Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Wants Filmmakers To Pay Licenses, Not Rip Blu-rays (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Late last year several filmmaker groups asked the US Copyright Office to lift some of the current DMCA circumvention restrictions, so they can rip and use clips from Blu-rays and other videos without repercussions. In the US, people risk bypassing DMCA's anti-circumvention when they rip a DVD or Blu-ray disc. (There are some exemptions, such as educational and other types of fair use, but the line between legal and illegal is not always clear, some argue.) Not everyone agrees with this assessment though. A group of "joint creators and copyright owners" which includes Hollywood's MPAA, the RIAA, and ESA don't think this is a good idea and point out that filmmakers have plenty of other options. The MPAA and the other groups point out that the exemption could be used by filmmakers to avoid paying licensing fees, which can be quite expensive.
...News at 11.
But why do film makers need to lift so much footage from other films? Does this happen a lot outside of stock footage situations? Documentaries sure but there's an exemption for that it seems.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Why does the European Space Agency have something to say on this matter?
I'm a little shocked, shocked! the film makers want to be exempted from copyright they rely on to derive revenue from their work, so they can apparently use other film makers' work for free.
Why could this be wrong? Well, first, fair use is the proper exemption. Of course it could apply, unless of course there is profit involved. I'm guessing they want to use clips in place of stock footage, or perhaps real world event clips to fit plot, or even steal outright clever stuff.
Let them eat cake.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I really hate hipster idiots that think they're so cool. You're not as witty as you think you are.
I'll rip whatever the fuck I want from discs I own. It's none of anyone else's business and they can go fuck themselves.
Just use a webcam pointed at a TV. For the quality of most stuff out there, even a 640x480 webcam will do. Crap is still crap, even at Blu-Ray resolution.
Settle down hitler
I weep with personal shame at your tolerant observation of my mentality. Here, take my prized toilet plunger handle and place it where the sun does not shine on you. I know it will make an excellent replacement for you brittle spine.
What's Blue-ray? Is it like a DVD from the 1990s? I don't think those ever took off if so. Or maybe the playstation had it or something... but outside of those tiny niches I don't know anybody who even owns a Blue-ray player. I'm upper middle class here so... can't be a poverty thing.
Let me guess: you're in Silicon Valley or on the Microsoft campus, someplace with infinite, high-speed broadband. For a good portion of the rest of the planet, DVDs and Blu-rays make way more sense than soaking up low-monthly-cap, not-so-high-speed (or for some of us, stupidly-low-speed) internet connections to download videos.
Are you shitting me?
For movies I want to keep and watch whenever I want, I still buy them on BluRay.
No download to worry about, no asking permission from some asshole movie studio to validate my license, no 'content no longer available' after I paid for it, nobody's goddamned business how many times I watch it, and I don't have to give my contact information to anybody like you do with Ultraviolet.
I have no interest in a digital only copy which is controlled by someone else, because those people are assholes.
Bandwidth isn't the issue here, dude.
Regardless of how much bandwidth you have, streaming sites, digital storefronts, and the free "digital downloads" included with many movies are shit in terms of quality when you compare them to the physical release.
The "physical release" for theatres is now most often digital video. Film is going away. Nothing physical anymore.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
No, he/she is correct. You are neither witty, nor clever. This post just confirms it.
You should have posted under your own name. Everything you said is true and it applies to CD's too. No monthly fee, and if I want my music in FLAC instead of mp3, I can just rerip it. For all the complaining people do about RIAA and MPAA, they are amazingly trusting about having their content remain available.
People still can't spell Blu-ray properly? Not amazing.
Don't forget the retards like you! You'll be first!
Dude, "physical release" is not the preferred nomenclature. Blu-Ray, please.
Don't need to read it. If the MPAA wants it, then it is by definition bad for consumers. The same way that anything Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. want is automatically something we should be against.
It could also be a low IQ thing. It's Blu-ray you dimwit.
you might be upper class financially but your eyes are third world if you're content with streaming quality.
I get it - everyone has different standards. But the streaming formats have surpassed OTA TV now, and really aren't half bad. Sure, a HD 4k Blu-Ray is really gorgeous on a nice TV... but shows on Amazon and Netflix in 4k HD also look really nice. Maybe not as nice, but still better than anything available 5 years ago in any format. We just watched Planet Earth 2 on Netflix and it was jaw-droppingly gorgeous.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
There are some really nice Blu-Ray rips up on usenet, though.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
But honestly, does anyone actually care anymore? I was a DVD early adopter (I'm in the UK and bought all my DVDs from Canada to play on my region free DVD player - I really cared). Now? I just couldn't give two fucks. I don't even pick the HD stream when I'm given the choice. 4k explosions and 7.1 bullet noises really don't add much to my enjoyment of the story.
in film critique, e.g. reviews, which last I heard was fair use.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What the fuck are you talking about?
