or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal - Page 6

post #151 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

Do you really want that happening to movies?

OK, we are mostly on the same page here. No, I don't want that happening to movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

Your mentioned technical ideas probably aren't really doable. If the technology was there to do that, then we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with since the IP owners could protect their content.

EXACTLY! If they continue to fight, they will lose!!! The only way to win is not to fight! HOW do they protect their content? Hammering the consumers who are actually paying for the content is not the answer. Embracing and COOPERATING is the answer. My ideas are completely doable with current technology, IF there is cooperation. Everyone can indeed gain, because everyone has something to gain from cooperation. DVDFab and AnyDVD could go mainstream and see increased sales because of it. Media Players like DUNE could go mainstream, and see increased sales because of it. Studios could see increased sales from the excitement generated by mainstream media players. For those who haven't seen it, a video Jukebox on something like a DUNE is so cool. Bluray PQ and sound, but such a better experience. Studios would also gain from decreased pirating.

How would this work? Studios would agree to implement protection on retail and rental discs. HOWEVER, they would share the key to the protection with media player and software providers. Those providers would agree not to enable playback of rental copies. They would also agree to enable functions to limit retail copy playback to the original purchaser. How? just like B&N. Copying a retail disc could require watermarking your credit card #--used to purchase the software--on the copy. The Media Player would require that information on file to play back the copy. Piracy of both retail and rental discs is severely limited. Could this plan be beat? Of course. BUT, in much smaller numbers than now. Think about it. Everyone involved would have a stake in protecting this setup. By going mainstream, the software and media player makers will sell may times the numbers they sell now. The studios make allies of their current opponents. Consumers get great choices. New software makers will have a hard time, as there will be quality, established, legal competitors. Laws that benefit everybody--consumers included--can be passed to further protect the movie industry without any reasonable opposition. the feds can go after the bank accounts of those software makers that continue to enable piracy--without public outcry.

Certainly, piracy would still happen. It always will, whatever is done. But it would allow everyone, studios, hardware and software makers, and consumers to benefit from new technology. It would limit piracy by providing a financial incentive not to enable piracy for the software guys . Studios would benefit by both limiting piracy and seeing increased sales due to legal media players. Consumers win because they get to choose. But it would take COOPERATION, not fighting. Cooperation works, it really does.
post #152 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermr2 View Post

So just for shits and giggles. Say 15 years from now that optical storage becomes a thing of the past and everything is either on hard drives or flash drives have increased storage capacity to well above BD capacity for pennies. Our entire libraries of either DVD or Blu-rays will have to be repurchased in whatever new prevailing format? This ruling seems to me to be a way for the studios to continually resale you the same content for years to come.

and that's the secret conspiracy
post #153 of 491
That's hardly a conspiracy. You guys really need to stop and think about these things. Do you know how much it costs to develop a new format? Now, if everyone who ever bought any movie on VHS claims that they have a right to download the 4K version of all those movies, and any other version forever more, then who on earth is going to spend the money to develop those new formats? The answer would be no one. You'd still be watching VHS right now. Each one is bringing you a considerably better product, so of course you have to buy it again.

I'm not sure if this kind of thinking is the result of current entitlement society run amok, or from it's just having been repeated ad infinitum on the internet and so people just never even bother to think it through. That's like claiming you should be given every version of Windows for free forever just becasue you purchased Windows 95. Clearly no one would think that makes sense, but somehow people never seem to apply that logic to movies.
post #154 of 491
On this we agree completely. If nobody paid for these Bluray restorations, they wouldn't make them. That would totally suck. I think you should have the right to use content you purchase as you wish, but new versions are a different product you haven't paid for, nor do you have any right to it. Neither legally or morally. If people aren't paid for their work, they won't do it. Do you show up for work and say: "Don't pay me today!"
post #155 of 491
You are missing the point. I am talking about coverting what I already bought to use on another device or backing it up. Not being entitled to the upgrade resolution or even upgraded audio. I don't have to buya new disc when I buy a new tv. That is what the ruling is about not about unlimited upgrades for life because you bought the dvd or vhs years ago.
post #156 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermr2 View Post

You are missing the point. I am talking about coverting what I already bought to use on another device or backing it up. Not being entitled to the upgrade resolution or even upgraded audio. I don't have to buya new disc when I buy a new tv. That is what the ruling is about not about unlimited upgrades for life because you bought the dvd or vhs years ago.

