×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Studios OK Burning Movie Downloads

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the so-long-as-it's-paid-for dept.

216

SirClicksalot writes "The DVD Copy Control Association has released a statement (pdf) announcing that it will make adaptations to the Content Scramble System (CSS) used to protect DVDs. The association, made up of Hollywood studios, consumer electronics and software companies, licenses CSS to the DVD industry to protect content. The changes will allow home users to legally burn purchased movie downloads to special CSS protected DVDs, compatible with existing DVD players."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

216 comments

Further evidence... (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889329)

...that the MPAA and its members aren't quite as evil as the RIAA and its members. I don't think this will really help anything (what prevents me from making a DVD now?), but it's a nice gesture of sincerity. :)

Re:Further evidence... (5, Insightful)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889363)

but it's a nice gesture of sincerity. :)

Yes, it is a nice gesture of how sincere they are about making you pay twice for the movie. Once for the download and again for the blank media to burn it to.

Re:Further evidence... (-1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889402)

Yes, it is a nice gesture of how sincere they are about making you pay twice for the movie. Once for the download and again for the blank media to burn it to.
According to TFA, they're changing the CSS spec, not creating special discs. So you should be able to take the DRMed movie you legally downloaded, and burn it to a standard DVD. The only difference is that the DRM would not be "broken" to create the disc as Music DRM is when a CD is created.

Re:Further evidence... (1)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889468)

According to TFA, they're changing the CSS spec, not creating special discs.


Ahhh yes, summary was misleading. Thanks for the clarification.

Re:Further evidence... (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889712)

According to TFA, they're changing the CSS spec, not creating special discs.

  1. Changing the spec will not retroactively change older players.
  2. The current discs simply do not have the area where CSS is written. If they change the spec to allow writing it to another location, we don't need a new kind of disc, but we will need new, next-gen-DVD-compliant players.

As per TFA:

To allow copies to be made, the DVD Copy Control Association will have to make "adaptations" to the group's encryption technology, which is called the Content Scramble System, or CSS, Larson said. The association, made up of Hollywood studios, consumer electronics and software companies, licenses CSS to those in the DVD industry to protect content.

If this paragraph is accurate, and changes need to be made, then as I said, these new-CSS-format DVDs will not play on old players without a firmware update, which will not be forthcoming for most of them.

WRONG (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15889739)

According to TFA, they're changing the CSS spec, not creating special discs. So you should be able to take the DRMed movie you legally downloaded, and burn it to a standard DVD. The only difference is that the DRM would not be "broken" to create the disc as Music DRM is when a CD is created.


YOU need to read TFA:
http://www.dvdcca.org/data/css/DVDCCArecordrlsFINA L.pdf [dvdcca.org]
"Both would require special blank DVD discs that will use the Content Scramble System (CSS) for encryption and will be compatible with the millions of existing DVD players in the marketplace today."

If you had a clue about what you're talking about, you would know that CSS keys cannot be written existing DVD blank media, which is what makes CSS semi-effective in the first place. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to decrypt a DVD to copy it; you could just copy the whole encrypted disk, including keys, which would kinda defeat the entire purpose of CSS.

Re:Further evidence... (1)

novus ordo (843883) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889793)

FTPR [dvdcca.org]:

Both would require special blank DVD discs that will use the Content Scramble System (CSS) for encryption and will be compatible with the millions of existing DVD players in the marketplace today.
You think they would charge the same as normal DVDs? I think not...

Re:Further evidence... (1, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889843)

MODS: You can mod me back down. It seems I should have read the PDF rather than relying on the explanation given by the article. I think others have quite well explained where and why special DVDs would be needed.

MOD DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15889848)

As the other replies indicate, he misread TFA.
Score:5 Informative should be Score: -1 MisInformative.

Re:Further evidence... (1)

BillyBlaze (746775) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889905)

Currently it's easy to copy both CSS-protected and unprotected DVDs. So the simplest path for the MPAA would be to change (or remove) the DRM on the files you download to allow you to burn unprotected DVDs. Instead, they're going out of their way by changing the CSS spec, presumably so the DVDs you burn will have CSS. Why would they do that? My guess is they're also trying to fix CSS so you can't copy these burned DVDs. Which puts them a step below the music industry, which does let Apple allow you to burn ordinary CDs.

Re:Further evidence... (3, Interesting)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889406)

The obvious: you don't *have* to burn it to any media.

It would seem a logical step that if this becomes a standard we might see network-capable DVD players that can play all this media without it being burned.

Re:Further evidence... (2, Interesting)

PastAustin (941464) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889705)

Hey now. I won't hear any of that. You pay 3 times.

- Once for the movie
- Once for the media
- Once for the temporary CSS licence.
MPAA wants to make sure you are legally burning dvds because they know how easy it is to forget about dvd copying restrictions [arstechnica.com]. Thank you MPAA.

Re:Further evidence... (1)

punkr0x (945364) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889796)

LOL, what are they supposed to do, give you five free blanks with every movie you buy, in case you're ambitious enough (and disaster-prone) to legitimately need five backups?

Re:Further evidence... (5, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889382)

Nah. It's just that they've learned from the RIAA's mess. They realize they are where the music industry was in the mid-90's, with downloading movies just becoming practical, and they don't want to loose control of their revenue stream.

