Daggers Drawn Over DVDs

[Teutatis]

How Sony gained an edge in its fierce battle with Microsoft over video formats


Every July, 400 of the most powerful media and tech industry chieftains meet at investment banker Herb Allen's conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, for what are usually convivial discussions of megatrends and megamergers. But this year, Microsoft (MSFT ) Chairman Bill Gates III laid into Sony (SNE ) Chief Executive Howard Stringer, according to two sources, including one who witnessed the exchange in a private room.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005106_9074_tc024.htm

[Xylob the Destroyer]

"..Blu-ray equipped devices are even designed to recognize and refuse to play pirated movies..."

Just exactly how does this work??
The only thing I've heard on this issue is a RUMOR that the players won't read burned discs.
Just because a disc is burned, that doesn't mean it's pirated....

[satviewer2000]

In either case, it probably won't matter. There have been hacks and mods which disable Macrovision, region locks, etc etc, so there will undoubtedly be similar hacks and mods which will disable such protection schemes.

Initially, there probably won't be, as it will only be major manufacturers who produce the hardware. However, once the "Generic" lower end manufacturers get into the business (eg. the "Apex"s of the world), hacks and mods will become rampant.

And in order for any format to become successful, low cost hardware is a must. If all of the equipment is high-end and high cost, the format will die a quick death much as Laser Video disks did.

[Skith]

I think this article explains it (Blu-ray Marking system).

link

I would assume they are reffering to to professionally pirated (pressed) discs.

[satviewer2000]

They forgot something. All a hacker would have to do is to modify the firmware so that it no longer checks for these protection schemes.

This would be similar to the "mod-chips", which can counter the protection schemes built into Playstations and XBoxes. There is protection on the store-bought DVD-ROM and in the game machine itself. Normally, copied games cannot be played. Once a mod-chip is inserted, copied games can be played.

[whitejremiah]

i really hope that they DO block out the "professionally pirated" discs...that would be one step in the right direction, but to block out burned discs...thats a step in the WRONG direction...i know a lot of people that use digital cameras that either burn directly to dvdr or that can fairly easily be converted to dvdr...if you take this ability away from the end user, thats gonna put HUGE restrictions on your market...i just hope they put the consumer over the protection of their latest (as ive seen it called) "craptastic" movie......there really isnt much worth protecting as far as movies, lately *at least dvd's* that have come out in like the last year........i cant really speak for the movies in the theaters as of late, since i dont get out to the theater much, but in the last year, ive seen all of like maybe 10 movies, if that, that ive considered to be remotely good, and a fair chunk of those are lower budget or indepenant movies...that tells me something about the quality of the movies as of late....

[CaptainVideo]

Everyone keeps saying it's a sure thing that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray protection schemes will get hacked. The only way this will happen is if a licensed camp screws up.

The one thing people seem to forget is that it was pure luck that DVD-Jon managed to "crack" the CSS system. He didn't crack anything. He just happened to notice that the now owned by Real Xing DVD playing software didn't encrypt the CSS stream so he was able to break the code. If Xing encrypted it then we wouldn't be copying our DVD collections today. Although the encryption is weak enough that we could, but would probably take at least 24 hours of brute force attacks to do it.

[lordsmurf]

A lot of people always jump out and say "oh it'll be hacked" but fail to understand there are many systems out there that took many years to hack (so many, in fact, that by the time the hack was available, the technology was nearly or completely obsolete, like the Nintendo Gamecube). Also quite a few that have never been hacked, and likely never will (current NDS satellite security). There are many more examples.

So don't get too cozy with the idea of hackers bailing you out down the line. If you see something now that rubs you wrong, better speak up before it becomes reality. Sign petitions, make phone calls, do whatever it takes to protect your rights and/or what you feel is an important aspect of the tech.

[MikieV]

They forgot something. ....

I find it hard to believe that they "forgot" anything.

