Copying HD DVD, Blu-ray Discs May Become Legal

Consumers could soon be able to make several legal copies of movies bought on HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc under a new licensing agreement now being negotiated. Rights holders might charge more for discs that can be copied for backup or for use on a media server, however.

The obvious problem...

...is that we weren't waiting for anyone's permission.

Re:The obvious problem...

Have you ever brought back a CD to a store that is maybe 2 or 3 years old and told them it was broken?

Do they take it back and give you (the same) cd back?

If what we are paying for is the content solely, then shouldn't they?

I think it would make the whole industry more credible if they were willing to do that.

Why should I have to pay a second time for content that I already paid for.

Also, if I have it on tape, shouldn't I be able to trade it in for CD, and same with VHS and DVD? Pay a small fee for the upgraded quality of the content, but still, I own the movie, so why do I have to buy it again?

Re:The obvious problem...

I tried this with Disney.
I have all my kid's disney flicks on a home media server. I called disney to report that my disk for beauty and the beast was scratched, and that I would like a replacement. I was denied.
Summary:
me: hi, my disk is scratched
them: buy a new one
me: no, I would normally make a backup copy but your TOU forbids this
them: so?
me: well disney has taken the stance that I as a consumer have not bought any rights to the movie, only a license to the content
them: so
me: well that means under normal IP license schemas I can reasonably expect a refreshed copy of the IP for the cost of media
them: no
me: so I can copy the disks I buy?
them: no
me: will you sell me a disk?
them: no, buy it retail
me: but it's out of print and not in stores any more
them: try e-bay

etc.
etc.

Wasn't very productive, but I'll take it to mean I can copy my disks DMCA be damned.
-nB

Re:The obvious problem...

You can for the 'nominal' fee is $6.95:
http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/dvdsupport/faq.h tml#common0 [go.com]

If you accidentally damage or break one of your Disney DVDs, you can get a replacement disc for a nominal charge of $6.95.

Please mail in your damaged DVD (along with DVD case and full packaging), a Check or Money order for $6.95 (made payable to WDHE), along with your Contact Information (Name, Address, and Phone Number) to:

Replacement Program
PO Box 3100
Neenah, WI 54957-3100.

Re:The obvious problem...

No, you're not buying a right to view the content, you're buying the physical disc. However, to view the film, you have to copy the film from that disc into your computer/DVD player, and it is this act of copying which is subject to the EULA. That's the difference between a book and a DVD - you don't have to photocopy the book in order to read it.

RMS's essay The Right to Read [gnu.org] is based around reading an eBook for this reason.

Re:The obvious problem...

Sigh. I really, really hate the software industry for using copyright licenses so much. They've completely confused so many people as to how things really work.

Look, when you buy a copy of a work, such as a book, or a CD, or a DVD, etc. you are simply buying the physical medium which happens to have a copy of the work fixed within it. It is that simple. It is no different from buying a brick or a car.

You can then use that copy however you like, so long as you use it in a lawful manner, just like with anything else you buy. If you buy a car, then you can drive however you want, but you still cannot break traffic laws with it. When you buy a book, you can use it however you want (read it, learn from it, use it to prop up the bed) but you can't do illegal things (e.g. make another copy of it, if it is copyrighted at the time you do so). When the copyright runs out, fewer things are illegal. Depending on your circumstances, something may or may not be illegal while those circumstances hold.

There is no license. In fact, the various publishing companies don't even claim that there are licenses. Copyright warnings (e.g. it's illegal to make copies of this) are not licenses, they're just restating the law. If your car came with a sticker that said 'don't run over people' that would be the same thing.

Software, and works which are accessed over the net (e.g. iTMS music) are really the only exceptions to this in the consumer market. And it's a bit sad, since software doesn't need to be licensed to end users to begin with; users would be able to use the software and make backups of software without licenses, and developers would still be protected. Licenses are only really useful for things like site licenses, or where the work isn't software. And even then, implied licenses (e.g. as used for virtually every web page, allowing users to make copies of the page as is necessary in order to see it, due to how computers work) could handle a lot of the remainder.

