Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Entertainment Your Rights Online

Industry Group Would Permit (Some) DVD Copying 283

Posted by timothy from the we-control-the-horizontal-we-control-the-vertical dept.
Zocalo writes "The BBC is carrying the story that agreements have been made to permit legal DVD copying for use on portable devices and The Register appears to have the same story too. While extremely light on details, the mention of Microsoft and AACS leads me to believe this has something to do with Microsoft's Janus system which has been discussed here before. Perhaps more interesting though is that Disney and Time Warner are apparently on board... Can it be that the MPAA has learnt a lesson from the RIAA's heavy handed tactics or has Microsoft convinced them that Janus will work, despite their recent record of bug free coding, and we're going to have a repeat of the DeCSS fiasco?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Industry Group Would Permit (Some) DVD Copying More

Industry Group Would Permit (Some) DVD Copying

Comments Filter:

  • backup copies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by commo1 ( 709770 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @01:59PM (#9699561)
    Now, if they'd let us make backup copies and leave the originals in their cases, we'd be talking..... It will eventually happen, it's unfortunate that it is technology that forces it due to widespread use of copying techniques (and the "declining" sales due to this piracy), not consumer need.

    • Re:backup copies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:04PM (#9699616)
      I'm not trolling when I write "but does it run on Linux". The problem with these laws is that they really create abusable monopolies by saying "it's legal to copy DVDs if you pay Microsoft". That's no better - actually worse - than saying "it's legal to have two copies if you pay the MPAA for two copies".

      • Re:backup copies (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Darth Maul ( 19860 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:32PM (#9699910)
        Amen! This is the exact thing that bothers me about the FCC's Broadcast Flag. In the alt.tv.tech.hdtv newsgroup I brought up the fact that soon I won't be able to build my own PVR, because I won't be legally allowed to "copy" certain video streams.

        All I got was this big response saying all I had to do was buy an "official" card that supported the broadcast flag and encrypted stuff appropriately. But you can bet your marbles those official cards will only work under Windows (see DeCSS and not wanting to give out keys).

        So this is a big issue. It's basically saying you can still make a PVR, but you have to 1) pay Microsoft, and 2) honor the broadcast flag.

        How about, NO?

        • Broadcast flag (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ceswiedler ( 165311 ) *
          The broadcast flag really cracks me up. TV and radio stations put up freakin' huge antennas so that they can broadcast their signal so strongly I can practically hear it through my orthodontics...and then don't want anyone to record it.

          If I stood on top of a mountain and sang a song so loud nobody within twenty miles can avoid hearing it, can I complain if people record it?

          Private performances, and things like cable and satellite, are different, because there is an expectation of some privacy: it's not be

        • Re:backup copies (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Alsee ( 515537 )
          All I got was this big response saying all I had to do was buy an "official" card that supported the broadcast flag and encrypted stuff appropriately.

          Just ask them how you are supposed to edit, compress, or otherwise manipulate encrypted images.

          -
      • "The problem with these laws is that they really create abusable monopolies"

        You know, I'm not really sure where people get this from. Laws like these have never really been tested. What company, for example, maintains a monopoly on CD DRM? Or digital signatures? None that I know of (although I'd be interested in hearing about one).

    • Re:backup copies (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:21PM (#9699798) Homepage Journal
      "Now, if they'd let us make backup copies and leave the originals in their cases, we'd be talking....."

      A little OT, but I wish DVDs were like 3.5" floppies. I want those little cases that prevented fingerprints and scratches from occuring. That's about the only reason I have the slightest bit of interest in Sony's PSP system. Their mini DVDs work like that, and MPEG4 means movies can realistically be compressed to them. If they were to make the media more resilient, I'd be less bothered about the whole "you can't copy this" approach. (They do need to have some form of damaged disc exchange program, though...)

      • Re:backup copies (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Masami Eiri ( 617825 )
        Then DVD would cost more. Part of the reason the format is so popular is because it is cheap to produce.
        Now, if it were optional, that'd be cool. I vaguely remember some sort of CD player that you'd have to put the CD in a special case first, and it'd read it while in the case. The case could also be used for storage.
        • "Then DVD would cost more. Part of the reason the format is so popular is because it is cheap to produce."

