or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Will Cinavia kill PC Blu-ray Playback Software?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Cinavia kill PC Blu-ray Playback Software? - Page 5

post #121 of 160
Let's assume for the moment that you actually can make a legal copy.

If it is encoded with the Cinavia watermark can you still play it beyond the shutdown timer?
post #122 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Megaupload was shut down because people stole what others put up there for their own personal storage.

Incorrect. Megaupload was shut down because people used it to intentionally illegally share copyrighted material. If Megaupload had operated like the Amazon MP3 locker service does, it would still be there.
post #123 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

Let's assume for the moment that you actually can make a legal copy.

If it is encoded with the Cinavia watermark can you still play it beyond the shutdown timer?

My guess would be no, because as I understand it the way Cinavia works is by variations in the audio that is undetectable to the human ear, but would still be captured in a recording. But the non HD tracts don't have Cinavia IIRC, so you could play the standard DD or DTS track and capture that.
post #124 of 160
If I were to do it via analog, the Blu-ray player has a decoder in it to change it to analog LPCM which is lossless too. IDK if the watermark is there or not. The component video is 1080i60 BTW.
post #125 of 160
LPCM by definition is digital. LPCM then sent to DAC to get analog audio. And Cinavia is designed to survive many such conversion and still alive.
post #126 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxbat121 View Post

LPCM by definition is digital. LPCM then sent to DAC to get analog audio. And Cinavia is designed to survive many such conversion and still alive.

That is what I understand too.. Linear Pulse Code Modulation, right? But the RCA connectors are labeled analog. I never hooked it up this way because I upgraded my AVR to a 7.1 HDMI model at the same time. At any rate, I think the watermark would be there so playback in a licensed player won't work.
post #127 of 160
LPCM is still a digital signal. A Digital-to-Aanalog-Chip is required to convert digital audio to analog audio to output in RCA or any other analog form.
post #128 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Megaupload was shut down because people stole what others put up there for their own personal storage. I used this as an example to show that you only have the specific copying rights you were given by the holder of the copyright. They decided you can copy them for your PC, iPod, etc, but NOT copy them and store them online.

No. They did not "decide" that people are allowed to copy to their PC or Ipod, they had to accept it.

Tell you what - you go and find us the place where they officially "give" people the right to make copies and I'll take back everything I've said, I'll admit that fair use is only for libraries and nobody else. Surely if they've given legal permission, there is going to be an official statement to that effect. I'm not talking about a lawyer discussing it in court, not a grudging acceptance of the fact and not instructions on how to use itunes to rip a CD -- I'm talking about an official public statement giving everybody permission with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Statements from two of the bigger publishers should do it, although by your logic every single music publisher in the country must have such official statements of permission. But two is good enough. Should be easy, right?
post #129 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

That is what I understand too.. Linear Pulse Code Modulation, right? But the RCA connectors are labeled analog. I never hooked it up this way because I upgraded my AVR to a 7.1 HDMI model at the same time. At any rate, I think the watermark would be there so playback in a licensed player won't work.

If you make an analog copy you don't need a licensed player.
Licensing refers to licensing of blu-ray patents. An analog rip is not a bluray.
post #130 of 160
That doesn't mean that Cinavia won't disable playback though. This whole discussion is about playback via licensed players. I am not going to do this as I can do it in alternate ways but it was merely for discussion.
post #131 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

No. They did not "decide" that people are allowed to copy to their PC or Ipod, they had to accept it.

Tell you what - you go and find us the place where they officially "give" people the right to make copies and I'll take back everything I've said, I'll admit that fair use is only for libraries and nobody else. Surely if they've given legal permission, there is going to be an official statement to that effect. I'm not talking about a lawyer discussing it in court, not a grudging acceptance of the fact and not instructions on how to use itunes to rip a CD -- I'm talking about an official public statement giving everybody permission with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Statements from two of the bigger publishers should do it, although by your logic every single music publisher in the country must have such official statements of permission. But two is good enough. Should be easy, right?

You are claiming you have the right to copy what you like without the holder of the right to copy having any say in it. That not only does not pass the logic test but also defeats the purpose of copyright. The law clearly states that the holder of the right to copy has the EXCLUSIVE right to control the creation of copies. You claim YOU have this right and not them. They basically decided it was an impossible battle to fight and therefor gave their permission.

