Good news for you copyright hounds!

[Deacon]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3038057/ ... ng-up.html

Never really understood this business model. Seems it would be way too aggravating to maintain in the first place. I guess some people revel in being counterculture.

 

[Haywood]

This interferes with the fair use rights of many people who are simply ripping their own discs to their own media servers to play on their own equipment in their own homes. Screw the DMCA and the assholes who wrote it. There are currently only two ways to get full 1:1 Blu-Ray playback on demand. The first is to rip the movies yourself and set up your own server and clients. The second is to drop $3200 to $4500 per client and $8000 per 600 movie server for a Kaleidescape system.

 

[Deacon]

You're talking about a world I know nothing about. If I like a movie I buy the disc. When I want to watch it I take the disc out of the case, put it in my player and consume. I don't need multiple copies etc, etc.

If you just want a movie stored on a server can't you buy a digital copy the same as you buy a physical disc?

 

[Barney]

Deacon, the reason I used to make copies of my CD's because I have CD players in our vehicles. Having discs in a vehicle can cause 2 things, someone wants them (break into vehicle) or heat can destroy discs. We used to have a portable DVD player for my son when he was younger & made copies so if he damaged one, no problem, still have the original DVD.
But I haven't made a copy of anything in a long time because my music is on my phone and have Vudu, Netflix, and Amazon Prime. We don't buy movies much anymore, new movies, son & I go to the movies (wife doesn't care too much for movies- she does like Alvin & the Chipmunks).

 

[Haywood]

You're talking about a world I know nothing about. If I like a movie I buy the disc. When I want to watch it I take the disc out of the case, put it in my player and consume. I don't need multiple copies etc, etc.

If you just want a movie stored on a server can't you buy a digital copy the same as you buy a physical disc?

No. The defunct Digital Copy system gave you a crappy, compressed, SD copy that you could play on specific devices (i.e. PC, smart phone or tablet). The newer systems give you streaming rights. I own over a thousand movies via UltraViolet licensing, but as good as they look, they are not quite Blu-Ray quality and do not have lossless audio tracks. There is only one legal option for a home movie server right now and it is prohibitively expensive. That is why most home theater hobbyists who want the convenience of video on demand make bit-perfect 1:1 Blu-Ray rips, store them on a NAS and then access them via KODI running on something like a small PC or an NVidia Shield. This should not be illegal, as it is fair use by any reasonable standard. Unfortunately, our government is for sale to the highest bidder and that bidder ain't us.

 

[Akula]

You're talking about a world I know nothing about. If I like a movie I buy the disc. When I want to watch it I take the disc out of the case, put it in my player and consume. I don't need multiple copies etc, etc.

If you just want a movie stored on a server can't you buy a digital copy the same as you buy a physical disc?

When I buy a movie on disc, nowadays I try to get the "Blu Ray + Digital Copy" one. While Haywood is right, it's not a full BR quality digital copy, if I want to be picky I can physically get the disc from the library shelf and put it in the player. If I just want to watch the movie I can fire up my Apple TV and stream it or watch it on another device. It works for me, but I am a little miffed that generally there's no option for those movies I already own on Blu-Ray. I can re-buy them at full retail price digitally, but that's usually $20/movie- and that's a ludicrous price (more than the disc, even), so I usually won't.

 

[Deleted member 133]

For anyone who is interested, the last version of SlySoft's AnyDVD HD was 7.6.9.0 and copies can still be found online. Of course you will need a purchased SlySoft "key" to enable it. I have made backup copies of mine in case I need to install it on future PCs.

 

[Haywood]

You're talking about a world I know nothing about. If I like a movie I buy the disc. When I want to watch it I take the disc out of the case, put it in my player and consume. I don't need multiple copies etc, etc.

If you just want a movie stored on a server can't you buy a digital copy the same as you buy a physical disc?

When I buy a movie on disc, nowadays I try to get the "Blu Ray + Digital Copy" one. While Haywood is right, it's not a full BR quality digital copy, if I want to be picky I can physically get the disc from the library shelf and put it in the player. If I just want to watch the movie I can fire up my Apple TV and stream it or watch it on another device. It works for me, but I am a little miffed that generally there's no option for those movies I already own on Blu-Ray. I can re-buy them at full retail price digitally, but that's usually $20/movie- and that's a ludicrous price (more than the disc, even), so I usually won't.

