Studios OK Burning Movie Downloads 216
SirClicksalot writes "The DVD Copy Control Association has released a statement (pdf) announcing that it will make adaptations to the Content Scramble System (CSS) used to protect DVDs. The association, made up of Hollywood studios, consumer electronics and software companies, licenses CSS to the DVD industry to protect content. The changes will allow home users to legally burn purchased movie downloads to special CSS protected DVDs, compatible with existing DVD players."
Further evidence... (Score:5, Interesting)
"special" discs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, haven't these morons figured out yet that CSS is borderline useless?
Are customers finally winning? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Are customers finally winning? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you copy a DVD by breaking the CSS and re-encoding it, you've got a completely DRM free disk. You can do whatever you want with it, and copy it with any burning software. It becomes clean data. This new system will let you burn copies of that same disk, except they re-encrypt it for you and re-apply the DRM. Isn't that nice of them?
This is a Good Thing (Score:2, Interesting)
Give these guys credit. Anything that even smells like it would endanger the all powerful Bottom Line and drop share prices is taboo for all major corporations.
Re:Further evidence... (Score:4, Interesting)
It would seem a logical step that if this becomes a standard we might see network-capable DVD players that can play all this media without it being burned.
Re:If it works with existing DVD players... (Score:5, Interesting)
you mean like how I can copy any DVD right now without effort?
BTW, I can make CSS "protected" DVD's right now with DVD-R media and a old Pioneer A-06 DVD burner. I did it last month for a client that paid for their CSS key and I used Scenerist to creat ethe DVD structure and apply the CSS encoding key.
Plays in DVD players nice and DVD decryptor and my other tools for ripping DVD's shows it as having CSS protection.
I am unsure as to this special area you are speaking of but it's not needed to make your own CSS encrypted DVD's. (although CSS is 100% useless for protection of any kind.)
Re:"special" discs? (Score:3, Interesting)
What am I missing (Score:4, Interesting)
The simple summary - encryption must live on (Score:5, Interesting)
Fromt the desciption and my palty knowledge of the DVD format, it seems like they're simply going to make everybody capable of burning in the key area with approved software. The end user part is to allow electronic distribution through a pay-per-download scheme. That scheme can also be used to digitally watermark the downloads and monitor infringing uploads, which is a bonus for them. More people with bigger pipes will be necessary for that to really take hold.
As for the end user burning a CCA encrypted disc, thay pretty much have to keep that part in order to retain much in the way of legal protections. Consumers keep crying "fair use" as a way to format shift, and to them format shifting is pronounced "lost sale". If drop the encryption, it's just like a CD, and there are already services which will format shift your CDs to MP3. All legal through fair use and unencrypted content. By encrypting the content, they keep their DMCA protections - it's not legal anyone else to help you format shift, in any way shape or form. For the vast majority of the population, that means format shifting is done via additional purchase.
Everyone here seems to think that the MPAA is trying to stop pirates, and we bubble with exhaspiration over the fact that the encryption has been broken and is useless. The MPAA doesn't really care about big time pirates all that much - it's a small market, mostly in asia, and mostly in places where the disposable income isn't high enough for the average person to afford a price that would turn a profit for the member organizations. No, the pirates the MPAA is concerned about are the casual ones - the guy next door who will burn his also-tech-unsavvy neighbor a quick copy on his consumer DVD recorder. That's more likely to be a lost sale than some chick dropping $1US on a pirated Malasian jewelcase on a street corner or a pimply faced 14 year old downloading a torrent. They won't admit it in public, but they know its true. Keeping Jim and Billy Bob from swapping discs will generate more revenue than stopping a dozen teenagers from getting an image off the eDonkey.
Re:How "nice" of them... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hence my support for the PIRATE PARTY. Go pirates! http://www.piratpartiet.se/ [piratpartiet.se]
Re:Further evidence... (Score:3, Interesting)
A large number of new release CDs are getting DRM type protections. The only time these things get any real press or notice though is when Sony screws up big time and installs a root kit without permission. Most of the methods invented can be circumvented, but the CSS was circumvented LONG AGO.