Understood. Absolutely, you should be able to consume content you legally purchased as you see fit.
post #157 of 491
I remember when I was 13 or 14 using a cassette tape deck to record songs by putting the mic next to the radio. It used to really piss me off when the DJ would start talking before the song was over or keep running his mouth for 10 seconds after the song began. I never considered that I was a pirate. Some days I'd spend hours waiting for them to play songs I wanted to record.
post #158 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

I remember when I was 13 or 14 using a cassette tape deck to record songs by putting the mic next to the radio. It used to really piss me off when the DJ would start talking before the song was over or keep running his mouth for 10 seconds after the song began. I never considered that I was a pirate. Some days I'd spend hours waiting for them to play songs I wanted to record.

"king biscuit flower hour" - that was the best back in the day to record off the radio!
post #159 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

Understood. Absolutely, you should be able to consume content you legally purchased as you see fit.

Yeah my comment was mainly pointed towards Dean but I'm gald you see my point. smile.gif

I just see this measure as the studios trying to sell you the digitial rights to something you already own. I.e. if I want to watch the movie I already own on DVD or Blu-Ray and I want to convert to a file that will play on my tablet, phone, or whatever device I am using. I could be way off base but that was just my first knee jerk reaction to the ruling.
post #160 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

On this we agree completely. If nobody paid for these Bluray restorations, they wouldn't make them. That would totally suck. I think you should have the right to use content you purchase as you wish, but new versions are a different product you haven't paid for, nor do you have any right to it. Neither legally or morally. If people aren't paid for their work, they won't do it. Do you show up for work and say: "Don't pay me today!"

New formats would be supported by new content. The real argument is if we pay for a license to consume this content than we need an excoriation date or a signed agreement to set limitations. But if we own thecontentththan copying for personal consumption should not even be disputed. So do we own the content we past for our are we just licensed to use it? If we can define that this argument will be clearer.
post #161 of 491
I believe piracy is the excuse, and greed is the real motivator. I'm sure Industry executives would love nothing more than to have each movie you buy licensed to a particular device. If your Bluray player dies, you have to re-buy all of your movies to use with your new Bluray player. I firmly believe that's the real motivator. Cry piracy to congress; it makes it sound like they're just victims. But their efforts are aimed primarily at the consumer, NOT the pirates. Screwing over the legitimate consumer will have NO effect on piracy, and they know it. Outlaw it here and it will still be on the internet from the rest of the world. In fact, they are specifically NOT addressing piracy with their efforts. To do so would limit their ability to get consumer un-friendly laws passed. Some have said that all of this has nothing to do with the legitimate consumer making backups, that is only a sad side effect of combating piracy. I completely disagree. I believe this is aimed squarely at the legitimate consumer. They are trying to create an environment where you have to buy the same content again and again. Greed motivates them, stupidity will be their ruin. Create an environment like that and piracy will inevitably expand far beyond what it is now. Unfortunately, the current administration has demonstrated time and again that they can be bought. Sadly, I think we can expect things to get worse.

Look at Apple. They've amassed a fortune selling content that can be played only on Apple devices. Buy Apple once, and you're stuck buying Apple forever. That's great if Apple products are the best out there, but as they fall behind everyone else, not so good. This attitude has driven them to litigate rather than innovate, and so they inevitably fall behind. Not so long ago they put out the best, now they lag further and further behind. The iphone, once the best, is now nowhere near the best. The iPad, once the best, now second best and sure to fall further behind. The ipad mini, not even close to the best at release. Not good for them, not good for the consumer. If this trend continues, eventually the marketing will fail and Apple will not be so "cool". Ways around their DRM will be found, and their sales will plummet. Their will always be core Apple fans of course, those that will continue to buy Apple no matter how far they fall behind. On the other hand, If Apple gets back to innovating and making products better than the competition, they will thrive beyond even current levels. Litigation brings short term gains, innovation brings long term gains.

