Slashdot: News for Nerds


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!

cancel ×


LOLDONGS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19252919)

The obvious problem... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19252937) that we weren't waiting for anyone's permission.

Re:The obvious problem... (5, Insightful)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253483)

Have you ever brought back a CD to a store that is maybe 2 or 3 years old and told them it was broken?

Do they take it back and give you (the same) cd back?

If what we are paying for is the content solely, then shouldn't they?

I think it would make the whole industry more credible if they were willing to do that.

Why should I have to pay a second time for content that I already paid for.

Also, if I have it on tape, shouldn't I be able to trade it in for CD, and same with VHS and DVD? Pay a small fee for the upgraded quality of the content, but still, I own the movie, so why do I have to buy it again?

Re:The obvious problem... (5, Interesting)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253753)

I tried this with Disney.
I have all my kid's disney flicks on a home media server. I called disney to report that my disk for beauty and the beast was scratched, and that I would like a replacement. I was denied.
me: hi, my disk is scratched
them: buy a new one
me: no, I would normally make a backup copy but your TOU forbids this
them: so?
me: well disney has taken the stance that I as a consumer have not bought any rights to the movie, only a license to the content
them: so
me: well that means under normal IP license schemas I can reasonably expect a refreshed copy of the IP for the cost of media
them: no
me: so I can copy the disks I buy?
them: no
me: will you sell me a disk?
them: no, buy it retail
me: but it's out of print and not in stores any more
them: try e-bay


Wasn't very productive, but I'll take it to mean I can copy my disks DMCA be damned.

Re:The obvious problem... (5, Informative)

DivineHawk (570091) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254463)

You can for the 'nominal' fee is $6.95: tml#common0 []

If you accidentally damage or break one of your Disney DVDs, you can get a replacement disc for a nominal charge of $6.95.

Please mail in your damaged DVD (along with DVD case and full packaging), a Check or Money order for $6.95 (made payable to WDHE), along with your Contact Information (Name, Address, and Phone Number) to:

Replacement Program
PO Box 3100
Neenah, WI 54957-3100.

Re:The obvious problem... (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253807)

I agree with replacements, however different media should have some cost associated with it otherwise why bother making new technology? Plus, it's technically different content. VHS, 320 lines, DVD 640. Need to licence those additional lines of resolution.

If you have a previous incarnation you should be able to get a discount...but that'd probably be too much a PITA to keep track of.

Would love to see an RIAA spokesmouth try answering that question in a Congressional inquiry... If I'm paying a licence for the content, why can't we get replacements for the physical part no questions asked?

Re:The obvious problem... (2, Insightful)

Coco Lopez (886067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254143)

different media should have some cost associated with it otherwise why bother making new technology?

Why bother making new technology??? Are you serious???

Let's just say I happen to be a large corporate entity with holdings in both the production of 'media platforms' and a large back catalog of 'media content' --- let's call me Sony. Now what would be the benefit to me to produce an new format that would require consumers to purchase new technology and new media to go with it? What's the economic incentive for me, Sony, to do that?

Let me spell it out for you: If I come up with a new media format, I can re-sell you the same shit you already bought. Better on me if I can somehow *prevent* you from carrying over the shit you've already got so that it plays on your new and improved technology platform. That way I, Sony, don't even have to make the new format that much better, because you've got to rebuy the shit anyway if you want to use it. Oh, and I forgot to mention that pretty soon I, Sony, won't be releasing any new media I might happen to produce on that old busted format I invented. Sure, you can keep the old players around, but for how long?

Re:The obvious problem... (0, Redundant)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254245)

And since you're Sony you'll probably stop releasing shit on that old format that you invented because you'll be putting it out on the competing format that people actually bought.

Re:The obvious problem... (2, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254273)

Um, the parent poster was saying 'What would be the point of creating new technology if you got all your old media upgraded for free.' They were making the point that the new formats were primarily for the purpose of getting consumers to repay for the content they already purchased.

Re:The obvious problem... (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254193)

I'd certainly buy a lot more stuff if that would occur. As it is now, I won't buy it b/c it is too much of a hassle to copy and it seems things are obsoleted every few years. This becomes a big deal if you end up with a large collection of 'stuff'.

Corrupted Discs (1)

TypoNAM (695420) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254283)

I have bought around 40 DVDs over the past six years and I have a few DVDs which are simply have corrupted or bad spots on them that you cannot visually see, but when you play the disc when it gets to a particular spot or some spots it confuses the DVD player and causes it to freez or even crash on some software DVD players. One such DVD is K-19 (has several bad spots) and another one that I can remember at this time is Beetlejuice.

I have always wondered if it were possible to get a new / fully working DVD disc replacement from the movie distributors since they claim we have only licensed it, and it is their fault that their product is basically defective and we should have the right to get a replacement by law you would think.

Re:The obvious problem... (0)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254551)

If what we are paying for is the content solely, then shouldn't they?

Except you're not paying for the content solely. You're paying for a physical disc. You can do whatever you want with this disc so long as it doesn't violate the law. This is much like buying a knife, you can do whatever you want with a knife so long as it doesn't violate the law. Stabbing someone violates the law. Similarly, circumventing copy protection mechanisms violates the law.

Not that I'm defending this, but the myth that you're "buying a license" needs to be dispelled. If you want to argue about copyright, get your facts straight.