I can easily show you one of the times, you posted it yourself. Go back and look at your own post where you quote the representative of the music industry giving permission. I am surprised you did not notice it, since you posted it yourself. You claimed the copyright holder saying people can copy their works onto the user's own PC or iPod for personal use does not mean they gave permission to copy their works onto the user's own PC or iPod. Yes, that position is as silly as it sounds. Obviously they DID give permission when they said people could do it. It is like when you ask your mom if you can use the TV. She says "yes, you can use the TV". Did she give you permission? Yes. You want multiple times of the industry saying you an do it? That is a strange request. They only have to give this permission once, saying they have to continuously repeat themselves for it to be true only works when seeking snarks. Your mom does not have to tell you that you can watch the TV multiple times in order for you to be allowed to watch it, right? Mom is a good example, too, since Mom represents the parents in the family and she is speaking for both herself and Dad. You do not need permission from BOTH Mom and Dad, one representative for both is enough. You posted it, thanks for doing so since it clearly shows them giving permission.

Lets do a test, will you be prosecuted if you put copy of a CD onto a publically accessible file sharing site? Will you be prosecuted if you put a copy of a CD onto a table in a public place and walk away? Yes to the first and no to the second. In both cases you stored a copy of the CD in a public place and, most likely, the copy was stolen. You only made ONE copy each time and only stored ONE copy in a publically accessible location each time. Who would do the prosecuting? Why, it would be the holder of the right to copy, that is who. How can they prosecute if they do not have the ability to say when something can be copied and when it cannot? Your claim they do not control the exclusive (with specific exemptions) right to copy is silly - especially when the law clearly says they have the exclusive right to copy. You might remember this part:

§ 106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;


It really is clearly written and easy to understand. I know you dislike it but that is not an excuse to pretend it does not exist. Show me the court cases where it says the copyright holder does not actually have the exclusive rights to copy the work (which would invalidate the law which says they do).
Edited by cybrsage - 5/1/13 at 4:18pm
post #132 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

You are claiming you have the right to copy what you like without the holder of the right to copy having any say in it.

I am claiming that we all have the right to make personal copies of any copyrighted marterial that we each already legitimately own a copy of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Quote:
I'm not talking about a lawyer discussing it in court, not a grudging acceptance of the fact and not instructions on how to use itunes to rip a CD -- I'm talking about an official public statement giving everybody permission with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Statements from two of the bigger publishers should do it,
I can easily show you one of the times, you posted it yourself. Go back and look at your own post where you quote the representative of the music industry giving permission.
Still waiting. Am I being unreasonable? You say permission was given, I am asking for official notice of this permission. Every single record label in the US has given this permission, right? So there has got to be some sort of legalese from each one of them defining it all, right? There should be hundreds of such documents for you to choose from, I'm only asking for two. Just two.

Quote:
§ 106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;


It really is clearly written and easy to understand. I know you dislike it but that is not an excuse to pretend it does not exist. Show me the court cases where it says the copyright holder does not actually have the exclusive rights to copy the work (which would invalidate the law which says they do).

Look, the whole point of the example of copying music was to avoid digging into fair use because it is a lot more nuanced and frankly, nuance is not your forte. But, if you want me to cite cases where the doctrine of fair use as defined in USC 17§107 was applied to people - not libraries - to make copies, I'll do it. There are hundreds of such cases, probably thousands. We can start with the "Betamax Case" which ruled the it was legal for people to record entire television shows on their VCRs. I await the tortured logic of your reinterpretation of that case.
post #133 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Go ahead, copy your music onto a file sharing site for your own personal storage and see just how far your "lawful copy" defense gets you.

Come on man, don't be that guy. "File sharing site" and "personal storage" are mutually exclusive concepts. You can't honestly believe that what you wrote is meaningful, right? This debate has only ever been about copies for personal use, not file sharing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncarty97 View Post

Copying for your own purposes is perfectly legal. Breaking the encryption though violates the DMCA. I can't believe we're even having this discussion.

Now, if you can make a copy without breaking the encryption, that is perfectly legal and does not violate the DMCA.

Also if your copy includes the original encryption you are good too. So an .ISO file that is a dvd or bluray image that is still encrypted is perfectly fine with the DMCA. If you can convince an authorized software player to decrypt and play that .ISO file for you, you are 100% legal from start to finish.