Same with the studios. rather than keep content affordable and exciting, they'd rather screw the consumer. The sad thing is they're too stupid to see that in the long term success of their efforts will only lead to more piracy and even lower sales. They only see the short term gain of selling you the same movie dozens of times over. This is NOT about piracy, if it were there are better ways to limit it.
post #162 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

Copying a retail disc could require watermarking your credit card #--used to purchase the software--on the copy.
Great!!! Another way to get your CC info stolen.
post #163 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

Understood. Absolutely, you should be able to consume content you legally purchased as you see fit.

I'm curious...what is it that you think you have actually purchased?
post #164 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by barhoram View Post

I'm curious...what is it that you think you have actually purchased?

It is the lack of this very concept that is at the root of this debate.
We don't own the movie/song/software etc.
Just the privilege of viewing, hearing, using them as the owner (which is still not us!) deems suitable.
post #165 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by barhoram View Post

I'm curious...what is it that you think you have actually purchased?

It is the lack of this very concept that is at the root of this debate.
We don't own the movie/song/software etc.
Just the privilege of viewing, hearing, using them as I deem suitable.
post #166 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by cctvtech View Post

Great!!! Another way to get your CC info stolen.

Only if you distribute the movie. That's why B&N does it that way. If you don't distribute, your credit card info is only on your own computer. Pretty strong incentive not to upload movies illegally...
post #167 of 491
I doubt every seriously anyone would agree to that. The problem is that, by the very nature of ripping media to your server for use within the home, it cannot be heavily protected via security, because you want it to be available to any player within your network. So, the minute someone managed to break into your network, they'd just look for media files and extract the watermark info and they'd have your credit card information. Any file on your computer that has that kind of information should be encrypted and tight operating security set on it so that it's only available to user accounts not used by players to access shared resources.
post #168 of 491
I don't keep my credit card info on my computer now. If I rip copies to my computer, there they are.
post #169 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

I doubt every seriously anyone would agree to that.

Lots of people already do. Like I said before, Barnes and Noble uses this in their encryption. Yes, it would force you to take care, which is a good thing. Piracy is limited, consumer choice is protected. Everybody wins. Consumers have a financial stake in preventing piracy and in return get full use of their content. Studios get increased sales and limit piracy as much as could be possible. Software and hardware makers see increased revenues from going mainstream.

As far as protecting your credit card info, you should take measures to do that anyway. Get a card just for online purchases and keep the limit low. Check your statement and dispute any false charges. Use ONLY that card online and on your PC. Not that hard. Do those simple things and you'll never lose money from that card online. You may get ripped off from your Brick & Mortar purchases, but you'll be safe online.

This is a far better option than just saying piracy can't be stopped, we must do whatever the studios want. This is a far better option than allowing rampant piracy which in the end will result in less and worse content as studios go under. If you don't agree with it, great! Come up with a better option. But "Nothing can be done." and "Nothing should be done." are not options at all. they're just different ways of admitting defeat. In the long run, both will result in fewer consumer choices. So stop saying it can't be done and instead help figure out how it can be done. Seriously. Help lead, or get the hell out of the way.
post #170 of 491
You don't have to convince us, you have to convince the world, and it's not very likely to happen.And, BTW, I just did a search for "Barnse and Noble e-book encryption" and their are pages of links on how to remove the encryption from the e-books. And therein likes the rub. No technical solution is possible because the you can't enforce anything in a world where the media must be accessed on devices that can be hacked.
post #171 of 491
The studios would be better off selling you movies for $10 with no DRM and letting you do whatever you want with it. I'd buy a ton more movies than I do now. In fact, because of all the rules and regulations surrounding breaking DRM to copy the movie to my home server I buy far fewer movies than I'd like to.