          Cheaper plus destructable so people'll buy replacement copies. It's funny how internet piracy might just legitimate customers to be treated fairly.
      • This already existed. It was for cd's rather than dvd's, but it worked the same. You put the cd in a "caddy" that protected it and then you would put the caddy in your system, so that the disc would always be protected. People hated them. They like small, flat discs because you can (for example) store them all in a cd (or dvd) binder.
        • "You put the cd in a "caddy" that protected it and then you would put the caddy in your system, so that the disc would always be protected. People hated them. They like small, flat discs because you can (for example) store them all in a cd (or dvd) binder."

          People hated them because they didn't come in caddies. You had to pull the caddy out, open it, pop the appropriate disc in, and then pop it inside. Too many steps.

          You make a good point about the binder, though.

    • Re:backup copies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drtomaso ( 694800 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @03:17PM (#9700492)

      I dont for one second believe that they will allow free and unincumbered copying and I have proof- I was just down stairs, and I checked the temperature in hell- there was no freeze.

      Seriously though- the issue for the *AA is not the copies or even the volume of copies distributed- its the idea that copying and distributing is quickly becoming something you dont need a recording/producing company to do for you, for mega-middleman-bucks. Its all about the control, stupid.

      Nor do I believe the MPAA is more ethical simply because it hasnt taken the hardline approach of its sister organization, the RIAA. The only reason for this is that the threat posed to their cartel by information systems is much smaller. Consider the bandwidth requirements of transferring a movie vs an mp3. If we ever get fiber to the home, we'll see how they feel about copying for fair use rights.

      Rember kids, what these people would love to set up is legislation whereby every time you hit "control-c", it hits your checking account for $XY.99. In doing so, they garner virtual veto power over the entire information systems industry. Oh I am so sorry little internet startup, you can't market your product, because it might help someone make an illicit copy! What part of "This will destroy the US economy" don't they get?

  • I store my backups at the DVD store (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:01PM (#9699583)
    I use a little method I like to call "the five finger backup plan."

  • Lulling us into complacency (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:01PM (#9699587) Journal
    • Can it be that the MPAA has learnt a lesson from the RIAA's heavy handed tactics or has Microsoft convinced them that Janus will work, despite their recent record of bug free coding, and we're going to have a repeat of the DeCSS fiasco?
    I suspect the whole thing's a ploy by the MPAA and it's member companies to make it look like they're preserving fair-use rights while tightening their technical and legal stranglehold on copyright is all. After all if they can point to something like this when we cry foul about the loss of fair-use rights then they can largely fend off that line of attack. (At least in Congress.)

    • Re:Lulling us into complacency (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:14PM (#9699724)
      They don't have to lull us into anything. What some consumer protection group needs to do is present to Congress what fair-use really is.

      It's not what the fucking corporations decide it is. They have to play under the GOVERNMENT's rules not the other way around. You just have to love the brass balls that the MPAA has saying "oh, we are going to allow you to make backups."

      Excuse me assholes but we already can make backups due to something called the law. I am fairly certain that the law trumps what controls you believe you have.

      Let's stop pussy-footing around with these people and tell them to fuck off.

      • Re:Lulling us into complacency (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sepper ( 524857 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:22PM (#9699811) Journal
        I am fairly certain that the law trumps what controls you believe you have.

        With DRM, it works the other way... It's called the DMCA.
      • Excuse me assholes but we already can make backups due to something called the law. I am fairly certain that the law trumps what controls you believe you have.

        The law does trump everything else, but this is easier said than done. At this moment in time, we barely have a seperation between corporation and state. The companies might not directly make our laws, but they are strongly influential to the people who do make our laws. Unfortunately the majority of our society is too retarded to notice.

        I complete

  • Compromise Fair use? hell no! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:02PM (#9699598)
    Your fair use rights are still being thrown out a window. I would rather continue to fight the battle and refuse all DRM related technologies when they fail to address my rights to fair use ANYWHERE on ANY DEVICE of my choosing.

    I would, of course, encourage the rest of the community to do the same. Don't compromise on your rights. Instead, continue to fight for them.
    • This is very true, but refusing to use any DRM-encumbred technology means boycotting all DVDs. Their CSS and region-coding is even worse than WMA, i-tunes, etc. They only seem good because the alternative was pay-per-view DivX.

