New Content Mgmt Tech May Limit Our DVD Usage...

Discussion in 'DVD' started by Lee Scoggins, Jul 14, 2004.

  1. Lee Scoggins

    Lee Scoggins Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Lee
    Read about this in the Personal Journal section of The Wall Street Journal today and I am concerned:



    Gee, I hope they also consider those of us who want to own a copy of the hi-def movie to watch whenever with no expiration....

    All the big firms are involved despite the BluRay/HD-DVD format war brewing...IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Matsushita's Panasonic, Sony, and Toshiba.

    Looks like a done deal unfortunately.
     
  2. Lee Scoggins

    Lee Scoggins Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Lee
  3. Lee Scoggins

    Lee Scoggins Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Lee
  4. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    13,236
    Likes Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    Not surprising. It's the ultimate goal of the movie industry to be able to charge everyone for every viewing, rather than just a lump-sum for unlimited use.
     
  5. Terry St

    Terry St Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It does seem as if the movie industry want's consumers to think of films on home video not as something they own, but licensed content. Fair enough. I'll buy the license, and when a new, better version of the conent I have licensed comes out I expect to be provided with a free copy.

    Oh wait, they didn't mean it that way did they? [​IMG]
     
  6. Jeff Ulmer

    Jeff Ulmer Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 1998
    Messages:
    5,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Considering what I've spent on media since DVD was introduced, adn the number of times I've actually viewed each title, I'd almost be happier with a pay per view model, provided it wasn't gouging. I could do without initial crappy transfers, four rereleases, or added content I will view once, if ever. I'd guess that 90% of my collection is films I have viewed once. If I were paying $3 instead of what was $30 each, I'd be a much richer man now.
     
  7. Marvin Richardson

    Marvin Richardson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 1999
    Messages:
    750
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But isn't this article about fair-use copying and those studios finally admitting that you have the right to do it?
     
  8. Thomas Newton

    Thomas Newton Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    1,548
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    If the studios' goal was to play nice with Fair Use and the public domain, they would drop DRM from new formats -- and stop using it on current ones.
     
  9. CraigF

    CraigF Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    Toronto area, Canada
    Real Name:
    Craig
    As Marvin said, this doesn't seem to be about "pay per view", but rather about copying. I'm not worried yet, nor I presume are most people who get their disc content legally. But it does seem to restrict more, as seems to be common today of many things that are purported to give us more "freedom"...notice how the Alliance says we can do more with the discs with their system, even though their system is not directly technically tied to content except by the fact that they'll make it so. This is really no different than Macrovision, say, promoting their system as being strictly for the consumers' benefit, like they do now (it is purported to "protect" us from an inferior viewing experience i.e. copies).

    I guess my feeling is that some people will always try to get stuff for free, and others just can't be bothered and don't mind at all paying for VALUE RECEIVED...if they can afford it. For those who can't afford it anyway, the studios lose no revenue if those people steal it. They do lose revenue from those who can afford it but would rather get it for free if it's easy, so yeah, I can see a few minor roadblocks to make it less convenient to copy.
     
  10. chris*b

    chris*b Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not worried in the least. DIVX sucked wind. I believe any further attempts at the same thing would have the same result.
     
  11. Jeff B.

    Jeff B. Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not too worried about any of this. I doubt any of this will have much effect on illegal distribution either...it never does. Anyways I would like to see these companies TRY to limit the use of discs. Once I buy something I will do whatever the hell I want with it in the privacy of my own home.
     
  12. JackKay

    JackKay Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry if you already read this, I put it on the AVS fourm eariler.

    Most of what your a talking about goes back to the Sony Betamax decision of the Supreme Court. The studios lost because the Court ruled that Sony was not responsible for the uses of its product. In other words, because Sony cut ties with its customers with the sale, it was not responsible for the legal and illegal uses of the said product. The Supreme Court said in its ruling that a home user can copy the complete work (at the time unprecedented in copyright laws and rulings) to view at a more convenient time, (Time-shifting). But then only ONCE. In the 5 to 4 decision they knew that if you copied and libraried on tape these shows you would be breaking copyright laws. Sony was happy to point out that if you recorded a show on Monday and then another on Wednesday it would tape over Mondays show and erase it. The Court ruled that if you recorded a show or movie in its complete form you could watch it at a later time because you were doing no more harm to the copyrighter than if you watched it live. Although they recognized librarying as a potential problem, they ruled most people at the time (1984) didn't use their Betamax machine for that purpose. And they didn't want to squash a new technology.
    And neither did the Motion Picture Association of America. All Jack Valenti wanted was a surcharge on blank tapes ( a buck or two like they do in Europe) that goes into a fund and is returned to the copyright holders, just like radio stations pay.
    People for years have been making 'backup' copies of CDs. One for the home and one for the car etc. But the thing is that no written copyright law allows this. It has just been presumed by many of the cyberfaithful that its OK. They go back to the Sony Betamax ruling claiming that it OK to make a complete copy of a work for home use. No court has ever ruled that way. You are allowed to tape 'Everybody Loves Ramon' to watch at a more convenient time, but then only ONCE according to the Supreme Court ruling. This is called Time-shifting. Space-shifting, making a copy of a work, has never been ruled in any court as legal (or illegal). And it is hard to see why. Once you buy a CD or DVD your are allowed by the copyright holder to play it as many times and as often as you like (its the most reasonable way to market the product), there is no reason to make a second copy, the copyright holders see that as just another pirated copy.
    Untill today. And it is a refreshing idea coming from such a group. And about time I may add. But until they do make the Space-shifting change, the law is quite clear. Any copyright holder may put any restrictions they please (reasonable or not) on their work.
     
  13. Dan Hitchman

    Dan Hitchman Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 1999
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I smell DIVX part deux.

    Let's nip this one in the bud fast, boys & girls!
     
  14. John Watson

    John Watson Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,937
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOGAN'S RUN anyone?
     
  15. Brian Kidd

    Brian Kidd Screenwriter
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2000
    Messages:
    1,939
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    I have no problem with placing restrictions on the ways that a dvd can be copied. I do, however, have a big problem with releasing dvds that I am charged over and over to watch. I am a movie buff and collector. I like the ability to own a library of films, from which I can choose to watch all or part of one at any time. Pay-per-view is fine, as long as there is an alternative. I won't be purchasing a Divx Mk II machine.
     
  16. Lee Scoggins

    Lee Scoggins Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Lee


    Exactly. At some price, movie collectors like many of us here should be able to own a copy of the movie legally and view the content whenever we please as long as we don't charge admission.
     
  17. JackKay

    JackKay Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lee, the courts have really never ruled on the making of Backups. Below is a quote from the Electronic Freedom Foundation that admits that it is presumed legal act.

    4. What's been recognized as fair use?
    Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

    In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)

    Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

    Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
    Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.
     
  18. Lee Scoggins

    Lee Scoggins Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Lee


    I believe this is what I meant. So maybe the distinction is that no formal legal ruling has been made but interpretations based on prior case law suggest making backup copies is okay.

    In any event, I doubt that anyone would be culpable for making backup copies with these prior laws until such time that a more direct ruling occurs.

    Am I wrong on this?
     
  19. Travis Hedger

    Travis Hedger Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 1998
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Divx DIED for a reason. Why do they keep trying to force some component of permanent rental on us?
     
  20. Wayne Bundrick

    Wayne Bundrick Cinematographer

    Joined:
    May 17, 1999
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Get ready for Son of DIVX and the start of the Digital Dark Age.
     

Share This Page