Apple showed that people will pay for downloads, if they are presented with few enough restrictions. So, the MPAA is trying to pre-empt the P2P people by getting legal downloads in place before illegal ones take off.

Re:Further evidence... (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889418)

Apple showed that people will pay for downloads, if they are presented with few enough restrictions. So, the MPAA is trying to pre-empt the P2P people by getting legal downloads in place before illegal ones take off.
Which is what the RIAA members should have done in the first place. If they had, the world would have never known what "Napster" was. Unfortunately, they were too busy (and are still too busy!) protecting their tiny little empires to care about the actual business side of things.

Re:Further evidence... (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889405)

How does it prove that?

The RIAA's members continue to sell unencumbered media for the most part. The DVD-CCA has merely announced a minor modification to CSS (actually probably to recordable DVD media) that will allow DVD-burning kiosks to be set up. These DVD burning kiosks will still end up generating discs that are illegal - as in jailtime - to play with an unlicensed DVD player.

I haven't seen the RIAA pushing for jailtime against people who write audio ripping software let alone CD players. And while there may be occasional glitches in its current stategy, so far it seems to be aiming to punish only those who actually willfully infringe copyright (by putting copies of their member's music onto file copying networks.)

Neither are perfect bodies, but the RIAA so far hasn't tried to micromanage how I listen to music. The MPAA really does think, very strongly, that you should only watch its member's content on it's members defined terms, and is willing to promote mechanisms with draconian legal backing to enforce this. They're a bunch of scumbags, and this article does nothing to disabuse me of that notion.

Re:Further evidence... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15889474)

Illegal as in jailtime? Copyright is civil.

Re:Further evidence... (1)

grimwell (141031) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889604)

Cirumventing DRM is a criminal act under the DMCA act. CSS is DRM for DVDs.

One could say using an unlicensed DVD player to play a DVD encrypted with CSS is cirumventing the DRM of the disc and thus illegal.

Re:Further evidence... (1)

SewersOfRivendell (646620) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889752)

Has that ever been successfully enforced against an end user (as opposed to a distributor)?

Re:Further evidence... (3, Interesting)

Alsee (515537) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889995)

The DMCA criminal DRM provisions have never been successfully upheld against anyone. And ironically, it is virtually impossible to get a law struck down on appeal as unconstitutional, ambigious, or otherwise defective, when you there is no conviction to appeal. It's rather interesting the way the RIAA/MPAA withdraw their case and actively force the issue out of court when some case poses a threat that the court might ruling against the DMCA.

The closest any case actually came to enforcing the criminal provisons of theDMCA was in the Skylarov/Elcomsoft case. The facts of the case fell square under the text of the DMCA, and copyright industry commentators even said it was hard to imagine any more clear and exact violation of these DMCA provisons. The jury simply refused to vote to convict, unanimously.

The jurors had asked US District Judge Ronald M. Whyte to clarify the definition of 'fair use' shortly after deliberations began. [JuryForeman] Dennis Strader said: "Under the eBook formats, you have no rights at all, and the jury had trouble with that concept."

The DMCA is used to terrify corporations into compliance and to keep products off of the market, but the law itself is so unconcionable that an entire jury from the general public unanimously refuse to enforce it.

-

Re:Further evidence... (1)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889961)

Not anymore. Federal crime with federal penalties. Didja know that scanning a textbook -- even one you own -- is a five year stretch in prison? Plus a giant fine?

Re:Further evidence... (5, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889567)

The RIAA's members continue to sell unencumbered media for the most part.
Because the CDDA specs were done a long time ago, when nobody thought that if would be economically viable to copy 600-700MB of data for a single 20$ music CD. When MP3 came out, it was too little too late to change the CDDA specs: they didn't want to break the billions of CD-audio players available world-wide.

I'll also add a comment to your "for the most part" argument: look at how often and in how many ways they've tried to put (sometimes artificial) barriers to CD-ripping. With the iPod and other MP3 players being so popular now, too many people stumble upon those limitations, the RIAA can't get away with it.

Re:Further evidence... (2, Interesting)

thebdj (768618) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889630)

The RIAA's members continue to sell unencumbered media for the most part.

A large number of new release CDs are getting DRM type protections. The only time these things get any real press or notice though is when Sony screws up big time and installs a root kit without permission. Most of the methods invented can be circumvented, but the CSS was circumvented LONG AGO.

The illegality of the issue, which could result in jail time, is actually a result of the DMCA. The RIAA could go after people for circumventing these protections but they chose to go after individuals instead. The MPAA hasn't made a major push after individuals but has continued to focus the bulk of its efforts on the people who are mass producing pirate movies and on the people creating circumventing software. (Note: I do not support the MPAA going after the software folks. Many of them have created software with a legitimate use. The DMCA is as evil as the acronym suggests.)

Neither are perfect bodies, but the RIAA so far hasn't tried to micromanage how I listen to music.

On the contrary they have done a mighty fine job of doing it. So well in fact you do not even realize it. There have been instances of protected CDs not working in certain CD players or preventing them from being used on PC. Look at most MP3 download services. The reason they will not let you transfer MP3s as you wish is because of deals setup with the RIAA. They did the same thing to Sirius over recordable receivers and are trying the same with XM. These people are far worse then you give them credit for. Also, the MPAA is charging me $15 for DVDs with special features and a two-hour movie. The RIAA is charging you $13 for less than an hour of music and no bonuses. (Yes, I know it is not them directly, but the pricing for CDs is crazy compared to DVDs.)