      This new plan actually sounds less evil than current DVDs. My guess is that it's mostly an attempt to stop people downloading DeCSS. Most laptops have massive amounts of unused HD space, and people want to be able to watch their legitimately-purchased movies without carrying around a

  • Great, more m$, less *nix (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm sure it will be approved devices only, meaning that there will be a specific list of hardware and software that it will work on. They need to stop trying and just let people do their own thing; I wonder how much money they waste on trying to figure out how to stop people.

  • Similar article on CNN -- Different Angle (Score:5, Informative)

    by Alzheimers ( 467217 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:03PM (#9699605)
    An article on cnn.com [cnn.com] is reporting something similar in the works for the "Next-generation" video discs. The amazing part about their article is how it specificly mentions Disney as part of the alliance. Granted, it looks all encumbered with DRM (here called the Advanced Access Content System)-- but this is a far-cry better than their attempts to push disposable and subscription-based media (DIVX).

    So, does this mean we're winning? Or just that we're not losing.
    • that we're losing at a slower pace than before, while at the same time, we're probably thinking that we're not losing.

      So, like Tarantino's bartender, not only are we going to get completely pissed on, we're (or some of us) going in to be happy in the process.

  • Thanks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dismentor ( 592590 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:03PM (#9699606)

    Thanks for 'letting' us do what we have the right to do and what makes us a criminal (unjustly) anyway.

  • or... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AmaDaden ( 794446 )
    Or are they FINALY starting to see that all this copy protection is more trouble then it's worth and that copying of movies can't be stopped by a silly little encryption?

  • Ahhh MPAA Ahhhh (Score:5, Funny)

    by HungWeiLo ( 250320 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:04PM (#9699617)
    It's nice to see stories like this - stories that can let the rest of us see the corporate conglomerates as the warm-and-fuzzy, civics-minded, environmentally responsible entities that they truly are...

  • Stealing a car?!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by moberry ( 756963 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:04PM (#9699621)
    "A new trailer warns that buying a pirate DVD is like stealing a car or phone."

    Um... no. That is like saying killing a caterpillar is the same as killing George Bush (No troll intended, first name i though of)
    • Or that burning a flag is like burning down the White House.
    • More like saying that DOSing George Bush's website is the same as sticking duct tape over his mouth. A movie is an expressive way of communicating an idea; a car is a physical object. Ideas cannot be stolen, they can only have their uniqueness devalued.

    • What are you talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nathan s ( 719490 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:59PM (#9700266) Homepage
      Stealing a car is exactly like stealing a DVD. I just run my handy deCAR utility, stick the car into my trusty duplicator, and voila, my stolen car is ready for me to drive away. Sure is handy, and much less likely to attract the notice of the authorities since the owner doesn't even know his car has been stolen....MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Personal use (Score:5, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:05PM (#9699633) Homepage Journal
    When I buy a legitimate copy of a CD, DVD, or other recording, I obtain a limited copyright. I can make as many copies as I want, provided I don't distribute them to anyone else. That would be unfair competition with the copyright holder - redistribution is not included in the limited copyright I have bought.

    Some copyright holders (RIAA) have tried to reduce my rights, preventing me from making copies for my personal use. They never anticipated the bonanza from CD reissues of vinyl records, and they want to reissue incompatible formats every few years to get me to buy more copies. Digital copies for personal use threatens that gravy train, and rights be damned. But they can't stop us from exercising our rights, so they'd better get with the program.

    • Re:Personal use (Score:4, Informative)

      by tlunde ( 38528 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:27PM (#9699860) Homepage
      IAAL.

      At least in the US, your statement of the law is wrong. Purchase of a piece of physical media does not specifically provide you any rights to make copies of copyrighted works held on that media.

      UTSL. You might actually want to read the relevant bit of law before making (potentially) incriminating remarks. For instance, here are the exclusive rights of the copyright holder (not the media buyer) [cornell.edu] and the statutory fair use rights [cornell.edu] of all persons (including the media buyer) under Federal law.

      • Re:Personal use (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dun Malg ( 230075 )
        At least in the US, your statement of the law is wrong. Purchase of a piece of physical media does not specifically provide you any rights to make copies of copyrighted works held on that media.

        The rights are not specifically provided, to be sure, but the fair use statute is quite broad and open to a great deal of interpretation. It essentially lays out the basic considerations and leaves it up to the judge.

    • Some copyright holders (RIAA) have tried to reduce my rights, preventing me from making copies for my personal use...

