http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10166901#post10166901

With Kaleidescope's win in court just recently, wherein the MPAA was trying to prove that their system's serving of ripping of DVD content throughout a home network violated their agreement w/ the company on 'fair use/et al' grounds, should stand as a legal precedent to allow similar systems to enter the marketplace unimpeded. The use of content that you've paid for in a fluid home server environment is something we've all long said should be allowed and 100% supported by major manufacturers and software companies--but the MPAA has only allowed super high-priced niche players like Kaleidescope to go official to market under restricted private agreements.

I'm hoping that Apple and others can look at the courts decision and take heart--and give us more flexibility w/in their products. Video should be as portable as music has proven to be--iTunes and AppleTV included. If you pirate, then you've crossed a line...but if you buy or pay for access to the the content (either by purchasing a disc or subscribing to it through premium cable/sat), you should be able to timeshift/placeshift to your hearts content. Just no re-selling or re-distributing outside your personal use. 'Fair use' needs to enter the 21st century and hopefully now it just might be...

HEAR THAT APPLE! Open up iTunes/AppleTV/FrontRow to allow playback/streaming of video content other than iTunes store downloads (i.e. TS files/VOBs/etc.)...just as we can add/listen to our own music through your software/hardware portals!

While I don't know how this decision could help Apple there is no doubt that I wish Apple would step up to the MPAA and fight our battles for us. The CE companies have the most to gain and should be on our side in this debate.

If they are so worried about us ripping movies we rent, why not mark those special DVDs they sell to Netlix and the like as rentals. After all you don't really believe Netflix and Blockbuster buy retail packaged DVDs and store all those boxes somewhere do you? Sure hackers could bypass the "rental token" and it wouldn't stop people from loaning disks to friends, but how many disks do all of your friends have anyways?

[QUOTE=bdraw]While I don't know how this decision could help Apple there is no doubt that I wish Apple would step up to the MPAA and fight our battles for us. The CE companies have the most to gain and should be on our side in this debate. QUOTE]

Don't drink the Koolaid. Apple will not fight the MPAA as they are part of the MPAA. They don't want people ripping DVDs anymore than Sony does. Apple wants you buy content from iTS. Job's comment about removing DRM was nothing more than a PR stunt. I must admit they are brilliant. Sales of ATV are doing great. Once people realize they can't play all of their content they will probably step up and buy the new Mac Mini with Leopard when it is released. Can you say more money, more money, more money?

Before everyone gets too excited, understand clearly this was a contract dispute. Copyright didn't enter into it. Follow the links. Here's an interesting snippet:

Because of this ruling, the Judge did not have to get into copyright issues, so the Kaleidescape ruling has no copyright implications. It is not a statement on the legality of ripping DVDs.

-- The court decision was based on a technicality -- it didn't rule on the merits of the case, there is no precedent.

-- Apple needs the studios good will for movie downloads via iTunes Store -- they've gotten only 1.5 studios so far (no new releases from Paramount) (plus one indy), so they need all the good will they can get.

-- It is now April, 2007. AppleTV is out and selling. It has been a long time since movie downloads started, yet Apple *still* has only 1.5 studio, and only a small fraction of their libraries available. No HiDef (720P at 24fps), probably because the studios aren't allowing it. Apple may loose its patience and threaten the studios with iTunes DVD import if they don't come on board with the iTunes store soon.

Bottom line -- very unlikely, but not impossible, for the exact same reason that it is unlikely.

From the MPAA website:

"The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) serves its members from its offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. On its board of directors are the Chairmen and Presidents of the six major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States. These members include:

Buena Vista Pictures Distribution; (The Walt Disney Company)
Paramount Pictures Corporation;
Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.;
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation;
Universal City Studios LLLP; and
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.'

This puts Steve Jobs in the awkward (love that word ;) ) position of both governing (through Disney) and being governed (at Apple) by the MPAA. Add to that the fact that the 6 studios are fierce competitors. While the MPAA doesn't act in the role of contract negotiator between the individual studios and Apple (or any other content provider), it does act in the role of copyright protector for both traditional and downloaded content. As such, any Apple technology that threatens copyright infringement (as the MPAA and its member studios view it) will skew the other members against Apple, and the possibilities for adding them to the iTS.