A physical BR has much higher quality than anything you can get via Netflix/iTunes/Amazon/UltraViolet/etc. I was responding to someone who mentioned bandwidth being a problem (and that person was responding to some clown who referred to BRs as coasters).
This has nothing to do with what movie theaters get, nor does it have anything to do with film.
That's simply not true. I used to own an early blu-ray player, along with a great old 300lb Sony Trinitron that was older than the HDMI standard.
Then the studios started using the blu-ray DRM to force the analog component output to run at 480i.
That TV is long gone but so is my blu-ray player. I'll stick to The Pirate Bay, thanks.
I care. If I'm going to take the time to sit through a movie, I'm not going to fucking deal with shitty quality. When I can go to RedBox on my way home / to get food/gas/blow and get a superior version of something for a dollar (there's always free rental codes to be had, so you just pay the upcharge for the BR version), why wouldn't I? There's also the option of downloading a BR rip from TPB (and you can typically get it earlier than street date this way) if you just want shit for free or demand maximum convenience.
No, graphics and sound don't make the story better. But when was the last time you watched a Hollywood film for the story?
If I'm being honest, the last movie I watched was Cockneys vs. Zombies. I grabbed it because I thought the writing could be good, and I enjoyed it because the writing was good.
Watched it on my phone in SD.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/201...
I can stream in 4k. Exactly what quality am I missing by using the internet and not getting the exact same bits by shining a laser at a disc?
You aren't getting the same bits. The stream on a BD and the stream for Amazon or Netflix often have different quantizer settings, even if they are made from the same pixels. A higher quantizer reduces bitrate but adds more noise to the picture to make it easier to compress.
1 is probably not fair use, as the production could instead produce an original film and have the characters watch that film. In fact, "Angels With Filthy Souls" in Home Alone is exactly that.
2. The production can instead build a replica set. That's how it'd have to be done anyway for movies set before color motion picture film became widespread.
3. Star Trek Generations and Star Trek VI share a distributor. Licensing is a doddle in such cases.
Why does the European Space Agency have something to say on this matter?
It doesn't, except to the extent that games published by members of the Entertainment Software Association use data sets published by the European Space Agency.
I have to tell you that you're wrong. I work with most major video streaming companies, 4k blu-ray was released in q1 or q2 2016 and some customers were already streaming 4k content a few years before that.
If you really want 4k you'll have to dig for it online, just google it and you'll find these services. It won't be long before ATSC 3.0 comes out and you'll have 4kHDR video over the air.
I have to admit most of the time the mezzanine, or source video, is designed for blu-ray and then encoded down but from it's also common to see M-JPEG, Apple ProRes, and for reasons I don't understand plain MPEG (not 4) at just fucking monster bitrates and from such a source video it'd be simple to create a hls.265 video that's smaller and better than what you'll see on a blu-ray disc and indeed some customers are experimenting with offering this.
It's also my observation that the demand is the driver here, they'd expand their high quality video offerings if people wanted it, but most people have no fucking clue what what quality their video is.
I know all of this and am happy with 720 on my 42 inch tv most of the time. Maybe if I go bigger I'd want more but all this bullshit is just an excuse to get you to buy shit and consume.
Streaming 4k video is far more compressed than UHD Blu-ray. Likewise, streaming HD video is far more compressed than Blu-ray. You're not getting the "exact same bits", and you're not getting the same quality.
As long as you don't accidentally upgrade your firmware or playback software and you happen to end up on a version that doesn't support your bluray because one of the studios deemed to make you no longer compatible.
The size of the video is insignificant. The audio track is what takes all the size. One can fit the video from a standard 1080p BluRay on a DVD if you compress the soundtrack to DD 5.1, and fit TWO 1080p BlueRay titles on a DVD if you go down to crappy MP3 audio suitable for playing through 2" tinny speakers.
WTF are your smoking?
Are you shitting me?
No, I concur. I bu a lot of DVDs still by many standards, but I get the majority second hand from a UK chain called CEX, where they sell them from between 50p and about a tenner.
They do also sell BluRay, but I never buy any because I don't have a player. I don't have a player because they have one half-height shelf devoted to Blu-rays and an entire floor for DVDs. DVDs it seems are still vastly more popular and I'd imagine the availability of second hand ones has some relation to the availability of new ones. Plenty of the second hand DVDs are from the last few years.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Dolby TrueHD is 18 Mbit/s. Netflix 1080p including audio is maximum 5 Mbit/s (lower in most scenes).
Oh sentient one, I marvel at how you can generate enough electricity to to move your fingers on your keyboard. Here, behold my pile of masochistic sand for you to use. Please demonstrate your ability to be forcefull on this sand.
So now documentaries are not a valid form of entertainment? Amazing.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.