And didn't need to (2, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253493)

I wish *one exec from the "content industry" would come by just for a day. In case that happens, here's a message for himher, right up a the top:

Fair use means *copying of your "content" that we are *legally entitled to do. *Without asking for *permission. We do not have to sit down with you and work on the problem, try and strike a balance that pleases everyone, come to an acceptable price. We get to just do it.

Missed point: it's not the DRM, it's control. (5, Insightful)

Anderson Council (1096781) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253777)

So, we may be permitted to make a copy or two of product we purchase. How exciting. If I make a copy to put on my media server (for example, as suggested by the article), is this going to preclude me making another copy later if I trash my media server? Does this include *my* media server (which is currently a linux box), or some idealized media server that no one actually owns? Will this all work transparently with my linux server, linux + mac + windows clients thing that I have going right now?

In order to solve certain issues with the Front Row software I already have to make reference movies; however, this enables my entire distributed multi-platform (TV and computer client) home set-up hum. Want me to give you odds that this new "licensed copy" won't work?

I didn't think so.

While it's encouraging that they are noticing that stomping on basic fair use is a Kobayashi Maru scenario for them (as other posters rightly point out, people will just break the DRM and copy it anyway); it should go without saying that a non-interoperable, proprietary system that dictates not just what software (or possibly hardware even) I run on my "media server", but also the software/hardware options for the clients as well?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd argue they've still dropped the ball, and this does not consitute picking it back up. More like when you see a kid reach for the ball but in reaching for it they kick it with their foot and push it even further out of reach.

Oh well. Status quo I suppose.


fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19252941)

Heh (4, Funny)

faloi (738831) | more than 7 years ago | (#19252949)

"Since you guys keep cracking our DRM schemes, we're going to be really nice and grant you fair use rights for the stuff you're paying for. See how cool we are!?"

Re:Heh (0, Offtopic)

nicolastheadept (930317) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253015)

Stupid lack of mod points.
Someone mod above funny for me, please.

Exactly (2, Insightful)

fishdan (569872) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253021)

...consumers may get the right to make several legal copies of HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc movies they've purchased, a concession by the movie industry that may quell criticism that DRM (digital rights management) technologies are too restrictive...

Excuse me? The RIAA/MPAA people argue that DMCA forbids us from making backups of our media, but that is hardly FACT -- merely their legal position -- and as far as I know one that has NEVER been challenged. I'm sure they'd like for the public to think they are "giving" us something, but in fact what they are doing is saying "please use the item you've purchased from us in an appropriate mannner."

appropriate? (2)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253419)

Hardly. I believe it was Valenti who said the way you get a backup of The Lion King is, you buy two copies of the Lion King.

No, they're saying "please use the item you've purchased from us only in the ways we approve."

This comes after attempts 1) to restrict the kinds of technology you can buy ('trusted' computing, broadcast flags); 2) to restrict what you can do with your hardware (anti-circumvention laws) and 3) to redefine "purchase" so that it actually just means "rental" of their 'content', and they retain the right to dictate how the property your renting may be used.

Re:Heh (2, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253047)

Or more like, "Since we can't do anything about you hacking it because Fair Use still trumps our payoffs to legislators, we're going to 'let' you do something that's already allowed by law."

I hate those fuckers.

Re:Heh (4, Funny)

FredDC (1048502) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253171)

Yea, I'm definitely tempted to write them a little thank you note!

Re:Heh (1, Funny)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253361)

Yea, I'm definitely tempted to write them a little thank you note!

Yeah, same here. I'm tempted to write it with my ass, in a box. Then mail it to them. Feces package anyone?

Pfft, you need to do it with style. (1)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254537)

Attach a little note that says "I know you could already eat (expletive), but now I'm being gracious and allowing you fair use - feel free to eat it and to share it with the rest of the office."

Re:Heh (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253283)

"Since you guys keep cracking our DRM schemes, we're going to be really nice and grant you fair use rights for the stuff you're paying for.** See how cool we are!?"

** for a small fee of course. That's right we're going to CHARGE YOU for exercising your RIGHTS under Fair Use, including the right to make a backup for archival purposes and to use your legally purchased media on your own devices.

They can blow it out their ass. I'll just keep cracking the DRM, thanks.

Not Really!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19253589)

A License agreement is them giving us permission to copy the media we purchased. I'm not a lawyer but this has a bad smell to it, legally speaking.

If they give us permission to do what we are currently legally able to do under fair use then aren't we essentially giving up our right to fair use and giving them the ability to tell us yes you can make a copy, a backup or change the format too something portable etc?

Or more specifically we are agreeing that they have the right to tell us we can make a legal copy. But then they will of course say but we only allow one copy. Or we will not allow you to copy more than one and you cannot change the format type etc. Which when brought to court will not be fought with the argument of Fair use but be fought over our rights granted under this license agreement?

Re:Heh (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253953)

Should be:

"Since you guys keep cracking our DRM schemes, we're going to be really nice and grant you fair use rights* for the stuff you're paying for. See how cool we are!?"

* (For a nominal one-time additional fee)

Ooops (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254585)

I should've read the entire nested thread before commenting. I feel dumb for posting (unknowingly) nearly the exact same things as the person above me.

Anyone have a paper towel I can use to get this pie off my face?

Re:Heh (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254567)

This is nothing more than an attempt to get the standard/default price of media on HD-DVD & Blu-Ray raised by $20.

freezing over... (1)

OfficialReverendStev (988479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19252963)

I thought it was starting to feel chilly down here

Re:freezing over... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19254211)

I'm sorry, I thought you were Jerry Falwell for a minute there.

Pay more? (3, Funny)

pipatron (966506) | more than 7 years ago | (#19252969)

Pay more? For our right to read the information you have bought for that specific purpose? Thanks!!!

Re:Pay more? (3, Insightful)

Caiwyn (120510) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253137)

Actually, if they offer it in a format that doesn't need to be cracked, then yes, I would consider paying more for that. I often buy CDs -- even used CDs -- at a higher price than the iTunes Music Store offers. The benefits are a lossless physical hard copy that I can then transcode into any format I choose.

Re:Pay more? (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253499)

The problem is they introduced technology to take away our fair use rights, and are now going to charge us more to give us back the rights they shouldn't have been allowed to take away in the first place.

Re:Pay more? (1)

aneurysm36 (459092) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253643)

in fact, they have been charging you MORE to take away those rights. quickly cracked DRM schemes dont come cheap!

Re:Pay more? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19255047)

I'm surprised they haven't tried to sue over publicizing the words "Fair" and "Use".

Re:Pay more? (4, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253711)

Actually, if they offer it in a format that doesn't need to be cracked, then yes, I would consider paying more for that.
You're still waiting for your flying car, aren't you?
You're gonna be paying more for a DRM scheme that allows a limited number of copies, IF all your gear is "trusted" and expensive, of course. They have been consistent in their efforts: they want control.

Re:Pay more? (2, Insightful)

jridley (9305) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254043)

I'm assuming that they'll actually roll this out universally. See, it'll be a NEW DRM scheme, because THIS time they'll get it right, see? And they'll be able to PR-swing the irritation they're causing users that have to update/replace their players, because they're doing it to GIVE US MORE RIGHTS. See, they're GOOD GUYS!!!

If they put a few hundred million dollars into developing the new scheme, this time it might even last long enough for some discs to be released in the stores before it's cracked. But probably not.

strikes me as unnecessary (3, Insightful)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#19252975)

Anyone with a real interest in copying a hd-dvd or blu-ray disc is likely already going to have the know-how (and disregard for the asinine DMCA) to do it illegally, while your average idiot consumer will continue doing whatever they do, consume I guess.

Re:strikes me as unnecessary (1)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253633)

I would argue that the average consumer has an interest in copying a disc. Most people will grumble about the shoddy quality of disks when they get hopelessly scratched just because they were accidentally left shiny side down on a table for a couple of days, but will eventually either buy the movie again or just live without it. The fact that they do this rather than copying the disk doesn't mean they have no interest in copying it, it's just that copying it is a.) too much of a hassle and b.) legally risky. If people were allowed to exercise their fair use rights without hindrance, I would suspect that keeping an archival copy of every movie you own would become commonplace, especially given how fragile the original media is.

Until... (3, Informative)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 7 years ago | (#19252983)

its possible to legally play on Linux I'm not interested.

Re:Until... (3, Informative)

neomunk (913773) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253913)

Use your fair use legally defensible position to rip that content and encode it into a more friendly format, like vorbis or theora, plop it all in a nice ogg container and enjoy your media on your favorite (nice choice BTW) OS.

Just because they tell you it's illegal, it's not. Fair Use is a LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE reason to break the law. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure it's like an asterisk on all laws relating to copyright that says that of course people can protect their copyrights, but copyright doesn't apply at all in -these- certain situations. Preserving an archival copy of your media is one of those situations.

Again, I Am Not A Lawyer, and I didn't stay at any damn Holiday Inn's last night (express or original) but this is pretty simple stuff. Well, simple until armies of law school trained sharks start trying to convince you otherwise.

Re: Sharks (2, Funny)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254959)

Well, simple until armies of law school trained sharks start trying to convince you otherwise.
I had to forgo my rights! The frickin' law school sharks had frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!

Ha.. (2, Insightful)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253003)

Basically stating, "If you can afford to buy a burner and media, knock your fuckin socks off."

They still just DON'T GET IT (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253037)

So what? So they let me make a "managed copy" of a disc. What good does that do when the "managed copy" is so locked down and crippled by DRM that only a special player will play it? What good does it do me if I can make a copy for my computer or video player, but it's in a nonstandard DRM'ed format that almost no media player or media extender will play?

Will they let me make a standard HD-DVD, Blu-ray, or DVD copy? No.

Will they let me use a standard video format copy for my computer (like mpg, xvid, etc.)? No.

Worthless. They still think that DRM is the answer, when it's the PROBLEM.

Re:They still just DON'T GET IT (2, Insightful)

kenthorvath (225950) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253741)

Not to mention the fact that they're likely to charge a premium to give you the ability to do something that you should have the right to do anyway.

It's a real racket, almost like selling "protection".

How much of a need is there (1, Interesting)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253041)

How much of a need is there to make copies if you aren't going to give it to your friend? At about 30-50 gig per movie even the new terabyte drives would only hold 20+ movies. I take care of my DVDs and they stay in good shape, don't really need back up copies.

Re:How much of a need is there (2, Insightful)

jhutch2000 (801707) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253281)

Have some kids. Turn them loose on their favorite DVDs. See how many still play without skipping after about 2 months.

I have a movie server in the basement cobbled together from old parts that plays movies to the main TV through an XBOX. No need to go looking for the DVD (which NEVER seems to get put back in the right container!) ... just select it from the list and BAM! it's playing.

Re:How much of a need is there (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253599)

BOSH ! It's wang time Baby and I'm ready for a bit of man fun !

Re:How much of a need is there (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254435)

I do the same thing. Of course I'm just as concerned about the way I handle disks as I am about the way my 3 year old does.

Re:How much of a need is there (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253323)

"How much of a need is there to make copies if you aren't going to give it to your friend?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly the kind of thing that the MPAA wants to prevent you from doing?

Re:How much of a need is there (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253405)

I take care of my DVDs and they stay in good shape, don't really need back up copies.

have you seen what little children can do to a DVD disc? now keep in mind that blue-laser discs are significantly more sensitive to scratches.

just because you have no need for backups does not mean you are the norm.

Re:How much of a need is there (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254591)

It doesn't take constant pervasive abuse to destroy your irreplaceable media. One moment of being off balance will do.

Re:How much of a need is there (4, Insightful)

pluther (647209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253679)

It's not just backups.

I currently occasionally watch movies on any of:
My DVD player, connected to a standard TV set
My Linux desktop machine, when I'm in my home office
My Windows laptop machine, while I'm traveling (sitting around in airports)
My PDA, while I'm riding the train to work

My music-playing choices are even more varied. According to ??AA, every time I watch a movie on my PDA, I'm breaking the law, if I bought that movie on DVD.

Re:How much of a need is there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19254343)

I take care of my DVDs and they stay in good shape, don't really need back up copies

In car video players are increasingly common. We have players in the bedroom, in the family room, in the kids playrooms. Why is it unreasonable to have a semi-disposable copy of the kids favorite movies that can be kept in each of those locations? Its certainly covered by the established Fair Use Guidelines,

If it hadn't been for the Napster crowd declaring that sharing with friends is legal and BTW, everyone with internet access is a freinds in the great 90's love-in that was the internet...

Re:How much of a need is there (1)

Gramie2 (411713) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254393)

A bit redundant, but a personal account:

I just had to throw out an entire wallet of CD-ROM games that my 6-year-old had been playing. The bottoms were scratched to hell, and in many cases I could see through the disk because he had scratched off the top coating (including the metal film that actually holds the data). These are pretty old games (some more than 10 years old), but he still loved them.

Too bad I didn't make backups.

Do you expect that he would treat DVDs any differently?

Re:How much of a need is there (1)

|/|/||| (179020) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254635)

As another child post mentioned, it's not just backups. You may want to convert the data to different formats or store it in different ways. You may also want to change the data for your own use, which is legal, protected fair use of the data. You might want to extract a short clip for use in a demonstration. You may want to fix some shoddy subtitles. You may want to fix some of the content that is flagged as "unskippable". You may want to edit out a scene that you don't like.

As long as you're not distributing the content or playing it for large audiences, you're free to do all of these things -- or at least you were until the DMCA interceded. The DMCA makes it illegal to do things that are *legal* under copyright law. Now the content owners are kindly going to allow us to exercise our fair use rights (for an extra fee) - but wait! They're not really. This whole scheme is not really opening up the data that you paid for. It's just allowing you to make DRMed copies. It's less useful than the protected stuff, since the protection is already broken.

In other words, it's not just backups, and it's not just other practical considerations -- it's the goddamn principle! Even though I don't bypass the encryption on 90% of the DVDs that I own, I'm not going to buy a movie in an inaccessible format.

Re:How much of a need is there (1)

Synchis (191050) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254925)

This issue is this:

You buy an HD-DVD for $35. You can play it on your HD-DVD Player... but wait... you bought a leading edge player that's starting to get old, and thus doesn't support the DRM scheme on the latest disk... so you figure... I'll just play it on my PC running Linux... but wait... HD-DVD's wont play under Linux.

You buy a movie that must be played with a certain player, and in a certain operating system, and its technically illegal to do so under any other conditions other than what they say you can. Is this fair? Technically, no. Is it reality? Yes.

DRM is destroying the industry they are trying to promote. The music and movie industry is shooting themselves in the foot by trying to enforce such strong DRM. People who want to copy the content will *STILL COPY IT*. People who want to use the content fairly, will be crippled by DRM.

As long as there is content to be copied, people will always find a way to do it. There is no such thing as perfect DRM.

I Should Hope So... (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253067)

For NetFlix's sake, if nothing else... :P

Throwing a bone (5, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253087)

Ahhhh... "legal" as in an exception made in the DMCA, no.
"Legal" as in the entities that control AACS and MPAA agreeing to 2 copies, yes.

It's still a scoop of gruel in an orphan's bowl. From TFA, it will allow one backup and one media device.

What if I have more than one media device? What if I have one and it gets lost or stolen? Now I can't put it on any others?

One backup? What happens when that backup is too beat up to work anymore. I can't make another backup?

This is just a trick for getting people to say "ooh, well, DRM isn't so bad after all."

They're offering a piddling fraction of the rights we as customers SHOULD have and treating it like we should be kissing their butts for the privilage.

Re:Throwing a bone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19253993)

it will allow one backup and one media device
I guess a clustered server environment is out of the picture then.

Re:Throwing a bone (2, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254075)

Man, if mods could go to 6...

"The idea is that the content companies could charge a premium according to how many copies are allowed, Ayers said."

That just rankles. Seriously. This is NOT the way to get the rights to make copies - I predict this will be as popular as DAT.

What I want is for the numbnuts we elected to stand up to the showers of cash being thrown about by the content comglomerates and say "DRM is illegal - you sell a product, not a license. Don't like it, don't sell it!" Illegal copying for commercial distribution is still a no-no. Copying for personal use is fine and dandy. (and, for the record, no - I don't know how to deal with P2P in an equitable way from a legal standpoint. From a market standpoint, some people will always copy - if most people are copying, then the media is seen by the consumer as too expensive. For $7, I probably would never bother even looking on line.)

how much more? (2, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253109)

If it is x2 the price or x3 for the ones that can be copied and used on sever then this is point less.

They're going to charge *more*?! (5, Insightful)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253141)

"Rights holders might charge more for discs that can be copied for backup or for use on a media server, however."

Uum, yeah. You just hang on to the $49.95 backup-ready copy of "Finding Nemo" there, and I'll take a "protected" one for $19.95. I don't need to put it on a server or iPod or anything, so I'll just take the cheap, "secure" one.

What's my credit card number?

09 F9 11 02 9D...

Re:They're going to charge *more*?! (1)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253235)

Wait! Don't stop, I was copying that down!

Re:They're going to charge *more*?! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19253895)

Just put in 4111 1111 1111 1111, some sites don't explicitly deny that number and it passes on a few sites. The transaction will go through- it's a test number.

Tricky (5, Insightful)

bdjacobson (1094909) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253155)

This is a sneaky marketing tactic they're using. Everybody feels good about being able to make copies of their disc, but they still maintain control with the DMCA over how we can use those discs. They maintain control by telling us we're buying a license to use the movie we buy in certain ways-- "in the blu-ray player for this disc, but if you want to copy it to your computer, you have to pay extra". Not because there's any extra cost in producing the disc that allows you to copy the data to your harddrive, but simply because they can get away with charging more.

This DMCA crap is copyright abuse. There's a reason copyright wasn't allowed this power-- it was supposed to control who could distribute the product, not how you could use it.

"Managed" copies? (4, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253179)

So...if I understand this right, I can make copies now, but my copies will still be as DRM-crippled as the original?

This helps me how?

I think I'll just stick to stripping out the DRM. Thanks anyway.


Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19253249)

Re:"Managed" copies? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19253521)

TripMasterMonkeyFucker... I thought your AIDS killed you by now. Please hurry up and die already.

Thank you, Slashdot Users 1-862125, 862127-1089278

Oh no, more locked down (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#19255155)

You didn't think you could get a copy with as light a protection as the physical discs have, did you? After all, you can loan out a physical disc - not so with the "managed" copies.

Managed copies are a crock and I have been saying since day 1 that people touting this ability as a "feature" of HD-DVD or Blu-Ray are fools.

When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections? (5, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253209)

First of all, it's a testament to the effectiveness of the media conglomerates that this headline does not outrage ./'ers in general.

Sadly though, most people have thrown away all of their personal use rights in exchange for little more than a high-def picture and an ipod. These people get what they deserve. Higher prices.

Re:When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections? (2, Insightful)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253545)

The core problem is that the recording industry haven't really caught on to the fact that they're just obselete. When you've got a production cost of 'stuff' e.g. tapes and CDs, and you charge 'some' for the physical object, people buy them. Sometimes they get copied, but a lot have the opinion of 'I bought it, so it's mine, do to what I like with'.

However in a world where media is digital, and the cost of replication is negligable (at least, to the supplier - it may take me some disk space or bandwidth to download whatever) then ... well, then the unit cost clearly has to skew. Piracy is much like smuggling. It's always going to happen, but it happens a hell of a lot more when the profit margin is present. If you 'tax' the end user for their product, then they'll consider going to an illegitimate source for a significantly cheaper one.

I don't know of an easy solution, but what I do know is that the genie is well out of the bottle. The RIAA and friends are fighting a losing battle, for territory they just can't reclaim. They need to diversify and 'reinvent' the purpose of the recording industry, in a way that means they can continue to function, rather than trying to stop the tide coming in.

Re:When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections? (2, Insightful)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253781)

Maybe I've become desensitized to whole thing, but why should I feel "outraged"?

The powers that be are putting their thumb down on copies of content intended for mass consumption. They're not putting a gun to my head and saying "Buy this Adam Sandler HD-DVD". They're not infringing on my free speech in any way (I'm belittling them right now in front of a potential worldwide audience). They're simply preventing me from making extra copies of content that I had no intention of watching anyway.

If they started *requiring* DRM on HD-DVD/Blu-ray players so that indie companies couldn't publish content freely I'd be concerned. Or if non-DRM content produced by those publishers was degraded in any way. Or if they somehow infected media I do care about with DRM (such as paper books).

But if you're honestly asking saying I should be "outraged" for not being able to copy "300" or any other drek for the masses -- I'd venture to argue you need better things to be angry about.

In short, if you really care this deeply about it, you have a couple ways to fight this. You can (continue to?) pirate the content. Doesn't really help the argument. Or, you could do things the old-fashioned way: with your wallet. Don't buy the content. Don't buy the players. There *are* alternatives out there if you simply look.

Re:When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections? (1)

njchick (611256) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254173)

1) You child wants a movie. Then the disk breaks and you have no backup. You can teach a seven year old top be careful with disks, but you cannot do that to a three year old.

2) You want to play the disk on your PC. You have to install non-free software on it, perhaps a whole non-free OS.

Re:When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections? (4, Insightful)

radtea (464814) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254423)

You can (continue to?) pirate the content.

What part of, "Fair use is not piracy" do you not understand?

The OP is pointing out, quite correctly, that we have a legal right to fair use, which may include the right to make backup copies. I neither know nor care what you or anyone else feels about the necessity of backup copies. Your experience, needs, desires and wants are totally irrelevant to the legal fact of fair use rights.

DRM is a failed attempt to prevent me from exercising my fair use rights. Again, whether or not you think I'm a moron for wanting to do so is irrelevant. It is not piracy to do so. It is a matter of legal fact that I have those rights. [] Even the RIAA once admitted that, in front of the Supreme Court no less.

Re:When did I lose Non-Infringing Use Protections? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254681)

You should be outraged because they bought off your elected representatives to make the entire scheme work.

This isn't just EA putting bad sectors on a floppy. This is EA paying off Senator McCain to throw anyone in jail that tells you how to get around those bad sectors.

You should be mad at both.

Missing The Point (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254819)

Don't buy the content

That's what I do now. But the point is not what you or I do. The point is how influential the media conglomerates are.

Here's another way to get a sense of how pervasive the media conglomerates and their messages are: Try going one week without, watching any tv, going to any movie distributed by the media conglomerates, watching a movie _not_ distributed by a media conglomerates, playing a game that the media conglomerates have _not_ produced or funded, reading a magazine not owned or funded by a media conglomerate.

The average American sniffs derisively at the notion that North Koreans have one media outlet. We may have more media, but the message is coordinated in a very similar fashion as in North Korea.

One week. Try it... I dare you.

What about DVDs? (5, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253223)

It's kind of disigenuous that they didn't mention allowing people to legally copy their DVDs. People (especially parents with young children) have been screaming about this for years.

Also, since CSS was cracked years ago, there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't have allowed DVD copying already, other than to use as a means of sending otherwise law-abiding citizens to jail. With the advent of Apple TV (along with similar products) and the possibility of ripping one's entire DVD collection and making it available in an easily browsable interface (like an MP3 collection), the outcry is probably getting louder.

Since I live in Canada, there's no DMCA, and I'm already paying taxes on blank DVDs, so this is not yet a problem. Still, I figure Stephen Harper and his cronies will bless us with a DMCA-like law soon.

And, yeah, the timing of this announcement is just a little too coincidental, what with the latest AACS crack.

Re:What about DVDs? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253815)

AACS was designed to allow a limitted number of copies (assuming DRM is supported in the OS). It should be possible to copy to a Vista PC and prevent making usable copies on other machines.

Re:What about DVDs? (3, Informative)

rikkards (98006) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253961)

Since I live in Canada, there's no DMCA, and I'm already paying taxes on blank DVDs, so this is not yet a problem. Still, I figure Stephen Harper and his cronies will bless us with a DMCA-like law soon.

I believe the levy is not on DVDs but on CDs and media playing devices as it DVDs are not considered Audio recording media (see table in link [] ). And don't blame Harper, well at least not for the copyright law that the govt is trying get through as this was introduced by the previous residents of parliament.

Re:What about DVDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19254029)

The levy is on data CD's, audio CD's, and audio cassettes. "They" are working to get it applied to DVD's, flash-based media, and MP3 players.

Central Server? (2, Interesting)

doormat (63648) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253273)

I do like managed copy (even though I think its useless because AACS is busted anyways), but the idea of a central server that would register and track these copies is a bad idea for consumers. It assumes you have internet access at the same place you want to watch the managed copy, as well as providing a mechanism for the movie industry to come in and see the volume of managed copies being used and say, "Well, we need to monitize this activity," and then now you have your pay-per-view system that the industry longs for. $2.99 for every time you create or possibly even watch a managed copy sounds good to them I'm sure.

Let me get this straight... (4, Insightful)

edbob (960004) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253385)

You are going to charge me more to exercise rights I already have. Then, on top of that you are going to "manage" (i.e. restrict) those rights with this so-called "managed copy". I am sorry, but I am perfectly capable of managing my own rights. Until AACS is permanently cracked a la DeCSS, I won't be buying either Blu-ray or HD-DVD.

Re:Let me get this straight... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253997)

You are going to charge me more to exercise rights I already have. Then, on top of that you are going to "manage" (i.e. restrict) those rights with this so-called "managed copy". I am sorry, but I am perfectly capable of managing my own rights. Until AACS is permanently cracked a la DeCSS, I won't be buying either Blu-ray or HD-DVD.

What's a right. It's something given to you in a law.

Of course, people believe they have some intrinsic rights they have "by default", like right of life, right of free speech and some other. But bottom line is, everyone considers those slightly different, and not to allow some people to claim "hey, it's my right to stab anyone in the back if he's pissing me of", people in a modern society basically should settle down with what is written in a law.

What's copyright? It's a law. In many countries the law has fair use exempts about using copyrighted work without permission.