FWIW, it isn't too unbelievable - media companies inherently have the loudest voice in the discussion so their perspective of, "you have no rights, they have all the rights" is all that most people hear. If we don't speak up about the actual laws on the books, people will naturally be persuaded to the viewpoint of the copyright maximalists.
AFAIK that just can't be done. If you know of a way, please enlighten all of us. Besides, if part of that encryption is Cinavia (remember Cinavia? It is in the title of the thread) and the media isn't a pressed BD-ROM playback will fail.
post #134 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

AFAIK that just can't be done. If you know of a way, please enlighten all of us. Besides, if part of that encryption is Cinavia (remember Cinavia? It is in the title of the thread) and the media isn't a pressed BD-ROM playback will fail.

Not sure what you are referring to - is it the ripping while leaving encryption in place? That is trivial - anydvd has an option for it, I think any bitcopier could do it too.

Or do you mean play back an encrypted ISO? Just have to mount it with something like daemon tools or virtual clonedrive and then point a player at it. Maybe you have to use an older version that doesn't try to detect ISOs. This forum itself has a few historical discussions along these lines.

As for cinavia, sure that could be a problem, if the software player has cinavia detection and and can figure out that the ISO is not the original disc.

I'm sure there hasn't been much effort put into it since decrypting on rip is just easier all around regardless of the legalities inside the USA, most of these tools come from places where they aren't illegal.
post #135 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

Or do you mean play back an encrypted ISO? Just have to mount it with something like daemon tools or virtual clonedrive and then point a player at it. Maybe you have to use an older version that doesn't try to detect ISOs. This forum itself has a few historical discussions along these lines.
Completely false! NO player -- hardware, licensed software or unlicensed software -- will play an protected ISO. You would have to mount the ISO and decrypt it to allow playback. AnyDVD HD will specifically pop up a message telling you this when you create a protected ISO.

James at SlySoft said it best:
Quote:
Wouldn't be much of a protection if you could bypass AACS, BD+, ScreenPass and whatnot by just using ImgBurn, right?

Edited by vladd - 5/1/13 at 10:04pm
post #136 of 160
I dunno what to tell you, I've done it myself on bluray rips that anydvd did not know how to decrypt yet (when fox first started with bd+ and anydvd hadn't cracked it yet). Mounted it with daemon tools and played back with powerdvd, IIRC.
post #137 of 160
You don't remember correctly. There is absolutely no way that you played a protected ISO (especially in PowerDVD) without decrypting it.
post #138 of 160
Eh, well I went back and read the threads, this one in particular:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/965804/powerdvd-users-should-convert-hd-br-to-iso

Looks like it was partially decrypted and powerdvd handled the BD+ part.

So you probably have to break the law to watch the movie, you can still copy them all you want without breaking the law.
post #139 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

Eh, well I went back and read the threads, this one in particular:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/965804/powerdvd-users-should-convert-hd-br-to-iso

Looks like it was partially decrypted and powerdvd handled the BD+ part.

So you probably have to break the law to watch the movie, you can still copy them all you want without breaking the law.
Any thing more recent than 5 or 6 years ago? Or do I have to get a wayback machine to do it?
post #140 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncarty97 View Post

Incorrect. Megaupload was shut down because people used it to intentionally illegally share copyrighted material. If Megaupload had operated like the Amazon MP3 locker service does, it would still be there.

Amazon locker is secure, Megaupload was not. The holders of the right to copy decided the end users did not have the right to copy the product onto an insecure website.
post #141 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

I am claiming that we all have the right to make personal copies of any copyrighted marterial that we each already legitimately own a copy of.

Which was given by the holder of the right to copy.
Quote:
Still waiting. Am I being unreasonable? You say permission was given, I am asking for official notice of this permission. Every single record label in the US has given this permission, right? So there has got to be some sort of legalese from each one of them defining it all, right? There should be hundreds of such documents for you to choose from, I'm only asking for two. Just two.

You posted it yourself. A representative for the industry, which you quoted, gave the permission. I am sorry you are mad that you posted it yourself and now want to pretend it never happened, but please do not do that. But to prevent you from pretending you did not post it, I will repost it for you:

"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-480.pdf


Your view is that in order for you to be allowed to watch the TV BOTH Mom AND Dad must give permission - that a representative of both is not acceptable. I claim that an authorized representative granting permission is acceptable.
Quote:
Look, the whole point of the example of copying music was to avoid digging into fair use because it is a lot more nuanced and frankly, nuance is not your forte. But, if you want me to cite cases where the doctrine of fair use as defined in USC 17§107 was applied to people - not libraries - to make copies, I'll do it. There are hundreds of such cases, probably thousands. We can start with the "Betamax Case" which ruled the it was legal for people to record entire television shows on their VCRs. I await the tortured logic of your reinterpretation of that case.

Ah, ancient case law that was already ruled irrelevant during the RealNetwork lawsuit. Nah, I think I will let it stay irrelevant as ruled by our legal system.
post #142 of 160
One thing not hard to guess, it will get worse in almost every conceivable way for consumers. I don't think content creators have ever given up on the idea of the OLD Divx, buy the media, still pay per use.
post #143 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

I claim that an authorized representative granting permission is acceptable.

A lawyer for MGM is obviously not authorized to speak for any of the other music publishers nor is an off the cuff observation a legally binding promise.

When you are ready to argue in good faith instead of being focused on 'winning' perhaps we can have a productive discussion.
Edited by JerryW - 5/10/13 at 12:45am
post #144 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

You don't remember correctly. There is absolutely no way that you played a protected ISO (especially in PowerDVD) without decrypting it.

Are you sure? Doesn't mounting it (via VirtualCloneDrive or similar) make the PC see it just like any other physical disc?
post #145 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Amazon locker is secure, Megaupload was not. The holders of the right to copy decided the end users did not have the right to copy the product onto an insecure website.

Which is exactly my point. Perfectly legal to copy your own stuff, even store it online, you just can't share it.
post #146 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncarty97 View Post

Which is exactly my point. Perfectly legal to copy your own stuff, even store it online, you just can't share it.

After receiving permission from the holders of the right to copy, you are correct in that you can copy it to a secure location. They did not grant you the right to copy it to an insecure location, though. If you had the blanket right to copy without their permission being needed, they could not limit where you store your copies. Basically, they granted you the right to copy their protected works with limits on where you can store your copies.
Edited by cybrsage - 5/3/13 at 9:23am
post #147 of 160
But back to the topic of the thread, now that SlySoft has a work around for Cinavia, we can say it will not kill BluRay playback software.

Since some DVDs have Cinavia as well, I wonder if recently created DVD players have to detect it. WMC on Win8 would be one such player, I would think.
post #148 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncarty97 View Post

Are you sure? Doesn't mounting it (via VirtualCloneDrive or similar) make the PC see it just like any other physical disc?
Yes, I'm sure. When you create a protected ISO, it does not contain the BD-ROM mark which is stored separate from the data on the original disc. This means that the ISO is missing the Volume ID, a critical component needed to decrypt the disc. Without that, not even licensed players can decrypt the disc to play it.

AnyDVD is able to decrypt it only because it already has the the missing Volume ID stored in a database and it somehow knows it goes with that precise disc (most likely via file hashes and/or other information unique to each commercial disc).
post #149 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

When you are ready to argue in good faith instead of being focused on 'winning' perhaps we can have a productive discussion.

I am focused on correcting your incorrect statements. When you take your own advice and stop focusing on "winning" then the discussion will return to being productive. When the representative of the industry gave permission, which you kindly posted, that means you were given permission. You did not start with the right to copy, that is the exclusive right of the holder of the right to copy. They granted you the right to copy. Here is the quote you provided.

"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-480.pdf

You were granted the right to copy by a representative of the holders of the exclusive right to copy.
post #150 of 160
I know that my comment started this whole debate. My point was that Sony and other studios don't care about people who have HTPC's because HTPC's should not be playing files. They should be playing the original content from the BD.

Now as to the legality or illegality of fair use, there is case law that says it is legal to create a backup copy of a DVD. However, it is illegal to break the encryption. So you can make a copy so long as you don't break the encryption. Some legal scholars believe that this is unconstitutional, but there really haven't been any test cases (and who wants to be the guinea pig?). So technically, ripping a BD to your hard drive is a violation of civil law (it is not a criminal violation). Do it for money and it becomes a criminal violation.

In my opinion, this area is going to change radically. Does anybody buy a music CD anymore? Somehow I think in 10 years or so, nobody will be buying BDs. Maybe it will be longer, but I do think we are moving away from hard media even over the kicking and screaming of the studios.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Will Cinavia kill PC Blu-ray Playback Software?