Comments on: I can copy my MP3, why not my DVD?

By: Hollywood Studios Are Being Stupid | FlashReport

Hollywood Studios Are Being Stupid | FlashReport — Thu, 26 May 2011 17:01:11 +0000

[...] buy RealDVD, a cool program that allows you to legally back up your DVDs to your personal computer just like you back up your CDs with iTunes. Yup. The same industry who received a $478 million bailout break hidden in last fallʼs [...]

By: odelle

odelle — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:07:38 +0000

The current concern about Apple's near-monopoly may be contributing to the removal of DRM, and that's fine. But it's a big mistake to think this is all about Apple. Opposition to DRM didn't begin with Apple, and it won't end with them.
masini de inchiriat

By: odelle

odelle — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:07:38 +0000

By: Carol Burnett DVD

Carol Burnett DVD — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:35:03 +0000

It's legal for consumers to copy a backup of DVD on their computers.

By: Carol Burnett DVD

Carol Burnett DVD — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:35:03 +0000

It's legal for consumers to copy a backup of DVD on their computers.

By: Carol Burnett DVD

Carol Burnett DVD — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:14:31 +0000

RealNetworks and in the studios and consumers – their business model – ie the sale of software to a function that is not part of the cartel

By: RealDVD in the News

RealDVD in the News — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:23:48 +0000

[...] I can copy my MP3, why not my DVD? (TechLiberation, 01/12/09) [...]

By: autodidact

autodidact — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:25 +0000

Technical point about the RIAA "seeing the light." According to the Recording Industry versus the People blog, the RIAA was still filing lawsuits 8 days after they claimed they were ceasing the "war on downloaders." We'll see if they actually do stop, of if this is another deception.

2. With regard to DVDs, I would note that with the new Batman (Dark Knight) DVD, they are trying to sell computer access as an extra fee, offering a 2-disc DVD set wherein the second disc contains a "digital copy" that amounts to a special means of downloading a special DRM'd copy to your computer. The first disc, the movie disc, has been infected with all manner of data corruption to inhibit ripping to a hard drive. Fortunately I was able to play it on my computer with PowerDVD6, but others have not been so fortunate. My point is that the movie studios are going to try to sell a fair use right (ability to watch the movie you bought on computers or possibly portable devices) as an extra license, a "digital copy," for an extra fee.

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:04:58 +0000

"Consumers don't have a RIGHT to use more rights than they purchase, any more than you have a right to keep your Hertz rental car."

First that's note correct: the content providers have tried to paint purchases as a license, but the courts have ruled that it is actually a purchase, and therefore consumers do have the right to time shift and format shift. Get some basic knowledge of the case law before you post, pixelm.

Second, if you want to try to take the right to format shift and time shift away, go ahead, make my day. It should be clear those trying lock down freedom will lose that fight.

Third, stop bellyaching: just download open SuSE and then go here:

http://opensuse-community.org/Multimedia#Restri...

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:56:10 +0000

The statement that "Consumers don't have a RIGHT to use more rights than they purchase," is incomplete as it does not recognize that we have a shifting landscape where the content producers have been reducing the rights of the consumer. In fact this trend implies that the content producers are attempting to eliminate the concept of "sale" by claiming that the product is only be "leased".

When one buys a product the seller transfers the property right of that product to the buyer. Regretfully, we have few posts that acknowledge the property rights of the consumer. If the content producers want us to respect their property rights, they should respect the consumers property rights. That includes the ability of the content producer to "trespass" on the consumers computer, without due process, to spy on the consumer (SPORE DRM).

An example of the shifting legal landscape include the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998. Each of these laws cumulatively extended the life of copyright. Through these legal actions, it could be asserted that the copyright holders stole from the public since it prevented these works from entering into the public domain. Of course had these laws gone in the reverse, shortened the period of copyright, you would have heard all sorts of howls about how the content producers where being victimized by an oppressive government.

When one "buys" a CD, however you want to define the word "buy", the consumer is entitled to fair use, which I contend includes the right to transfer the content to a computer or an MP3 player. The content producers through FUD unilaterally assert that no such right exists and even include questionable "contracts" or questionable "lease agreements" to make you believe that they somehow have "legal" standing.

By: pixelm

pixelm — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:46:58 +0000

These arguments miss the point – Real networks wants to impose on studios AND consumers – THEIR business model – namely selling software to enable a function that's not part of the deal. Studios recently began offering DVDs with an extra digital copy so you can download it to your hard drive and not have to carry the disc. But one look at the record company shows what happens when you don't have DRM on your discs – which is the case with CDs. Consumers don't have a RIGHT to use more rights than they purchase, any more than you have a right to keep your Hertz rental car. If you require that Hertz let you keep the car – then Hertz will need to charge you $40,000 – doesn't sound like the outcome people are hoping for.

By: nickbrown

nickbrown — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:01:34 +0000

As a XBL Netflix user I would have to concur. Though as you're saying, that was only the beginning. With Roku and other STB's along with all the new TV's with Netflix connectivity built in shown at CES, they look to be making major head way into digital distribution. Now just to get their library bulked up and start allowing brand new 'new releases' into inclusion for streaming.

By: cordblomquist

cordblomquist — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:51:12 +0000

The most powerful man in movies could be Reed Hastings, the founder and CEO of Netflix. They're making so many set-top box deals it's crazy, and they'll soon be one of the biggest ways to distribute movies.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:55:46 +0000

Good post.

By: MikeRT

MikeRT — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:24:55 +0000

I should point out that RealDVD should be legal regardless of whether it adds or even strips out DRM. Not only are anti-DRM breaking laws (I’m looking at you DMCA) attacks on free speech as it applies to software writing, but DRM itself is just a bad idea. I still think companies should be allowed to use it—DRM shouldn’t be prohibited by law—but I think history now shows that DRM doesn’t serve the best interests of consumers or content creators.

Not to mention the fact that they are a violation of our property rights.

By: Don Marti

Don Marti — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:25:56 +0000

The record cartel didn't get it until Steve Jobs became "the most powerful man in music." In a market with DRM, thanks to DMCA-enforced lock-in, the only record company that matters is the one that controls the DRM.

The movie business will get it when some online entrepreneur becomes "the most powerful man in movies."