What's DMCA? It's a law, yet again. It's no more a law, or less a law, than copyright is. It doesn't go in direct conflict in fair use rights, as in "whatever copyright says, well forget about it", but it goes in indirect conflict, since it so happens that when you try to use some of your fair use rights with a modern digital media, you may brake the DMCA.

Unfortunately, we don't have a third law, that says "in the case of two laws conflicting, pick the better law". Nope, we should abide by both laws, which basically means, no copies, unless they're allowed to us.

Of course, many people simply ignore the laws and make copies anyway. This is possible, since those aren't actual physical laws. You can break them, and it won't be against nature, it'll be only against society's regime, which may get the police and legal system against you, if you're unlucky, but that's very unlikely in the case of a casual copy of a DVD you use to keep the original free of scratches.

I don't know of anyone being arrested for a copy of his DVD, that he kept for himself, the worst cases we've had were when people get sued for sharing copyrighted content on a P2P network.

And charging more money about it... Well, consider this. Just like laws, the legal system your obligaions and rights, money is a virtual concept. It's really just a bunch of papers. In some cases it's even just a few flipped bits on a server. You exchange papers and get a movie that cure of a thousand of people spent working on for 2 years.

Isn't society curious?

Re:Let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19254743)

It's a "right" in the contract sense. As in, if someone agrees to sell you an apple, they can't turn around and tell you after you have eaten it that, actually, you only paid to rent it. If it is rotten, no, they don't have any responsibility to replace it, and, no, you are strictly *NOT* allowed to use the apple seeds to grow your own (that would be "stealing"). Furthermore, you can't make applesauce or pie with it, because they have included special chemicals that will make the results of any baking inedible. It is illegal to remove these chemicals, even from apples you have bought.

The bargain in copyright INCLUDES "fair use" as a part of the deal. It's there in copyright law in black-and-white, and its validity has been asserted in many, many legal precidents. Yes, it isn't a "right" in the same sense as the inherent ones you talk about, but it is very clearly part of the contract between creators and users that copyright represents. Restrictions on the exercise of fair use, with no recompense, are unfair because it ignores copyright law as much as the people who illegally copy materials. It is short-changing reasonable expectations of what people can do with the product they bought. Until such time as the stupid DMCA law was introduced, people could still legally circumvent restrictions if what they were doing was legal under copyright law. Now it is illegal to do so even if you bought the product and your use is otherwise legal. That's stupid -- like charging people with a crime for breaking the locks on their own cars to get in.

Most consumers understand that making copies to distribute to others is and should be illegal. What doesn't make sense is preventing copies, or restricting them in any way by technical means, when purchasers of a product merely want to use it for their own legal purposes. It diminishes the value of the product by making it prone to failure, and it keeps users from doing what they naturally expected to be able to do with it. It is like buying the apples that are poisoned so you can't bake with them.

My expectation in such a circumstance would be that most consumers would want to buy the unpoisoned apples -- almost always -- and it is only because consumers have been slow to realize the existence of the restrictions that media companies have gotten away with what they have been doing for so long. It's as if most people didn't use apples for baking, and now that more people are, they are suddenly realizing just how unfair and misleading the situation has become. Using music digitally, and now video, is becoming the norm, and people now know the faults of all current DRM systems, and how their former copyright "rights" have been effectively infringed by the combination of DRM and the DMCA.

The right thing for media companies to do at this point, now that the jig is up, is either to drop DRM or push for changes in the DMCA to make it sane. Heck, if people are illegally copying *and* circumventing DRM, throw the book at them for both! But if the copying is legal there should be a specific and broad exception written in the DMCA to allow it.

Finally..... (1)

mulvane (692631) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253457)

At least they are listening now it seems. I can agree to have a non copyable product at a lower price, and a premium product that allows me fair use rights so I can legally make copies and have an archival storage, an original, and a media center copy. Although, I think that the pricing of premium should be at or near if not lower than current pricing and the non copyable should be lesser value. I for one am happy to hear something like this is finally being thought about. It will also save me money in the format wars as I can simply buy a reader for my media copier and have a stored digital copy and archived copy in my preferred format (legally).

Price reductions work (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253461)

Movies fly off the shelf at places like Wal-Mart where you can pick up a lot of movies for $10 or under. Economies of scale work at beating back the effects of piracy. If they would charge $15 for regular new releases, they would make plenty of money off of them, and be at a price range where most people would just buy the real thing even if there were no DRM to make them have to buy them.

Re:Price reductions work (1)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253591)

Very true. I've picked up numerous DVDs of 'stuff I like' at that sort of price point, just because I like it. I'm aware I can download it, but ... choose to buy a the product when it's got a sensible price tag.

"rights holder"? (3, Funny)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253607)

Funny, the last time I bought a DVD, I didn't have to sign anything that gave them any rights to my purchase. There was no EULA, there weren't even any signs at best buy saying what rights I had versus them. If it isn't explicitly listed BEFORE I buy it, I assume that I have full rights to do whatever I want with it, even make a frisbee out of it and throw it at the MPAA members.

Little late? (1)

R2P2 (193577) | more than 7 years ago | (#19253905)

I'm pretty sure I read a while ago that one of the differences between HD DVD and BluRay is that this managed copy stuff is mandatory for HD DVD and optional for BluRay. If it's mandatory for HD DVD, and HD DVDs are already shipping, why are licensing agreements still being worked on? Shouldn't that all have been sorted out by now?

Re:Little late? (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254103)

I'm pretty sure I read a while ago that one of the differences between HD DVD and BluRay is that this managed copy stuff is mandatory for HD DVD and optional for BluRay. If it's mandatory for HD DVD, and HD DVDs are already shipping, why are licensing agreements still being worked on?

Good question, but the situation is like this:
HD-DVD - theoretical support for managed copy, but it has yet to be implemented. I don't think "mandatory" is the correct word, it's more like a "supported option".
BluRay - ZERO support for managed copy, which is how they got almost every studio in Hollywood to sign up for it. Hollywood loves the idea of not allowing copies.

That was supposed to be the deal in Germany (4, Informative)

jeti (105266) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254019)

Over in Germany, we're paying an extra fee on blank media
as a compensation for fair use rights. Also, we were told
that CDs cost a lot, but that the extra charge covers the
private copies we have an explicit right to create.

Then came the copy protection.

Then came a law that makes it illegal to copy 'protected'

We're still paying the fees.

Re:That was supposed to be the deal in Germany (3, Interesting)

koma77 (930091) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254299)

It's exactly the same in Sweden, and probably in many places in the EU. It's also impossible to buy blank media for use not related to private copying; say to make a backup of your HD. UNLESS you are a company. They can buy blank media without this "tax". It's time to do something about this paradoxial law.

Whilst I hated DRM (1)

goldcd (587052) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254065)

I think I hate these new offerings even more.
Way I see it is that a new 'standard' gets pushed upon us, crippled with DRM (DRM which is ultimately paid for by us the consumer).
People hack away at the flakey DRM to produce something that works better, whether it be for dvds, games, m4p, wma, blu-ray, hd-dvd etc.
Suddenly the media companies seem to have realized that the DRM they're forcing on us is causing problems and not working in the wonderfully transparent fashion their PR spiel banged on about. What do they do? Do they fix their DRM? Do the admit they screwed up a bit? NOooooo - they relax/remove the DRM and try to sell it for even more - First Apple with the EMI tracks and now this.

Viewing Vouchers (2, Insightful)

dekkerdreyer (1007957) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254081)

This move also introduces Viewing Vouchers, an enhanced feature of DRM. The user will be provided not only with a disc containing the movie, but two vouchers for viewing the movie itself. Each movie comes with a Solo Voucher, for a single, non pausable, private viewing of the movie.

As a bonus, the package includes one Party Voucher (tm), allowing the viewer, and up to three approved friends, to view the movie simultaneously from one screen. If the user has no friends, the Party Voucher may be converted to a Solo Voucher for a small fee. This allows the user to get two viewings from one disc, essentially buying one movie and getting the second viewing free.

This offer is for a limited time only.

It's legal NOW. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254129)

A license to say it's 'legal' is a misdiretion to make people think it is only legal if they say so, nothing more.

The only 'legality' is whether or not I can bypass encryption to make a copy, as opposed to a straight bit by bit copy.

we've got that in germany (2, Informative)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254149)

in germany we pay "GEMA" charges for the content - that's 9% of the price
we also pay extra for CD-R, DVD+-R, Harddiscs, mp3 players, flashdiscs, CD Recorders, DVD Recorders, VCRs...
still the MAFIAA keeps telling us we were criminals

they even pay for TV spots that say "copy piracy is a crime"
just to scare people (that don't know about their fair use right, which is a right here), away from making LEGAL copies... so that they don't legally give copies to their friends, so that their friends have to pay the full price...

they even went so far to build prison-cell immitations in cinemas, the games convention and such - where you can test how it feels where you're going if you copy stuff.... (but they don't tell people about their fair use right of course)
they glorify this on their homepage []

Dear Sir/Madame... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19254159)

In light of the recent lopping off of one of our limbs, we hereby voluntarily agree to withhold one of our limbs from the battle, prefering instead to keep it in reserve as a statement of our good will. However, we still remain firm on our refusal to grant you unrestricted passage across this bridge that you claim to have recently purchased, and, furthermore, we demand that you refrain from lopping off our other limbs, as this would constitute a clear violation of the law.

-- The Black Knight

Fair use goes way Beyond Copying (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19254445)

This is not a concession, we always had this right. The DMCA created a catch 22 by making it illegal to decrypt the item in order to exercise this right. Now they want to make this a for pay privilege. What is worse, being able to copy once DOES NOT = fair use by any means. Fair use means being able to work with the content in any number of ways in addition to being able to copy it. For example, taking clips and making presentation for a class, copying the sound tracks and mixing them for you own entertainment, creating a parody, and editing out objectionable content.

What they are trying to do is turn a fundamental right into much weakened for pay privilege so they can have control and power over it. They want is to have their cake and eat it to. It should not be up to them to determine what is and is not fair use is. Fair use should be any use that our populace finds to be on average fair to both the consumer and rights holder. Yep that is as nebulous as it sounds and it does change from time to time. That is what they have to accept living in a free society, not this managed copy crap MS is trying to use to keep their walking corpse moving.

Slap in the face (1)

oftencloudy (1047554) | more than 7 years ago | (#19254527)

The idea is that the content companies could charge a premium according to how many copies are allowed
The biggest problem here is the new pricing scheme they plan on coming up with. Charging us more for limited rights (we are already demanding be free) will have no positive effect on sales. congrats.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account