In the end, if I had to choose one of the two bodies to deal with it would probably be the MPAA. Heck, I won't even buy new CDs anymore. They still get me buying movies on DVD every once in a while.

Re:Further evidence... (5, Funny)

kalel666 (587116) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889732)

"continued to focus the bulk of its efforts on the people who are mass producing pirate movies"

Run, Johnny Depp, run!

Re:Further evidence... (0, Offtopic)

Agent00Wang (146185) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889417)

To quote a great man, the MPAA is just the diet coke of evil. Just one calorie, not quite evil enough.

Re:Further evidence... (1)

MrNougat (927651) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889539)

The only thing it proves is that someone had the presence of mind to think, "Hey if we don't allow burning of movies to DVD, we're effectively killing off the entire revenue stream of downloadable movies," and was able to convince other people of the same.

Your post should read: "Further evidence that the MPAA and its members aren't quite as stupid as the RIAA and its members."

Re:Further evidence... (1)

CougarCat (673816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889784)

What prevents you (us) now? The worldwide famine of dual-layer media, that's what! You can barely find the stuff now, and when you do, it priced at dollars-per-disc. It would be a beautiful thing if these "blessed" discs were realistically priced, but then, it would also be a beautiful thing if the moon really was made out of cheese.

How "nice" of them... (4, Funny)

Teese (89081) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889334)

...to allow us to use our legally purchased content. The movie industry sure is on our side! Maybe next year they will allow us to skip chapters! or fast-forward! Can you imagine how much praise and rejoicing there will be? I can't wait until we have earned their good graces!

stupid

Re:How "nice" of them... (-1, Flamebait)

Roody Blashes (975889) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889443)

Yea, okay. They take an official position on a matter that is 100% in agreement with the Slashbot position and you STILL bitch and moan about it.

I think that pretty much says everything about what the slashbots really feel about burning music and movies. Even when they're officially with you as a matter of policy, you whine. What's going to keep you from whining? I would wager nothing short of them just giving away the content completely free of charge with no restrictions or ads. Because, frankly, that's all you whiny babies really want, and nothing less is going to make you cheap bastards happy.

Re:How "nice" of them... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15889616)

Frankly, I could live forever without their content. But I object very strongly to the idea that anyone, including them, should have a right to stop me passing on information if I choose to. I disagree with the idea that people "own" "information itself". Only copies exist. Only copies should be ownable. If they don't want stuff being redistributed, they shouldn't release it in the first place. Enforcement of copyright is used as an excuse for police-state building.

Hence my support for the PIRATE PARTY. Go pirates! http://www.piratpartiet.se/ [piratpartiet.se]

Re:How "nice" of them... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889652)

your sig so matches your comment..

i tend to agree there are alot of people out there like this.. personaly i just want a reasonable price point.. and for there to be a true free market..

the RIAA get's hit with price fixing and comes out smelling like a rose and prices don't change.

the movie industry is just as bad..

Re:How "nice" of them... (1)

Teese (89081) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889660)

What I want is to be able to watch movies that I buy.

As hard as it may be for you to believe, I buy my movies, I buy my music, I even bought the family pack of OSX so that I could legally put it on more than one machine at home.

I want to watch movies without the content creators forcing me to watch ads, without them deciding that I'm required to repurchase the same content over and over again, because a nifty new device that came out requires a different format.

I want to be able to build a HTPC that can store all my movies, and I can decide which one to watch without putting in DVD. I want to be able to rip my DVD's to my laptop's computer so that when I go on that 4 hour flight, i have a selection of movies that I can watch that will be a little more battery friendly. I want to be able to backup my kids DVD's so that when they inevitably destroy the disc, I can make another copy for them to watch.

DRM doesn't stop pirates, it stops normal people from using their content.

Re:How "nice" of them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15889707)

I want to be able to build a HTPC that can store all my movies, and I can decide which one to watch without putting in DVD. I want to be able to rip my DVD's to my laptop's computer so that when I go on that 4 hour flight, i have a selection of movies that I can watch that will be a little more battery friendly.

Good luck at being able to carry on a laptop on your flight!

Re:How "nice" of them... (1)

rk (6314) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889689)

Honestly, I'd just settle for allowing me to play my DVDs on my Linux boxes without being guilty of a crime that makes me eligible for incarceration in Federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison. I really don't think that's too much to ask, do you?

BTW, what is this "Slashdot position" you speak of?

Re:How "nice" of them... (1)

grimwell (141031) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889703)

I think the point was more along the lines of "why is it is news(or even good news) when a corporate entity decides to allow citizens to exerise their rights?". Why do corporate entities get to "decide" which rights a citizen can exercise? Everyone should be free to exercise their rights without artifical restraint(e.g. CSS).

Maybe you could take a moment to look at copyright and why it was originally created.

Re:How "nice" of them... (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889747)

Yea, okay. They take an official position on a matter that is 100% in agreement with the Slashbot position and you STILL bitch and moan about it.

