Studios unveil 'films to download' - (New Divx?) (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

I absolutely will not buy anything protected by DRM unless a crack is available. And I'm not advocating illegal activities, I'm advocating my fair use rights.

Of course, there is no "fair use right" to circumvent copyright access controls. Cracking such an access control is, indeed, an illegal activity.

DJ

 

[Ryan Wright]

Of course, there is no "fair use right" to circumvent copyright access controls.

It's a catch-22: It's legal to make a copy for personal use, but illegal to get around a "protection mechanism" in doing so. This is why so many people are advocating the repeal of the DMCA, which created this catch-22 in the first place, but that's a political topic so I won't say more on the subject.

Suffice it to say, I won't buy this. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Robert Dunnill]

I agree this is just a rehash of divx only without the coaster, plus you're limited to watching on your computer, and have to deal with download hassles.

FYI one of the reasons Warner was so adamantly against Divx was its upcoming VOD service. So this is it? Long download times, VHS resolution, and it requires a computer to play it?
This clunky, pathetic excuse for a PPV system will never fly. Netflix is just as cheap, and offers much better quality without the download hassles.
RD

 

[Ali B]

This thread can easily turn into 'no, that's illegal' type of argument, which IMHO is counter productive here.

The simple fact is that people like to have a physical product for what they spend their money on, whether they have to return that product to Blockbuster the next day or not - they have a tangible 'thing' for their $5 (or whatever). With this downloadable movie idea, all they get is computer data, which is something that they can't hold. After all, surely the major reason (morality aside) for purchasing a product rather than copying it is that you get a nice package for your money.

ali

 

[Todd Phillips]

if there is any kind of DRM involved, forget it

I say that none of your conditions will be met. You even say it yourself.
There is no motivation for the studios to provide any purchase incentive over the ease and quality that a rented DVD currently provides.
It sounds like the studios are trying to wean people off of the pirated movies...but it won't work--because of each of the conditions you laid down above.
So I stand by my statement.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Cracking such an access control is, indeed, an illegal activity.

The DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, which attempts an end run around the Constitution, makes the passage of the DMCA the illegal activity. But getting back to the main topic, if the studio executives and marketers think that people are going to pay $$$ to wait for a long time to download a crappy-resolution movie that destroys itself after 24 hours, the DEA might be interested in what they're smoking.

People who are into downloading lots of crappy-quality DIVX films from the Net are doing so, for the most part, either because the films are not yet available on video, or because they want stuff for free. Downloading isn't exactly a convenient way of previewing movies you are considering purchasing (as it might be for music), nor do you find too many people who are looking for "only the first 10 minutes of movie XYZ, because the rest is filler."

The studios aren't going to be offering 1-day downloads while movies are still in theatres, and they sure aren't going to be offering them for free. Expect prices to be right up there with pay-per-view, maybe higher, if what the record companies did with their "services" is any guide. That blows any chance of selling to the file-trading crowd.

People who are renting/buying DVDs (or even VHS tapes) because they value picture quality and/or their time would also be fools to trade much higher-quality discs and tapes (that take only a few minutes to pick up, that you can own, that don't self-destruct) for this. That blows the chance of selling to them.

This raises the question of who, exactly, is the target market? The people at Circuit City and the Hollywood law firm who invented DIVX?

 

[Damin J Toell]

It's a catch-22: It's legal to make a copy for personal use, but illegal to get around a "protection mechanism" in doing so.

The Catch-22 you posit may not quite exist. I know of no statute or ruling by a Federal court that states that personal-use copying of movies is legal as fair use. One of the main reasons why no such court has ever ruled it legal is that movie studios don't sue individuals for having made personal-use copies of their films. While it may well be the case that a Federal court would rule that personal-use copying of films is legal, they'll probably never get the chance to do so.

DJ

 

[Joe Schwartz]

DivX 4 and DivX 5 formats (as well as the new XviD) are capable of MUCH better quality than the old DivX 3.1, which is probably the only introduction that people have had to DivX.

I have several movies in DivX 5 format, all of which are near DVD quality (literally, they are better than even SVCD). A 2 hour movie can fit on one CD (around 700 MB).

I once read that the DivX codec is basically a derivative of MPEG-4. Is that correct?

 

[JosephMoore]

- While Movielink is certainly flawed, let's give the studios credit for at least making a reasonable (and expensive) attempt at doing better than the recording industry did.

- MPEG-2, which DVD's are based-off is old as dirt. Several newer codecs (including MPEG-4) can provide the same or higher quality with much less bandwidth. If you don't have all of the fluffy animated menus and audio options, it's not hard to fit a movie in less than 1GB.

- While I agree that the terms are too onerous, it's ludicrous to think that movies would be offered with zero rights-management.

- On-demand downloads are very popular for software, it's just pay-per-use or "leasing" that has been a dismal failure.

 

[John_Berger]

Of course, there is no "fair use right" to circumvent copyright access controls. Cracking such an access control is, indeed, an illegal activity.

I knew you'd get involved in this discussion sooner or later.

 

[John_Berger]

On-demand downloads are very popular for software, it's just pay-per-use or "leasing" that has been a dismal failure.