I am just sick and tired of all the crap where people think that Disney or whomever is not selling DVDs, but is instead licensing them. They aren't, and they never said otherwise, even. You know how a EULA for software is relatively up-front and in your face? When DVDs do that, then you'll know they're licensed. Otherwise, I assure you, it's not happening, not for the stuff you get from the store.

The consequences of this are that 1) it's illegal to make copies (often even backups) due to the law; 2) if your copy breaks, you are not entitled to a replacement or to make a replacement if you hadn't (lawfully) done so already; 3) you aren't entitled to get better quality copies merely because you have a lower quality copy.

Missed point: it's not the DRM, it's control.

So, we may be permitted to make a copy or two of product we purchase. How exciting. If I make a copy to put on my media server (for example, as suggested by the article), is this going to preclude me making another copy later if I trash my media server? Does this include *my* media server (which is currently a linux box), or some idealized media server that no one actually owns? Will this all work transparently with my linux server, linux + mac + windows clients thing that I have going right now?

In order to solve certain issues with the Front Row software I already have to make reference movies; however, this enables my entire distributed multi-platform (TV and computer client) home set-up hum. Want me to give you odds that this new "licensed copy" won't work?

I didn't think so.

While it's encouraging that they are noticing that stomping on basic fair use is a Kobayashi Maru scenario for them (as other posters rightly point out, people will just break the DRM and copy it anyway); it should go without saying that a non-interoperable, proprietary system that dictates not just what software (or possibly hardware even) I run on my "media server", but also the software/hardware options for the clients as well?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd argue they've still dropped the ball, and this does not consitute picking it back up. More like when you see a kid reach for the ball but in reaching for it they kick it with their foot and push it even further out of reach.

Oh well. Status quo I suppose.

--
~AC

Heh

"Since you guys keep cracking our DRM schemes, we're going to be really nice and grant you fair use rights for the stuff you're paying for. See how cool we are!?"

Re:Exactly

They want to charge more for the version you can make copies of. That means, they want to charge less for the version you can't make copies of. That's also fine, because the version you can't make copies of isn't covered by copyright law.

Copyright law is a bargain that is made between creators and society. Society agrees to enforce a temporary monopoly on distribution. In exchange, the creator agrees to allow certain fair-use rights during their period of exclusivity, and release the work into the public domain at the end. If the creator is now allowing fair use rights, then they are unilaterally nullifying the bargain, and their copyright should no longer be enforced. They can't have it both ways.

Re:Heh

Yea, I'm definitely tempted to write them a little thank you note!

Re:Heh

"Since you guys keep cracking our DRM schemes, we're going to be really nice and grant you fair use rights for the stuff you're paying for.** See how cool we are!?"

** for a small fee of course. That's right we're going to CHARGE YOU for exercising your RIGHTS under Fair Use, including the right to make a backup for archival purposes and to use your legally purchased media on your own devices.

They can blow it out their ass. I'll just keep cracking the DRM, thanks.

freezing over...

I thought it was starting to feel chilly down here

Pay more?

Pay more? For our right to read the information you have bought for that specific purpose? Thanks!!!

Re:Pay more?

Actually, if they offer it in a format that doesn't need to be cracked, then yes, I would consider paying more for that. I often buy CDs -- even used CDs -- at a higher price than the iTunes Music Store offers. The benefits are a lossless physical hard copy that I can then transcode into any format I choose.

Re:Pay more?

The problem is they introduced technology to take away our fair use rights, and are now going to charge us more to give us back the rights they shouldn't have been allowed to take away in the first place.

Re:Pay more?

Actually, if they offer it in a format that doesn't need to be cracked, then yes, I would consider paying more for that.

You're still waiting for your flying car, aren't you?
You're gonna be paying more for a DRM scheme that allows a limited number of copies, IF all your gear is "trusted" and expensive, of course. They have been consistent in their efforts: they want control.

strikes me as unnecessary

Anyone with a real interest in copying a hd-dvd or blu-ray disc is likely already going to have the know-how (and disregard for the asinine DMCA) to do it illegally, while your average idiot consumer will continue doing whatever they do, consume I guess.

Until...

its possible to legally play on Linux I'm not interested.

Ha..

Basically stating, "If you can afford to buy a burner and media, knock your fuckin socks off."

They still just DON'T GET IT

So what? So they let me make a "managed copy" of a disc. What good does that do when the "managed copy" is so locked down and crippled by DRM that only a special player will play it? What good does it do me if I can make a copy for my computer or video player, but it's in a nonstandard DRM'ed format that almost no media player or media extender will play?

Will they let me make a standard HD-DVD, Blu-ray, or DVD copy? No.

Will they let me use a standard video format copy for my computer (like mpg, xvid, etc.)? No.

Worthless. They still think that DRM is the answer, when it's the PROBLEM.

How much of a need is there

How much of a need is there to make copies if you aren't going to give it to your friend? At about 30-50 gig per movie even the new terabyte drives would only hold 20+ movies. I take care of my DVDs and they stay in good shape, don't really need back up copies.

Re:How much of a need is there

It's not just backups.

I currently occasionally watch movies on any of:
My DVD player, connected to a standard TV set
My Linux desktop machine, when I'm in my home office
My Windows laptop machine, while I'm traveling (sitting around in airports)
My PDA, while I'm riding the train to work

My music-playing choices are even more varied. According to ??AA, every time I watch a movie on my PDA, I'm breaking the law, if I bought that movie on DVD.

I Should Hope So...

For NetFlix's sake, if nothing else... :P

Throwing a bone

Ahhhh... "legal" as in an exception made in the DMCA, no.
"Legal" as in the entities that control AACS and MPAA agreeing to 2 copies, yes.

It's still a scoop of gruel in an orphan's bowl. From TFA, it will allow one backup and one media device.

What if I have more than one media device? What if I have one and it gets lost or stolen? Now I can't put it on any others?

One backup? What happens when that backup is too beat up to work anymore. I can't make another backup?

This is just a trick for getting people to say "ooh, well, DRM isn't so bad after all."

They're offering a piddling fraction of the rights we as customers SHOULD have and treating it like we should be kissing their butts for the privilage.

how much more?

If it is x2 the price or x3 for the ones that can be copied and used on sever then this is point less.

They're going to charge *more*?!

"Rights holders might charge more for discs that can be copied for backup or for use on a media server, however."

Uum, yeah. You just hang on to the $49.95 backup-ready copy of "Finding Nemo" there, and I'll take a "protected" one for $19.95. I don't need to put it on a server or iPod or anything, so I'll just take the cheap, "secure" one.

What's my credit card number?

09 F9 11 02 9D...

Tricky

This is a sneaky marketing tactic they're using. Everybody feels good about being able to make copies of their disc, but they still maintain control with the DMCA over how we can use those discs. They maintain control by telling us we're buying a license to use the movie we buy in certain ways-- "in the blu-ray player for this disc, but if you want to copy it to your computer, you have to pay extra". Not because there's any extra cost in producing the disc that allows you to copy the data to your harddrive, but simply because they can get away with charging more.

This DMCA crap is copyright abuse. There's a reason copyright wasn't allowed this power-- it was supposed to control who could distribute the product, not how you could use it.

"Managed" copies?

So...if I understand this right, I can make copies now, but my copies will still be as DRM-crippled as the original?

This helps me how?

I think I'll just stick to stripping out the DRM. Thanks anyway.

When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections?

First of all, it's a testament to the effectiveness of the media conglomerates that this headline does not outrage ./'ers in general.

Sadly though, most people have thrown away all of their personal use rights in exchange for little more than a high-def picture and an ipod. These people get what they deserve. Higher prices.

Re:When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections?

You can (continue to?) pirate the content.

What part of, "Fair use is not piracy" do you not understand?

The OP is pointing out, quite correctly, that we have a legal right to fair use, which may include the right to make backup copies. I neither know nor care what you or anyone else feels about the necessity of backup copies. Your experience, needs, desires and wants are totally irrelevant to the legal fact of fair use rights.

DRM is a failed attempt to prevent me from exercising my fair use rights. Again, whether or not you think I'm a moron for wanting to do so is irrelevant. It is not piracy to do so. It is a matter of legal fact that I have those rights. [arstechnica.com] Even the RIAA once admitted that, in front of the Supreme Court no less.

What about DVDs?

It's kind of disigenuous that they didn't mention allowing people to legally copy their DVDs. People (especially parents with young children) have been screaming about this for years.

Also, since CSS was cracked years ago, there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't have allowed DVD copying already, other than to use as a means of sending otherwise law-abiding citizens to jail. With the advent of Apple TV (along with similar products) and the possibility of ripping one's entire DVD collection and making it available in an easily browsable interface (like an MP3 collection), the outcry is probably getting louder.

Since I live in Canada, there's no DMCA, and I'm already paying taxes on blank DVDs, so this is not yet a problem. Still, I figure Stephen Harper and his cronies will bless us with a DMCA-like law soon.

And, yeah, the timing of this announcement is just a little too coincidental, what with the latest AACS crack.

Re:What about DVDs?

Since I live in Canada, there's no DMCA, and I'm already paying taxes on blank DVDs, so this is not yet a problem. Still, I figure Stephen Harper and his cronies will bless us with a DMCA-like law soon.

I believe the levy is not on DVDs but on CDs and media playing devices as it DVDs are not considered Audio recording media (see table in link [neil.eton.ca]). And don't blame Harper, well at least not for the copyright law that the govt is trying get through as this was introduced by the previous residents of parliament.

Central Server?

I do like managed copy (even though I think its useless because AACS is busted anyways), but the idea of a central server that would register and track these copies is a bad idea for consumers. It assumes you have internet access at the same place you want to watch the managed copy, as well as providing a mechanism for the movie industry to come in and see the volume of managed copies being used and say, "Well, we need to monitize this activity," and then now you have your pay-per-view system that the industry longs for. $2.99 for every time you create or possibly even watch a managed copy sounds good to them I'm sure.

Let me get this straight...

You are going to charge me more to exercise rights I already have. Then, on top of that you are going to "manage" (i.e. restrict) those rights with this so-called "managed copy". I am sorry, but I am perfectly capable of managing my own rights. Until AACS is permanently cracked a la DeCSS, I won't be buying either Blu-ray or HD-DVD.

Finally.....

At least they are listening now it seems. I can agree to have a non copyable product at a lower price, and a premium product that allows me fair use rights so I can legally make copies and have an archival storage, an original, and a media center copy. Although, I think that the pricing of premium should be at or near if not lower than current pricing and the non copyable should be lesser value. I for one am happy to hear something like this is finally being thought about. It will also save me money in the format wars as I can simply buy a reader for my media copier and have a stored digital copy and archived copy in my preferred format (legally).

Price reductions work

Movies fly off the shelf at places like Wal-Mart where you can pick up a lot of movies for $10 or under. Economies of scale work at beating back the effects of piracy. If they would charge $15 for regular new releases, they would make plenty of money off of them, and be at a price range where most people would just buy the real thing even if there were no DRM to make them have to buy them.

"rights holder"?

Funny, the last time I bought a DVD, I didn't have to sign anything that gave them any rights to my purchase. There was no EULA, there weren't even any signs at best buy saying what rights I had versus them. If it isn't explicitly listed BEFORE I buy it, I assume that I have full rights to do whatever I want with it, even make a frisbee out of it and throw it at the MPAA members.

Little late?

