MPAA Prevails Against 321 Studios' DVD X Copy 347
Quok writes "Yahoo has the scoop. The article is short on details, but it seems the MPAA have succeeded in getting an injunction issued against 321 Studios, the makers of the popular DVD X Copy software, which allows consumers to make backup copies of DVD movies. Strike one for fair use."
What does it matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does it matter (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What does it matter (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What does it matter (Score:5, Informative)
That's true, but DVD Shrink [dvdshrink.info] does an excellent job of compressing the content down so it will fit on an ordinary DVD-R. Or so I have heard
Re:What does it matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Not true. Pioneer has already shown a live demo where a mere A06 with hacked firmware can write dual-layer. Whether or not they will release such firmware for older drives seems another matter entirely, but the as the more important issue, dual-layer writeables do exist.
Additionally, although most discs do use dual layer, the movie itself often comes to under 4.7GiB. So, removing the useless French and Spanish audio, and making a movie-only copy, you can frequently get a 100% main-movie copy.
Now, if you care about extras (I do not, personally, nor do I care about "director's commentary" audio where you have mindless chatter for fifteen minutes which tapers off to "Uh, yeah, I remember this scene" once every five minutes or so until the end), such a "copy" might not satisfy you. Myself, I buy DVDs the main feature, not for trailers, ads, idiotic babbling, or anything of that nature.
Re:What does it matter (Score:5, Informative)
The answer is both Yes and No. Yes, you can use say DeCSS to create an unencrypted DVD image on your harddrive. However, without something like DeCSS you can't simply create this image of the DVD.
The second slight problem is that most DVD movies are in DVD-9 format, which is twice as large as the standard DVD-R (4.7 GB). Hence, unless you have a DVD-9 burner, you can't make a 1:1 copy onto a DVD-R.
The interesting this is that once you have an "region free" decrypted version on your hard-drive the copy protection is gone. Hence, there is no legal restrictions for any program to manipulate the image from that point on.
So you can buy programs like Pinnacle's InstantCopy which takes an unprotected DVD image off your hard-drive, and automatically resizes (reencodes) the video to make it fit on a DVD-R.
Really the easiest way to keep your software out of legal problems is to not deal with CSS protected discs, and let some other software program do the work of removing the CSS protection.
DVD X-Copy did everything for you, all at the same time, hence was a single solution to the DVD backup problem. This made them a target.
Re:What does it matter (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What does it matter (Score:3, Informative)
Except you can't write the CSS key to a standard DVD-R. The area on the DVD-R where the CSS would go is not writable. You have to have a speacial DVD for Authoring drive and media (both are much more expensive) in order to write the CSS key.
In other words, you cannot make a 1-1 copy using standard DVD-R media and drives (and expect a DVD player to read it). You also cannot CSS encrypt your own content onto stand
Re:What does it matter (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What does it matter (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What does it matter (Score:5, Interesting)
more related news (Score:4, Informative)
Re:more related news (Score:5, Insightful)
And, she said, the fact that DVD decryption keys were widely available online in programs like DeCSS did not make Hollywood's attempts to block copying useless.
"This is equivalent to a claim that, since it is easy to find skeleton keys on the black market, a dead bolt is not an effective lock to a door," she wrote.
She doesn't want to get it. She completely fails to address the underlying issue of being able to have a good backup of something that you purchased. In her mind, DeCSS is a skeleton key, and CSS is a deadbolt, and yet a skeleton key can unlock a deadbolt? Bad analogy judge, bad.
Sony? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sony? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sony? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sony? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, the media conglomerates managed to wedge a pinky into the dike. It's kind of like the cop pulling over one person for a ticket when everyone on the road is doing 85, it only pisses off the one person and has no effect on the other 999.
The media companies will not relinquish their monopoly on 19th-century distribution methods, despite the fact that you can download practically any music CD, software, movie or TV show with a little effort.
