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.
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.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/201...
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 film critique require displaying an excerpt of the original motion picture in a quality greater than that achievable by camcording a licensed TV connected to a licensed player? Reviews in newspapers get away with not displaying the motion picture at all.
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.