The illegality of the issue, which could result in jail time, is actually a result of the DMCA. The RIAA could go after people for circumventing these protections but they chose to go after individuals instead. The MPAA hasn't made a major push after individuals but has continued to focus the bulk of its efforts on the people who are mass producing pirate movies and on the people creating circumventing software. (Note: I do not support the MPAA going after the software folks. Many of them have created software with a legitimate use. The DMCA is as evil as the acronym suggests.)
Neither are perfect bodies, but the RIAA so far hasn't tried to micromanage how I listen to music.
On the contrary they have done a mighty fine job of doing it. So well in fact you do not even realize it. There have been instances of protected CDs not working in certain CD players or preventing them from being used on PC. Look at most MP3 download services. The reason they will not let you transfer MP3s as you wish is because of deals setup with the RIAA. They did the same thing to Sirius over recordable receivers and are trying the same with XM. These people are far worse then you give them credit for. Also, the MPAA is charging me $15 for DVDs with special features and a two-hour movie. The RIAA is charging you $13 for less than an hour of music and no bonuses. (Yes, I know it is not them directly, but the pricing for CDs is crazy compared to DVDs.)
In the end, if I had to choose one of the two bodies to deal with it would probably be the MPAA. Heck, I won't even buy new CDs anymore. They still get me buying movies on DVD every once in a while.
Re:Further evidence... (Score:1, Interesting)
- Once for the movie
- Once for the media
- Once for the temporary CSS licence.
MPAA wants to make sure you are legally burning dvds because they know how easy it is to forget about dvd copying restrictions [arstechnica.com]. Thank you MPAA.
Re:Further evidence... (Score:5, Interesting)
As per TFA:
If this paragraph is accurate, and changes need to be made, then as I said, these new-CSS-format DVDs will not play on old players without a firmware update, which will not be forthcoming for most of them.
Re:Further evidence... (Score:4, Interesting)
The closest any case actually came to enforcing the criminal provisons of theDMCA was in the Skylarov/Elcomsoft case. The facts of the case fell square under the text of the DMCA, and copyright industry commentators even said it was hard to imagine any more clear and exact violation of these DMCA provisons. The jury simply refused to vote to convict, unanimously.
The jurors had asked US District Judge Ronald M. Whyte to clarify the definition of 'fair use' shortly after deliberations began. [JuryForeman] Dennis Strader said: "Under the eBook formats, you have no rights at all, and the jury had trouble with that concept."
The DMCA is used to terrify corporations into compliance and to keep products off of the market, but the law itself is so unconcionable that an entire jury from the general public unanimously refuse to enforce it.
-
Re:How "nice" of them... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I'm not sure what the 'Slashbot position' is - sounds faintly kinky - but my view on the matter has not changed:
If you want to sell me your content, then do so without DRM. I have a lot of devices that can play audio and video. I reserve the right to choose which one I use to play back content that I have bought. I reserve the right to play a movie backwards. I reserve the right to format shift it to play on a mobile device, optionally with more lossy compression. I reserve the right to chop it apart and create derived works, although I understand that I will be required to pay royalties if I distribute them, as per copyright law. I reserve the right to do absolutely anything I want with the content that does not contravene copyright law (i.e. anything other than distributing modified or unmodified copies). You, as the copyright holder, have the right to control distribution. You have no other rights related to your content.
If you want to try putting restrictive DRM on your content, then I reserve the right not to buy it. I also reserve the right to keep proposing to my elected representatives that copyright protections only be extended to works distributed without DRM.
In the UK, you are allowed to lock your doors. If someone breaks in, you are allowed to use reasonable force to protect yourself and your property. If you shoot someone because you think they might break into your house, or even because they did break into your house, then you will go to jail. Our legal system does not condone vigilante actions in other areas, and I see no reason why copyright should be a special case.
that's all you whiny babies really want, and nothing less is going to make you cheap bastards happy.
Do you hear that sound? That was your credibility flying away.
We need a "no nonsense license" for CDs/DVDs... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be fine with a "no-nonsense license" akin to Borland's:
"You may rip, burn, format-shift, edit, mangle, karioke, or whatever the hell else you want to do with this CD or DVD, within the privacy of your own personal equipment. However, you may not redistribute it in any form, except as permitted under Fair Use."
That's all either users or the content providers really need. Watermark the damned things if you like, I don't care. But don't inconvenience me beyond what I expect from an ordinary non-DRM'd purchased hardcopy, or I won't buy it at all.