As long as they keep treating thei
Re:Sony? (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if you went and saw any movie and you could buy a pristine DVD copy the same day! The theater would be raking in the dough, popcorn and soda prices would fall, and everyone would be happy. The current dumbass Hollywood model of distribution just seeks to milk every single film for all it's worth, while ignoring the rising likelihood of piracy in the interim between the film's theatric debut and the dvd sale.
Currently Hollywood does this: make film. Release film in theaters in the US. Release film in other countries (staggered, not synchronized). Sell lots of film related crap through Taco Bell and other friendly corporate entities. Hype some more. Right about the time nobody cares, release the DVD.
Mark Cuban's way: make film. Release film in all theaters (granted it's only a local domestic chain but the model is the same). Release DVD the same day, in the theater where you just watched the movie. Watch profits roll in.
He's also considering broadcasting the movie via ppv hdtv since he owns an HDTV network here. He figures if you'll pay to see it at home, what's the difference between that and the theater. And if you really want a dvd copy of it, come get it. No waiting.
I think it's a brilliant, all-encompassing concept. If Hollywood would quit rehashing crappy old movies and milking properties for every damn nickle, piracy wouldn't be the problem it's perceived to be today.
Re:Sony? (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, there will always be that minority that will pirate regardless, and will not venture into the theater to see a movie that potentially sucks (like 90% of what comes out of Hollywo
Try this (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Try this (Score:5, Informative)
mencoder dvd://1 -ovc lavc -lavcopts [whatever bitrate you want] -oac lame -lameopts presets=standard -o [whatever you want to name it]
If I were at home with access to a Linux box, I'd probably even be able to give the bitrate settings (can't recall the keywords off the top of my head). I think around 800kbps is a good bitrate, that's what I encode my home-videos at for storage. And always do 2-pass encoding.
Mencoder rocks (Score:5, Interesting)
I have ripped my entire library of about 70 DVDs into DivX with it. With a script you can just insert the DVD and walk away.
It all began as an effort to be able to watch entire seasons of Simpsons, Futurama or Black Adder in one go without having to change discs and/or deal with cumbersome menus and copyright announcements that you can't fast-forward (FOX is particularly bad in this aspect).
Now I've got a fanless VIA EPIA mini-ITX box connected to my TV with the media on a 250 GB portable hard drive. Interestingly, a cordless trackball mouse is actually a better remote than your ordinary remote control when you get used to it.
Better as well (Score:2, Informative)
At nearly the same time, I started reading that by April, the 8.5gb dual layer media and at least two brands of burners will be available.
Re:Try this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Try this (Score:3, Insightful)
Trouble is that both these programs are in that shareware/minimal support camp. You never know if they will just disappear someday. Keep the original install handy.
M
How long (Score:4, Funny)
CNET (Score:5, Informative)
News.com.com [com.com] has a little more commentary and some background for those who aren't in the know. Thanks to the DMCA, seems like an open and shut case to me. The judge seems to think they are violating both the letter and the spirit of the law:
I do think 321 makes some cool software. It will be sad to see them lose this one...
Re:CNET (Score:5, Insightful)
CSS real purpose is to enforce region encoding.
Re:CNET (Score:2, Interesting)
Other than that, yeah, it's black and white.
KFG
Re:CNET (Score:2, Informative)
A DVD player checks the validity of the key on the CD and only allows the player to access the unencrypted video files if the key is valid. It's a lock box. That's all.
Nor is it true that DVD recorders cannot burn the key tracks. Otherwise there would be no 321 Studios copy product in the first place. That a
Re:CNET (Score:5, Informative)
CSS is a two step process. The first step is authentication of the media to the player. Without this step the DVD drive won't allow one to look at the protected file(s). The second step is decryption of the encrypted files.
For more information and a good overview of CSS see the DVD Demystified FAQ [dvddemystified.com] section 1.11 -- "what are the copy protection issues" especially part 3 [dvddemystified.com], section 4.5 -- "why can't I play movies copied to my hard drive?" [dvddemystified.com], section 4.8 -- "what is DeCSS?" [dvddemystified.com], or take a look at Frank Stephenson's cryptanalysis of CSS (couldn't find a link.)