It must be exceedingly difficult for Jobs to balance the needs of Apple and the needs of Disney (and the MPAA) in his goal to add content to the iTS and technology to the Mac and aTV. Hopefully the Kaleidascape ruling will help to temper the MPAA and embolden technology provders. I'd really like to hear what Steve Jobs thinks about Fair Use in his dual role. Not DRM or copyright issues--but Fair Use.

Oh, for a good fly-on-the-wall expose of the whole thing. Sequel to "Pirates of Silicon Valley." The irony in the title is wonderful. :rolleyes:

...
Don't drink the Koolaid. ... Apple wants you buy content from iTS. Job's comment about removing DRM was nothing more than a PR stunt. ...
I think it is time to eat your words -- Jobs is deadly serious about DRM removal:
From today's WSJ:
In a major reversal of the music industry's longstanding antipiracy strategy, EMI Group PLC is set to announce Monday that it plans to sell significant amounts of its catalog without anticopying software, according to people familiar with the matter.

The London-based music company is to make its announcement in a press conference that will feature Apple Inc. Chief Executive Steve Jobs. EMI is to sell songs without the software -- known as digital rights management, or DRM -- through Apple's iTunes Store and possibly through other online outlets, too.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html

“We are going to give iTunes customers a choice—the current versions of our songs for the same 99 cent price, or new DRM-free versions of the same songs with even higher audio quality and the security of interoperability for just 30 cents more,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “We think our customers are going to love this, and we expect to offer more than half of the songs on iTunes in DRM-free versions by the end of this year.”

BTW, note that the music videos will also be DRM free. The first step in DRM removal for TV shows & movies?

Can't find the quote, but Jobs did specifically state that movies are a different bag, in that they are not available in DRM-less format now, whereas music is (CDs vs.CDD-protected DVDs), and his intention was not to pursue a similar strategy on movies.

BB

If they are so worried about us ripping movies we rent, why not mark those special DVDs they sell to Netlix and the like as rentals. After all you don't really believe Netflix and Blockbuster buy retail packaged DVDs and store all those boxes somewhere do you? Sure hackers could bypass the "rental token" and it wouldn't stop people from loaning disks to friends, but how many disks do all of your friends have anyways?
What happens when BlockBuster turns around and sells off its rental stock in their "Previously Viewed" bins? How do they remove the rental token?

I don't know how much of BB's revenue is tied up in selling off their rental stock, but there's not much incentive for them to have huge back-stocks of new releases if they can't use those rental disks to compete in the sales marketplace after the newness has worn off.

In the last 2 years, I have bought probably 3 times as many DVDs from the used shelves at BB than I have off of any brand new retail shelf in any B&M store, and I still haven't bought any DVDs online.

What happens when BlockBuster turns around and sells off its rental stock in their "Previously Viewed" bins? How do they remove the rental token?


The same thing that happens now, they sell them as previously viewed and just like you don't get the real box you won't be able to legally copy it to your DVD jukebox.

Before everyone gets too excited, understand clearly this was a contract dispute. Copyright didn't enter into it. Follow the links.[/I]

It wasn't with the MPAA either, it was with the DVD CCA, which represents other groups in addition to motion picture studios.

Thanks for the clarification.

Can anyone point to legislation that DOES describe a difference in 'Fair Use' when it comes to copyrighted material on digital formats vs. analog and music vs. video--that's where we (as consumers) seem to have seen a curbing of our legitimate use of purchased material.

If its not legislated and outstanding pertinent practices of one format or copyright-protected material under fair use has long precident--then why couldn't a class-action be filed against such organizations to mandate the same functionality on behalf of the consumer?

Maybe I don't have all the particulars--but it seems the 'rules' were changed when we headed into digital, and that wasn't done in courts or congress, but in deals between content providers and the consumer electronics and broadcasting industries. That, to me, means that it lacks real legal 'teeth'. But maybe I've been missing something.