      Regardless of what you and I and most people think your rights should be, in reality, your rights in terms of what you can do with a copyrighted work are exclusively spelled out by the seller, not you. By purchasing copyrighted music or whatever, you agree to the terms.

  • I do not need their permission (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kyknos.org ( 643709 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:06PM (#9699641) Homepage
    I do copy DVDs anyway.

  • camcorders? (Score:2, Funny)

    by mikeee ( 137160 )
    Of course, they'll need to post officers in your livingroom to prevent you from making illicit copies of your DVDs with camcorders...

  • Isn't it already legal? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fname ( 199759 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:08PM (#9699660) Journal
    I think it's already legal, DCMA notwithstanding. I'm sure there are many illegal ways to circumvent effective DVD copying (what's the current status of that anyways), but there are legal ones as well. Is buying software that isn't macrovision-enabled illegal?

    I mean, I have the right to create a backup under fair-use. I have the right to make a copy for another medium. I'm not attacking the the way the story is posted, but I think it's important to re-iterate that coying your DVDs to another medium is fair-use, and fair-use is legal.

    Now, maybe they are in discussions to make it easy. Somehow, I doubt it will be any easier than other methods out there (links anyone?), but it will be sanctioned by the MPAA. This is good, and it shows progress, but the MPAA does not have the power to make things legal or illegal.
    • DMCA [copyright.gov], not DCMA.

    • Let me explain your current rights... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:22PM (#9699813) Homepage
      You have a state A where you have the original media. This is (doh) legal. You have a state B with the original media and a back-up. This is also legal.

      However, any route between those two states have been made illegal, mostly by the DMCA. So, you have technically not lost any right, only any and all means to exercise that right.

      To take the Orwellian analogy: You still have freedom of speech. Except you have to express it in newspeak. Now isn't that doubleplusgood? :p

      Kjella

    • Don't be fooled. This announcement is not saying that the MPAA will agree that you are within your rights to backup and/or time/device shift your legally obtained media (you are). Instead, they are saying that they are going to implement (with the help of Microsoft) technologies that ensure that that is all you are able to do with the media.

      So forget about taking a backup copy of your movie to a friend's house and trying to play it on their equipment (ain't gonna happen -- although you have the right to

  • Grammar Nazi-ing (sorry!) (Score:5, Funny)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:10PM (#9699685) Homepage
    "Can it be that the MPAA has learnt a lesson from the RIAA's heavy handed tactics or has Microsoft convinced them that Janus will work, despite their recent record of bug free coding, and we're going to have a repeat of the DeCSS fiasco?"

    English teachers beware: reading the above may induce orifice hemorrhaging.

  • iMedia sync to video iPod... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by otis wildflower ( 4889 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:10PM (#9699692) Homepage
    ... hmm, how obvious isn't this?

    Maybe this is what Steveo is waiting for.. An easy rip-to-360x240 mechanism, preferably preserving menus and whatnot..

    It'd be great for commuters and tech fetishistes..

  • WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:12PM (#9699716) Homepage Journal
    This week, film companies in the UK joined forces for the first time to convince movie fans that buying pirate DVDs funds terrorism and drug dealing.

    [snip]

    Northern Irish paramilitaries and Afghan Sikhs are among those involved in selling DVDs in the UK, according to the Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact), the industry's anti-piracy unit.

    I remember we (on /. ) used to joke a few months back that it won't take long for pirates to be labelled "terrorists" and puppy killers. Now this is *actually* happening.

    From Orrin Hatch labelling piracy as "anti-children" to this latest FUD, I can't believe they'd go so far (in cahoots with the government ofcourse) to spread their lies.

    I could argue that the Record companies and "artists" are culprits in the first place, because they *produce* the music/movies which these "terrorists" pirate in the first place to fund their activities?

    • Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 )
      Who do you think is out on the streets selling bootlegged DVDs for 10 bucks a pop? Who do you think ORGANIZES this CRIMINAL activity? Could it be, organized crime? Groups trying to raise quick untracable bucks to fund other activities? Oh, no, that's just fearmongering and FUD.

      I tell ya, the guys running the little bootleg booths around here all have turbans on their heads and long beards. They're raking in a lot of bucks, and he sure as fuck ain't spending it on the latest fashion or personal hygiene
    • uhhh, there are terrorist orginization, as well as other forms of orginized crime, that sell bootleg CDs to make hard to trace money.