I do agree with you however that CSS isn't really a copy protection method. There are too many other ways one may copy a DVD wihtout having to deal with CSS -- if one throws enough money at the problem.
The right to make a backup hangs in the balance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not good... not good at all.
Re:The right to make a backup hangs in the balance (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the whole stinking DMCA should be thrown out, but since the courts seem to want to keep it, I think that sort of plan is the only way to reconcile it with prior copyright law.
Re:The right to make a backup hangs in the balance (Score:2)
Re:The right to make a backup hangs in the balance (Score:3, Insightful)
But the court does have the authority to rule a law unconstitutional and proclaim it invalid.
Re:The right to make a backup hangs in the balance (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, the cat is out of the bag [dvdrhelp.com] and the movie industry will have to wait until the next generation of copy protection when DVI connectors become more common.
It's time to organize. (Score:5, Insightful)
strike (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:strike (Score:5, Funny)
Now kiss and make up.
And in the words of the immortal yogi bera, "You can observe a lot by watching."
What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going to go hide under my bed. Will someone please come and get me when the world becomes a little more rational?
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Step one for rationality is to get people out from under their beds :-)
Re:What's next? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, of course not -- and by the same token, you're quite legally entitled to take photos of any DVD disk you've bought.
So what's the problem?
I sometimes use DVD2SVCD to rip DVDs onto CDRs in VCD or SVCD format. This allows me to give my daughter her own copy that she can play on her computer (which doesn't have a DVD drive) a
This is bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
The fucks at the MPAA going to give me a new copy of Hackers on DVD if I accidently damage my old one? They obviously don't want me copying it for my safe keeping.
Assholes.
Re:This is bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
But whining about it won't do any good.
Face it fellas, they have guts. They don't mind going after and pissing off their own customers. They even call it good business!
We consumer wimps don't even have the wherewithall to put our wallets back in our pockets and move along.
They get paid well while we whine. I don't think its their fault at all... they are protecting their interests and business models - its US that are le
Re:This is bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
If we can rack up enough judgements, they'll either have to admit it's a sale or implement proper programs to replace failing media. Either way the consumer wins.
Re:This is bullshit (Score:2)
No, that's big big money for the movie industry. And here is the problem: the DVD copy software isn't the kind of piracy-enabler they'd like to make it out to be. The real threat with piracy comes from the people who put it online... which isn't what you do with this software. =b
BTW, I like the sig. ;)
Re:This is bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
When I spoke with the spokesperson for the NZ equivalent of the RIAA, he told me that making "backups" of disks was illegal and the industry would not allow it.
His rationale was that if you buy a Porsche and you wreck or lose it, you simply have to go out and by another -- so why should a CD be any different?
Amazing isn't it? These people don't seem (or choose not to) grasp the difference between the i
Re:This is bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
Your analogy fails.
Your analogy is crap. (Score:5, Informative)
When you buy a CD or DVD, you're not buying the music, you're buying a plastic circle and a license to view/hear the contents of that circle. If your plastic circle eats it and becomes unusable for some reason, you still possess a license to the content, and as such should be able to get replacement media for the cost of producing the media.
Problem is, the movie/record companies don't want to have to replace your media, but they don't want you to have the right to make backup copies of it, either. And they own more congressmen than you.
~Philly
Re:Your analogy is crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
eh, that's not how the industry execs see it. you are not buying a plastic circle, or a license, but only what they are willing to sell you: namely the *specific* plastic item in your hand that you forked cash over for. When you buy a book you are not buying paper, or a license to read it, but a single instance combination of both. If your book gets eaten by your cat, or simply rots of its own accord, you cannot go back to the store and get a new free copy.*
If the book later becomes available as a searchable PDF you have no automatic rights to that either: it's a separate product entirely. You also don't get free rights to the movie version of the book. Just like buying a ticket to a film doesn't grant you a "license" to come back tomorrow and see it again; you got what you came for, now get out.
*(You could try and claim a "manufacturing defect" angle for backups, but then you are dealing with a different case entirely. if the content providers decide to replace obviously defective merchandise you will have problems pursuing legal self-backup mechanisms).
