Macrovision plugs the "digital hole" (1 Viewer)

[MikeEckman]

According to the Digital Copyright Act, isn't making a single backup copy for your own use of a disc you already own still illegal?

I think thats a load of crap. I feel as though if I spent my money on a round piece of plastic with millions of small holes burned into it that when inserted in a DVD player shows a movie, I own that little plastic disc with millions of holes and can do with it what I want.

I am not causing anyone to lose any money by making copys of stuff for my own use so why make it illegal? I convert some of my movies to Xvid and put them on my media server I have in my house. Then I use Xbox Media Center to watch those movies on my home theater system. Not only is it extremely flexible, but the Xbox upconverts video to my native resolution of 720p. I briefly looked into buying an upconverting DVD player, but I couldnt justify the price of the player and the cable, when my Xbox could already do it.

Neverthless, I dont understand how these companies can act so high and mighty and make these claims about some new copy protection scheme because I honestly believe, that the more these companies try to stop copying, the harder 15 year old college kids are going to try to defeat them.

In the years since the Personal Computer was invented, every single copy protection method has eventually been cracked. I sincerely believe that will continue to be the case.

As someone else pointed out, DVD is already making these companies millions of millions of dollars. Just leave it alone. People have been copying CDs, cassettes, and vinyl since they were released, and it hasn't caused a crash of the music industry, why should this be any different.

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

I am curious to know just how prevalent that really is. Personally, I've never used my DVD burner for illegal copying, but perhaps I'm in the minority. I really don't know.

 

[Benson R]

I have known people that do this (copying rentals), but all the individuals where extemely computer savvy, who I see being a small part of the population.

None of the individuals where film buffs, and to be honest I got the impression they were copying just for the sake of getting something for nothing(or at least and overpriced bb rental fee).

These people were accumulating a film library, but rarely ever watched any of the discs. When I was in college dreamcast copying was rampant, and I had a friend that spent countless hours making sure he burned every game he could find, but hardly ever played dreamcast.

 

[Pat Frank]

The reason why I feel I can state with reasonable certainty that one copied movie does not equate to one lost sale is because of rental. We folks who buy discs are a growing trend, yes (thank god -- look at all the new SEs coming out). But we're still a vast minority. Most people rent.

If by some miracle they do manage to come up with perfect copy protection, the vast majority of that small number of copiers will simply return their movies to Netflix uncopied. They're not going to purchase more movies. I mean they might buy one or two here and there, but they're not going to buy hundreds of movies like the studios claim (when they say that one copy equals one lost sale).

In a way, those of us who are buying more movies are actually fueling this desire to increase copy protection. The demand for SEs is growing (another proof that copying isn't a serious problem), which tells the studios that if they use stronger copy protection, that demand may grow even faster. (They're wrong, IMO, because most copiers don't seem to care about quality either, although I admit some probably do.)

By the way, just because someone does copy rental DVDs doesn't mean they don't purchase DVDs as well. Those copiers who do care about quality will likely have to purchase some DVDs because they can't be rented. Superbits, special editions, etc.

No, this isn't about protecting their investments. It's about making higher profit. I'm not saying that's wrong -- they have the right and the responsibility to protect their investments. But we have an obligation as citizens to stand up for our rights and ensure that the government is for the PEOPLE and not the special interest groups.

 

[Dave H]

But, it in fact does. Again, there are cases I know of someone NOT buying the movie they like because they can just burn the rental. Sure, money is paid for the rental (whether it be a video store or Netflix), but this individual would have BOUGHT the DVD if he couldn't have burned it. There are many, many cases like this.

Studios have had-- and should have -- very legitmate concerns. More and more people are buying DVD burners. Copying and burning a DVD in remarkably easy and one doesn't really need to be very tech savvy to do it. I suspect this problem to continue and become even more rampant as time goes on. DVD burners are almost standard on every new PC and downloading the firmware hack to accelerate the speed at which the burner can copy is becoming all too easy.

Edits: Spelling errors

 

[Joel Fontenot]

That's very true in my town too.

In fact, I believe it was last year that there was a raid the yeilded several thousand burned DVD's and CD's here in town. But, the burning and even outright selling of those DVD's still goes on by college kids here, in their dorms and apartments.

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

Interesting, and I would venture a guess that it is a small segment of computer savvy folks who even desire to do this. For instance, I have been a software developer for nearly decade, and yet I could no more tell you how to make a copy of a protected DVD than I could give a detailed discourse on Einstein's theory of relativity. Is it because I don't have the mental capacity or resources to figure out how to copy a DVD? No. It's because I simply do not care to know. Personally, I like having a collection of legitimate DVD movies, complete with cases, inserts, etc., and when studios such as Warner, for example, pour so much heart and soul into producing these discs (for example, the recent "Gangster's Collection"), quite frankly I think it's flat-out immoral to deny them compensation for their efforts. I'm not trying to be all "high and mighty" with all of this, but admittedly it's an issue I'm somewhat opinionated about.

As always, this is just my $.o2...your mileage may vary.

Link Removed

 

[andrew markworthy]

So if our predictions are right, here is yet another piece of technology that will frustrate and annoy the ordinary domestic consumer by making it impossible to make legitimate copies and making pictures on legally bought copies slightly but noticeably worse. However, it will hold up the operations of the major pirates by at most a couple of days.

In other words, the new system will harm those it is supposed to protect and will have zilch effect on the real culprits.

 

[Patrick H.]

That new copy-protect logo on those Warner sets makes me nervous...hopefully this isn't connected to the "watermarking" on another recent Warner set, Harry Potter #3, which started a minor flare-up of annoyance from some of us who don't appreciate numbers popping up during a film. That disc also exhibited interference patterns to varying degrees, which some theorized were a side-effect of a protection process. (Dig up the glitch thread on that title for specifics.)

I fully respect the right of studios to protect their product, but such intrusive measures as watermarking and CAPS codes are the absolute wrong way to go about it. Why should I invest in a deliberately compromised product? Hit the pirates, not the consumer who actually respects and enjoys (and pays for) the films. If I'd known about Potter ahead of time I wouldn't have bought it.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

What pop ups? I've bought HP3 but haven't got the chance to watch it.

 

[Scott Kimball]

The same copy protection logo as in Andrew's post appears on Paramount's On A Clear Day..., due to hit stores next week. It's the first Paramount title I recall seeing this on.

-Scott

 

[Patrick H.]

Hey Kelly, the HP magic number shows up at 17:37 on the lower left. Most R1 discs seem to read "301." Both the glitch and review threads here seem to have dried up, but there's some semi-articulate ranting over at the DVDfile:

http://forums.dvdfile.com/interactiv...t=Harry+Potter

They don't get into the intereference patters as much, though, which were the major topic of the glitch thread here. There was also a screenshot of the watermark floating around for a while.

EDIT: Ah, they still have the screenshot over there, actually.

 

[Kevin M]

Seemingly if one person is a thief then we all are thieves.

 

[stephen la]

is there a list of movies using this?
what are they so far?

I bet this proection takes up space on the disc that would of been better used for improved picture quality

with blue ray or hd dvd coming out soon this will hopefully be phased out soon.

 

[David James]

I disagree, this is the other extreme and equally unrealistic to believe it's true.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

I have no problems with using technology to prevent free loaders from...well...free loading. People should be free to make copies for their personal use, however. What's the solution, I wish I had one.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

The solution is to investigate, find pirates, and punish them. Not to artificially restrict the use of technology to a few deep-pocketed corporations who keep the politician's troughs supplied with $lop.

 

[MikeEckman]

In my earlier post I made the statement, that according to the Digital Copyright act, NO copy is legitimate. According to their rules, if you have an out of print copy of The Little Mermaid on DVD and have a 4 year old that wants to watch it over and over again, you cannot make a copy of it to save your original disc from being abused.

I think its a load of crap, but its the rule.


With that in mind, these new copyright laws *are* hurting honest consumers. Whether its by lack of ability to make backups, or weird characters appearing on the screen, to possible degradation of overall picture quality. I highly agree with the above statement. DVD is already a cash cow. If a perfect copy protection scheme were invented and no one was ever able to crack it, I seriously doubt the studios would see a noticeable increase in revenue. Yeah, it would most likely go up a little, but not drastically. However, someone will always defeat a copy protection scheme eventually.

So, in the end, all this effort and paranoia about pirates is only aimed at a very small percentage of consumers out there.

 

[JeremyErwin]

I suspect that a certain number of people have stored various css decoding tools on their hard drives, tucked away with other interesting finds "just in case." I suspect that these never used, near-beta copies will become obsolete fairly quickly. Perhaps they have become obsolete already--as the earliest examples were hard coded with a particular key that may have already been invalidated by the DVDCCA.

Newer versions of the software, however, can extract all valid keys in short order, due to certain flaws in the CSS cryptographic system. This new and improved code, however, is not as well known among the civil disobedience crowd, but a certain number of people have found a use, either innocuous or piratical for this new and improved code.

I get the impression, however, that the intent of this new Macrovision code is not so much the disruption of unlicensed decoders, but the disruption of high speed ripping-- i.e. the unlicensed decoder incorporated into ones unlicensed DVD player will still work, but the first stage of ones DVD to DiVX "backup" utility might not. This might well diminish the number of programmers and beta testers interested in fixing Macrovision's antipiracy "solution". Or it might not. Some view such things as puzzles to be solved.

We know, for instance, that the master keys behind the DVI-HDCP have been decoded by such individuals. No doubt, certain others are in possession of the DVD-Audio codes. Publication of such solutions is, of course legally risky, and at this point, there's little demand.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

They can kiss my backside. Until the day comes when they release DVDs which aren't polluted with forced trailers and other junk before the film, and when they guarantee to replace damaged media for free for *ever*, then I'll continue to rip and make my own backups for my own use. If it gets to the stage of that being no longer possible, my DVD (and CD) purchasing will be severely curtailed.

 

[Pat Frank]

In fact it does not, as you've just demonstrated. I said that one copied movie does not equate to one lost sale, and you say that it does, but you go on to give an example that only illustrates a partial proof, thereby proving *my* point.

I agree that there are some cases of copied movies that mean lost sales. But one copied movie clearly equates to something *less* than one lost sale.

This, however, is not what the industry is trying to tell you. It didn't work with the music industry, and it's not working with the movie industry. People are smarter than that.