      The industry needs to go after those people, not wast time and money dealing with the individual downloader. I have no problem with the arrest of people processing hundreds of DVDs illegally.

    • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:57PM (#9700244) Homepage
      "This week, film companies in the UK joined forces for the first time to convince movie fans that buying pirate DVDs funds terrorism and drug dealing.

      I remember we (on /. ) used to joke a few months back that it won't take long for pirates to be labelled "terrorists" and puppy killers. Now this is *actually* happening."

      Terrorism is at least something you spend money on. But funding drug dealing? "Yeah, drug dealing is not profitable. Fortunately, we're able to keep the operation going by funding it from our DVD pirating. It's such a valuable contribution to society that we have to keep it going, even though we're not earning any money on it." Reality-check: Failed. The only drug dealing funded here is what they've been smoking.

      Kjella
  • What's more likely to happen is to permit "restrictive copying" and use the same heavy handed tactics the moment a "licensee" deviates from the said "restrictive copying."

    Make no mistake, the corporate entity's sole purpose of existence is to milk their custom.. ahm, licensees for every penny they can get.
  • Perhaps if I could just borrow the MPAA/RIAA legal documents and color around the edges with a magic marker, all this nonsense would stop!
  • I know that to the Slashdot crowd most decisions made by industry groups bare the stench of conspiracy, but maybe the MPAA figures that movie swapping is likely destined to be what music swapping has been for a few years now, and maybe they're trying to move in the direction of iTunes before movie swapping becomes as commonplace.

    Think of how different things would have been if iTunes had been released to the public back in 1999.

  • Of course you'll be able to copy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:16PM (#9699755)
    After all, Microsoft is trying to push a portable video player...

    Now if you'll be able to copy to anything else but that portable player, or on anything but Windows - very doubtful.

  • OT: Janus (Score:5, Funny)

    by Aumaden ( 598628 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <relliM.C.noveD>> on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:17PM (#9699760) Journal
    something to do with Microsoft's Janus system

    Janus [novareinna.com] was the Roman god of doors and gates (or beginnings and endings). "January" is derived from Janus; the beginning of a year. Janus is generally portrayed as having 2 faces, one looking forward and one looking back.

    Hmm, 2 faces... two-faced...

    I'm not sure if I should be concerned or amused that Microsoft chose this name for their system.

  • Like they have a choice? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by macemoneta ( 154740 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:18PM (#9699778) Homepage
    I already watch movies on my Palm Tungsten C [palmone.com] (with mmplayer [mmplayer.com] that I rip from DVDs I've purchased (Dark City and the Southpark movie are loaded as we speak).

    I think anyone that tried to convince a jury that I shouldn't be allowed to watch a movie I bought on a device I bought would be laughed out of court.

    I see this current activity as damage control, public relations, and possibly a backdoor into monitoring/ratings. After all, if they can show that x people watched the movie on their portable player, and were forced to view the commercial attached to it, they can get revenue from that commercial.

    • That fact that you have a backup is not at issue here. That is fair use.

      The fact that, in exercising your rights to create that backup, you probably decrypted the video stream, THAT is where you broke the law. The DMCA classifies that as circumvention of a protection method, and that's the issue that we have with the DMCA (well, one of them, anyways): We retain our fair use rights, but if we want to exercise them, we break the law.

      At least, that's how I remember it being explained to me from my Int
  • You see, if even one of these items gets 'DiVX' certified, all bets are off. By providing what consumers want (DRM issues aside), they hope to blunt some of 'the damage'. Speaking of DiVX, the Philips DVP-642 DVD player with DiVX is an amazing device, and only $69.99 to boot.

  • Microsoft DRM (Score:4, Informative)

    by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:20PM (#9699791) Homepage
    [...]Microsoft convinced them that Janus will work, despite their recent record of bug free coding, and we're going to have a repeat of the DeCSS fiasco?

    Microsoft DRM for WMA seems to be holding up pretty well. All the cracks I've seen are equivalent to "burn a CD and rip it". E.g., it seems successful in limiting people to doing exactly what they are licensed to do.

    Probably best to save the snide remarks for when someone actually cracks it.

    • That's because nobody cares. Quick, guess how many DRM'ed WMA files I have! Yep. Zero. I don't even know where you *get* DRM'ed WMA files, unless Windows Media Player will rip them from CDs for you (and if you're ripping from CDs, why not just use a good CD ripping program and encode non-DRM WMAs?)