The removal of DRM in iTunes music doesn't seem to have hurt sales, in fact it's probably boosted sales. I don't have an iPhone/iPod so it's nice to be able to use the media I've bought on my BlackBerry. Before they started selling DRM free music, I had little choice but to look for the music from "other" sources.

DRM and the laws that protect it hurt sales, hurt consumer choice, hurt innovation and ultimately hurt the studios who are so opposed to removing it from the media. But there's too much money being made licencing DRM for them to see this.
post #172 of 491
I think we would be better off without drm. However no doubt many people would take advantage of that. I don't like so many rules and to me the freedom to do what you want with the disc should be more important than a few extra sales. If things become so restricted what would be the point in buying the video in the first place? What I'm curious about is if they can take down the decryption software links. Without those people won't be ripping videos anymore.

I don't mind the drm on steam as they run some really great sales. At first I thought ultraviolet was terrible. However I recently discovered that you can now use vudu to stream your UV library which I'm liking a lot so far. You can even share your library with something like 5 family members. I'm now working on all the eligible d2d movies that I have. I don't need to do backups anymore but we should still have the right too.
post #173 of 491
And this is why I don't buy discs anymore.
post #174 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirnak View Post

It is the lack of this very concept that is at the root of this debate.
We don't own the movie/song/software etc.
Just the privilege of viewing, hearing, using them as I deem suitable.

Just to step back a bit.
What if you where say a freelance photographer.
How would you view this position?
Think about it for a bit before answering and how it may impact how your work gets distributed (diluted? wink.gif )

I know the mediums are not the same, but the core concepts are.
post #175 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

Anything that can be played can be copied, one way or another. Sure, you could come up with something nearly unbreakable, but the stipulation that it must be *playable* means it can also be copied. Encryption, BD+, you name it, does not, cannot prevent piracy. To pirates, it's only a minor inconvenience.

I think you are wrong about that, with respect to what's happened in the past - and the inability of the pirateware vendors to crack Cinavia is evidence that this is more than a minor inconvenience.

Audio watermarking techniques (e.g. Cinavia) have been very resistant to attack - it's not an encryption, it's a subtle audio signature that is resistent to re-encoding - even at very low fidelity. And, audio watermarking can be revised quickly and imperceptibly because all of the playback devices now are (a) required by license to carry the detecting code and (b) are encouraged to be internet connected to allow interactive content - which means that firmware can be updated almost in realtime to facilitate playback of licensed content.

Remember when Avatar was released and a lot of players had problems playing the discs, because of a new protection scheme and un-updated players? The BD eco-systems learned from that and systems are much better at updating and staying current with the latest firmware. It really is a different world.

The likely manner in which anyone is going to 'crack' audio watermarking is if someone on the inside leaks the details of its implementation. And, when that happens, Sony will simply release a new version and force immediate adoption by license holders the following year.

The change that's coming next is application of all of the above to players that are *not* disc spinners. Remember that Sony owns a LOT of content; if Sony were to enforce something like what they've done with, say, Netflix, then every player that has a Netflix client would, ultimately, be subject to similar terms. And, so on and so forth...

I think Sony has thought this through and the Cinavia strategy will work because their Blu-ray monopoly and, more importantly, their massive content copyright holdings will encourage everyone else in the food chain to play along.
post #176 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krutsch View Post

I think you are wrong about that, with respect to what's happened in the past - and the inability of the pirateware vendors to crack Cinavia is evidence that this is more than a minor inconvenience.
Audio watermarking techniques (e.g. Cinavia) have been very resistant to attack - it's not an encryption, it's a subtle audio signature that is resistent to re-encoding - even at very low fidelity. And, audio watermarking can be revised quickly and imperceptibly because all of the playback devices now are (a) required by license to carry the detecting code and (b) are encouraged to be internet connected to allow interactive content - which means that firmware can be updated almost in realtime to facilitate playback of licensed content.
Remember when Avatar was released and a lot of players had problems playing the discs, because of a new protection scheme and un-updated players? The BD eco-systems learned from that and systems are much better at updating and staying current with the latest firmware. It really is a different world.
The likely manner in which anyone is going to 'crack' audio watermarking is if someone on the inside leaks the details of its implementation. And, when that happens, Sony will simply release a new version and force immediate adoption by license holders the following year.
The change that's coming next is application of all of the above to players that are *not* disc spinners. Remember that Sony owns a LOT of content; if Sony were to enforce something like what they've done with, say, Netflix, then every player that has a Netflix client would, ultimately, be subject to similar terms. And, so on and so forth...
I think Sony has thought this through and the Cinavia strategy will work because their Blu-ray monopoly and, more importantly, their massive content copyright holdings will encourage everyone else in the food chain to play along.

