New Content Mgmt Tech May Limit Our DVD Usage... (1 Viewer)

[Lee Scoggins]

It was more than just permanent rental but I agree that it's a non-starter.

 

[Jeff_HR]

If this becomes a reality, I'll quit buying DVDs & stay with my considerable library. :frowning:

 

[Joshua Clinard]

They aren't even talking about doing this with DVD's. The agreement states that this may be part of the HD-DVD standard. We'll see.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Laserdisc Forever!

--the Zero Rights Management Guerilla

As I recall Macrovision was specifically forbidden on LD, I think partly because it interfered with the Phillips Code. Seriously, bootlegging from LD was never a major issue [except with Song of the South, and we all know why that was], and consumer-level DVD bootlegging today isn't a big issue. The real revenue killer is the Chinese pirates, who don't have to worry about copy-protection technology because they have MASTERING LATHES or the equivalent. They can make as many exact duplicates as they like, and there is no law which will stop them.

 

[Robert Dunnill]

To read the entire article, click here.

The following appears courtesy of Hive4Media.

 

[Robert Dunnill]

There is a piece of legislation called The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 that permits some kinds of copying from CD. I'm not sure exactly which.

In Canada, it is now legal to make copies of audio recordings for personal use. To compensate the music industry for any lost revenues, fees are levied on blank media.

RD

 

[Darren Gross]

Ah the return of Divx by another name. How progressive.

 

[JackKay]

Lee (my friend)
Sorry to be so late in reply. the thing is, is it alright to make a second copy of something you can play on multiple machines as often and as many times as you like already? Some copyright holders just feel that you are making another copy, or piracy. Yes it is only in your own home (car,etc), but if you read the label on the CD or DVD, or VCR tape you buy it tells you that you are not allowed to make any copies. Period. Plain and simple. When you buy a DVD you are only buying the plastic. The content is still owned by the Copyright holder. You only license it. If you owned the movie you would get royalties.

Strange as it seems, any copyright holder may make any restrictions on their work as they please. Reasonable or not. Its up to them. Its not up to us, unless we make it known in the market place. DIVX is a perfect example.
Jack

 

[Dan Rudolph]

IIRC, if we are only licensing the content, then if the media is damaged, the licenser must provide another copy at cost. You've already licensed the content. Anyoen remember the relevant court case for this?

 

[WillG]

Sad how they keep trying to conjure up something like this every few years. First DIVX then EZ-DVD and now this proposal. Damn, how much is enough? Who needs this? Personally, I like to own the DVDs I buy with no viewing restrictions. If I don't want to buy, I rent.

 

[MarkHarrison]

I'm fine with this. If it turns out to be another DIVX or EZ-DVD situation, then I'm quite confident that it will fail just as those have. I'm sure some will be lured in by the HD aspect, but it will be years before the average joe buys into this strategy. I'm not sure the studios (or their shareholders) will be willing to go that long if the general public rejects this new format.

I'd rather watch my SD media for years than see something in HD a few times. There wouldn't be any point in not renting at that point.

 

[Aaron_Brez]

Rental may not be permitted, depending on the model. What if it's a Divx-esque dial-home (or internet-home) model where certain disks are keyed to certain permitted machines, and adding the machines is not a trivial operation?

This whole thing has bad implications, IMO, and it is my read of the situation that the studios are trying to find some way to spin this positively, and the only thing they could come up with is, "Hey, we could permit them to watch low-quality versions of the movies for free on their Palm-Pilots! That ought to shut 'em up."

 

[MarkHarrison]

The more cumbersome they make it, the faster it will fail.

The bottom line, in my opinion of course, is that if the studios try to force another DIVX situation with HD-DVD, they'll be butchering their cash cow. It won't last. Their shareholders won't allow it. After the freedom of the DVD world, I don't think the public will accept the tyrany of a DIVX situation with HD-DVD. At best, it would become the next LD niche market and HD-DVD and DVD (non DIVX model) would have to co-exist.

 

[Thomas Newton]

That's not quite correct. The copyright holder retains the copyright. The work itself belongs to the public at large, to the extent it can be said to belong to anyone at all. And it is the public (via Congress) who decides what types of restrictions a copyright holder may make during the monopoly period.

 

[Thomas Newton]

There's already precedent for the studios making such a mistake: what the music industry did to help shape DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD. Both seem to be copy protection / DRM delivery systems, and that may be one of the reasons why "hi-rez" is still just a niche.

 

[WillKTaylor]

The biggest problem that I see happens to consist of two scenarios that studios can not afford or are overlooking the idealism of content control:

1) alientating the majority of owners that are "collectors"
2) delivery system

To expound on 2 - if these guys are talking about getting media into home PCs to be networked or similar options, how is this going to happen .. via high speed internet services or hardware? If the former, tell me the proportion of high speed internet connections into homes versus all else. I'd be willing to bet only 25-30% of all US households have this type of connection. Where does that leave the remaining population access?

Seems to me, my grandchildren may live to enjoy this new "promising" content idea (and I'm only 30), but I doubt these ideas would be in effect for another decade or longer .. seriously. I don't see a practical business model for the existance of anything written up in this article as of now. Simply put .. "CSS" .. came DeCSS .. as will be the next with any digital material regardless.

 

[AaronMK]

You know that consumer acceptence of iTunes has already set a precedent for this sort of thing.

A great number of consumers have accepted the fact that the music they buy can only be played on a set number of computers, is linked to an account, and has to have remote authorization to be played (not to mention that they are compressed in a very lossy manner).

Is buying an iTunes file really that diffent from the type of system being proposed? If iTunes files were put on discs and shipped to stores for purchase, then I don't think it would be different at all.

You might say that you have the option to burn the tracks to a CD that is not protected, but what stops Apple from changing that future versions of iTunes, or making the burned CDs incorperate a copy protection scheme like SunnComm MediaMax or Black Noise?

Don't want to update your iTunes software? Well they can always have the authorization system not authorize your system on that basis if you buy a new one or have wipe and reinstall your OS and software.

The point is not to just shrug off these "content on a leash" or DIVX type systems on the basis that consumers won't accept them. They already have.

 

[Aaron_Brez]

What he said. But then, I generally agree with people named Aaron. It's a bad habit, I know.

 

[Ted Todorov]

I don't even know where to start with this one. First, when you buy a song or album from iTunes it doesn't have an expiration date -- you own it for ever. Secondly, iTunes songs have less restrictions than current generation DVDs: they do allow you to copy to unprotected CDs (for all intents an unlimited number of times), to an unlimited number of iPods, you can play them on up to five computers (and you can change which five any number of times).

DVDs on the other hand are not be intentended to be copied in any way, shape or form. And in case you have forgotten, they use lossy compression for both audio and video.

Apple has no incentive to make their DRM consumer unfriendly -- the only reason they have DRM in the first place is to appease the record companies (and needless to the protection scheme was weak enough to be easily broken, which it has been).

There is no comparison between iTunes and DIVX like schemes.

Ted

 

[AaronMK]

Apple may not have any incentive to change the DRM restrictions, but the labels certianly do, and they call the shots on that. They can change those restrictions on each contract renewal with Apple, (which they have). As peoples' iTunes music collections get larger and larger, the industry will be able to put on more and more restrictions since you will have that much more at stake for if you decide not to go along with it.

And this is where I will stop conceding to your point about DVDs having more restrictions than iTunes tracks. I think being at the mercy of an external source that can change your usage rights at a whim and after the fact is an incredibly big restriction, and a very slippery slope.