      Trust me, as soon as we have more than a dozen sources of DRM WMA that don't have trivial non-DRM WMA sources attached, we'll have cracks.
    • Look at it this way. Microsoft DRM is being used on a lot of porn sites (or so I'm told). If it where easy to crack, it would be done allready.
    • Bizarrely, the DRM in Windows Media Player is partly optional: there's a dialog box that asks if you want to "copy protect" ripped songs (Tools menu, Options, Copy Music tab). It's checked by default, but you can avoid the DRM by unchecking it.

    • WMV (Score:3, Funny)

      by Cyno01 ( 573917 )
      Screw WMA, we want WMV cracked, DRM free porn...

  • DRM replaces media degradation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jzilla ( 256016 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:25PM (#9699844) Homepage
    When record companies started putting out album on cdroms, they were concern about the durability of cdroms. Ever wonder why cdrom dics aren't encloded like a 3.5 inch floppy? Record companies were used to selling tapes, which degrade over time, and they could resell the same thing over and over. So they decide not to put protective enclosure (some drives before this had them) on thier cdroms so they would degrade quicker by scratches, kids, spills and what not.

    Thats the role DRM is playing today. So you can't buy a copy and use it forever.

    Thats why I refuse DRM.

  • This is so lame. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity@s[ ]lobal.net ['bcg' in gap]> on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:27PM (#9699861) Homepage Journal
    Look, fair use rights are not something corporations grant to us. They are what the government grants to us, the same government that also governs corporations.

    It is not industry's place to "grant" us this. It is our right to do so regardless of their wishes.

  • Time For A Poker Analogy... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bfg9000 ( 726447 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:27PM (#9699865) Homepage Journal
    ... if you sit at the table with these guys and can't tell who the sucker is in ten minutes, it's you.

    Their histories should speak for themselves. Combined, they're probably trying to get ahold of the One Ring again.

  • All DRM should be required to time out (Score:4, Interesting)

    by howlatthemoon ( 718490 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:34PM (#9699932)
    At least for the time being, this content will (some time in the next century) fall into the public domain. DRM that fails to remove itself after a reasonable time should be illegal. I agree with everyone else who believes that DRM is restricting our current fair use rights, but as someone who deals with archives, this is a major concern. The media industry is technologically destroying the public domain.

  • Supply and demand (Score:3, Informative)

    by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:48PM (#9700119)
    Why can the music/movie corporate people figure this out?

    Is there any equivalent to an MP3 or DIVX that takes hours to days to download, of questionable quality, and random completeness to what you buy in the store?

    No, hell no there isn't.

    Who here has "upgraded" their tape/album collection to CD? I have. Who benefited from this? Yes, the music people (doubful the artists did, maybe a little). I personally have bought 3 copies of "Dark Side of the Moon", on LP, the original release of the CD, and the Original Master Recording CD (out of print now). Once I get my surround system hooked up again, I will buy the SACD as well.

    My point being, is that people are willing to sacrifice quality for quanity, and they realize this. I'm not much into pirated stuff, but I know it exists. I know where to get MP3s, I don't know where to get CD quality rips of CDs (except for killer live stuff! [sharingthegroove.org]).

    The music/movie people bitch and complain about bootlegging and pirating, yet they simply refuse to change. Currently (and from here on) there will be a supply from the "traded" (0 monitary cost, low quality, large time investment, no liner notes, etc), the used marked (lower monitary cost, harder to get "what you want when you want it"), and the store bought route (you know what goes here).

    The thing that really kills me is that Sony is being a pussy with this opportunity. I mean, damn, they own a vast majority of the material, and they manufacture hardware of varying quality from junk to pretty damn good stuff.

    What do I know? I'm only a consumer that has spent thousands of dollars (probably about $6k) in electronics and hundreds a year on music and movies.

    People will always want music, and the market demands the price. Go to ebay and look for Coventry Phish tickets. They are going for about $400 a pop (I've got 4 :). Again, its supply and demand. So keep doing what your doing guys. We really sympathize with your business model.

  • Well, that's awfully damned nice of them! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @02:50PM (#9700153)
    Did anyone else take offense at this statement?

    agreements have been made to permit legal DVD copying for use on portable devices

    Permit? It is not these companies' place to permit me to do anything! The rights to use recorded material has been defined by the Supreme court of the United States. These rights are not something to be graciously permitted by companies who only exist by the virtue of money I pay for their products!

    Not to mention that this scheme will almost certainly grant Microsoft a virtual monopoly on every playback mechanism for any recorded material. Do you really believe that there is any chance in hell that this DRM scheme will ever run on any platform but Windows?

    Vote with your dollars, people! I for one am not going to purchase any damned part of this scheme. And I am an electronics engineer. If it comes to pass that no playback device for any recorded media in the US can be bought without this DRM scheme, then I will make it my sole purpose in life to determine how it may be defeated and spread it throughout the Internet.

    Fuck 'em! Just fuck 'em.
    • agreements have been made to permit legal DVD copying for use on portable devices

      Permit? It is not these companies' place to permit me to do anything! The rights to use recorded material has been defined by the Supreme court of the United States.

      Given that this is a British article you're quoting from, what on Earth does the US Supreme Court have to do with it?

  • Can it be that the MPAA has learnt a lesson from the RIAA's heavy handed tactics or has Microsoft convinced them that Janus will work, despite their recent record of bug free coding, and we're going to have a repeat of the DeCSS fiasco?

    So, you're against DRM, and believe that Microsoft writes shitty, buggy software. If you're against DRM, shouldn't you WELCOME Microsoft's Janus into all commerically available movies? This way, it will be exploited quickly and you can get right back to pirating even h

  • I'll buy DVD's when I can own one... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @03:12PM (#9700427) Homepage Journal

    ...to permit legal DVD copying for use on portable devices and...

    As if I have to ask for permission to copy something that I own in the first place?

    I rent my apartment. I read and signed the lease prior to occupation. I crossed out the parts I didn't agree with, and the landlord accepted the modified lease. I don't pretend that I own my apartment, and the landlord didn't pretend he sold it too me.

    But, this DVD thing, is apparently different. According to the MPAA:

    1. You pay for the cost of content, not the media, when you buy a DVD. So clearly, you don't own the media in the sense that you can do anything you want with it. According the MPAA, you are "licensing" the content, even though you never agreed to any contract, nor were aware of the "license" terms at purchase. Absent case law supporting retroactive compulsory licensing, I'm at a loss as to why the MPAA believes they have the right to do this.
    2. Yet, as anyone who has tried to exchange a damaged or scratched DVD will tell you, the MPAA believes that you don't own the "license" either - if the media becomes unusable, you'll have to "license" the movie again - meaning pay full price for a new copy. So clearly, you don't own the license, either.

    When I see the the billboard movie ads says "own it today", I think of actually owning a movie. But after I've shelled out hard cash and pop in the disk, the MPAA informs me that this movie is licensed for home viewing... Wait a minute? - I thought I was buying the DVD, as in, I NOW OWN THE MOVIE. How can the MPAA impose terms on the use of something they no longer own?

    What it comes down to is this: If the MPAA can impose terms on me after I've bought something, I don't really own it. And why would I buy something I can't own?

    The communists didn't believe in private ownership either. Given Hollywood's leftist leanings, the MPAA's attempt to erode private ownership of goods comes as no surprise.

    I'll think about buying a DVD when the MPAA can tell me exactly what, if anything, I own after the purchase

    • But after I've shelled out hard cash and pop in the disk, the MPAA informs me that this movie is licensed for home viewing... Wait a minute? - I thought I was buying the DVD, as in, I NOW OWN THE MOVIE. How can the MPAA impose terms on the use of something they no longer own?

      Actually, there are a few copyright clauses that fall under most people's radars. One is the public performance clause... I.E. you can't charge admission to a packed house of 100 other people, or for that matter even show it to a sm

  • In related news (Score:4, Funny)

    by DynaSoar ( 714234 ) * on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @03:14PM (#9700456) Journal
    The Weather Forecasters Union has decided it's OK if you get wet when you go out in the rain.

  • Janus (Score:3, Funny)

    by Goo.cc ( 687626 ) * on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @05:26PM (#9701870)
    Can't the word Janus be taken to mean two-faced? If so, I can't think of a better term for a Microsoft technology.

  • Would "permit" copying? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by npsimons ( 32752 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @05:40PM (#9701968) Homepage Journal
    They would "permit" copying? That's kind of like saying "while I don't like gravity, I will permit it to continue".


    There are somethings in this universe that you just can't control; copying is one of them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Heisenberg may have been here.

Close