You must be an MPAA shill, because their position is not, repeat not 100% in agreement with the Slashbot position. In particular, they are using css. The "Slashbot position" as you call it is that both CSS and region coding are objectionable, and should never be used. DVDs work just fine without any CSS at all, and CSS does not prevent copying, so why do they use CSS? Purely legal reasons, and poor ones at that, designed to prevent us from exercising our fair use laws, through application of the DMCA.

You fail the test! Hand in your geek badge on your way out.

Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15889866)

Yes all nerds do is download britney videos and movies and watch their brains rot and turn in too bloody rashes ::scratch:: ::scratch:: ::scratch::

"special" discs? (4, Interesting)

lordkuri (514498) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889341)

Anyone want to take a guess at how much these discs are going to cost? I'd wager just about the same price as an actual dvd of the movie itself.

Besides, haven't these morons figured out yet that CSS is borderline useless?

Re:"special" discs? (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889395)

I'd wager just about the same price as an actual dvd of the movie itself.

They'll make very expensive coasters too if you're not careful when burning... I'll stick to HMV for the meantime.

Re:"special" discs? (4, Funny)

DarthSkippious (940606) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889424)

Besides, haven't these morons figured out yet that CSS is borderline useless?


Useless? Useless? Are you kidding? The hack of it made a great t-shirt!

Re:"special" discs? (3, Insightful)

AndyG314 (760442) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889473)

Besides, haven't these morons figured out yet that CSS is borderline useless?
Of course they have, why do you think they are willing to let us use it. They look less evil, and they are only "letting" us do something we already could.

Re:"special" discs? (0)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889482)

Anyone want to take a guess at how much these discs are going to cost?
Well, you can get a 50 pack spindle of DVD+Rs from Amazon for about $22.95. Seems quite affordable to me.

Oh, you mean you didn't read the article? They're changing the CSS software, not the media hardware. But please, go on yammering about something you didn't take the time to read about. I'm sure the mods with uprate you to something weird like +5 Flamebait.

Re:"special" discs? (2, Informative)

lordkuri (514498) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889521)

right, so how again are they going to update the firmware on countless thousands if not millions of dvd players?

as for reading the article, I quote:

"Soon, people will be able to copy a digital movie onto a specially made DVD"

What it sounds like to me is that they plan on distributing discs with CSS keys already burned on them instead of the discs that exist now having the CSS ring zeroed out.

Re:"special" discs? (4, Informative)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889540)

From the PDF (emphasis added):
Under rule changes now in the works, commercial vendors could create protected DVDs on kiosks and in small custom runs. Individual consumers could legally record a variety of selected content. Both would require special blank DVD discs that will use the Content Scramble System (CSS) for encryption and will be compatible with the millions of existing DVD players in the marketplace today.

This isn't just a software change. See, the whole reason CSS is effective (to any extent) is that DVD burners and blank DVD media are designed to prevent you from writing CSS keys to a disc. The media comes with the key area pre-burned with zeros (or physically embossed, for RW discs) and the burners refuse to write there anyway. Even with the expensive DVD-R for Authoring format, you can't burn a CSS protected disc today, AFAICT.

Re:"special" discs? (3, Informative)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889852)

Even with the expensive DVD-R for Authoring format, you can't burn a CSS protected disc today, AFAICT.

As I understand it, that was the whole point of DVD-R for Authoring. They did let you burn CSS to Authoring discs ("authoring", after all, means making an exact image of what is going to be pressed at the factory), but they made sure that Authoring discs wouldn't be burnable in regular drives, and (for some reason I can't comprehend), Authoring drives wouldn't burn regular discs.

The original intent was that the only people with Authoring drives and using Authoring discs would be the few pros who needed them. And they would pay big bucks for what was esentially a drive with different firmware, and a blank disc made with different header info, further limiting use to pros only.

Re:"special" discs? (2, Informative)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#15890008)

It looks like Authoring blocks CSS in the burner's firmware, but the media is physically able to hold a key (link [emedialive.com], also see this PDF [winocular.com]):
DVD-R General media ships with the area where the CSS information is stored pre-blocked by the manufacturer. While DVD-R Authoring discs are not blocked in this manner, the area is unconditionally prewritten with null data when a first recording session is performed on a disc by the only available DVD-R Authoring drive (Pioneer's DVR-S201). Indeed, DVD-R's inability to handle CSS information almost single-handedly rules out DVD-R's use as mastering media for DVD-Video in the studio entertainment space where most DVD-Videos to date have fit.

Re:"special" discs? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15889967)

Mod parent up some more, because the rest of you are all freaking idiots who have no idea why you can't burn CSS-protected discs currently.

In order for this to work the way they describe (backward compatible with existing players), the only thing that can be changed is either requiring everyone to get new, special burners that write the CSS area with new, special discs that don't have the CSS area written to (an obvious non-starter, not to mention a loss of control if everyone can burn to the CSS area), or for the discs to already have the CSS keys written on them.

The obvious way this would work is either a single secret key would be used for all discs, and the consumer would download a pre-encrypted image using this key (simple and easier to distribute, but also very easy to break), or the downloading software would read the CSS area from the disc and transmit the contents to the download service, which would then send you the encrypted image for that particular disc (a lot more likely, in my view).

Any changes to the CSS spec will probably be more on the lines of changing the legal restrictions imposed by the licensing authority, not technical changes.

