Blu-rays Will Now Have Two Unskippable Warnings - Page 3  

Is not P2P a lot slower then regular broardband usage? If so downloading 40 gigs would be a pain, just copying a BD to a HD takes a while. And lossless compressing the BD format would achieve almost nill file size saving, not so sure on how much an expert you are on this.

40 gigs is nothing when time warner gives me 230mb/s

Why would one want to try to compress a bd using loseless? Small savings

Most P2P will fully saturate your internet connection. I have a craptacular DSL connection that is 1536/896 Kbps (down/up). That translates to 1,572,864 bits/sec (196,608 bytes/sec) download speed. A BD50 disc has a max capacity of 50,050,629,632 bytes. 50,050,629,632 ÷ 196,608 = 254,570.7 seconds ÷ 60 = 4,242.8 minutes ÷ 60 = 70.7 hours. For people playing with cable instead of DSL (or if they live in markets where DSL offers higher speeds; some markets offer 40 Mbps) you could see full downloads of a BD50 in a few hours. Comcast offers 20 Mbps at a reasonable price (they actually offer 105 Mbps, but it's $200/month). Using that, it'd be 20,971,520 bits/sec (2,621,440 bytes/sec). 50,050,629,632 ÷ 2,621,440 = 19,092.8 seconds ÷ 60 = 318.2 minutes ÷ 60 = 5.3 hours.


You'll note I said losslessly compressing a BD3D (Blu-ray 3D). Of course compressing a regular BD wouldn't be effective, but BD3D has large amounts of redundant data (which is why a ripped BD3D often exceeds 75 GB in size, at least when you're not using an ISO).

BD3D practically requires it because of the large amount of redundant data, most private trackers require the disc be shared as an ISO image instead of the raw filesystem.

For non-BD3D (e.g. standard BD), compressing could be useful as a data integrity tool (P2P protocols have error detection/correction, but redundant error correction might help against intentional corruption). Other than that, I agree, little savings would be realized to offset the computational cost of compressing/decompressing.

You're the one that needs to read this thread more closely (or look up the definition of stealing). No one has advocated committing any illegal acts that I can tell.

In my post, I said I'm now willing to look into getting backup copies of future legit Bluray discs that I purchase, but that is not stealing. The law allows you to have back up copies of your legally purchased media for personal use.

What is illegal is your example of people sneaking into movie theaters without paying. That's a terrible comparison to what is being discussed here. Just keep it simple - we all agree people are allowed to do things that are legal, and they can't do things that are illegal. Once you focus on the distinction between those two important facts, it'll make it easier for you to make better sense of posts on this issue going forward.

the problem here is the entertainment industry in general sees pirated copies as lost sales (see that "not a victimless crime" crap above)

this is just pure bull... the vast majority of people who are pirating the film/album/game WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED IT ANYWAY and some people who pirate end up buying it anyway because they liked it

This. They honestly don't seem to understand that this type of person exists, and that if it's worth spending ten seconds to kick off a download, then it's worth paying thirty bucks for. In their eyes, it probably is.

They're actually losing little, if anything, from this. It's like the people that watch a film in theaters, then download a crappy bootleg to watch until the DVD/BD comes out, and then they buy that. I fail to see how the studio has lost a penny in that scenario.. they still got all they could out of this person.

The food-related joke that Auburnu008 posted is perfect. Somebody needs to get that into the hands of everyone at the MPAA and the studio boards.

Well I guess the key word is some people. Few people. The vast majority of people pirating movies/music/etc still get access to a copyrighted content for free. And that's wrong, period. Whether they buy it afterwards or not isn't relevant. When I preview a song in iTunes that I like, I buy it. When I see a movie trailer that tempts me, I go to the theater, buy it or rent it. The movies that people download are watched once maybe twice and then trashed. But what's the problem of renting the damn thing then? You watch it, you bring it back, not very difficult. But since it's the normal and legal thing to do, it must suck for some people, so they prefer *cough* living on the edge instead.

It's not these unskippable warnings that will make it stop, but well what choice do the studios have really? a popup window in the torrent client?

And this person, which I agree does exist, is one out of how many? Like I said, getting access to copyrighted content for free is wrong, end of story. One can try to twist it all he wants, nothing will change that fact, we live in a society where copyright, intellectual property must be preserved, AND paid for.

The movie studio execs need to be forced to watch this:

http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_th...lion_ipod.html

Absolutely hilarious!

Mark

Studios executives, like many in general in corporations today, are just completely out of touch. They fail to realize they create most of their own problems and they are adding lots of fuel to the fire with this issue.

I'm not arguing the point of right and wrong, I'm arguing the studio's apparent need to lecture their paying customers on something that they're clearly not doing, for reasons that don't actually exist. The studio isn't taking the "it's wrong" route, they're taking the "we're losing all our money" route, which simply isn't true.

The people making these decisions are a bunch of uneducated suits sitting around a table, that clearly have absolutely no idea what their customers actually want. The concept of actually giving their customers what they want (which can only lead to increased revenue) seems utterly foreign to them. They live in their own little world, and they quite literally cannot see things from the perspective of their own customers.

They probably have no idea why we're so upset about this. If anyone needs "education", it's them, not us.

No, it doesn't. Whether you or I agree with the law or not... it is actually against the law to break the encryption on DVD and Blu-ray discs.

You are legally permitted to make backup copies, yes... but you aren't legally permitted to break the encryption, thus the act of ripping is in fact illegal.

Again, whether you or I agree with that law might be a different matter... but it is actually an illegal act.

You're doing it again. Who said anything about breaking encryption? You keep inventing infractions to be upset over that no one here is advocating.

Tell you what - try quoting an alleged statement where someone says they will commit a crime, then we can see what the fuss is about. So far, your complaints have nothing to do with what people here have said.

Ok, so how do you rip a Blu-ray without breaking the encryption? (A DMCA violation outside of licensed software and devices, which anyDVD HD is not.)

...

Studios seem to completely ignore the fact that that once they sell a copy of a movie, that copy is not their property anymore. The Blu-ray player was NEVER their property. So why do studios have any right to force a blu-ray player to not skip parts of the disc that the owner does not want to watch, be it trailers, FBI warnings, anything.

I already have a perfectly fine Blu-ray player. Why should I have to invest in the hard disc space, an HTPC, AnyDVD, etc, to do something that should be a given as both the OWNER of the disc and the OWNER of my existing playback equipment? I know I'd spend a good chuck of cash getting the hard drive space to store my entire collection at full quality.

That money spent to have basic, BS free viewing of my Blu-ray collection is money I'd rather spend on more Blu-rays.

The studios have lobbyists armed with vast amounts of campaign cash and the general public does not... and that gives them influence and the biggest microphone money can buy.

That's why most corporations feel like they can get away with anything however stupid, greedy, fraudulent, environmentally unsound, etc.

They can flaunt this power and use it against the very customers they say they're trying to serve. Your voice has been drowned out and deemed irrelevant.

The foxes are in charge of the chicken coop.

This new change in the Blu-ray spec. is only one tiny example.

I'm not going to keep arguing with you over the facts. You and others have mentioned "ripping" or "legal backups"... but there is no such thing for DVDs and Blu-rays, since the powers-that-be in the industry successfully lobbied to make it illegal to break the encryption on their movie releases.

Thus... any talk of "backups" or "ripping" of your movies is in fact talk of illegal activity even if you bought the movie.

I'm not going to beat it into the ground... but this is exactly what I was talking about when I first mentioned people defending illegal activity.

Vote with your wallet and don't buy the movies that have this unskippable stuff on them... but you can't steal copies, and it is actually illegal to buy copies and then "rip" them to remove those warnings and unskippable stuff.

So if you advocate doing that... then you are advocating doing something illegal in order to get around something you don't like instead of just boycotting the product, which is what you should do.

In the United States, it is impossible to legally make a backup of a Blu-ray disc. To make a backup of a Blu-ray disc, it is necessary to break the copy-protection encryption. The act of breaking this encryption is a violation of federal law.

After all, what would be the point of all this copy-protection if it didn't prevent you from making copies?

um, what? The CONTENT of that copy is copyrighted, it is not our property at all.

As long as it's for your personal use and you buy it in the first place, I'm not sure it's illegal.

It is.

Makes sense but well you never know!... I really, really don't see how it is such a big deal to have 10 more seconds of unskippable warnings. I experienced it with Underworld Awakening, and it's nothing. As I said already forced trailers are way more annoying. But that's just me.

With all of the black and white back and forth going on here, people need to know that the legal reality of the matter is, sadly, grey.

Yes, the DMCA has made it illegal for consumers to break or bypass the encryption.

However, the existing consumer protection law ostensibly precludes the creation of laws (such as the DMCA) which infringe on the consumer's right to make a personal use copy.

The reality is that there are two laws on the books that contradict each other and there has yet to be an ultimate legal test of the consumer's real rights in the post-DMCA era.

So, those of you who insist that making a personal use copy is legal are right, but not entirely.

And those of you who insist that making a personal use copy is illegal are right, but not entirely.

Which law do you feel "precludes" the anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA?

Forget DMCA for a moment.

Owning a copy of the content and owning the copyright to that content are different things. A copyright does NOT give the holder the right to arbitrarily dictate how copies they sell of that work are used, only certain exclusive rights with regards to making copies, distributing copies, public performance, and derivative works.

The content IS the property of the owner of that copy, even to the extent that they are allowed to copy that content for personal use. The fact that someone is not allowed to use their property (in this case, both the disc and its CONTENTS) to infringe upon the rights of the copyright holder does not change fact that it is their property.

In addition to what we normally consider "embodiments of copyrighted works", we purchase numerous products that contain some form of intellectual property (IP) in their design, manufacturing, or functionality. It is ridiculous to think that the inclusion of IP in a product should give the manufacturers the right to dictate their own terms of use on people who purchase a product. We don’t really question our ownership of those purchases, and our right to make legal uses of what we own even if the manufacturer does not approve.

So why do we look at the ownership of the movies we purchase on different terms, or even question that ownership to begin with?

Absolutely none of which changes the fact that the unskippable messages on the Blu-ray discs are only seen by the people who are not doing any of the things the messages are referring to.

Methinks we're getting slightly off-topic here.

That would be true if no one who bought a disc ripped it and posted it online for others to download, but that's clearly not the case (those full disc rips have to come from somewhere.) It's not just about downloading a pirated copy, it's about those who are buying (or renting) the title, ripping it, and then sharing it with others across the globe.

I would think that would be fairly obvious...

The discs are encrypted. This pretty much eliminates "casual" piracy, like copying a cassette for your friend or something. The people jumping through hoops to rip them are perfectly aware they're breaking copyright laws.

We should just ban people from installing computer programs on hard drives go back to running it off the cd