They have been laying the ground-work for international reach in shutting-down sites which provide encryption-breaking software, and peer-to-peer networks trading protected content.

Case in point, a recent article about eDonkey traffic over-taking BitTorrent in popularity:
http://news.com.com/P2P+users+traveling+by+eDonkey/2100-1025_3-5843859.html

eDonkey's rise comes after highly publicized Hollywood legal campaigns against BitTorrent hubs, which have resulted in the disappearance of many of the most popular sites using that technology. The Motion Picture Association of America is also targeting eDonkey users, but that network has gained less publicity.

Articles like that will take care of the "less publicity" they enjoyed. :P

And, the knowledge that all the different peer-to-peer packets are identified and counted should be the same wake-up call to P2P users that the Janet Jackson replay stats were to TIVO users.

Anyway, back on topic:

"highly publicized Hollywood legal campaigns" will make it difficult for hacker sites to stay off the radar. The studios have gotten Blu-ray to add multiple "layers" of copy-protection to that format, and they've gained legal precedence & law enforcement involvement with shutting-down DRM-breaking sites.

They don't have to make it impossible to hack, they just need to make it a lot harder than it currently is (which, I grant, isn't saying much).

Someone with the knowledge and equipment may still be able to bypass the new protections, but it will be harder to remain anonymus when trying to share that information.

The only reason we have it so easy with the current technology, was the relative impunity with which "bypasses" were spread troughout the world.

They are increasing the difficulty of breaking the protections, and of remaining anonymus when distributing work-arounds.

No, I don't think they've forgotten anything.

[DereX888]

and where in all of this is MY - THE CONSUMER'S - RIGHT to protect what I own? Are we all so much brainwashed by the corporation propaganda that we really dont care anymore about OUR rights and we value more the rights of faceless corporations over our own?

I dont give a shit will sony or time warner loose penny or millions because of piracy. Its their problem, and they have a right and they are right to protect their investments, but whatever they do theu still have NO RIGHT to wipe out my rights!

[Nitemare]

The real problem with all of this is the way that these companies force the consumer to upgrade to the new technology. Years ago I was happy with vinyl albums and didn't care a stitch when CDs came around, but a year later I was forced to buy a CD player and CDs because vinyl wasn't available anymore. This was a decision that the record companies made, not me.

Now I like my DVDs. In two more years will they even be available? I have only passing interest in HD DVD or blu-ray, but will I have a choice?

The part that makes me laugh is that these companies keep shooting themselves in the foot. MP3 file trading is far more common that bootleg cassettes ever were. Copying DVDs is faster and easier than copying a VHS tape. These companies forced us all to upgrade our equipment for their new "cheaper" (for them) technology. An unfortunate side effect is that they made it easier for people to rip them off.

I don't condone these practices but I'm not going to shed any tears for these clowns either. If it wasn't broken maybe they shouldn't have tried to fix it. After forcing these upgrades (inspired by Microsoft or merely perfected by them?) I figure they're getting what they deserve.

It irritates me that we, as the customer, have no say in what we wish to buy. In theory if we all ignored Blu-ray it would die a quick death. That WON'T happen. We won't have the choice. That isn't right...and that's why I smile when I read about all of the problems they have.

[MikieV]

and where in all of this is MY - THE CONSUMER'S - RIGHT to protect what I own? Are we all so much brainwashed by the corporation propaganda that we really dont care anymore about OUR rights and we value more the rights of faceless corporations over our own?

We care, we're just too cynical to believe that caring will have any effect on what is increasingly a "done deal". The pendulum swung our way with CDs and DVDs, and now it is swinging the other way with Blu-ray and HD DVD.

Even if all of us who hate this idea vote against it with our wallets, our opposition is probably already factored-into their sales projections - and they obviously don't see it as a significant impediment to their plan.

I dont give a shit will sony or time warner loose penny or millions because of piracy. Its their problem, and they have a right and they are right to protect their investments, but whatever they do theu still have NO RIGHT to wipe out my rights!

