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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/201...
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.
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.
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.
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.