Re:"special" discs? (2, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889519)

I really don't see why they don't just let you burn it to a regular DVD+/-R, with no CSS. CSS is useless anyway, was broken years ago, and only exists to stop you from playing DVDs from other regions. It would be much easier to implement a system where you let people/stores burn on regular DVDs with regular DVD burners, on regular computers. If they sold the movies for a reasonable price, people wouldn't really be that interested in copying them, and they'd make a lot of money.

Are customers finally winning? (3, Interesting)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889349)

Did we finally get a message through that the majority of us aren't criminals? It's nice to see at least part of the entertainment industry keeping up with the times. Does anyone know the pricing for these movie downloads before I get too far ahead of myself?

Re:Are customers finally winning? (5, Interesting)

Kimos (859729) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889380)

Of course we're not winning... This system stops you from breaking the CSS.

If you copy a DVD by breaking the CSS and re-encoding it, you've got a completely DRM free disk. You can do whatever you want with it, and copy it with any burning software. It becomes clean data. This new system will let you burn copies of that same disk, except they re-encrypt it for you and re-apply the DRM. Isn't that nice of them?

Re:Are customers finally winning? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889435)

This new system will let you burn copies of that same disk, except they re-encrypt it for you and re-apply the DRM.

The headline (let alone the summary or article) says downloads, not discs. They're not talking about letting you duplicate your DVD (CSS and all), they're talking about letting you take your movie downloaded in (probably) "protected [sic]" WMV format and burn it to a DVD such that it still has DRM, but CSS instead of Windows Media DRM.

Re:Are customers finally winning? (1)

HoosierPeschke (887362) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889466)

So wouldn't burning it, ripping and stripping it, and re-burning it do the same thing, just an additional step? Heck, one could mount the image and rip away without wasting a disc. It is based on the system to work with current DVD players. But then again, I tend to oversimplify things...

Re:Are customers finally winning? (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889634)

Did we finally get a message through that the majority of us aren't criminals?

To whom are you trying to deliver this message? The MPAA members?

A criminal can make a perfect copy of a DVD and resell it without touching the encryption. A criminal can point a video camera at a TV playing a DVD and make a file. A criminal can break the encryption anyway, since it is weak and the only thing stopping them is the law. A criminal can download a cracked copy from the internet.

All of the the so called "copy protection" schemes and DRM are not about stopping criminals. They are about stopping the law abiding. They are about making sure they can charge more money for the same product in the US where people can pay more, without sacrificing other markets that can't afford to pay as much. They are about making sure when your DVD gets scratched, you have to buy a new one instead of using a backup you made. They are about making sure you have to buy a second copy of the same movie for the car, or your portable game console. They are about making sure that when the new format comes out and players gradually transition to it, your kids will buy a new copy of the same old movie yet again, because the DVD you gave them no longer is useful.

If you think this has anything to do with stopping criminals, you've bought into their marketing propaganda.

Re:Are customers finally winning? (1)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889800)

Did we finally get a message through that the majority of us aren't criminals?
No. If you read the PDF, all that has actually changed is the license agreement that binds the manufacturers of DVDs. They will now be allowed to make CSS-protected DVDs using special recordable disks. I suppose that previously they were only allowed to use pressed disks.

The immediate purpose of this will be to allow vending machines to create DVDs on the fly. As far as home recording goes, the press release just says "Individual consumers could legally record a variety of selected content", which doesn't mean anything: you can do that now, just so long as your "selected content" is not copyrighted! There's nothing here that will add any legal freedoms to the individual user.

If it works with existing DVD players... (4, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889353)

...then it probably involves some revision of the actual writable DVDs rather than CSS. The problem with burning a writable DVD at the moment with CSS encoding is that you have nowhere to store the keys. These are kept in a part of the DVD that has deliberately been unwritable on writable discs.

The articles I'm reading suggest the service will be limited to kiosks. This makes sense, as any consumer based DVD burner that can burn CSS discs will be ultimately possible to modify such that it can copy regular DVDs too.

Re:If it works with existing DVD players... (2, Funny)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889427)

huh... Seems to me that any kiosks are going to have all the speed and quality of downloads combined with the convenience of going to a shop rather than buying over the internet.

Re:If it works with existing DVD players... (5, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889489)

This makes sense, as any consumer based DVD burner that can burn CSS discs will be ultimately possible to modify such that it can copy regular DVDs too.

you mean like how I can copy any DVD right now without effort?

BTW, I can make CSS "protected" DVD's right now with DVD-R media and a old Pioneer A-06 DVD burner. I did it last month for a client that paid for their CSS key and I used Scenerist to creat ethe DVD structure and apply the CSS encoding key.

Plays in DVD players nice and DVD decryptor and my other tools for ripping DVD's shows it as having CSS protection.

I am unsure as to this special area you are speaking of but it's not needed to make your own CSS encrypted DVD's. (although CSS is 100% useless for protection of any kind.)

Re:If it works with existing DVD players... (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889536)

you mean like how I can copy any DVD right now without effort?

No, I mean like you can't do without committing a criminal offense under the DMCA. By you I mean you personally, plus the makers or importers of the product that did the copying.

You "can" copy any DVD in the same sense as you "can" smoke a joint. What the DVD-CCA fears is you legally copying DVDs, and the introduction of consumer level DVD burning hardware that can write to the CSS key parts of DVDs would result in you being able to do that.

Re:If it works with existing DVD players... (1)

Serengeti (48438) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889901)

We keep mentioning kiosks, and I assume we mean a kiosk in an EB or other store. So, how would I get my downloaded content to said kiosk?

Personally, I'd probably burn it onto a DVD or something...

"Special" DVDs (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889362)

Sounds like you will have to buy special blank DVDs. Unless these blanks are as cheap as existing blanks (or close) this will bomb. Heck it might bomb even if they were cheaper, on the confusion factor alone. There is no reason the CSS data can't be burned directly from the burner, so all this is is a ploy.

Re:"Special" DVDs (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889526)

Sounds like you will have to buy special blank DVDs.
And exactly where does the article state that? CSS is software, not hardware.

Good God, there's a lot of misinformation in these threads.

Re:"Special" DVDs (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889639)

IN http://www.dvdcca.org/data/css/DVDCCArecordrlsFINA L.pdf [dvdcca.org]

would require special blank DVD discs

Re:"Special" DVDs (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889714)

Okay, I got over my adversion of reading the PDF, and finally downloaded it. It seems that you're right about the media. I guess time will tell if "special media" means "premium cost media" or "upgrades to the existing media".

I withdraw my previous argument.

Re:"Special" DVDs (2, Informative)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889725)

The PDF linked from the article clearly states that this will need special blank disks.
Actually, CSS is hardware as well as software, because the key is stored in a spacial place on the disk, and existing disks do not allow that special place to be written. So it is impossible to make CSS-protected disks with current domestic DVD writers.

Re:"Special" DVDs (4, Funny)

z0idberg (888892) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889685)

You will actually have to buy a specific blank DVD for each movie you want to download and burn. For example if you want to watch "Weekend at Bernies" you will have to drive to WalMart and by the specific "Weekend at Bernies - Blank Edition", then drive home and download the movie, then burn it to the blank, then and only then will you be able to play the movie.

To compensate you for your trouble "Weekend at Bernies - Blank Edition" will be between $1.23 and $1.56 cheaper than "Weekend at Bernies" original that will be on sale right next to "Weekend at Bernies - Blank Edition", and between $1.56 and $1.93 cheaper than "Weekend at Bernies - Directors Cut" and "Weekend at Bernies - Now in HD", which will be the next two DVDs over.

Re:"Special" DVDs (1)

evansdg (905077) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889839)

Why couldn't they just start including these "special dvd's" with the dvd's you buy moving forward? Obviously, this wouldn't work for the ones you already own...

Special media? (4, Insightful)

winnabago (949419) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889365)

I thought it was proven that consumers won't purchase particular media in advance back when it was tried with audio CDs. I am beginning to think that a cursory attempt at digital distribution is all they want, making it appear that they are defending their rights while supplementing income with civil lawsuit extortion. Nothing new, but it gets clearer every day to me.

Sadly encouraging, but.... (4, Informative)

Utilitygeek (969913) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889367)

While, sadly, it is encouraging that the MPAA is trying to find ways for end-users to have fair use of the media they purchase, I still have to wonder what sort of DRM and restrictions they will place in/on this new technology. Will I be able to burn multiple copies? Watch without burning? Or, if I misburn myself a coaster, am I simply SOL?

Re:Sadly encouraging, but.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15889467)

This isn't fair use. They're trying to sell DVD downloads specifically without giving any Fair Use capabilities. The burnt disks are still css-encoded so they'll get in the way of legitimate users while providing no barrier to real pirates.

This is a Good Thing (2, Interesting)

boyfaceddog (788041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889387)

Finally, someone beside Apple recognizes that there is a Way Forward in the digital age. It may not be all we want, but it is a start.

Give these guys credit. Anything that even smells like it would endanger the all powerful Bottom Line and drop share prices is taboo for all major corporations.

Why Bother? (3, Insightful)

Bistronaut (267467) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889392)

Why are they going through all this trouble? Don't they know that CSS was broken years ago? Haven't they ever downloaded Handbrake?

Countdown to crack (5, Funny)

mistersooreams (811324) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889396)

Crack coming in 3... 2...

What's that? CSS got cracked years ago? Look, behind you - a three-headed terrorist! Think of the children!

*runs*

not that great... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15889397)

In a statement, the association said that an updated version of CSS could allow retailers to place kiosks on showroom floors and allow consumers to watch as a digital movie recording is placed on a blank DVD while they wait.

Looks like this is aimed more at the content distributers than the home consumers. now that's the MPAA we've come to know and love!

What's the point? (2, Insightful)

PurpleMonkeyKing (944900) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889419)

Why must they put DRM on it? CSS has already been proven not to be effective, so what are the Media Companies afraid of?

This is certainly a step in the correct direction for video downloads. Certainly the movie business must be realizing that customers want freedom to use their products how they wish. Being locked into only "approved" viewing on a pc could only have appealed to a small audience.

I suppose DRM is an attempt to make people buy content more than once, because it certainly will never stop piracy. Studios are finally realizing they can't get away with doing that. Very few, if any, people would be willing to purchase the same movie more than once. If legal video downloading is ever going to catch on, this will make it at least possible

Re:What's the point? (1)

flooey (695860) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889982)

Why must they put DRM on it? CSS has already been proven not to be effective, so what are the Media Companies afraid of?

At least part of it is probably that the DMCA prohibits circumventing an access control measure. If you just put raw data on there, you can't invoke those portions of the DMCA.

There are SOME among them who are not morons (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889434)

... after all ? So they have started to comply with the times' and people's demands about the matter.

Re:There are SOME among them who are not morons (1)

TheViewFromTheGround (607422) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889505)

Ultimately, groups like the MPAA and RIAA have to adapt to the demands of the market or work very hard to regulate that market in such a way as to keep them filthy stinking rich. So they'll do both, with varying degrees of success. The latter will always be the default strategy. The former will usually be slow and more-or-less half-assed (which allows the wiggle room to say, "see, we tried that, it didn't work... back to plan A").

Re:There are SOME among them who are not morons (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889809)

Well.

However the internet is unlike the cases we have met before. Its not like its easily regulated. Its momentum is too big.

No legislator can allow for laws that will get millions of voters sued, nuking his/her party to oblivion.

#!/usr/bin/perl (2, Informative)

guzugi (688311) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889445)

s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*",_) [20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV,qb2 5,_;H=73;O=$b[4]>8^(P=(E=255)&(Q>>12^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))> 8^(E&(F=(S=O>>14&7^O)
^S*8^S>=8
)+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D-HO- U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval

Don't run that! (3, Funny)

patio11 (857072) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889491)

You might think in context that it is deCSS, but it actually prints "Just another perl hacker" unless an obscure race condition happens, in which case it instructs Google to become sentient and begin the elimination of the human race.

Friends don't let friends execute perl scripts they didn't write.

Mixed Feelings (1)

smchris (464899) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889448)


No doubt one will remaain a felon for watching a DVD on linux but it shows they are thinking of a strategy to adapt.

Whether it is competitive depends on how smart they are. Would they accept a dollar/disk royalty? Even at that, it isn't like 100 disk cakeboxes would be competitive -- $130/box? But wouldn't a lot of people buy 6-packs at the checkout counter for $10? Could work.

And it seems only inevitable that the DVD store will eventually be a machine.

TV? (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889502)

Although TV is different than DVD's, what are the policies on downloading and burning TV Shows?

I have Satellite Television and there have been numerous times I have found a show on that I want to watch, and either that channel has very poor reception or none at all. I'm not sure if it's a problem with the dish or the box.

But if I want to watch that episode of a show that doesn't work, is there any way I can legally download [and possibly burn?] and watch it? I'm already paying for the subscription [damn near $80 CAD] for the dish that fails to deliver the content I am paying for.

More on topic: I feel the MPAA is trying to make an attempt at allowing fair use, but why are they being so restrictive? If I own the movie and make a copy for regular use, why can I not easily do this? Or even just create a AVI/MPEG to watch on my computer? Right now I go throught the process of using DVD Shrink or DVDFab Decrypter, stripping everything [menus, extra's, etc.] then burning. Sony discs are by far the biggest pain in the ass to copy... for these, I resort to downloading and burning an already DRM-Free version from TPB or elsewhere.

... just my thoughts on the matter. :-)

Re:TV? (2)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889930)

I am sure it is illegal, but in all honesty, who gives a shit...

They can bitch and moan all they want...
I think pretty much everyone commits a copyright violation atleast once a day wtihout even realizing it or doing anything wrong because of how screwed up the laws are.

YEEEEEAH OHKAY?! (1)

ooMissioNoo (994313) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889520)

will they ever be able to stop it... if they really wanna (kinda)stop it then they need to put it on something that DOESNT GO DIRECTLY INTO THE COMPUTER

What am I missing (3, Interesting)

szembek (948327) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889532)

I can burn stuff to a DVD and play it in a regular DVD player with no problem. Does Nero use illegal tech to make this happen? I understand that bypassing DRM might be illegal, but how is the encoding of the disc to play in a DVD player illegal right now?

Re:What am I missing (1)

David_W (35680) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889736)

but how is the encoding of the disc to play in a DVD player illegal right now?

It isn't. Here's what you are missing: Nero can (ok, should, I don't know for a fact since I've not used the lastest version) only burn unencrypted (no CSS) data. Most movies are encrypted. So there was no means to burn an encrypted movie without breaking the encryption first. That's the illegal part. With this there will essentially be a means to burn a movie with the encryption intact.

The simple summary - encryption must live on (5, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889590)

There's clearly a big market for video on demand, and the ability to burn movies at a kiosk would greatly reduce the up-front warehousing, shipping, floor space, and back catalog storage. This is a masterful win for potential sales and increasing sales outlets.

Fromt the desciption and my palty knowledge of the DVD format, it seems like they're simply going to make everybody capable of burning in the key area with approved software. The end user part is to allow electronic distribution through a pay-per-download scheme. That scheme can also be used to digitally watermark the downloads and monitor infringing uploads, which is a bonus for them. More people with bigger pipes will be necessary for that to really take hold.