Yes, they are popular for software. In fact, electronic purchasing of software is very popular. There are also no rights management involved with most on-line purchases as well, unless you consider a license key to be DRM. I suppose it is, but with the exception of Windows XP you can install that software on just about any PC that you want. And Microsoft has gotten a whole boatload of sh*t thrown at them for their XP registration, so it's clear that people do not want this kind of heavy-handed DRM attitude.
Software companies have a lot more to lose from piracy than the Hollywood studios, yet many of them embrace electronic downloading/purchasing with little DRM. Now, here comes Hollywood with crappy quality downloads that are probably encoded in very low-rate video and audio modes for 1/3 the price of most DVDs with oppressive DRM restrictions, and we're expected to jump on it? Ain't gonna happen.
But I know for sure that I would take a second look at an option that allowed a high quality DIVX-encoded download with no DRM for an affordable price. I have a hard time believing that I'm the only one.
Even if they do offer a DIVX version with no DRM, it has many benefits to pirated DVD rips:

1. I would be assured of a quality rip direct from the studio
2. I would almost certainly get a better connection than over Gnutella allowing a faster and more reliable download
3. I would be guaranteed of a complete download as opposed to the majority of files on Gnutella which are incomplete[/list=1]
   Now, would there be the risk of somoene buying the movie then making it available for download? Sure. That's a no brainer - the chance is there. However, I firmly believe that there are enough people to at least make such an option worthwhile. At least the studios would be getting some money as opposed to the current distribution method of DIVX files where the studios get no money.

 

[Roberto Carlo]

Slate pretty much got it right:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073743[/url]

 

[John_Berger]

Corrected link information...
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2073743

 

[Ryan Wright]

I know of no statute or ruling by a Federal court that states that personal-use copying of movies is legal as fair use.

Well then, consider yourself informed:
In Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use', the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."
Other interesting quotes from the above document, for your reading pleasure:
"Conversely, anyone who is authorized by the copyright owner to use the copyrighted work in a way specified in the statute or who makes a fair use of the work is not an infringer of the copyright with respect to such use. "
"Even when an entire copyrighted work was recorded, [464 U.S. 417, 426] the District Court regarded the copying as fair use "because there is no accompanying reduction in the market for `plaintiff's original work.'" Ibid. "

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

Case in point: BMG's recent decision to copy protect ALL of their CDs in Europe. This doesn't affect me yet, but with this announcement, I made the decision to stop buying any CDs from any of their labels. I've been downloading more and more (legal) MP3s from mp3.com and from unsigned artists that put their work up on the web. I am perfectly content to do without BMG's products.

If the movie studios go the same route, I'll stop buying DVDs. As will the vast majority of the Home Theater Forum's membership, I'd bet.

I thought DVDs were copy-protected.

 

[Ryan Wright]

I thought DVDs were copy-protected.

Response #1: Only if you consider CSS "protection". Might as well give away a free Chihuahua with every disc along with a threat of severe mauling by said Chihuahua should you attempt to copy. It would be just as effective.

Response #2: A DVD's copy protection does not prevent me from watching it. While it does restrict my fair use rights, which angers me, I can still put it in any DVD player (region coding notwithstanding) and watch it. Copy protected CDs won't play in computers, they won't play in many high end audio players, they won't play in DVD players, they won't play in any player that supports MP3, etc. If my DVDs suddenly weren't playable on half the devices I own, I'd stop buying them, too.

 

[Sean Aaron]

Copy protected CDs won't play in computers, they won't play in many high end audio players, they won't play in DVD players, they won't play in any player that supports MP3, etc. If my DVDs suddenly weren't playable on half the devices I own, I'd stop buying them, too.

Hear hear! I'm glad that I've grown old and stodgy enough that I don't give a crap about new music and am therefore happy to boycott new audio releases and avoid the whole issue of corrupted CDs.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Well then, consider yourself informed:
In Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use', the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."

The sentence you quote is just a summary of how fair use works; when an action is a fair use, any individual may engage in fair use copying. This says nothing about backup copying of films. The fair use at issue in Sony v. Universal was "time-shifting"; that is, the recording and playback at a later date of any material broadcast on television. The Sony opinion does not apply to "backup" copies of films purchased on home video. In order for backup copies of films to fit in with the sentence you quote, such copying would have to be found to be fair use, like time-shifting was in Sony. Since backup copying of films hasn't been found to be fair use by any Federal court that I know of, the sentence you quote from Sony has no application. Quoting a sentence from the Supreme Court that says that fair use copying is legal as proof that backup copying of films is fair use is merely begging the question.
DJ

 

[John Miles]

Since backup copying of films hasn't been found to be fair use by any Federal court that I know of, the sentence you quote from Sony has no application.

Try RIAA vs. Diamond on for size.
Contrary to what you suggest, the legal trend here is crystal-clear. Fair use is still a valid defense even in the post-DMCA world, and if you challenge your customers' reasonable exercise of their fair-use rights, you'll eventually lose the case. That's why the studios aren't going after individuals who run DeCSS to rip their own DVDs.

 

[Damin J Toell]

and if you challenge your customers' reasonable exercise of their fair-use rights, you'll eventually lose the case. That's why the studios aren't going after individuals who run DeCSS to rip their own DVDs.

Interesting theory, but I chalk up film studio's (and recording labels, and book publishers, etc.) inclination against suing individuals to cost and P.R.

DJ