I agree with your arguments but you have to take their points of view more seriously in order to make an impact.
Re:Your analogy is crap. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have seen manusc
as is yours (Score:4, Insightful)
[TMB]
That's not how it works either (Score:3, Insightful)
If that were the case, the studios wouldn't be able to put restrictions on how you use your one copy of that plastic circle. But right smack dab in the beginning there's a warning that you're not allowed to use it for public performances. That's a license, not a single copy purchase.
Wh
Re:Your analogy is crap. (Score:4, Interesting)
Really. Funny, I don't see ads that say: '[LATEST DISNEY MOVIE]: License it today!!!!"
They say "[LATEST DISNEY MOVIE]: Buy it today!!!!" (emphasis mine).
Now, IANAL, but this seems like false advertising to me.
Re:Your analogy is crap. (Score:5, Informative)
Common disinformation. You are buying a plastic circle circle that happens to have a copy of a movie on it. You own that disk and you own that copy. Yes, according to US copyright law you OWN that copy of that movie.
There is no such thing as a licence to view/hear/use something. Does not exist.
According to US copyright law a copyright holder has six exclusive rights, [cornell.edu] but they really only amount to 3 different rights. (1) The right to make new copies (and derivative copies). (2) The right to distribute copies (including digital audio transmission), and (3) The right of public performance (or display). Those rights are restricted by all sorts of limitations. Those rigth have all sorts of holes poked into them by exceptions.
Those are the ONLY rights a copyright holder has, and those are the ONLY rights he can licence to someone. A licence does not exist unless he is licencing you one or more of those rights. When you buy a retail DVD it does not come with a licence to create more copies, it does not come with a licence to distribute more copies, and it does not come with a licence for public performance. Therefore buying a DVD does not involve any licence at all. You bought that copy. You own that copy, you can do anything you like with it except for the limited exclusive monopoly listed above.
The copyright holder is not selling you a licence to anything, he does not have to replace damaged media. Heck, even if he did sell you a licence he doesn't even have to give you an original copy, much less have to give you replacements.I can sell you a licence to make and distribute and publicly perform a movie I made without giving you a copy of that movie. If you can get a copy of it from someone else, then fine, you can make more copies from that copy, but if you don't-have/can't-get a copy then tough luck you have a licence you can't use.
On the other hand one of the limitations on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders is that they don't extend to private personal use (or at least they were never intended to), which means that when you buy a DVD you have every right to make a backup in case it gets damaged.
-
Re:This is bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
There are thousands of web sites to help you in this quest.
Yes, to forstall your argument, it is difficult, yes it is more expensive than just buying another glass. That has nothing to do with the fact that it is both possible, legal and people actually do it.
KFG
Re:This is bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Quick Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, IAMNAL, can retailers continue to destribute the software most likely? I know they wouldn't, but couldn't 3-2-1 say.... Open Source X-Copy and then we could all distribute it legally? Who would the MPAA have to sue then?
Re:Quick Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Not anymore. That's what the injunction prevents. They can't do crap with it now. They could have a day before the conclusion of the case.
Who would the MPAA have to sue then?
Any entity that distributes it or makes it available. SourceForge, etc.
Good thing (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck the **AA.
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Funny)
You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I'm going to be watching March Madness this year, same as ever.
The first? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. I'm thinking stike two, or maybe strike fifty, or strike [insert big number here.] There's the DMCA, the Napster lawsuit, 2600's issues with the MPAA over DeCSS, UnTrusted Computing, and on, and on, and on. This most certainly isn't the first, and there's no way it'll be the last.
Fair use? (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW. on the 321studios.com Flash is required for navigation, I personally see it as the grounds for shutting that company down, not only prohibitting their software
Re:Fair use? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I'd like to see is someone taking the CSS code and writing a good
Re:Fair use? (Score:2)
Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until then, MPAA will have no problem stopping this kind of software from being legal.
Is this different than CD's? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this different? Does the MPAA have a different view on copying than the RIAA, and if so under which corporate empire's rule do we live? We are obviously not under the rule of the people anymore.
The Real Danger? (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt the injunction will stop the inevitable availability of this software on just about any file-sharing service you care to name. What it might stop though is legitimate companies developing software like this so that you, I and anyone else can exercise our right to make working backups of the software, movies or anything else that we've purchased.
After all why would anyone want to spend time, effort and money developing software that allows people to do sensible, legal things with their property if the MPAA, RIAA or anyone else with a big enough cheque book is going to shut them down before they get going? Chalk up another victory for big corporations in their seemingly unstoppable war against the rights of the law abiding majority in their pursuit of the lawless minority.
Then they had better replace ruined discs (Score:5, Interesting)
The point has been made before-- if we're only buying a license to view/hear the content on a disc as the RIAA/MPAA maintain, then we should definitely be owed replacements (if not free, then for the cost of the media only) when something bad happens to a disc we possess and renders it unusable.
That is a class-action lawsuit I'd like to see... where a bunch of people with ruined CDs/DVDs sue to force the producers to provide minimal-cost replacement media-- and not just for the members of the class, but for everyone, in perpetuity.
Re:Then they had better replace ruined discs (Score:3, Interesting)
So I want a replacement.
Appeal? (Score:5, Interesting)
You know not of what you speak (Score:5, Informative)
Nonsense. There is probably no less favorable forum in the United States for the defendant in a copyright-like action.
The 9th Circuit decided the Napster case.
The 9th Circuit decided the Sony Betamax case in favor of the movie studios before being reversed by the Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit even decided that Vanna White's right to publicity was invaded by a commercial depicting a robot in a gown turning letters.
If there is a bright shiny sweet spot for owners of IP rights, and a dark nadir for balancing of the public's rights, it is the 9th Circuit.
A subltle point is being missed here! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Most Hollywood DVDs are protected with a technology called Content Scrambling System, or CSS, which encrypts the content on the discs so that they can only be read by devices with authorized "keys" to unlock the data. A studio-affiliated trade group licenses those keys to DVD player manufacturers."
Why doesn't 321 try to license the CSS from the trade group? If they are not allowed to license it then sue for unfair trade practices.
To me it appears that since 321 is not paying for the CSS license the MPAA has grounds. However, if the MPAA/trade group refuses to license (per copy - yes that means no "free" software) then there are grounds for unfair trade/monopoly suits.
Re:A subltle point is being missed here! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A subltle point is being missed here! (Score:3, Informative)
Jump on the bandwagon! (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, even if they have to stop making the software, it will live on forever in p2p sharing perpetuity.
It was unavoidable (Score:3, Informative)
By selling an encrypted format, the MPAA has carte blanche on how they want the DVDs to be used. If they didn't have encryption, the judge could have more leeway (such is the case with cds) to enable a more logical fair use of the media. As long as we support encrypted formats, we're doomed to merely borrow the content.
limits (Score:5, Insightful)
no limits, it seems.
Ask MPAA about fair use (Score:2, Interesting)
If I want to *legally* backup my DVD which is described in fair use how would the MPAA suggest I do this? If it's illegal to get around CSS and it's legal to backup please tell me. It's a rhetorical question really but I'd be curious to know if they come up with some type of response.
BTW this is the first time I've ever posted AC for
Re:Ask MPAA about fair use (Score:3, Interesting)
Repeat after me... (Score:5, Interesting)
To force your pet peeves and petty issues on everyone else, you constantly lobby to pass new laws that will arrest those whom you don't like. Consequently, the government has become bigger and bigger and no longer looks out for you.
There was a time when the individual was bigger than the state, now he is just a slave.
People, wake up and realize that the two points of opinion are not the left and the right. The struggle is between individual rights and the statists (which includes Democrats/liberal and republican/conservatives). And the statists have won in a big way.
The greatness of a nation hinges on the freedom of its people. Welcome to the beginning of the end of the Great American Experiment!
Mussolini got there before you (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Repeat after me... (Score:4, Interesting)
The individual has power, but it can only be express as a group effort, and will only be expressed if there are brave people. We pay for the privilege to watch movie, but also much watch commercials. We give away the public airspace, yet can ask for little in return. We feel that is it such a privilege to shop at some stores that we allow ourselves to be humiliated by a search on exiting the store. We pay our farmers billions out of the public coffers to grow food, and then pay for the food again at the market, but cannot ask the processors the food to keep the shit out of it. In some ways these are the same as paying for the privilege to sit in the back of the bus or for the privilege to eat the salt the we could produce for nothing.
All we are seeing now is a state of affairs in which the people are cowardly. The cowardice is generated by the government, who has systematically redefined bravery as the number of people a person can kill or intimidate, rather than what the person can produce through a revolution of thought or status. For example, our founding fathers were brave because they, as mere colonials hicks, challenged the British elite and claimed equal status, and equal stuff. Today, revisionist historians want us to honor them merely as great warriors.
The choice is the same as always. We can take the stuff they give us, in the form they want to give it to us, or we can refrain and say our self respect is worth more than 3 beans. Most of us are not slaves. A slave has a choice to work or to die. Most of us, for the time being, have other choices. Certainly in the realm of entertainment, there is always the choice to refrain, or, if one is desperate enough, to take.
Having their cake... (Score:5, Interesting)
When you buy a license, you get a set of rights. So, if I buy a gym membership, I'm allowed to work out during gym hours, use a locker, swim in the pool. I'm not allowed to loan my membership card to a friend to use. If I misplace my membership card, that doesn't cancel my membership.
It seems the MPAA wants it both ways: They want to be allowed to make all sorts of restrictions as if they were selling licenses, but want to pretend it's just a physical object they're selling when it comes to media damage, theft, and format changes.
I say they play by the same rules as everyone else. Make it one or the other.
What about... (Score:4, Informative)
Given the number of DeCSS/Compression programs out there, I don't think the MPAA is going to be able to get rid of every tool to rip, compress and burn DVDs.
Constitution... schmonstitution (Score:5, Interesting)
Soviet Union had a Constituion that looked like a document fair to all the citizens of the country. But the Soviet Government constantly used lied (usually poorly disguised lies) to do whatever it felt was neccessary to stay in power. It still used its well-oiled propaganda machine to try to convince the dumbest 80% of the population that it was the most fair society in the wolrd.
Sure US has a freedom of speech. Unless you want to discuss something that is not politically correct, or you happen to be a computer programmer communicating in a way that you find most expressive, or you happen to be a mathematician discussing mathematics (think cryptography), or a chemist discussing high-energy reactions (think explosives).
It used to be that it was OK to tremple everyone rights legally as long as it was done to bring about safety. More and more it is done to bring about practical short-term solutions (read profit).
But at least there is no slippery slope.
Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Right on the front page (after updates to two similar products are mentioned btw!) they have the following interesting comment:
My bold, and that pretty much sums up how i feel about this aswell. I trust the views of Doom9 (he's a person and a site) as someone who knows a lot more about all this than me and has proved right on the money in the past. The sentence after the bold... well, that just pisses me off - i don't know what to say. I can make cr*p quality backups?! Is that a joke? (rhetorical).What about personal DVDs (Score:3, Interesting)
In the Sony Betamax case, the Supreme Court ruled that as long as there is a legitimate use for a technology, it cannot be banned because someone may use it for illegitimate uses.
I don't know much about how X Copy works but if it does a straight copy without actually bypassing CSS, how does the software violate DMCA?
Was DVD X Copy a good value? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's plainly obvious by reading the comments that the vast majority of Slashdotters would only ever use DVD X Copy for backing up a DVD that they already own. They would not use it for, say, renting a DVD from Netflix and making a copy for themselves, as many of my friends do regularly. Then again, almost everybody I know who uses Kazaa uses it to download and share copyrighted material without the holder's permission, so perhaps I'm hanging with the wrong crowd.
Making backups of your media is a good idea, in case they're damaged or stolen. But not even factoring in the cost of the DVD burner or the blank media, the basic version of DVD X Copy retails for $69.99. That's the cost of three DVDs.
I must own over a hundred DVDs, and not once have I had a DVD go bad or otherwise become unusable. I would have to have had three instances of this happening in order for a purchase of DVD X Copy to have been worth the investment.
If I regularly loaned DVDs to friends and three ended up not coming back, the software would have been a good investment, but it would have been more efficient to be more careful in whom I loan my DVDs to.
It seems to me that the most logical way to get your value's worth out of DVD X Copy is to use it for piracy. Just as most people use Kazaa illegally and most people who buy equipment for getting free cable or satelite signals also do so to avoid paying, rather than for "test purposes" or "for educational use only" as the ads proclaim, my bet is that most people who use DVD X Copy do so illegally.
Does anybody dispute this?
Re:Was DVD X Copy a good value? (Score:4, Insightful)
Primarily, some folks like to take their movies with them - increasing the chances of scratching/damaging the discs. If you have a portable DVD player in your car/van, or even a notebook computer that can play DVDs, you'd probably not really want to tote around your originals and risk them getting lost/stolen/damaged every time.
Re:Was DVD X Copy a good value? (Score:4, Insightful)
I own over 300 dvds of various sorts, and hell I don't even know how many CD's 500-1000 I guess. I ripped all my CD's to mp3 LONG ago and I burn cd's to use in my car and stereo, and most of my CD's have been played exactly once, when they were ripped. Same for my DVD's, I buy 'em, rip 'em, and put 'em up, if my kid scratches one, drops one, whatever, I just load the image off my harddrive and burn a new one.
I also built a computer just to hold the images of all the DVD's I've ripped (I haven't ripped ALL my dvd's yet, just the popular ones). It has 4x160 harddrives in a raid stripe, and a 4x DVD-/+RW. Every cd I own and a good bit of the DVD's are on there and ready to reburn when necessary. I can also play the images straight from the computer in my home theatre.
DO I think DVD-X copy is mainly used for piracy? Sure probably is. Does that mean EVERYONE uses it for such? Fuck no. However I personally don't use DVDXCopy, I use DVD Shrink + CopyToDVD but that's just preference in software, still does the same thing.
So yes I do DISPUTE your claim. And this has nothing to do with cost, it has to do with convenience, and keeping what I bought safe so I can use it for years to come.
Owners, not consumers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On CNN.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On CNN.. (Score:3, Insightful)
CNN is owned by AOL-Time-Warner - needless to say they are going to care more about the studio's interest than the public's interest.
Re:I use DVD X Copy to Copy Rented DVDs (Score:2)
Re:Damn RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
No, my rights end where they injure others. My rights to watch a DVD on a Linux box do not injure the movie industry, therefore those rights are inalienable. Those who say otherwise are the greatest threat to the freedom of our country and our world. We must stand firm.
As Ray Bradbury put it in Fahrenheit 451:
Re:Biased language in post (Score:3, Interesting)
I would also like to point out that there are two sides to this honor system, and if one side isn't playing fair, why should we.
Since there has been software to take media deom a disc, and out it on a hard drive, and they still sells dvds, I would say that a minority of people use DVDs that infring on someones copyright.
The people who make money infringe on copyrights are houses that produce DVDs by the thousands.
I deally, the courts
Re:Biased language in post (Score:4, Interesting)
If people could revoke a law by majority violation, would we pay taxes? Have copyright? The American Disabilities Act?
"I would also like to point out that there are two sides to this honor system, and if one side isn't playing fair, why should we."
The 'other side' offers a product, and they can choose what form and under what license to offer that product. If you don't like it, don't buy that product. By your comment I gather that you think it's okay to make copies of DVDs for your friends, or do you mean something else by 'not playing fair'?
"The people who make money infringe on copyrights are houses that produce DVDs by the thousands."
Yeah, but the people who lose money are the people who would otherwise sell their product.
I'm no fan of major labels, the RIAA, or the MPAA, but if and when smaller labels make their comeback through online distribution, they'll be the ones who are hurt by flagrant copying, and no matter how piusly we can say 'we won't copy the little label's music or movies, just the big-label basters who rape their artists' I don't believe that the day we remove copyright law is the day we stop needing it.