And I'm sure they don't give a shit about your "rights". You can't make a copy of your car (or computer, or house, etc) as "protection" of that investment.

The copyright protects your right to make personal-use copies of materials which can be copied.

You still have that right, there will just be less things from which you can make a copy.

[lordsmurf]

The copyright protects your right to make personal-use copies of materials which can be copied.......... You still have that right, there will just be less things from which you can make a copy.

That's flawed logic.

An inverse action, but the same logic you displayed, would be something like "instead of outlawing murder, let's just kill everybody in advance".

You're not supposedly to dodge a right by changing the conditions.

[DereX888]

I dont give a shit will sony or time warner loose penny or millions because of piracy. Its their problem, and they have a right and they are right to protect their investments, but whatever they do theu still have NO RIGHT to wipe out my rights!

And I'm sure they don't give a shit about your "rights". You can't make a copy of your car (or computer, or house, etc) as "protection" of that investment.

The copyright protects your right to make personal-use copies of materials which can be copied.

You still have that right, there will just be less things from which you can make a copy.

If I do have a right, but someone else is passing new rights of their own that are conflicting with my existing rights, then something is wrong, you agree I hope? Either 'new rights' should not have been passed as being in conflict with existing laws, or the 'old rights' should have been clearly stated as cancelled.
You can't have situation in any law where 2 differents laws are conflicting. Its either 'thou shalt not kill' or 'kill whomever you want and it will be forgiven', the choice have to be made and stated clearly in the law.

No, youre wrong.
Any 'new' rights acquired by those greedy corporations (DMCA etc) cannot, or should not, suppress existing rights. Otherwise they are changing existing laws, and we have governments for this, not the corporations.
And as smurf said - it is a flawed logic, because it assumes upfront that every consumer is a thief. It is dangerous logic, and even worse, because its coming from you - the 'mouth' of a consumer I could understand if the corporate lawyer ******* would say that, but I cant understand why people (like you and many other) do agree with such things, and apparently seems to believe that it is right to do so by the corporations The years of propaganda brainwashing the public is paying off, I'm affraid What happened to basic corner-stone of democracy: "innocent until proven guilty'? According to DMCA we are all already 'guilty'

And dont forget: you *can* copy a house, a computer or a car! (Actual costs aside) you can buy all single parts and basically copy the manufacturer's model if you want to. But even have you bought entire professional disc pressing plant and triedto make a single backup copy of the DVD or HD-DVD you already own - you will still be breaking the law. See the difference finally? You haven't forgot the fact, that all of us making backup copies of their rightfully owned DVDs we are breaking existing laws, because we are not allowed to decrypt the discs according to DMCA. There is no 'grey area' in there, we are the criminals according to Jackass Valenti.

The entertainment industry has become some self-governing, untouchable monster, forcing consumers to do whatever they want the consumers to do, regardless of laws, heck, they even bought the lawmakers in most countries and changed the laws to protect their interest against the interest of the general public, otherwise you can't explain passing of such bills like DMCA and others that followed it

[MikieV]

The copyright protects your right to make personal-use copies of materials which can be copied.......... You still have that right, there will just be less things from which you can make a copy.

That's flawed logic...

You're not supposedly to dodge a right by changing the conditions.

It may be flawed, but isn't that how things are actually working out?

Copyright was established to protect content creators/owners from having others make a profit from their published works - for a limited amount of time (don't get me started!) - with an allowance for non-commerical "fair" use by the public while that protection was in effect.

Where does the law state that the creators/owners are required to publish their works in a format which can be copied - in order to protect this fair use "right"???

Over the years, "They" have fought against every method of fair use which has been introduced. e.g. public libraries (lost sales), xerographic copiers, VCRs, sale of used books (undercuts prices for new - and they don't get any money from the sale), cassette recorders, DAT recorders, and DVD-RAM. If it even has the potential for "infringement", they have opposed it.

Now, they finally seem on the verge of getting the technology companies (who, in the past, have always been the ones to provide us with the tools for fair use) to build a distribution-system which prevents us from doing something they have always been opposed to.

I don't like it, and therefore don't plan on giving them any of my money, but I do understand why they are doing it.

[MikieV]

If I do have a right, but someone else is passing new rights of their own that are conflicting with my existing rights, then something is wrong, you agree I hope?

Yes, I agree with that concept.

I just don't agree that we have a "right" to make a complete copy of a protected work.

The Federal copyright statues - specifically authorized by the US Constitution - are for the protection of the creators/owners, not us.

There are limited exceptions to their rights, but I don't think that qualifies as giving us a "right".

The section on Fair Use
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html
seems pretty vague on exactly what it is we are allowed to do.

I read nothing specific regarding the "right" to make a copy of an entire protected work. Just some vague examples for a judge to consider when we get sued for infrigement.

"for purposes such as":

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

"the factors to be considered shall include":

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

I would only consider it a "right", akin to any other clearly delineated right, if the law specifically stated "If you bought it, you can make yourself a copy".

[DereX888]

I just don't agree that we have a "right" to make a complete copy of a protected work.

Why the hell not?!
Youve paid for it, you can do whatever you want (for your own purposes in your own home) and any way you want! Because DMCA or any law doesn't specifically say that you have a right to destroy the product, it does not mean that you are not allowed to smash the DVD or CD or tear up a book!

The Federal copyright statues - specifically authorized by the US Constitution - are for the protection of the creators/owners, not us.

There are limited exceptions to their rights, but I don't think that qualifies as giving us a "right".

The section on Fair Use
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html
seems pretty vague on exactly what it is we are allowed to do.

I read nothing specific regarding the "right" to make a copy of an entire protected work.

/cut/

I would only consider it a "right", akin to any other clearly delineated right, if the law specifically stated "If you bought it, you can make yourself a copy".

It is not that simple, yet it is very simple ("just copy for your own home use, not for profit or in a public" - thats how I would describe Fair Use in short).

MikieV, your principal flaw in your 'logic' is the same as the corporate ********: you already assume that I am a pirate (and every other consumer as well).
I, and probably 99% of all users, I agree that the creators/owners have right to protect their work, and they should do so. But not at the expense of my, the consumer, rights.
Youre talking about 'piracy', as all of them do.
Let me remind you who/what 'piracy' is: the shadowy personae selling in every major city of USA all those spanking new shiny silverpressed illegal copies manufactured in China. These are the 'pirates'.

I am talking about being ripped and being forced to pay multiple times for the same product! Since we are not allowed to make (legally) any backup of the movie we buy, that means we are forced by the corporations to pay multiple times for the same product - the movie. And Im not talking about changing formats either, Im talking strictly about same movie on a same DVD with very same 'bonus' content.
When you buy a DVD you are actually paying for your rights to view the content of the disc eternally, for as long as you live. This right will pass onto your your offspring or whomever will inherit your stuff. Im pretty sure we agree up to this point?
Now imagine (if it hasn't happened to you yet - just imagine) that the disc you bought stops playing for whatever the reason (manufacturing defect or your negligence - it doesnt matter, its just dead). With existing laws forced upon us by the entertainment corporations there is no other way to get replacement of the content of the disc - for which you've already paid once - but to buy another DVD copy, which equals paying again for very same product you've already paid for once. Do you understand? Because the product is the 'movie' not the piece of plastic on which it is stored.
That is NOT normal.

No other industry have such priviledged and monopolistic advantage over the public than the movie industry has gained in past few years.
As I told you before - you can copy (for your own use) almost anything: a car, a computer, a house, (those were your examples you thought we can't copy), or a music CD - everything we are allowed to copy, including the manufacturer's registered trademarks and logos. For as long as it is for our own use we can build our own Mercedes SLK, or a replica of Eiffel Tower if we have and want to waste enough money, and no law anywhere prohibit us from doing so!... except for making a legal copy of a stinky DVD for our own use! That is not normal, and such kind of 'deal' stinks for miles away.
So please - do not discuss with me about any freaking piracy, because I am against piracy as I proved on this forum many times before. Making a backup copy, or not even a backup copy but i.e. just a second copy of a DVD for the purpose of having it on a cottage - there is nothing wrong with that, for as long as you've bought one. By buying a DVD we are buying the rights to use for our own purposes all and any content of that disc, anywhere we want to use it, and however ways we want to use them. Only Jackass Valenti would not agree with that.
The copyrights cannot and should not dictate how do I want to use the content for which I've paid with my money!
Maybe I hate having menus on a disc and I want to remove all the 'bonus' junk on my copy?
Maybe I dont like the f***g FBI warning hijacking my player and my own copy of the disc will have PUOs removed?
Maybe Im a father of a 4 year old, for whom I want to edit out some more drastic scenes from a movie they rated G yet it doesn't meet my parental approval?
Maybe...
...and so on and on; whatever I want to do - is none of the studios freaking business once they got my money and I took their product to *my* home, because they've got my money in exchange for giving me the rigt to use it for my personal purposes any way I want and please.

If you dont agree with me then pls at least reply to me with respect as to consumer who owns a legally bought copy of a movie, not like to some f***g pirate who wants to resell/make profit on someone else's work! I dont like to be insulted even indirectly, I do hate thieves (of any kind - including movie pirates), so please watch your words next time.

PS
The concept of Fair Use haven't changed in the eyes of the society since its inception. Its the corporations, specifically movie studios, who want it changed and they are doing it slowly, with the help of technological innovations and with their exceptional monopolistic position. Of course we - the consumers - we can't 'vote with our wallets' as it would have happened normally in any free market when bad products would appear, we can't because there is no more free market left! We can't stop buying FOX movies on DVDs and choose i.e. Artisan releases instead, because they all use the same technology which has been intentionally designed to conflict with our rights and Fair Use as well, rendering them meaningless. There will be no competing manufacturers of any movies on any different, user-friendly formats, not only due to the lately extended almost to eternity movie's copyrights (another 'swindle deal' sneaked upon us). There is no free market anymore unfortunately (but thats another side of the multinational corpocracy).
There is no problems whatsoever with 'old' Fair Use clause. It is not vague, it doesn't have to specify all nifty details. Ask anyone (except for Jackass Valenti and his paid-for useful idiots) and everyone will tell you there is nothing wrong with it. Im sure everyone understand Fair uSe in a similar way I'd describe it: "just copy for your own home use, not for profit or in a public". Its that simple.
We didn't and we don't need any new stupid laws specifying that i.e. I can make a copy of a Mercedes SLK, but I can't copy a DVD. The laws can be changed only with the will of the society they regulate, not by the powers of few slick corporations.

If all car manufacturers would have decided that with every next new model they'll make, they all will have biometric sensors that will allow only the owner of the vehicle to drive it - would that be OK with you?
They will not make it a law, we all still would have our theoretical 'rights' to use i.e. wife's or Mom's car whenever we want, its just that the biometric sensors will not allow us to do so... Then some car industry's Jackass Valenti will start buying key congressmen and lobbying them to pass new Single Driver Act in next few years, which should protect the car manufacturers and increase their product sale ("everyone must have own car!" "lending a car is a crime!" etc propaganda will ensue and make many of us believe it is true). And when some small technician would find a way to bypass the biometric system and he'll pass the know-how on the web, immeiately the car industry would unleash any possible law officials and make hell about ''pirating their livelihood" and start prosecuting those who dare to disable the system...
Sounds stupid to you?
Im sure it does, but... guess what: this already have happened with the movies on DVDs!

Is the entire USA so corrupted that there isn't even one government agency left to protect the public from the greed of corporations
?

[adam]

DereX888: Pretty much everything you have said in this thread regarding copyrights et al is incorrect. There is no general right to copy for personal use. Not for copyrighted works or trademarked marks.

Fair Use has absolutely zip to do with backups. It ONLY allows partial copying or non-exact copying (analogue copy of digital source). Every country that makes exceptions for certain kinds of backups does so expressly and NONE do so under Fair Use. In the US there is express law saying you can copy music recordings and pc software. (sections 1008 and 117 respectively) If Fair Use allowed personal copying then why would we have these express laws and why would the legislators expressly state in these laws that DVDs and other audio/visual works do not qualify?

There is no right to backup a DVD in the US and there never has been. It has nothing to do with the DMCA. Yes that does make the bypassing of the encryption and additional offense, but even if the DVD were unencrypted its still an infringement just to make a copy. Furthermore, the DMCA has a savings clause which defers to Fair Use so if you were in fact copying for Fair Use purposes than you'd be authorized to break the encryption. It is literally impossible for the DMCA to prevent you from exercising a Fair Use right.

I find all of these comparisons to tangible property ridiculous. The whole point of copyrights is that they need special protection because they are intangible and can be copied so easily. Wrecking your new car as you drive off the lot is no different than your dvd player eating your DVD the first time you play it. It sucks but you don't own the content. You didn't buy Ford Explorer, you didn't buy Kill Bill, you bought a machine in the first instance and a piece of plastic in the other. When it breaks, you replace it. The fact that a DVD can break so much easier than a Ford Explorer is one of the reasons why it costs a hell of alot less.

Now the US Congress got their heads together and weighed the public's interest against the copyright holders' interests and determined that this was too tough a break for consumers when it came to pc software and music (CDs mainly) so they made exceptions for these types of media. Due to the much stronger protection that audio/visual works are afforded under copyright, no such exception has yet been made for DVDs.

Is this illogical, silly, corrupt, unfair? Possibly its all of these things. But stop complaining about corporations taking away your right to copy movies because that right has not existed since the inception of film. If you want to legally copy your movies then go to Canada, one of the few countries that allows this, but expect to pay an extra tax on recordable media for this right.

BTW: You don't have to make any profit to be a "pirate." Piracy is a term that is statutorily defined under Title 17. Piracy is simply the violation of the copyright holder's exclusive right to copy and/or authorize copying. Any kind of unauthorized copying is considered piracy.

[SilverBlade]

Well said, well said

[DereX888]

What is the copyrights' holder business to what I do with the product at my own home?
If I want to reedit i.e. "Pulp Fiction" in a chronological order, for my own viewing pleasure, at my own house, why do I have to break a law (circumvent copy protection)?
What is their business in telling me what can or can't I do in my own home?

adam, youre wrong about 'buying piece of plastic'.
When we buy a movie on DVD, were not buying the disc, the disc is just the medium the movie is delivered to us. You can buy same movie on the web, have it downloaded and burnt to your own recordable 'piece of plastic' (ever heard of divx vod?) and where is the 'piece of plastic' in that purchase?
Most of the money we pay is for the movie, which means for the rights to use it unlimited amount of times forever. We pay the copyrights holder for our licence to use the movie. THE MOVIE, not the piece of plastic. If I transfer it to another disc, its still the same MOVIE I've paid for the licence to use.

[adam]

You bought a license granting you certain rights to that content, in this case a license to view it. If you wanted additional rights, to edit it as you see fit for example, they might have chosen to charge you more for it. Who knows, maybe Miramax plans to issue a new release of Pulp Fiction in chronological order themself. Hell Columbia Tristar did it with Memento.

The bottom line is that the content is and always will be owned by them. You are not authorized to do with it anything other than what you paid to do, whether its in your home or on the street.

[adam]

Now you are just being argumentative DereX888, when I say piece of plastic obviously I'm talking about whatever medium the content is stored on. The point is that you do not own the content you only own certain rights to it which are generally limited to watching it and nothing else.

[DereX888]

You bought a license granting you certain rights to that content, in this case a license to view it. If you wanted additional rights, to edit it as you see fit for example, they might have chosen to charge you more for it. Who knows, maybe Miramax plans to issue a new release of Pulp Fiction in chronological order themself. Hell Columbia Tristar did it with Memento.

The bottom line is that the content is and always will be owned by them. You are not authorized to do with it anything other than what you paid to do, whether its in your home or on the street.

Now you are just being argumentative DereX888, when I say piece of plastic obviously I'm talking about whatever medium the content is stored on. The point is that you do not own the content you only own certain rights to it which are generally limited to watching it and nothing else.

adam, Im not being argumentative! Do you see what nonsense are you writing now? (I know youre replying according to the 'law', but its a nonsense nevrtheless).
According to what you say above I must ask again: what is the movie studios' business and why movie studios have gain rights to tell me how should I watch the movie in my own home?! This is outright ridiculus.
Whats next - studios dictating me that I can't skip chapters or I have to watch all end credits till the end of the disc, otherwise it will be illegal to watch the movie? Come'on

This is exactly Fair Use example. I can set chapters on "pulp Fiction" and have them play in different order. Or I can make the same on my 'backup copy' and dont spend 5min setting up chapters playback on each player i want to view it on. Its the same thing - I am "re-editing" the content, the materials, for which I've already paid for to use *as I please* in my own home. Its none of the studio's business how I watch the disc I bought from them.

[adam]

Yes I am just telling what the law says, and the only reason I posted at all was because you were professing to tell others what the law said but you were getting it all wrong.

But now that you know what the law really says you just dismiss it as being nonesense. So I guess there's not much point in us discussing this anymore.

[lordsmurf]

But now that you know what the law really says you just dismiss it as being nonesense. So I guess there's not much point in us discussing this anymore.

It would merely be another one to add to an existing problem:

http://www.stupidlaws.com/
http://www.dumblaws.com/
http://www.crazylaws.com/

The people pushing copyright laws are already trying to make it where you have to rent content one viewing at a time. If it was their way, storage media would be illegal period. They want power plus money. They seek to control people, in addition to pilfering their pocketbooks.

A car that is only legal to be used by the owner (and not anybody else in the family, friends, etc) is really not all that far off an analogy.

Call that paranoid if you want, but pay attention to things that are happening, or attempted to happen, as the years go by.

[adam]

Sounds like a sci fi movie to me but not anything like US copyright law. Other than copyright terms being extended to a perverse length, the only real changes that have happened since its passing in 1976 are that various rights have been granted to consumers, like the right to copy music and wider latitude for teachers and institutions. Copyright law protection has consistently gotten NARROWER over the last 20 years, not broader.

Yes I think you are being very paranoid, but you're not alone.

[Teutatis]

The reason we have various copyright laws rammed down our throats is because the public is not involved in making those laws.

Take a look at the current situation. Sony on one side is fighting with Microsoft and others on the other side regarding the standards for a new video format. But where is the public's voice in all of this? It is not present. Therefore, all of the features of Blu-ray will be decided by Sony and other corporation. Their ONLY goal is to make the largest profits possible with this new technology. What the customer considers to be his right to use the purchased DVD as he sees fit is completely irrelevant to them.

In a democratic society the people run the government and pass laws which they consider to be fair and just. Individuals and corporations have to abide by those laws. But as we all know, corporate power wields huge power over the laws that are passed, with the public's opinion having minimal or no influence. Writing a letter to your congressman is something, but it does not begin to compare with hard cash, which the various industries have in abundant supply.[/u][/b]

[edDV]

The reason we have various copyright laws rammed down our throats is because the public is not involved in making those laws.

Take a look at the current situation. Sony on one side is fighting with Microsoft and others on the other side regarding the standards for a new video format. But where is the public's voice in all of this? It is not present. Therefore, all of the features of Blu-ray will be decided by Sony and other corporation. Their ONLY goal is to make the largest profits possible with this new technology. What the customer considers to be his right to use the purchased DVD as he sees fit is completely irrelevant to them.

In a democratic society the people run the government and pass laws which they consider to be fair and just. Individuals and corporations have to abide by those laws. But as we all know, corporate power wields huge power over the laws that are passed, with the public's opinion having minimal or no influence. Writing a letter to your congressman is something, but it does not begin to compare with hard cash, which the various industries have in abundant supply.[/u][/b]

Well you can lobby to change copyright laws. That will be a long fight.

The HDTV DVD is not a regulated media other than the DMCA encryption issues. The various companies are working out a standard, focus testing and test marketing every step.

They are spending their billions to develop the system and will present us with the finished product. Companies like SONY are betting the farm on this product. Each consumer has the decision to buy it or refuse the offer and be very vocal about what is wrong with the product.

If and when the reality of weak sales set in, the various companies will change the product to increase demand. The consumer has considerable power by voting his wallet.

If you want to get into the fight as a consumer, join with the efforts of the www.eff.org partiularly in the broadcast/cable space where the public does have an input and the final product definition will be responsive to public pressure. http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/?f=broadcastflag.html

[DereX888]

Each consumer has the decision to buy it or refuse the offer and be very vocal about what is wrong with the product.

If and when the reality of weak sales set in, the various companies will change the product to increase demand. The consumer has considerable power by voting his walletl

Stop kidding yourself.
Can you buy any vinyls now?
Can you buy all movies on VHS now?
(not mentioning LDs).
NO YOU CAN'T.
Granted, DVDs have significant advantage over VHS and LDs, but still its not that we have a choice.
Once HD DVDs are out (be it both or either format), the 'standard' DVDs will quickly diminish to the point VHS is at now.
So don't tell me we have any choice, because we don't.
Thats why it is so important to not let get screwed by corporation before it happens, otherwise once the wheels are in motion its too late.

AS for 'betting a farm' on new technologial innovations: I dont see car manufacturers demanding separate laws designed to protected their billions of dollars spent on research. And Im sure you know it too, that car manufacturers spentd way more money than funny Sony on its blue-ray, yet - I repeat - yet no car manufacturers is lobbying the governments wordwide to specifically protect their 'investments'.
Guess what: many of them loose lots of money, being due to bad design, or just slow car season or simply low sale figures, as in any other business. Only movie industry wants some 'special deal' and extra protection written in Law, and protected by federal agencies, and at taxpayers expenses too! Whenever they make cold turkey they cry-out that it wasn't popular because of 'pirates'.... eh, thats a different subject



@ adam - please refrain from reply to this or any other of my posts in the future. I know your stand (and I know youre a lawyer, therefore there is no point to discuss it further with you. I know what you represent and you know what I think about lawyers and what should be done with all of them, so there is really no point for any discussion between us. Unless youre bound by your corporation ties to replies, I think you'd obey this little wish of mine. Thank you.

[adam]

DereX888 I don't represent anything and I don' have any corprate ties. Most of my copyright suits have been in defending people against corporations actually. But I happen to know a thing or two about Copyrights since that was the area I focused on in law school and the area that I now focus on in my practice. Whenever I see ANYONE blatantly giving incorrect information regarding copyrights on this forum, and it seems to happen ever single time the MPAA or RIAA is mentioned, I feel compelled to correct them. So if you don't mind limiting your posts to opinions and those facts which you actually obtained through research, then I'll have no reason to correct you.

Feel how you want about us lawyers but one thing that can be said about us is that we don't start arguments about laws without reading them first.