Encrypting a DVD so that others cannot copy

[triphop]

Was he referring to me? I thought he was referring to the original poster [not that it makes it ok to call someone a liar]. I couldn't actually work out what he was saying - it was a tad incoherent! Walmart and all that...

Alan69, having a difference of opinion is one thing, quite acceptable on this forum. But name-calling is taboo. I only mention this because we just had this thread reopened and do not want to see it closed again. Now, I do not agree with Triphops position on this topic, but neither he nor anyone else here deserves to be called names. I believe you owe him an apology.

[Tommyknocker]

No, no, of course not. I made a mistake, he never said anything bad about anyone. Where are reading glasses? Is anyone going to answer that phone....

[BALLOONHEAD]

I agree with Tommyknocker. Too much unecessary name calling. However noone owes anyone an apology. Both sides have been lashing out.

[triphop]

I guess - its just that I try and not say stuff online that I would not say to someones face (and I havent been in a fight since I was 15 and I am nearly 40 now). I must admit that I do feel angry when someone accuses me of immorality or being a liar and then disappears when call on it. But that is the nature of the internet - faceless interaction can sometimes reduce the threshold of what is polite or impolite...

What does make me shake my head is that people think that anyone who maintains a copyright on a work is evil. It just aint so. I have no problems with fair-use copying and backup - I draw the line at selling illegal copies - thats different (to me, at least).

I agree with Tommyknocker. Too much unecessary name calling. However noone owes anyone an apology. Both sides have been lashing out.

[Nelson37]

The "for Hire" vs "Contractor" distinction is murky, but I think the biggest factor is the amount of "creative input" by the videographer. Insufficient to support a claim of copyright, at least in exclusion to the couple, IMO.

Far more important is the complete stupidity of the business model which risks a such high level of customer dissatisifaction for no significant gain, particularly when considering the time required to make copies and the high price of a single sale.

What you should do is make a point of telling the customer that you grant to them ALL copyright, at NO additional cost. You make your commercial on the disk Selectable on the Menu and short, and at Most put a small, barely noticable logo on the menu and/or intro. Offer copies, labels, etc. on the best disks money can buy, at a fair price. They should get at least two disks with the deal. Consider different compilations for extra costs, like a "highlight" or "blooper" disk, Grandparents don't get the bachelor party, edit out Aunt Sadie grabbing the busboy's ass (only on her copy), etc.

Look, you should be making $100-200 per hour or more for your "artistic" work shooting video, and after costs maybe $10 to $15 per hour making copies, which work you will get a lot of without claiming copyright anyway,
why are you fighting so hard?

[terrya64]

Never surprises me about this site, How someone can ask a simple question and it turns into a debate on something totally different. Alot of times the original question is bypassed and never answered.

[jimmalenko]

Never surprises me about this site, How someone can ask a simple question and it turns into a debate on something totally different. Alot of times the original question is bypassed and never answered.

The original question has been answered with a yes if you are willing to pay for it and no if your client has any knowledge regarding backing up DVDs by plenty of contributors to this thread.

[Craig Tucker]

Never surprises me about this site, How someone can ask a simple question and it turns into a debate on something totally different. Alot of times the original question is bypassed and never answered.

The question was answered, no it can't be done unless you are prepared to pay for a license for encryption, and even then as we all know it is easy to bypass. The discussion then went onto whether it was legally and/or morally acceptable to impliment such protection to a wedding video, which to me is not a debate on something totally different but still very much related to the original posters question.

[handyguy]

What makes you think your clients know how to copy a dvd?

[Craig Tucker]

Well a simple disc copy will do it on a non encrypted disc. I would expect that most people with a CD burner/DVD burner know how to do a simple disc copy. If they don't then they should not have wasted their money on a burner.

[rhegedus]

What I object is some pinhead automatically assuming that because its his wedding he owns the copyright to the video. Most of these *big lads* would not have the courage of their convictions and actually inform the videographer of their intentions before the fact.

Whoa now! Just how many videographers would have the 'courage of thie convictions' to tell the couple that the rights to the video is his and not theirs? You previously mentioned that ignorance did not allow one to break the law, but isn't this based on what someone is rightly expected to know - how would I know I'm breaking a law if I did not know that law existed? Don't criticise the 'big lads' for keeping schtum when that's exactly what the videographer is doing.

Additionally there seems to be some idea that a videographer is just some cameraman. If thats what you think, then you are mistaken. The videographer has the following roles:

0. Planning, equipment rental & purchasing
1. Camera
2. Sound
3. Edit
4. Scoring (sometimes)
5. Animations and titling
6. Final production
7. Lots of driving around, picking up and dropping off stuff.

Quite possibly, but this is nothing more than what the average forum user here does - it's not like the guy's got a degree or doctorate in videography.

And most of us dont like to work for minimum wage since our families (yes I am married going on 8 years) would like the occasional vacation.

.........reminds me of the scene at the start of Reservoir Dogs.....

[triphop]

...
Whoa now! Just how many videographers would have the 'courage of thie convictions' to tell the couple that the rights to the video is his and not theirs? You previously mentioned that ignorance did not allow one to break the law, but isn't this based on what someone is rightly expected to know - how would I know I'm breaking a law if I did not know that law existed? Don't criticise the 'big lads' for keeping schtum when that's exactly what the videographer is doing.
...

Well, copyright really just goes to the creative part of the video and the ability to create and possibly profit from copies. Now, this is usually unlikely in wedding videos - there is no big market in other peoples wedding videos (not even for celebrities) so this is largely moot. Quite frankly I could care less if a client makes backups because as I have said earlier its a largely a self regulating situation. Hypothetically if a client found a market for his wedding video, I certainly would want to be asked for permission for this duplication.

.........reminds me of the scene at the start of Reservoir Dogs.....

I cannot remember this scene at all. I do remember the dude getting burned - hard to forget that scene. In fact that movie left a mark....

[rhegedus]

I cannot remember this scene at all. I do remember the dude getting burned - hard to forget that scene. In fact that movie left a mark....

I was thinking of the scene at the start when they're discussing tipping - why the waitress at the diner gets tipped but the person at McDonalds doesn't even though they're both on minimum wage.

[tompika]

I cannot remember this scene at all. I do remember the dude getting burned - hard to forget that scene. In fact that movie left a mark....

I was thinking of the scene at the start when they're discussing tipping - why the waitress at the diner gets tipped but the person at McDonalds doesn't even though they're both on minimum wage.

http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/reservoir_dogs.shtml

[offline]

BTW did anyone know that a standard wedding photo contract
(at least here in downunder land) allows the photographer
to display or sell to third parties.

While this is used
to cover a portfolio (a professional should be able
to show off his or her own expertise to prospective clients)
BUT it also allows them to sell your wedding day to magazines,
media companies, advertising agents etc.

so.. you sign away more than you might think!

[triphop]

Dont get me started on minimum wage - here is the States it forms the basis for wage slavery. But thats another topic altogether.

I cannot remember this scene at all. I do remember the dude getting burned - hard to forget that scene. In fact that movie left a mark....

I was thinking of the scene at the start when they're discussing tipping - why the waitress at the diner gets tipped but the person at McDonalds doesn't even though they're both on minimum wage.

[scottvf]

Adobe Encore DVD Can add copyprotection to your dvd's.

[bode]

I get the impression that the anti-copyright folks are happy enough to pay for an additional copy if it costs 10 quid? I imagine that a copy will be inexpensive anyhow.

I have dealt with customers who have every intention of breaking the law, by buying one copy and getting the rest done on the cheap. I refused to copy something myself knowing that it was a criminal offense. Once I quoted the law, the customer continued to lie and deceive.

Someone mentioned earlier that people are unaware of copyright and would be surprised and angry if they found out that they couldn't copy their disc. I find this hard to believe.

Theft is not a consumer right.

[bode]

Adobe Encore DVD Can add copyprotection to your dvd's.

But not onto a dvdr. The copy protection must be added to DLT tape and factory pressed.

[IvIark]

BTW did anyone know that a standard wedding photo contract
(at least here in downunder land) allows the photographer
to display or sell to third parties.

In the UK it's equally illegal for the photographer to use the wedding images for his own purposes (advertisement, resale to third party etc)without the express consent of the married couple.

I personally don't really care if he uses mine in his shop for a bit of advertisement, but in the same light I couldn't care less if he didn't want me to make further copies as his copyright ownership is completely irrelevant to me.

Mark

[jaxxboss]

LOL, if you dont want me to make copies of your video that you made for me of MY wedding, then you should PAY Scale wages to be an actor and of course my bride to be the actress. Then you have the set design and dont forget about catering and guests too. You can pay us all this $$$ and you can have the rights to the video you made and we wont make copies. DEAL?
Didnt think so.

[learner1]

Because of privacy laws, the photographer cannot put any
image of the client up for public display (e.g. a display at
the front window of his studio) without explicit
permission from the client. A private portfolio which is used to
demonstrate the work of the photographer and always kept in
the photographer's possession may be different.

[rhegedus]

Someone mentioned earlier that people are unaware of copyright and would be surprised and angry if they found out that they couldn't copy their disc. I find this hard to believe.

The Norwegian courts recently upheld an earlier decision to allow copying for personal useage.

Legal victory for 'DVD hacker'

The US movie industry had accused DVD Jon of theft. But an Oslo court said in January 2003 that he was free to do what he wanted with DVDs he bought legally.

The appeals court has now agreed with the original ruling, throwing out the case of the MPAA.

Given the above, I'd feel pretty pissed off if someone told me I couldn't copy my own DVD - especially one that I was a 'star' of.

[hudsonf]

I can understand wanting to copy protect a video if it was going to be used for the purpose of making money. How many John and Jane Does' are going to mass copy their wedding videos and make thousand selling them in stores? How many copies does the average couple need? Probably one for their-selves, two copies for the parents of the bride and groom, Two copies for their grandparents and maybe a few for other family members and a few friends. What are we talking about maybe 10 dvds. After paying all that money up front for the video why should they have to pay $100.00 more to get 10 extra copies if they prefer to make them their-selves? Wouldn't it make more sense to add a extra $100.00 in the initial cost instead of copy protecting the dvd. If the wedding video was of somebody rich or famous and they needed hundreds of copies or was going to air the video or use it for profit then I could understand wanting the copyright and copy protect the video. Just my opinion it's you business do what you think is right!

[freestyler]

Adobe Encore DVD Can add copyprotection to your dvd's.

But not onto a dvdr. The copy protection must be added to DLT tape and factory pressed.

about the 100th time someone's said that they can apply copy-protection to their dvd-rs using software. If it were THAT easy this thread wouldn't be here!

the aforementioned software simply FORMATS the title for protection, it is applied when the licenses/keys are obtained/verified and the glass master is made from either DLT tape as bode mentioned or dvd-r (authoring only)

how can you decss a dvd if it has no key? ever thought of where that key came from?

[mysticgohan17]

You cant copyright love.

[Craig Tucker]

You cant copyright love.

Or hurry it apparently

[bode]

Because of privacy laws, the photographer cannot put any
image of the client up for public display (e.g. a display at
the front window of his studio) without explicit
permission from the client. A private portfolio which is used to
demonstrate the work of the photographer and always kept in
the photographer's possession may be different.

Where did this information come from?

The Norwegian courts recently upheld an earlier decision to allow copying for personal useage

That is very complex case invloving the deCSS software and the decision has no jurisdiction outside of Norway. But we are not discussing personal backups here. The argument is that the client does not own the copyright to the images.

[lordsmurf]

Because of privacy laws, the photographer cannot put any
image of the client up for public display (e.g. a display at
the front window of his studio) without explicit
permission from the client. A private portfolio which is used to
demonstrate the work of the photographer and always kept in
the photographer's possession may be different.

Where did this information come from?

You cannot use a person's image for financial gain unless they agree to it. Most normal contracts don't cover this, and in fact, it is often required that a separate contract be drawn up if you want to use a person's image or likeness for financial gain.

I almost got burned by this, as the photographer, reason I know. Watch myself a lot more these days.

[Cobra]

pelsass,

Perhaps you could revise the way you run your business so that you would not need to charge for copies, and consequentially you would have no need to protect them. Obviously, by the time you are in the business of filming events, you are good at it - you are a professional.

Why not raise the fee you charge for filming the actual event, and use part of this extra money to fund free spare copies? I assume that you already find out how many copies you need to make before the event, so you can charge for those (or else you might get a party asking for hundreds and take a bit of a loss ). You could turn it into a real selling point - no matter what people/kids/dogs do to the couple's treasured video, the master is in safe hands! What's more, this person can have a fresh copy to them the next day. Now, that's service worth paying extra for!

However, if you go down the road of "I'll give you what you pay for, but if you want more, you're paying me for it". If you had my wedding video, then it doesn't really feel like I own my own tape. I just have a copy and if I want more to give away to friends and family, I'll have to pay to give what really should be mine to give away freely to whom I see fit. Putting copy protection on the discs, or using the legal system to threaten customers is definitely a bad thing to do. It's a difficult feeling to describe, but it's not a good one.

So, just take it easy! You've found by talking to people on this site that people will feel unhappy with your proposal. No matter how people have argued it on this thread (yourself included) you have found that people won't be happy. Reconsider your strategy and try to make something positive of it.

I think there's no point arguing this any more. The market is now capable of doing what it likes with your media, and unfortunately this means you must adapt, and adapt positively. I do hope it works out well for you.

Merry Christmas,

CobraDMX