As for the end user burning a CCA encrypted disc, thay pretty much have to keep that part in order to retain much in the way of legal protections. Consumers keep crying "fair use" as a way to format shift, and to them format shifting is pronounced "lost sale". If drop the encryption, it's just like a CD, and there are already services which will format shift your CDs to MP3. All legal through fair use and unencrypted content. By encrypting the content, they keep their DMCA protections - it's not legal anyone else to help you format shift, in any way shape or form. For the vast majority of the population, that means format shifting is done via additional purchase.

Everyone here seems to think that the MPAA is trying to stop pirates, and we bubble with exhaspiration over the fact that the encryption has been broken and is useless. The MPAA doesn't really care about big time pirates all that much - it's a small market, mostly in asia, and mostly in places where the disposable income isn't high enough for the average person to afford a price that would turn a profit for the member organizations. No, the pirates the MPAA is concerned about are the casual ones - the guy next door who will burn his also-tech-unsavvy neighbor a quick copy on his consumer DVD recorder. That's more likely to be a lost sale than some chick dropping $1US on a pirated Malasian jewelcase on a street corner or a pimply faced 14 year old downloading a torrent. They won't admit it in public, but they know its true. Keeping Jim and Billy Bob from swapping discs will generate more revenue than stopping a dozen teenagers from getting an image off the eDonkey.

"How would you like the DVD content done?" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15889619)

DVD Copy Control Association: "I'd like it scrambled."

Me: "I'd like it fertilized please."

Ok ok, bad joke! /hide

Not REALLY for home users... (1)

posterlogo (943853) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889686)

FTA: "In a statement, the association said that an updated version of CSS could allow retailers to place kiosks on showroom floors and allow consumers to watch as a digital movie recording is placed on a blank DVD while they wait."

This sounds to me like their intended market. All the rhetoric about home users is a smoke screen, IMHO, to fool news agencies and some /.ers into believing the MPAA is innovating and becoming consumer friendly. The day the MPAA does anything that would be consumer friendly...well you know how it goes.

They want us to burn the movie to a "special" DVD (1)

crazygamer (952019) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889744)

... but what's stopping us from just burning it to a regular one?

No need to break copywrite, just dupe it. (0, Redundant)

PenGun (794213) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889755)

K this works, you need a reader and a burner /dev/dvd1 and /dev/dvd, I call it dupedvd:

    #!/bin/sh
echo " * Eyepatch On!! Straight data dump to da DVD recorder *"
echo
rm stream.dvd
mkfifo -m 666 stream.dvd &&
sleep 1
dd if=/dev/dvd1 of=stream.dvd &
sleep 1
growisofs -dvd-compat -Z /dev/dvd=stream.dvd &&
echo
echo " * Eyepatch Off ... \"I feel empty\" :Zorak *"

        What he said eh'. Eat your heart out windose users, you MAC puppies could prolly get it to fly.

        PenGun
    Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !
 

Extending an olive branch (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889814)

It's nice to see that the movie industry is wisening up. They see the RIAA attempts at spam-suing and how badly the consumer backlash is, and are trying a different approach.

For the average joe, this is probably exactly what they would like to do- make copies of their expensive discs. People will feel better about taking their DVDs along with them on a bus ride, to a friend's, or on a plane (well, I guess that last one doesn't apply anymore). If it breaks, they can just take it the "master" to a kiosk and make another copy.

There are a few questions, though:
1) Cost of the DVD?

This is the big one: how much will it cost to not only buy the special DVD, but make a copy? If it's anything more than a buck, I doubt there will be much interest. If it's, say, 50 cents, I'm sure you'll get lots of takers.

2) Number of burns allowed?

Will the kiosk(s) track how often a certain copy of a movie is copied and limit the number? Obviously, you don't want to allow someone to make a hundered copies and hand them out to friends, but at the same time you don't want to limit it just one or two copies, because shit happens.

And, granted, this won't allow you to rip the DVD to your hard drive to put on portable media or watch from your PC, but a far smaller percentage of consumers are interested in this than just having a regular copy for normal use or in case the first goes belly-up.

Specially made DVDs (1)

Frightening (976489) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889831)

Where do I get those? And do I have to give DNA samples? How many can I buy before being put on the FBI files?

Oh wait. I'm already on the FBI f

no thanks. (1)

nilbog (732352) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889933)

No thanks, I'll just keep breaking CSS and burning DRM-free movies. It's well within my rights (at least what they should be), and anyone who says differently will be mocked in the future.

It's not just about the content (2, Insightful)

The_Pariah (991496) | more than 7 years ago | (#15889953)

I don't buy music off the internet. I don't download movies. Why? Because I'm getting less. When I pay $10 for a cd or $15 for a movie, I'm paying that price not just for the mediaitself, but for the case, the album art, etc.

I don't like to flip thru my dvd/cd binder and see handwritten titles. I like to see the movie/music are on the actual disc.

How many people have their DVD or CD collections on shelfs? It's nice to look at. It's easy to find the movie/cd you're wanting. Not the case with download-n-burn processes where, even tho the purchase was legit, still looks like crap and looks copied/stolen. People are much more impressed (and so am I) with a shelf of a few hundred movies all in their nice cases than a bunch of dvd-r's sitting in a spindle.

I'll always be for going to the store and buying my media if it costs the same as teh digitally delivered version. No compressed downloads for me. I can guarantee the movie downloads aren't filling DVD9 discs. And if they're not, you're losing quality. Why pay for less?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...