this whole thing - they're hoping that people will just re-buy.

Good idea

[alienpeach]

Yes, this is a good idea--no, not just good. This is a great idea. DRM is awesome!

Re:I just rented my first movie through the PSN St

[93 Escort Wagon]

But more damning, I think, is that the selection absolutely SUCKS. You could not cobble together a more random selection of (mostly) shitty movies/TV shows if you tried. It's really pathetic. There are some gems, but most of it is utter shit. I guess their target demographic are pubescent teens who think Wil Farrell is funny and "Step Brothers" should be on AFI's Top 100 list. There are a couple of Kubrick films (Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange) which add a heavy weighted value to the selection, but still...

This seems to be the case for ALL of the online movie renters/sellers (Apple TV, Amazon Unbox, etc.). That, and the fact that this 24-hours-and-it's-gone rule is everywhere, leads me to believe it's the content providers that are the choke point. They WANT the digital model to fail, and are "cutting off their nose to spite their face", as my grandma used to say.

The MPAA (as well as the RIAA) really behave like little kids much of the time. Apparently somehow they believe that if they just keep wishing hard enough, this whole digital revolution will go away...

Re:I just rented my first movie through the PSN St

[Chess Piece Face]

The selection isn't random - it's restricted to mostly Sony-owned/distributed material. Until they get other studios involved the pickings won't be good.

Next thing is DRM Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Beat the game once and that's it, you have to buy it again!

Only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Till someone pulls the HDD out of a PS3, mounts it in Linux and works out how to transcode/remove the DRM...

Re:I just rented my first movie through the PSN St

[HiVizDiver]

Good point, I hadn't considered that. Makes sense.

Nah

[HalAtWork]

Not only can't you bring games over to a friends', you can't lend games, you can't sell them used, and if Nintendo's service changes or is discontinued, there go your unlimited downloads! When the next consoles come out, you'll be stuck keeping your Wii attached to the TV, because they definitely won't allow you to transfer all your VC and WiiWare games to the next system, then you'd be able to have them on two!

Re:Remember kids, digital downloads are the future

[TheQuantumShift]

Almost as much?

Rent a blu-ray from blockbuster: $3.80 (5 or 7 days, unlimited viewing)

Rent an HD movie from the sony store: $5.99 (2 week "rental", but the second you press play you have the "24" clock counting down until the fucker explodes) + agonizing ~7GB download that counts towards my "new" cap (thanks comcast).

If my net connection was in the Multi MB/sec range with no cap, and the downloads cost $3.99, I might pay the extra $0.19...

I know I won't ever "buy" any media that is strictly associated with a piece of hardware. What happens when my ps3 dies and I don't bother to replace it? Although, give me the opportunity to buy the dvd/cd/bd/whatever using the store, download the digital copy immediately and ship the physical disc the next day...

Nah, they'd add a $24.99 shipping and handling fee on the disc.

Hardware/Media vendors = conflict of interests

[newgalactic]

Hardware/Software vendors = conflict of interests Apple = iTunes that makes transfer of media very difficult Sony = Movie downloads, BlueRay DRM Stick with hardware vendors who only sell hardware. Avoid ones that also sell media if you don't want your media restricted.

For PS3 Owners - Backed up movies

[Saint_Waldo]

A single point of anecdotal data:

I recently upgraded my 60GB HD to a 350GB HD. Before I removed the 60GB, I performed a backup to a 500GB USB HD. The backup files were 4.5 GB each, perfect for spanning across DVDs. I had 3 movies and ~20 1 hour TV episodes, all in SD. The whole backup folder was about 30GB and the process took roughly 2 hours to complete. After install and format, the restore took about 1 hour and 45 minutes. At the end, all my movies, SingStar songs, and other DLC were perfectly restored.

YMMV, but movies are supposed to survive a successful backup and restore on the same system.

People who say, 'quit whining', fail to think.

[Fantastic Lad]

i don't buy groceries and expect to use them more than once

Muffins aren't digital.

Every muffin you eat and want to replace means the farmers and bakers and shipping people need to get busy, and need to be paid for their efforts. A media company, however, doesn't have to invest in more worker hours or physical resources to give you another identical Mickey Mouse. So why should they be paid an equivalent amount for a digital duplicate?

Only one reason. Because people like you have been duped into thinking that Muffins and Mickeys are the same thing. They're not.