The Milleneum Act is one culprit, and in the DRM age the ambiguities always side against the consumer, though our dollars and support keep everyone in the business, in business. Here's a good summary:

http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html

NO REAL LEGAL BASIS EXAMPLE: I'm thinking of the music industry's fit over the XM pocket reciever/recorders of recent--the same thing you could do w/ analog radio/tape recorder Walkman units for 20 years, but because it's digital, they want to change your relationship and usage of the music. They were threatening lawsuits to get them off the market or to fling economic/licensing repurcussions at XM and the hardware manufacturers. B.S. and it's not legal...tantamount to mob tactics/extortion.

Thanks for the clarification.

Can anyone point to legislation that DOES describe a difference in 'Fair Use' when it comes to copyrighted material on digital formats vs. analog and music vs. video--that's where we (as consumers) seem to have seen a curbing of our legitimate use of purchased material.

If its not legislated and outstanding pertinent practices of one format or copyright-protected material under fair use has long precident--then why couldn't a class-action be filed against such organizations to mandate the same functionality on behalf of the consumer?

Maybe I don't have all the particulars--but it seems the 'rules' were changed when we headed into digital, and that wasn't done in courts or congress, but in deals between content providers and the consumer electronics and broadcasting industries. That, to me, means that it lacks real legal 'teeth'. But maybe I've been missing something.

The Milleneum Act is one culprit, and in the DRM age the ambiguities always side against the consumer, though our dollars and support keep everyone in the business, in business. Here's a good summary:

http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html

NO REAL LEGAL BASIS EXAMPLE: I'm thinking of the music industry's fit over the XM pocket reciever/recorders of recent--the same thing you could do w/ analog radio/tape recorder Walkman units for 20 years, but because it's digital, they want to change your relationship and usage of the music. They were threatening lawsuits to get them off the market or to fling economic/licensing repurcussions at XM and the hardware manufacturers. B.S. and it's not legal...tantamount to mob tactics/extortion.Ooh, we've gone from dipping our toes into the waters, to a head long dive! ;)

The history of Copyright vs. Fair Use has swung back and forth over the years, striving to find a balance. With the DMCA, there is no doubt what side of the pendulum we are on. There have been two attempts by Congress recently to try and bring Fair Use in the digital age back into the fold. The first, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCRA), reaffirms Fair Use. The second, the Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations (BALANCE) Act of 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCRA), seeks to "to safeguard the rights and expectations of consumers who lawfully obtain digital entertainment." While neither have passed, both are mild attempts to restore some semblence of Fair Use back to the consumer. Of course, there always remains the possibility of court action to take a judicial look at how laws like the DMCA circumvent standing traditional Fair Use rights. It is a fascinating interplay of two diversely different public viewpoints, and this tug-of-war will continue on for many years to come.

Looks like the Kaleidescope ruling has put the serious jitters into the studios, etc...

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=198701588

Great. Just what we need...more delays in getting content management specs to the marketplace.

To quote Sting, as Feyd-Rautha in 'Dune', "Why prolong the inevitable?"

First the VCR, then DVD, now this...and they make money off the "thing that will be the end of us" every damn time...in fact, that dreaded thing is inevitably the what saves them from the dreaded mires of red ink that seem to face them at every turn. But lets not fix our bloated production and P&A budgets, top-heavy star system and antiquated distribution models--lets blame technology!

Aye...will they ever learn? We are their customers. We are their friends, not their enemies. We pay their way.

They won't learn because they are fools. The goal is to make sure the 80/20 rule is in effect. Make sure %80 of people are honest buyers and accept that %20 of people will steal your stuff. Make the pie large and you'll have enough profits.

It really doesn't take months to make these decisions.

They won't learn because they are fools. The goal is to make sure the 80/20 rule is in effect. Make sure %80 of people are honest buyers and accept that %20 of people will steal your stuff. Make the pie large and you'll have enough profits.


No, no. You got it all wrong. The rule is assume 80% of your "customers" are thieves and make sure your practices turn the other 20% into pirates as well. That way you can sue 100% of your customers. ;)

Saw this today...has some interesting statements from the MPAA rep that suggest that changes may indeed be afoot to allow DRM some flex for things like DVD ripping/jukeboxing, etc.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070426-mpaa-drm-must-be-interoperable-dvds-should-be-rippable.html

What took them so long?