I'm pretty sure I read a while ago that one of the differences between HD DVD and BluRay is that this managed copy stuff is mandatory for HD DVD and optional for BluRay. If it's mandatory for HD DVD, and HD DVDs are already shipping, why are licensing agreements still being worked on? Shouldn't that all have been sorted out by now?

That was supposed to be the deal in Germany

Over in Germany, we're paying an extra fee on blank media
as a compensation for fair use rights. Also, we were told
that CDs cost a lot, but that the extra charge covers the
private copies we have an explicit right to create.

Then came the copy protection.

Then came a law that makes it illegal to copy 'protected'
media.

We're still paying the fees.

Whilst I hated DRM

I think I hate these new offerings even more.
Way I see it is that a new 'standard' gets pushed upon us, crippled with DRM (DRM which is ultimately paid for by us the consumer).
People hack away at the flakey DRM to produce something that works better, whether it be for dvds, games, m4p, wma, blu-ray, hd-dvd etc.
Suddenly the media companies seem to have realized that the DRM they're forcing on us is causing problems and not working in the wonderfully transparent fashion their PR spiel banged on about. What do they do? Do they fix their DRM? Do the admit they screwed up a bit? NOooooo - they relax/remove the DRM and try to sell it for even more - First Apple with the EMI tracks and now this.

Viewing Vouchers

This move also introduces Viewing Vouchers, an enhanced feature of DRM. The user will be provided not only with a disc containing the movie, but two vouchers for viewing the movie itself. Each movie comes with a Solo Voucher, for a single, non pausable, private viewing of the movie.

As a bonus, the package includes one Party Voucher (tm), allowing the viewer, and up to three approved friends, to view the movie simultaneously from one screen. If the user has no friends, the Party Voucher may be converted to a Solo Voucher for a small fee. This allows the user to get two viewings from one disc, essentially buying one movie and getting the second viewing free.

This offer is for a limited time only.

It's legal NOW.

A license to say it's 'legal' is a misdiretion to make people think it is only legal if they say so, nothing more.

The only 'legality' is whether or not I can bypass encryption to make a copy, as opposed to a straight bit by bit copy.

we've got that in germany

in germany we pay "GEMA" charges for the content - that's 9% of the price
we also pay extra for CD-R, DVD+-R, Harddiscs, mp3 players, flashdiscs, CD Recorders, DVD Recorders, VCRs...
still the MAFIAA keeps telling us we were criminals

they even pay for TV spots that say "copy piracy is a crime"
just to scare people (that don't know about their fair use right, which is a right here), away from making LEGAL copies... so that they don't legally give copies to their friends, so that their friends have to pay the full price...

they even went so far to build prison-cell immitations in cinemas, the games convention and such - where you can test how it feels where you're going if you copy stuff.... (but they don't tell people about their fair use right of course)
AND THEY'RE EVEN PROUD OF THIS GESTAPO MARKETING
they glorify this on their homepage http://www.hartabergerecht.de/ [hartabergerecht.de]

Dear Sir/Madame...

In light of the recent lopping off of one of our limbs, we hereby voluntarily agree to withhold one of our limbs from the battle, prefering instead to keep it in reserve as a statement of our good will. However, we still remain firm on our refusal to grant you unrestricted passage across this bridge that you claim to have recently purchased, and, furthermore, we demand that you refrain from lopping off our other limbs, as this would constitute a clear violation of the law.

-- The Black Knight
CEO, AACS Inc.

Fair use goes way Beyond Copying

This is not a concession, we always had this right. The DMCA created a catch 22 by making it illegal to decrypt the item in order to exercise this right. Now they want to make this a for pay privilege. What is worse, being able to copy once DOES NOT = fair use by any means. Fair use means being able to work with the content in any number of ways in addition to being able to copy it. For example, taking clips and making presentation for a class, copying the sound tracks and mixing them for you own entertainment, creating a parody, and editing out objectionable content.

What they are trying to do is turn a fundamental right into much weakened for pay privilege so they can have control and power over it. They want is to have their cake and eat it to. It should not be up to them to determine what is and is not fair use is. Fair use should be any use that our populace finds to be on average fair to both the consumer and rights holder. Yep that is as nebulous as it sounds and it does change from time to time. That is what they have to accept living in a free society, not this managed copy crap MS is trying to use to keep their walking corpse moving.

HD-DVD vs BlueRay == VHS vs BetaMax revisited

You know, now that I think of it, the fact that there are these two standards fighting to win dominance and singular acceptance, there is one aspect of this that makes me a little optimistic.

Since the SCOTUS ruled that copying for the purpose of changing format is legal, acceptable and protected use, this whole HD-DVD vs BlueRay thing will likely raise the same issues as the matter begins to come to a head.

Now I know that it's not completely on topic since the offering is to sell you the right to copy at a higher price than the original. But ultimately, the format of the media is irrelevant and the "right to copy" isn't something the media producers isn't a right they have to remove from the consumer. They are at will to make it easier and charge more for it of course, which is what they are really doing.

And here's a stupid question I'm sure. But has it been determined with finality that the DMCA has effectively overrides fair use such as that which allows copies for personal use? I mean after all, it's supposed to be illegal to kill another person, yet we have the right [in Texas] to kill an intruder in our homes. So the fact that the DMCA outlaws 'circumvention devices' should not be a means by which the DMCA should circumvent user rights. I'm guessing no such ruling has occured at this time since I haven't heard of one... but you know, I could have missed that somewhere.

Who will ENFORCE the deal?

We've been here before.

The Audio Home Recording Act of 1991 gave consumers the right to copy CDs as long as they were copied onto specially-encoded blank media ("Music CD-Rs" or "Audio CD-Rs") whose price included a fee paid to the music industry.

I owned a home audio recorder (computerless CD copier) that fell within the scope of that act. I bought the prescribed media. It worked quite well for a number of years. It used a technical mechanism called SCCS which sounds very similar to this "managed copying." It allowed first-generation copies from original media, but would not copy the copies.

Then the music publishers came out with copy-protected CDs. My home audio recorder would not copy these CDs. Basically, the SCCS mechanism cut in, insisting that the copy limit had already been reached and that further copying was prohibited.

It was all well and good that the law gave me the right to copy them, and that I paid for every copy I ever made (in the form of the extra costs of the "music CD-Rs"). But there was basically no way I could take advantage of this right.

I made numerous calls, send emails, and letters to the CD publisher (UMI) and the recorder vendor (TEAC) trying to resolve the issue. I was never able to get satisfaction, beyond returning the CD for a refund.

It's the usual consumer problem. These guys were breaking the law, but it's awfully hard to stop a big company from cheating consumers if they only cheat each individual consumer by a small amount.

What's to stop the DVD publishers from making this "managed copying" available for a while, then using technical means to renege on the terms a few years later?

What's the good of a reasonably fair-sounding deal if David has no way to hold Goliath to the terms of the deal?

What Bogus BS

Goddammit, I want recognition of my right to access information any fucking way I choose. Stop "granting me permission" to use *your* approved methods. Fuck you. People have the right to access data that they legally possess. Period. It's very simple to understand. http://www.bytesfree.org/wiki/index.php/RightsPape r [bytesfree.org]

How is this news?

What? Huh?? Permission?? What are you guys talking about? I will make backups as I see fit, just like I always have with tapes, cds, dvds.... /rolls eyes at silly media companies

"Soon"?

The statement sounds like Blu-Ray and HD DVD are massive successes, and this is a new "bonus" feature. People don't want corporate cameras or tracking technology in their homes. This is just a desperate *market* concession. My bet is DVD sales are well past peak, and this is just further gimick to get you to to buy The Matrix again. People don't have enough time for all the content that is out there as it is. Supply gets more and relatively infinite, and demand is limited by time.