-FL

Re:Xbox 360

[Lord Apathy]

Save you some money and get you a Palm TX. They are only 199 if you shop around and do so much more than a sony reader.

Re:Xbox 360

[CronoCloud]

A fiend of mine compared the PS3 to a computer.

That's because it can be.

Every time he wanted to load a game on it, it had to go out and get patches.

Has to be an exaggeration it does go out and get patches. but doesn't happen often. In the past PC gamers condemned consoles because the games couldn't be patched, and now people are complaining that they can.

I want a game machine. I want to put in a game an play it with out it having to connect to the internet to see if it legal or if there are any patches.

It doesn't "have" to connect to the internet. You can play all the non-online games you want without a net connection.

I can re-download PSN purchased games.

[Dr. Manhattan]

The restore failed... it lost... the actual games (I'd better be able to re-download them

I only bought a couple for the kids - flOw and Monsters, but I'm re-downloading them now, no fuss. So, that's a relief.

Duh... more hard drive sales

[Anonymous Coward]

They want you to have to switch around hard drives when you want to access old data. So once you fill up... you go buy another hard drive.

But but..

[OrangeTide]

How can this be? Sony is an industry leader in DRM. Oh wait, DRM is bad so being the best makes your the worst.

Re:Remember kids, digital downloads are the future

[Auckerman]

I had this conversation recently. My best friend of over a decade was talking about how he uses Pirate Bay for all his movies. Not but 30 minutes later, I was talking about how Blue-ray was going to fail using the standard points you've read a thousand times over and downloads was the future. "Blue-ray will just be forced on us and DVD will be taken off the shelves, we don't have a choice", he tells me.

Problem with that is downloads is already winning, via piracy. The demand is real and unavoidable and the studios need to figure out a way to make downloads as easy to use as the Pirate Bay. I used to download single music tracks via illegal services, then the iTunes store opened and let me burn the music to CD at a guaranteed price and quality. I haven't bought a CD since, nor have I downloaded a single track from an illegal service. I burn my music to CD now and put it on the shelf as back up. If I could download a compressed movie as an ISO that could be burned an unlimited number times to something that was cheap (like say a DVD) and it would work with something I could buy anywhere from multiple venders, I would NEVER walk into another store again to buy a DVD or Blue-ray.

Re:Yikes. Just this weekend I upgraded my PS3 driv

[stpk4]

its interesting considering the games, the almost promote sharing, by allowing you to share your content with 3 other consoles, maybe its my misunderstanding but why would they be so awesome with it on the games front but be so uptight with it on the movie front, I think the MPAA and sony enteretainment division have a hand in this = (

Seems reasonable to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone else is doing the same (funny only Sony gets attacked by the mad dogs here..)

Itunes, only allowed to sync to one iPod
Xbox Video marketplace, locked to single console.

It seems Sony have locked it to the CONSOLE, not the HARD DRIVE. Therefore you can install a new bigger HDD, and redownload the movie without issue.

This seems like a MASSIVE fail on Slashdot's part. You lot used to be able to distinquish between fanboy nonsense and REAL news, what happened????

Never more

[woboyle]

Another reason why I will never willingly purchase anything from Sony, ever again. They lost me forever with the CD root-kit fiasco, and all this just confirms that the company has no honor...

what kind of logic?

[Anonymous Coward]

How stupid are they, or rather, how stupid do they think I am???

There are like 10 ways to handle this problem...

1. Online Account that validates weather the user has access/rights to the file. You can even follow a Napster like approach and loosen restrictions so that you just have to log in every once in a while to update the DRM for the file.

2. Lock the file to the processor or some other unique ID built into the system.

I thought downloads were the future.

[Otis2222222]

I keep hearing about how physical media (CD, DVD, Blu-Ray) are dead technologies and that the future will be downloads. As long as problems like this keep presenting themselves, I don't see how that will happen. Without any meaningful "first sale" rights or license to redownload, why on earth would a person want to lock themselves into the mercy of a fallible hard drive, which WILL eventually fail (much sooner than a well-cared-for removable media like a DVD), taking your entire collection of movies, music, games, etc. with it.

Until this problem is solved, I don't see how downloads are going to be the future. The content industry sure doesn't seem to keen on solving it either, so my guess is that physical media is going to stay alive and well for the foreseeable future.