God how these people keep their jobs is beyond me. There is a huge potential market for the repurposing of DVD/HD content. Space shifting is important. Consumers love the access in they have with the CD to digital file process and now that storage and computer speeds have improved the same process can yield easy access to movies.

How many people have seen children destroy a DVD with mishandling? I have. Not everyone requires a their entire DVD collection stored but the benefits of being able to store your favorites in digital form is nice.

The money is there. The MPAA just needs to have a protection mechanism that keeps the majority of people honest (meaning make breaking whatever copy protection hard enough to thwart casual computing consumers)

There's no reasy why consumers shouldn't be storing their content on Terabyte servers in 5-10yrs. Man I can imagine the ties in studios would be able to offer via internet. Updated extras, alternate endings, enhanced actor biographies you name it.

I agree w/ everything you've just said.

Seems a few folks over at the Consumerist site might as well...the RIAA just won their 'worst company in America 2007' survey (heard about this in a recent 'TWiT' podcast). They beat out Halliburton--that says something. I'm sure the MPAA is right there with them.

http://consumerist.com/consumer/worst-company-in-america/riaa-wins-worst-company-in-america-2007-245235.php

Perhaps sanity is prevailing and folks in those organizational confines are waking up to the opportunities that spring from Fair Use...they've been obsessing over the negatives for too long and its not changing the ways of our modern connected digital world, only hurting them.

unfortunately I don't think sanity is what is prevailing; but rather a recognition that it's happening anyway; If they don't provide a legal-drm controlled way, then the open ended illegal way will prevail... I also think Jobs is doing an excellent job balancing the two sides and bringing the industry into reality zones... Ironic from the reality-distortion-field guru... :)

ken

unfortunately I don't think sanity is what is prevailing; but rather a recognition that it's happening anyway; If they don't provide a legal-drm controlled way, then the open ended illegal way will prevail... I also think Jobs is doing an excellent job balancing the two sides and bringing the industry into reality zones... Ironic from the reality-distortion-field guru... :)

ken

Truer words... ;)

Hollywood isn't looking at the real dark horse here. It's the Indie filmmakers who could be poised to make some big waves. What I think is needed is a DRM system available to everyone with varying levels of control. Thus you could deliver your movie on disc or via an internet download with a set of rights. The Governing body would insure interoperabilty and would be non-profit for the most part.

Thus as an Indie you could pay a small license and set access rights. Therefore you could have "free to copy" or "copy allowed x times" or "no copies" embedded in the metadata of your product

The MPAA is acting like they're doing us a favor. DVD has been broken for years they're acting like they actually have control in this situation. It's quite easy to see the forest through the trees here. I thought I'd always listen to CDs...I'm quite amazed at how quickly I adapted to iTunes and playing my music on a digital portable player (and soon Apple TV).

Video is the next step. Hitachi is already selling a 1TB hard drive. Imagine in another 5 years how much storage will be available to the typical consumer. It's time to start thinking about how many consumers out there want their video to offer the same levels of space shifting and portability.

We're not just talking Hollywood content either. Canon makes the HV20 digital camcorder for $1099 that has industry vets impressed qualitatively speaking. If consumers have access to HD content that looks fabulous of their own creation and editing tools on their computer then we're not just talking about a way to playback prepacked media but a way to view your own unique creations.

I think the DRM is a necessary evil. I would like everyone to be on the same page though. DRM shouldn't be controlled by the hegemony. It should be affordable for small producers on up to the largest producers out there.

Perhaps the tide is turning? I read this morning that the encryption keys from AACS (the DRM for HD-DVDs) have turned up all over the Internet. Digg, apparently, submitting to a complaint from the DVD organisation took down the links, but now there is an open rebellion. Here's (http://blog.digg.com/?p=74) an open letter from the founder of Digg saying they will defy the companies trying to keep this code secret. Also, on the lighter side, here's a guy singing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HaNbsIfp0) the code!