Notice I said copied. Cinavia is a different animal, and you *can* copy Cinavia watermarked audio streams. The trouble comes with playing it on a Cinavia enabled standalone. No problem with playing on a pre-Cinavia BD standalone (of which I have 3). Then there is the option of software players on computer or HTPCs. That will never be closed off as an option. Then you have media players, either separate units like the WD, or inbuilt media players like in my newest TV. The Blu-Ray Consortium may be able to muscle TV manufacturers (most of whom also are licensed to make Blu-ray players) to include Cinavia, but separate media players, no. If worse came to worst, that would be the perfect opportunity for small startups to make Cinavia free media players. Then there's the fact that there simply aren't that many discs (yet) with Cinavia.

Cinavia has not been defeated yet, it's true. DVDFab's workaround only applied to PS3s, IIRC. Nevertheless, given enough motivation, someone will no doubt come up with workaround for it, eventually. AACS was widely touted as unbreakable when Blu-Ray was introduced. Skeptics said it might take a couple years to break, but it would be broken. It only lasted a few months.
post #177 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by bootman_head_fi View Post


Just to step back a bit.
What if you where say a freelance photographer.
How would you view this position?
Think about it for a bit before answering and how it may impact how your work gets distributed (diluted? wink.gif )

I know the mediums are not the same, but the core concepts are.


If I was a freelance photographer:

I would want people to have access to my work. The more it's locked up and hidden away, the less people have access to it.

Anyone reproducing my work already has, under copyright law, a duty to ensure they're properly licenced to distribute my work.

I wouldn't want only people with a specific brand of photo frame or computer to be able to purchase and view my photos.

If I sold my photos through Amazon, iTunes, etc... I would want people to be able to view them in any piece of software they please. Want to play them back on your wall mounted TV that doubles as a giant photo frame? Go ahead. If I forced you to play back the photos using Amazon "photo show" (I'm making this up here) then I better hope that it plays back photos using another vendor's DRM too. If you have to use a specific piece of software to view my photos, you're probably not going to bother showing my photos to other people too often.

If I made access to my digital photos easier, then perhaps people would order framed prints from me to hang on their wall.

At the end of the day, those who wish to pay for my work will pay for my work. Those who wish to copy it illegally will continue to do so regardless of the DRM scheme I wrap around them.
post #178 of 491
That's just not true. The saying "keep the honest people honest" is in fact based on reality. If you require a postive step into illegality, that will deter many people who would otherwise if there was no barrier at all, just take it and very easily manage not to examine their own actions too closely.
post #179 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

That's just not true. The saying "keep the honest people honest" is in fact based on reality. If you require a postive step into illegality, that will deter many people who would otherwise if there was no barrier at all, just take it and very easily manage not to examine their own actions too closely.

Exactly, no further comment needed.

Some photographers (particularly wedding photographers) watermark their stuff, and/or offer free lower resolution digital samples. And who can blame them? You want the original, pay the man. In the case of wedding photos, a wise photographer may resist distributing the digital originals on, say, optical disc until he has as many orders as he is likely to get. Prints, no problem. Just a matter of keeping honest people honest. It would be very different if folks could just copy the originals. Although after the fact they're likely to be shared anyway. Nothing much can be done about that. People won't stand for prints only these days.
post #180 of 491
Be careful all!! if you don't remove your copied movies, they'll be knocking on your door and treating you like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQFTeBWvnA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal