Beta
×

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!

Proposed Amendment Would Ban All DVD Copying

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the not-your-bits dept.

Media 354

Ynefel writes in with a PC Magazine article reporting that the DVD Copy Control Association is considering an amendment to the agreement equipment vendors must abide by, which would completely ban all DVD backups, whether fair use or not, and prevent DVDs from playing without the DVD disk being present in the drive. The amendment is being voted on imminently and if approved would go into effect within 18 months. Quoting: "The proposed amendment was made public in a letter sent by Michael Malcolm, the chief executive of Kaleidescape, a DVD jukebox company which successfully defeated a suit by the DVD CCA this past March."

cancel ×

354 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

For those who don't RTFA (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#19594963)

This amendment is NOT an amendment to the law. It's an amendment to the license agreement between the association responsible for the DVD standard and the companies that create DVD products. As such, its only direct impact on the consumer is that DVD Backup products will have their licenses revoked. Which would make it that much more difficult to excercise our fair-use rights to make a backup of the media and/or space-shift the media.

I think that Kaleidescape is right to worry in this situation. The change to the license agreement appears to be a direct attack on their business. Which, if successful, would represent irreparable harm to the market at large. The convenience aspect of digitally ripping the media cannot be understated. With such devices on the market, consumers are able to place their physical copies in storage while still having easy access to their media. Most of us do it with our CDs without giving it a second thought. Why should our movies be any different? (I know that I can't be the only one who has shelf-space problems with CDs, DVDs, and Video Games.)

As a party being directly harmed by an artifcial monopoly, I certainly hope that Kaleidescape takes this to court should it be approved. Consumers have a right to use their bought and paid-for media as they like. The DVD standard shouldn't be used as a bludgeon to take that away. If Kaleidescape is unsuccessful in their suit, I would hope that a class-action suit could be initiated for the harm caused to consumers.

Huge penis failure (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595025)

In your pants. [goatse.cz]

The real problem ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595091)

is the DMCA. It should be changed to address the rights of consumers to make copies for PERSONAL use. All these assults on our rights by business is way out of control.

Re:The real problem ... (0)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595805)

Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX [wikipedia.org]
These arguably wrong-headed licenses will exist as long as the market for them exists.
Not unlike narcotics.
However, people keeping their wallets closed is an unambiguous signal.

Figures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595111)

By controlling what we do with our stuff they can force us to pay them more money.

This power-struggle between the users and the providers is older than capitalism, and will continue long after all of us are gone.

Re:For those who don't RTFA (1)

PhoenixFire213 (839961) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595275)

More than that even, it seems this is an anti-competetive action- it disallows an entire field of technology which runs parallel to theirs from being used. Time to bust out the Anti-trust act methinks?

Re:For those who don't RTFA (4, Insightful)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595703)

I would say it's more anti-customer than anti-competitive, but I'm actually glad to see it. We've all seen this getting worse and worse. With this, it'll be bad enough that consumers will start to get offended. This could be the step that pushes consumers too far and backfires on them. If it isn't, well, they'll just keep tightening their grip until they do push the public too far, then the backlash will not only shock them, but will tumble many of their "improvements" that are based on greed.

Re:For those who don't RTFA (1)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595399)

I don't know about the laws in the US (IANAL) but in Canada for a contract to be enforcable it must not pertain to illegal elements.

So if fair use is legislated, then not allowing fair use would violate that law, and make the contract (agreement) or perhaps that one segment of the agreement unenforcable within the courts.

Of course, enforcement is one thing, and the DCA is hitting the equipment manufacturers who don't want to rock the boat in most cases. I'll bet Samsung is the only company to have a go at getting around this problem.

Re:For those who don't RTFA (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595487)

US contracts do not have that problem; they include a clause that if any part of the agreement is declared invalid, the rest of the agreement will remain in force. This is why even very similar items in a contract are given separate clauses.

Re:For those who don't RTFA (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595799)

It's actually a fairly useless provision. Once a judge decides he's going to fix your contract because it's unfair/unenforceable/whatever it's up to him where he stops.

Re:For those who don't RTFA (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595985)

True, but it requires that the judge or arbitrator actually edit the contract. Typically, a judge would address all the issues brought before the court, and no others.

In Canada, if part of the contract is unenforceable, the entire contract is void by default (not sure if this can be avoided), so the contracting parties need to draw up a new contract.

Re:For those who don't RTFA (1)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595943)

So if fair use is legislated, then not allowing fair use would violate that law, and make the contract (agreement) or perhaps that one segment of the agreement unenforcable within the courts.

i don't think that matters in the US with the way things currently stand. that's why DRM and it's ilk, and anti-circumvention laws are so insidious.

i too am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the way things work right now, if a vendor were to put up a barrier of some sort, that barrier stands and cannot be legally circumvented regardless of the fair use or consumer rights that may be violated.

i don't agree with the practice at all, and i think that it will take much civil disobedience to force a change of any kind.

Re:For those who don't RTFA (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595475)

Consumers have a right to use their bought and paid-for media as they like.

Wish that was true. It's not specificly listed as a right, and fair use is an affirmative defense. What does that mean? Well, in short it means you do it, they complain, you call fair use, they lose. If you don't get to do it (DRM, DMCA etc.) you complain, they ignore you, you lose. There's nothing to sue the DVD CCA over in the fair use paragraph, it only says that some things that otherwise might be copyright infringement aren't.

Re:For those who don't RTFA (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595635)

If you don't get to do it (DRM, DMCA etc.) you complain, they ignore you, you lose. There's nothing to sue the DVD CCA over in the fair use paragraph, it only says that some things that otherwise might be copyright infringement aren't.

Actually, there's a LOT to sue over here. According to the fair-use laws (including the DMCA), you can make a backup, but you can't break the encryption to do it. It needs to be an exact backup. Thus the only way to make a legal backup is to use a licensed device like Kaleidescape's. The device complies with both the DMCA and DVD license requirements by backing up the disc with its CSS protection intact. So copying the data out of the device won't gain you much. (At least according to TFA.)

By changing their licensing agreement, the DVD CCA would be demonstrating anti-trust behavior that is damaging to consumers and market competitors. Ergo, they could be brought up on a variety of contract disputes AND anti-trust charges.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once!

Related Thoughts (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595485)

Sorry to reply to myself, but I have a few more thoughts on this that really didn't fit in with my other post.

From one perspective, I *do* understand where DVD producers are coming from on this. I positively know of at least one person who uses Netflix by backing up the DVDs when they come in, then immediately shipping them out for new ones. While it's a nice trick for improving one's own convenience, it's not really in the spirit of the service. So there are some legitimate arguments against DVD Backup devices.

However, the solution is NOT to ban good devices in an attempt to nail the edge cases. All you're going to do is piss off your customer base. But what should happen if a report stating that backup-piracy is NOT an edge case crosses an important desk? Should that executive then decide to make the problem go away?

NO!

What that exec is looking at is what I like to call a "Crisitunity". (Shamelessly stolen from other sources.) It's a crisis that presents new opportunities. All that's needed is an analysis of the problem to see where a workable solution might be introduced.

The first question to ask is: "Is this piracy about the money?" I think in most cases you'll find the money to be a secondary concern. Consumers like value (thus why they won't pay for an electronic copy of Pirates of the Carribean when they can get a physical copy for the same price), but they are willing to pay for the media under most circumstances. Ok, then why are they performing backup-piracy?

The obvious answer is: Convenience. Consumers are getting used to having things on their own schedule. Tivos allow them to shift television to a more convenient time. DVDs shift blockbuster movies out of the movie theater and into the convenience of the home. MP3s make jogging or travelling with your music a no-brainer. Gameboys/PSPs let consumers take their interactive entertainment on the go. Laptops let internet surfers work while they sip a latte at Starbucks.

Let's face it. We're an economy that's addicted to convenience. So much so that we will spend unnecessary money just to make something more convenient. Which should raise the flag of new opportunities. If consumers are so addicted to convenience, then why not find ways of providing it? Online movie distribution seems like the most promsing answer. Yet if you log into iTunes (analogous to DVDs in the store), Vongo (analogous to Netflix), or MovieLink (analogous to Blockbuster) you'll have a duece of a time trying to find a movie worth watching. And if you *do* find a movie worth watching, you may feel that the price is too high without a physical backup to protect your investment.

Thus the truth is that the movie industry is killing themselves through risk-adversion. The music industry already made that mistake once. One would think that the movie industry could try paying attention.

Re:Related Thoughts (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595671)

The music industry already made that mistake once. One would think that the movie industry could try paying attention.

It's just like kids and hot stovetops. Just cause Jane already burned her hand doesn't mean that Jimmy doesn't have to try again whether it hurts to put his hand on it.

Unlike with kids, my sympathy is rather limited in this case.

Re:Related Thoughts (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595931)

From one perspective, I *do* understand where DVD producers are coming from on this. I positively know of at least one person who uses Netflix by backing up the DVDs when they come in, then immediately shipping them out for new ones. While it's a nice trick for improving one's own convenience, it's not really in the spirit of the service. So there are some legitimate arguments against DVD Backup devices.

However, the solution is NOT to ban good devices in an attempt to nail the edge cases. All you're going to do is piss off your customer base. But what should happen if a report stating that backup-piracy is NOT an edge case crosses an important desk? Should that executive then decide to make the problem go away?

NO!


In my entire life, I've only met one person that copied movies - and he was doing it using two VCRs. It was simple, anyone could do it. You buy two VCR's and you record the movie from one onto the other. A grade-schooler could probably figure it out. My point is the same as yours, however, he's the *only* person I've ever known that's done this.

These execs need to be focusing on places like SE asia where burned movies are sold on the street like penny candy. When will they learn to stop biting the hand that feeds them? Do I want to copy my DVD's and CD's? Yes! Why? Because when the original media is scratched it RUINS your enjoyment of that movie / music. I copy as many of mine as I can so that I don't have to worry about it. I also keep burned copies of my CDs in my car to protect me from theft. If some jackalope breaks into my car and steals my CDs... I don't care, I'll just buy a spindle and re-burn them - because the probability of the cops getting them from the thief or of insurance fully reimbursing me for their worth is pretty slim. Ever lent a CD to a friend and gotten it back trashed? Of course you have... that's why copies are great.

As a consumer - if there's no simple, legitimate way to protect the media I've invested my money in then I'll just find another means of acquiring it.

Who needs Kaleidescape? (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595587)

Who needs 'em? I got MythTV, dd, DVD ripping tools and Nautilus Burn.

Burning is as easy as:

dd if=/dev/dvdrom of=/data/iso/myfile.iso bs=1024

Right click on iso in Nautilus, click 'Write ISO to CD/DVD' and burn, baby, burn!

Ripping is even easier.

No company is forced to enter these agreements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595991)

It's an amendment to the license agreement between the association responsible for the DVD standard and the companies that create DVD products.
There's a license agreement only if the companies choose to obtain specs from the DVDCCA. They can also choose to go the DeCSS-way to bypass the DVDCCA license agreement, and if sued under the DMCA argue that the DVD encryption isn't "effective".

dear execs (5, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#19594977)

suck cock already.

Whether I buy a movie or not is not dictated by whether I can pirate it. It's by whether I can a) play it, and b) want to watch it. Stop making shitty movies and I'll buy/rent more (speaking of renting my last 6 or so rentals were all shitty despite being "highly rated" so I'm a bit pissed off).

Tom

Re:dear execs (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595347)

y last 6 or so rentals were all shitty despite being "highly rated" so I'm a bit pissed off.

You must have rented Gigli or Episode 1 right?

Re:dear execs (-1, Troll)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595421)

smoking aces, pan's labarynth, epic movie, and the rest I don't remember.

Smoking aces is gay and I fell asleep during it, pan's is in italian and i thought the lead character was a guy for the first 20 minutes, epic movie was just cheap [as in low budget and not funny].

Tom

Re:dear execs (0, Flamebait)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595459)

Firstly, Pan's Labyrinth is in Spanish, not Italian. Secondly, only an American could say that a movie sucks because it's in a different language.

My take on that is that you should kill yourself, for the benefit of the human gene pool.

Re:dear execs (0, Troll)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595535)

Whatever, I didn't say it was bad because it's in another language. I said it's bad because it's boring, long, drawn out, and the lead character looks like a dude. And the chirping sounds every 3 seconds from the "creatures from the woods" was really annoying.

And I'm not American, I'm Canadian, bilingual and have a respect for other languages [I watched several movies in arabic [with subtitles] and enjoyed their point of view].

You must be one of them European hippies where if someone doesn't agree with you it's because they're a yankee fascist pigdog. Here's a tip, we don't all think the same over here, and that's perfectly ok.

Re:dear execs (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595873)

I'm Canadian, bilingual
In other words, you speak English and French equally badly.

Re:dear execs (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595897)

...equally poorly.

But thanks for trying.

Re:dear execs (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595983)

You thought a movie set in the Spanish Civil War was in Italian, and you thought that beautiful little girl in a dress was a boy.

Yes, you are right, it is completely unfair to generalize Americans, Canadians, North Americans, English speakers, or anyone else as being like you.

Re:dear execs (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596003)

Going to have to agree here. Pan's Labyrinth blew big time. And as an American I will say a large part of that was because it didn't have an English sound track. I'm sitting here trying to follow the subtitles but I'm missing most of the video because I'm halving to concentrate on them not to miss anything. And when I do miss something I have to go back and rewind to see what it was. Simply there was no reason not to add a english track other than the producer didn't want to.

Then there was the ending. Sorry, I hate movies where kids are harmed for no reason. The ending was a kick in the balls for me. If I had known that it would have ended like that I would have passed on it. Fuck That, That Sucked.

Re:dear execs - mod parent flamebait (0, Troll)

middlemen (765373) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595603)

mod parent flamebait please. how can you generalize on all Americans ?

Re:dear execs (0, Troll)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595667)

Only a pathetic person would tell someone else to kill themselves. A pathetic ignorant person who has not enough maturity to value life. Before you start claiming who should live and who should die you should learn some respect for people and stop acting like a child!

Re:dear execs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595725)

Firstly, Pan's Labyrinth is in Spanish
But the movie he watched is Pan's Labarynth. Presumably it's a spoof of the one you're talking about, with a scientific bent or a hint of Frankenstein. That or tomstdenis is a semi-literate imbecile.

Re:dear execs (3, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595849)

Yup you caught me. I has a low educations, and are trying to learns to read. That or it could be a TYPO IN A WORD that I rarely type. No, it must be because I'm an imbecile. How amazing perceptive, I want to subscribe to your newsletter. Where do I find the Anonymous Cowards weekly? Is it at my local newsstand?

Thanks,
Tom

Re:dear execs (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595561)

agree, never saw smoking aces but rented Pan's Labrynth didnt like it either. Epic movie just looked to cheesy even for me, so never rented. Figured it would be as bad as "Date Movie".

Re:dear execs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595503)

"Whether I buy a movie or not is not dictated by whether I can pirate it. It's by whether I can a) play it, and b) want to watch it. Stop making shitty movies and I'll buy/rent more (speaking of renting my last 6 or so rentals were all shitty despite being "highly rated" so I'm a bit pissed off)."

Well, these actions are going to push users to piracy.

Re:dear execs (2, Insightful)

deep_creek (1001191) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595691)

Completely agree. They should focus their efforts on making good/tolerable movies. I watched an old classic "Smokey and the Bandit" last night and wished Hollywood would bring back the magic of real stunts, etc... While some of the computer-animation is cool, it completely robs a movie of being "real". Today's movies remind me of maybe watching a video game with really good graphics. The technology is there, but not quite. I can detect it just enough to tell the actor is standing in front of a blank screen. That and crappy story lines (the stuff the movie industry will through money at is completely laughable) keeps me from the theatre and buying DVDs/CDs(music industry is in the same mess).

Re:dear execs (Memorable Quotes) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595749)

Memorable Quotes for Independence Day [imdb.com] 1996:

President Thomas Whitmore: What do you want us to do?
Captured Alien: Die. Die.

At last! (5, Funny)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#19594997)

It might be the first solid argument I see to switch from DVD to BR.

Re:At last! (2, Insightful)

Lord of Hyphens (975895) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595033)

Funny, I don't see it that way, considering BR would be a hop+skip+jump away from the same thing.

Re:At last! (5, Funny)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595191)

If you are truly the Lord of Hyphens, you should say "hop-skip-and-a-jump." Right now you are the Lord of Plus Signs.

Re:At last! (3, Funny)

Lord of Hyphens (975895) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595325)

Point-taken.
Unfortunately-the-unbelievers-are-no t-ready-for-the-glory-that-is-excessive-hyphenatio n. Such-wondrous-use-of-the-mighty-hyphen-read-as-inv itations-to-inflict-pain-on-an-author.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595003)

Linux == terrorism

Hahahah! (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595009)


Yeah, this will work.

Great Idea! (1)

crhylove (205956) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595017)

Let's make EVERYONE a criminal!

And just how they plan to actually enforce it? (1)

cpotoso (606303) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595027)

Ah! What a waste of $$$ paying lawyers to get regulations that in the end are impossible to enact/enforce... Just watch the "unbreakable" DRM of the HD-DVD be broken in a few weeks. How will they actually force me to have the DVD in the player when I can (and I will) rip it off to a HD? Oh, well, it is their money...

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it? (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595087)

It's not a regulation, it's an amendment to a contract.

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it? (5, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595215)

They don't intend to enforce it against you the individual who has enough clue to be able to do this for themselves.

I think they've looked at the Kaliedescape product and the video iPod and reckon that within a few years, such items could be as commonplace as the DVD player is today. And as soon as the movie can be seamlessly, easily copied from the medium it's distributed on by even the least technical person, the studios start to lose control of what happens to it - something which the MPAA appear to be absolutely terrified of.

The idea of this is to prevent such products ever hitting the marketplace, and thus maintain control.

Re:And just how they plan to actually enforce it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595337)

its not their money, doofus. its your money. thats part of the reason that this whole idea is so retarded.

the real reason for a drop in sales? (5, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595029)

go to your favorite movie rental place... of the hundreds of movies on the new release wall we saw 3 that interested us

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales? (5, Funny)

Sadko (980424) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595377)

Oh come on, there's some movies much better than "Saw 3"

Thanks, thanks, be here all week

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595385)

That's interesting. My girlfriend finds two or three new releases she wants to see. Not me. I roll my eyes at her choices and go find an older movie that I haven't watched in years.

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales? (0, Troll)

abaddononion (1004472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595727)

Yeah, Ive experienced that one. It can be hard having a girlfriend who isnt already jaded. Maybe I need to date someone older than 20.

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595661)

Go behind the curtain

Re:the real reason for a drop in sales? (4, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595737)

go to your favorite movie rental place

Does Bittorrent count?

Well if that's the case... (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595037)

I hereby amend and propose that all offensive military weaponry be banned from the face of the Earth!

It'll be just as effective, no? (or did these yahoos forget about those little A/V out ports on the back of each player?)

/P

Re:Well if that's the case... (1)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595483)

Macrovision. Specifically, the intentional degradation of analog signals.

Re:Well if that's the case... (1)

blhack (921171) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595539)

Either that or they forgot that we are talking about digital media here.

dd if=/dev/cdroms/cdrom0 of=/home/john/ohnoesthedata.ruhroh ...oops ;-)

If I can read it, (4, Interesting)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595107)

If I can read the disk, I can back it up. It's as simple as that.

Re:If I can read it, (2, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595701)

This is not about wether you can. This is about wether you are allowed to and how easy it is to do so.

I can kill people, but that does not make it legal. I can't fly to the moon, but that does not make it illegal.

There's just one thing I don't understand... (4, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595123)

Actually 2.

1. How will that prevent the 99% of existing computer users with DVD-R/Ws from using their compies to backup their dvd's?

And 2. How will that prevent the 10% of existing computer users with Divx software from ripping their dvd's?

Re:There's just one thing I don't understand... (4, Informative)

bdr529 (1063398) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595281)

1. How will that prevent the 99% of existing computer users with DVD-R/Ws from using their compies to backup their dvd
My understandnig is that it won't PREVENT "existing computer users with DVD-R/Ws from using their compies to backup their dvd[s]", but will make it much harder to find software to do so. And will make it harder for existing software to get updated as they (the software vendors) will be in "violation" of a contract...

And 2. How will that prevent the 10% of existing computer users with Divx software from ripping their dvd's?
See Item 1.

does this mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595145)

So, does this mean manufacturers are going to have to stop making DVD burners??

LOL my image-word is PROHIBIT

The DVD CCA can suck my dd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595157)

my dd if=/dev/acd0 of=/data/dvd-backup bs=512 that is...

Re:The DVD CCA can suck my dd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595239)

You only have one double D tit?

Who cares? (2, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595165)

Would you care if someone posthumously added more copy protection or licensing terms to your VHS machine? You know, that black box you use as a stand for your Xbox 360/wii/whatever?

With on-demand download services like vongo, on-demand video via cable/satellite/whatever, XBox live marketplace, moviebeam, and so on, how much longer do you plan to buy and sell these stupid plastic discs anyways?

I mean, I suddenly have 2 good "built in" options for movies - in high def no less, 360 marketplace, and comcast on-demand. I have way more options you want to consider all the online Vongo-type services.

So whatever rights blah blah blah they can put whatever restrictions on those stupid f*cking plastic discs all they want.

They're just hurting themselves. I'll never burn a video DVD again in my life.

Similarly, I could give two shits how many root kits Sony is putting on CDs these days. What is this, 1992, when I gave a fuck about paying 20 bucks for 10 songs on a 6 inch plastic disc? Gimmeabreakpal.

Re:Who cares? (4, Insightful)

Puls4r (724907) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595527)

I'm not sure who modded you +1 interesting, but it should have been -1 troll. Wait till you live in a local that doesn't offer broadband. Or you don't have the money to pay for all those price "on demand" movies when you want to watch a movie that you've already watched. Your basic assumption seems to be that since it doesn't affect you at this second in time, you don't care about it. That's a pretty shortsighted viewpoint to take - and one that's going to see your rights taken away in a hurry.

Re:Who cares? Weak Argument (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596063)

Wait till you live in a local that doesn't offer broadband.

That's a pretty weak argument. Broadband is available widely, and being offered even more widely every day. You are getting to the point where you have to intentionally pick a location without broadband (and why would you?) to avoid it now, and it's still coming. Find a better argument than this!

Re:Who cares? (0)

WhoBeDaPlaya (984958) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595775)

Get with the times man. If you're in the US, there's this wonderful new invention called Netflix...

Go ahead. (1)

grev (974855) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595209)

See what happens. It won't be the least bit pretty.

not gonna happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595211)

it's just not gonna happen

Not enforceable. (4, Insightful)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595223)

If the drive is physically able to read each bit, then no matter what you tell the vendors making the drives, it's pointless. Plus this does go against fair use. All it's going to do is hurt the people who are lawful and have a media center. The people pirating , or mass selling DVDs, wont be hurt by this.

Also how will this relate to products like the PSP and iPod? Where people can convert there DVD to a mpeg stream for viewing on the go?

Time (3, Insightful)

DanMelks (1108493) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595269)

And just how long will this magical content protection system last against the now angry black, grey and white hats of the world? Please, because I am just dying to know.
We could make this discussion about the lack of quality movies nowadays, but if you have 11 unlocked doors and 1 locked door, just where do you think we (humans) will want to get into most?

yeah, right (1)

machine of god (569301) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595273)

Existing hardware aside, they're only going to create a market for un-crippled chinese knockoffs. And by knockoffs I mean after hours fabrication runs in the same factories that make the real thing.

Laws as public contract. (2, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595277)

This seems to be an odd thing for a law to do. To force a public contract, where as long as you receive content in the form of a specific type of consumer-oriented layered disk, you suddenly may not read that content and then write that same content to another layered disk - but only in that case. Seems like an absurd way to essentially throw away the DVD format as a source for future (and current) general information use. Sounds like something from the Mercantile age, where protection of companies was more important than the potential of knowledge or any future technology. Ryan Fenton

Go for it! (3, Funny)

TomatoMan (93630) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595289)

After this, try to get a law through that prohibits more than four people from watching a DVD at a time without paying additional fees. It makes just as much sense, will be just as likely to get through with all the lobbying muscle and greedy congresscritters, and will have just as much impact in the real world: zero.

I can't remember the last time I bought a DVD. I wonder why?

You think you're joking, but you're not (5, Interesting)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595827)

Media companies have always worried about how many eyeballs will be watching that screen. That's why the videos you buy are "licensed for home use only."

Sometime before home video turned off (and turned out not to be the "strangler" of movies that Jack Valenti testified it was), RCA developed a system intended for video rental that they thought would overcome studios' objection to putting their content on home video. It was a cartridge with a mechanical design that would not rewind; the tape locked in place when viewing was complete, and required a special tool to release it. You could only watch it once, then you'd have to take it back to the video rental store where they would unlock it, rewind it, and charge another rental fee for another viewing.

RCA brought studio executives in for a demo, sure they had a winner. The executives said "We have no interest in this whatsover. You've given us absolutely no way to know how many people were watching it."

Now, in recent years there has been quite a lot of activity in biometrics and eyetracking. It is not at all inconceivable that someone could design a relatively low-cost device that could be built into a DVD player, PVR, whatever, that could tell how many eyes were watching. (And might even be able to discount cats' eyes, although dogs' eyes would be harder). And charge you accordingly. And maybe even charge extra if it detected that nobody had been watching the ads and coming attractions at the beginning.

No Big deal (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595295)

It's really no big deal. If the data's there, people will do what they want with it, license or no. There's very little that the RIAA and MPAA can do about this, unless they decide to sue a large portion of the world's population.

Stupid Rules Degrade All Rules (4, Insightful)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595315)

When are they going to learn that enacting unfair restrictions like this will only degrade people's respect for other, perhaps legitimate, restrictions? As others have noted, any such total ban on copying will largely be ignored by those with the means. And those who don't have the means to ignore and get around the restrictions will simply stop buying DVDs if they cannot easily view their purchase on the device of their choice.

fine (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595349)

If you can't cope with not being allowed to copy the DVD, don't buy it. The movie companies want you to waive your right to copy the DVD before buying it, otherwise they won't sell it to you, you can't force them to sell it to you.

Will that put a dent in p2p sharing of copied dvds (which is fine as long as you're not the original copier)? Certainly not !

How would they enforce this at the end-user level? (1)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595373)

Seriously? There will always be tools to rip a DVD, even if you just read the raw image from the disk with dd or something. As far as requiring the DVD in the drive, that is just silly. There are plenty of programs to mount an ISO image on Mac, Linux and Windows. On WinXP I use Daemon Tools, Mac and Linux have built-in support for mounting images.

This seems bound to fail to be enforced at all, so why go through the trouble?

Re:How would they enforce this at the end-user lev (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595471)

"This seems bound to fail to be enforced at all, so why go through the trouble?"

Its just another bunch of clueless execs and lawyers who know jack shit about the actual technology puffing their chests and chucking their weight around. Despite DeCSS and the hack of HD-DVD these idiots never seem to learn. God knows what they use to get their MBAs but it can't be brains.

Is DVD tech dying. (3, Interesting)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595413)

With Blu-ray and HDDVD out, is DVD a dying technology? Granted I still like DVD and see no reason to dump it. I'm guessing there will be a time when you go to the store or blockbuster and all they have is Blu-Ray with a few DVD's in the bargain bin. Just like DVD's are to VHS now.

My biggest concern is how long till this will happen. With DVD's VHS was obsoleted quickly. But with Blu-Ray/HDDVD it really doesn't negate DVD as a good media.

So maybe this is just a way for them to try and squeeze even more dollars before DVD's go away.

Good! Fair-Use == facilitation of Piracy (0, Flamebait)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595433)

Ya freeloaders and file sharers need to stop stealing the movies with your so-called "back-ups"!

I pay for every single movie I have and I have yet to encounter a situation where I would need to use a "backed up" a movie. Every DVD I've ever broken has been broken on purpose for being such a crappy flick.

And don't throw out that tired old, "Well I have small children and they can scratch a DVD so I need to use backups" argument. That's BS and you know it. If they're too young to handle the media properly you shouldnt be irresponsible enough to let them! Poor parenting on your part is not a fair use issue. It's just poor parenting.

DIY Kaleidescape Style System (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595473)

Looking at the Kaleidescape [kaleidescape.com] website it appears this system looks like it does everything MCE extenders are going to do, but I'd rather go with DIY (read cheaper) hardware. I've looked at Pluto [plutohome.com] and it looks to be a decent choice, but I'm not sure it's the best choice. Anyone have any references to DIY slim boxes for playing movies/music from a backend server? I don't care so much for DVR/TV, I'm more interested in playing XViD/Matroska/etc and MP3's anywhere, while making it simple enough for my wife and kids to watch/listen to different media files at the same time in different rooms.
Jonah HEX

A Decisive End To The Arms Race! (1)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595479)

Sorry DVD Consortium -- you can't end an arms race that way...you can only up the ante.

Copy This "Legislators" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595489)


Buck Fush [whitehouse.org] .

Regards,
Philboyd Studge

licenses are all set up wrong (4, Interesting)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595547)

all of this stems from a broken business model. The only license sold to watch movies is a movie ticket. If you sell someone the content of the movie on a disc, how in the hell is that equivalent to only selling a license to watch the disc's content? It's their own fault for not realizing this. DVD's are not priced appropriately, and their content cannot be protected appropriately for what people want. Therefore, either abandon the media completely, or realize that you've been selling people the content for years, and that trying to enforce a 'one-viewer-per-purchase, no copying' type licensing scheme on DVD's is ridiculous when movie tickets exist for that very purpose.

Trade Groups vs. Consumers (1)

blcamp (211756) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595609)


Yet another example of media and technology companies ultimately biting the hand that is feeding them.

Sometimes I think that if they could devise a way to charge for every single time a DVD (other recorded medium) is *played*, they would try to do so. I'm not talking PPV by cable, but PPV by the recorded media that is the consumer's own possession.

Trying this backhanded way of "banning" all copying is not going to matter one whit. If a person is sufficiently motivated and has the means to to do so, they will make whatever copy of whatever media they want. Period.

I'd say this stupid proposal adds to the motivation.

If the industry continues to inflict damage on its relationship with content consumers, and is not happy with the revenue stream that it still has... and is unwilling to accept that every other business tolerates a small percentage of "theft and/or losses" (no matter HOW defined)... if it can't be happy with having a reasonable percentage of the profits... ...it will eventually end up owning 100% of nothing.

Why "must" they? (1)

Perp Atuitie (919967) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595621)

"the agreement equipment vendors must abide by"? Why "must" they? Why don't they just tell the content peddlers to shove it? When did private monopolies get police powers?

Whatever (1)

jamessnell (857336) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595647)

If they do this, it'll just make more of a market for other technologies that enable users to get the same functionality. They can go ahead with this amendment if they like, but the resources being wasted on this exercise should be spent on third world aid or something that'll make a difference.

Also to stop DVD production by little guy (1)

gsfprez (27403) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595681)

how am i supposed to preview my DVD in DVD player on my Mac when i'm making it - the disc is not on a disc, so must i burn my DVDs before playing them in DVD player?

i mean, apple has to use this license for DVD player, to get the legal CCS decryptors, no?

Does this mean the end of Open VIDEO_TS folders?

Definition of physical? (1)

Fookin (652988) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595693)

I don't see a written, legal definition of the term "physical" anywhere in that paragraph they are submitting for approval. Is it physical in the sense of how humans define their interaction with the object or how the computer defines interaction with the object?

Take for example VirtualCD. I would argue that using software which creates both a virtual CD/DVD drive and also allows you to create a virtual DVD disc may be perfectly legal according to this.

A DVD disc is physically placed (via human interaction) in the computers DVD drive and ripped to become a Virtual DVD. Then the virtual DVD is physically inserted (via computer interaction) into a virtual DVD drive.

IANAL, but it would be a fun argument to make ...

Screw'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19595719)

Screw the entertainment industry. When did the world get so dependent on being entertained? Get a life.

Listen to the music, and watch the movies, that you already have. Let the money grubbers that have a strangle hold on the artists and consumers go away. It won't take long. Then a new era in entertainment will quickly arise from the ashes. Artist will no longer be dictated what to produce, how to produce it, when the produce it, nor how to market it.

If they are great artist they'll have plenty of money without the need for any DRM. People will willing support them, simply because they want more of what they are doing. Free enterprise works.

The use of draconian tactics is proof that free enterprise works. The money grubbers can't compete on a level playing field so they must cheat to win.

What's their perceived problem? (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595773)

The Jukebox makes it more convenient to have a lbrary of DVDs. That is the main reason people buy it. Are they really suggesting that a significant number of people will go to the effort of buying one of these just so that they can then resell the DVD? And even if they do, it's a maximum possible loss of one sale of each DVD the jukebox owner buys.

Different take on what the amendment means (2, Insightful)

milamber3 (173273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595801)

I may not be reading this properly but I don't see the blocking of all DVD copying in the amendment:

6.4. Certain Requirements for DVD Products. DVD Products, alone or in combination with other DVD Products, shall not be designed to descramble scrambled CSS Data when the DVD Disc containing such CSS Data and associated CSS Keys is not physically present in the DVD Player or DVD Drive (as applicable), and a DVD Product shall not be designed to make or direct the making of a persistent copy of CSS Data that has been descrambled from such DVD Disc by such DVD Product.
I read that they want to prevent a copy being made of the descrambled data stream coming out of the product. As far as I know that is already blocked in most devices. I can't see any interpretation where unencrypted data will be blocked from being copied. I don't necessarily agree with this limitation but I don't see it having much of any impact due to the availability of CSS decryption tools.

DVD's, ripping - personal experience (1)

RedneckJack (934223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595807)

When I pickup a new DVD, first thing I do is rip it and then I take the .iso image and burn a copy - for my personal use, not given to anyone else. I then take the iso image and put it on a different drive where I can watch my movies without having to use DVD media. Again, it is not given to anyone else.

So the DVD-CCA wants to make it difficult for me to play how I want to play it such as bypass the commercials. Some DVD's, you are forced to watch the ads. No FF, no MENU - all prohibited operation. What better way than to piss off your customers !

DVD Gasping For Air (1)

TechnoJargon (1095035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595813)

It is interesting that DVD/CSS is trying to pass this change considering the MPAA and others are trying to push for some form of fair copying Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs to other devices.Are the DVD folks just dumb? There are many people willing to pay for the DVDs legally. What does it matter where or how they watch the content from the purchased disk. I am tired of being treated like a criminal/priate. There will always be a sub-group of people that want something for nothig but should I be punished because of them. NO NO NO!

Yeah, this will stop me! (2, Insightful)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595839)

I have Mactheripper and several other DVD copying/copyprotection-stripping/de-regionalizing applications, as well as a brand new DVD-CD R/W drive in the PowerMac. (Soon to have another, faster R/W drive in the second bay to make backing up DVDs all the faster.)

My current DVD player, a 4 year old Samsung is shortly to be retired, replaced by a Phillips all region PAL/NTSC player.

I've a 3mbps DSL line and a few BitTorrent clients. When FiOS makes its way to my neighborhhod, I'll exchange the DSL for Verizon's fiber 20mbps broadband.

The only reason I now burn copies of my DVDs is that I have yet to buy a used XBOX and install XBMC on it, along with 25 feet or so of CAT5 to run between the PowerMac and the XBOX.

Once the XBOX is in place, all the copies get copied to the XBOX hard drive and they get stored with the old Samsung.

At some point, I'll have a TiVo, and the ancient RCA VCR goes to live in the closet as well.

So, the question I have to ask is:

How on Earth is this silly amendment to the manufacturers license going to affect me in any way whatsoever?

One way or another, I will have backups of my DVDs. Those that I own now, and those that I will purchase in the future.

Seriously, do they actually expect this to do anything at all to stop DVD copying or piracy?

All it takes is once. (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595863)

That's the nature of information...

I'd have thought that the shareholders would have figured that out by now. *shrug*

 

How did he win? (4, Informative)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#19595989)

...a DVD jukebox company which successfully defeated a suit by the DVD CCA this past March.

Did he win in court because he pointed out the license agreement didn't prohibit this usage, or did he win on other grounds? If they're changing the license agreement to close up some holes (think GPL 3), he may have a case of unfair and tortorus interference in his business. If he won on other grounds, this might not affect him -- or us, under the same decision -- at all.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm ready to support removing ALL rights from the movie industries. They'd still find a way to survive, and even prosper, but not in the insane taking of public rights they now enjoy.

Remember, everyone who initially came to Hollywood to found the western movie industry did it because they were stealing the use of Edison's patents, and were trying to avoid his enforcers. They were all a bunch of thieves to start with, and that hasn't changed all that much since!

oh noze (0, Offtopic)

allforcarrie (901516) | more than 7 years ago | (#19596029)

0h noz meh dvd are the h4x0r!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>