Apple doesn't support UltraViolet, but UltraViolet lets you get 1080p Dolby Digital Plus copies of many movies you already own for as low as $1 for Blu-Ray and $2.50 for DVD. That is part of how I accumulated so many UV licenses. I was able to convert 3/4 of my non-Disney, non-foreign library.

 

[Haywood]

I have a really great tool called MakeMKV that makes a full 1:1 rip of the main movie to a single .mkv file.

 

[Deacon]

So clearly this is an attempt by the media producers to thwart those that would copy originals and sell those copies for their own profit.

So the follow up question is 'who should you really be mad at'? If the media producers did nothing they would forfeit millions, if not billions in rightly earned profits.

What would be a better way to administer copyright protection that would be effective and not punitively affect someone that rightfully purchases said media?

 

[Haywood]

So clearly this is an attempt by the media producers to thwart those that would copy originals and sell those copies for their own profit.

So the follow up question is 'who should you really be mad at'? If the media producers did nothing they would forfeit millions, if not billions in rightly earned profits.

What would be a better way to administer copyright protection that would be effective and not punitively affect someone that rightfully purchases said media?

Instead of all this draconian DRM, they should be going after the people distributing pirated content.

 

[Flint]

So clearly this is an attempt by the media producers to thwart those that would copy originals and sell those copies for their own profit.

So the follow up question is 'who should you really be mad at'? If the media producers did nothing they would forfeit millions, if not billions in rightly earned profits.

What would be a better way to administer copyright protection that would be effective and not punitively affect someone that rightfully purchases said media?

Instead of all this draconian DRM, they should be going after the people distributing pirated content.

When the RIAA did that based on very accurate and real data, despite the fact some of the worst violators were children, they took hell for it.

So.. if the answer it merely to prosecute and sue those who may not be capable of defending themselves or paying back the plaintiffs, is that a real solution? How many thousands of people will need to be caught and at what cost to the FBI and local police?

 

[Haywood]

So clearly this is an attempt by the media producers to thwart those that would copy originals and sell those copies for their own profit.

So the follow up question is 'who should you really be mad at'? If the media producers did nothing they would forfeit millions, if not billions in rightly earned profits.

What would be a better way to administer copyright protection that would be effective and not punitively affect someone that rightfully purchases said media?

Instead of all this draconian DRM, they should be going after the people distributing pirated content.

When the RIAA did that based on very accurate and real data, despite the fact some of the worst violators were children, they took hell for it.

So.. if the answer it merely to prosecute and sue those who may not be capable of defending themselves or paying back the plaintiffs, is that a real solution? How many thousands of people will need to be caught and at what cost to the FBI and local police?

Most people who consume pirated content are not involved in any kind of meaningful distribution. What you have is a relatively small community of people and organizations that engage in the distribution of pirated content on what amounts to an industrial scale. Don't waste time going after the consumers and the people who may have inadvertently seeded something for an hour or two while downloading season two of Friends. Go after the guys who are originating the content. Go after the big fish. There are not very many of them.

 

[Flint]

[quote="Haywood]
Most people who consume pirated content are not involved in any kind of meaningful distribution. What you have is a relatively small community of people and organizations that engage in the distribution of pirated content on what amounts to an industrial scale. Don't waste time going after the consumers and the people who may have inadvertently seeded something for an hour or two while downloading season two of Friends. Go after the guys who are originating the content. Go after the big fish. There are not very many of them.[/quote]


I don't disagree, but I know that most of the "big fish," as you call them, are extremely tech savvy and know how to hide themselves very well while still putting out pirated content.

I think it is a balance of everything. The public should understand the basic concept that sharing digital files of content to people who didn't buy right tem is generally wrong. There will always be some level of ignorant piracy which I think the industry is okay with, but those morons who seem to think that after they spent months ripping and categorizing their massive collections of music and movies only to start showing off to everyone by making copies of those collections and giving them away willy-nilly need to be stopped. I know of one guy who, no joke, handed USB hard drives out to over 100 people at my old employer - merely to show off, be important, and buy friends - before I cornered him over drinks one day and lectured him like you wouldn't believe. That is messed up and I think he should have been prosecuted. There are also those who feel they owe it to the Tor community to share everything they download, and has a snowball affect on their originally pretty innocent intent until they are major supporters of the piracy movement out of sheer stupidity of the extent of what they are doing.

Basically, there should be some relatively painless CRM measures and some serious investigations and prosecutions, and perhaps some education.

 

[Haywood]

I personally civil penalties are more appropriate than criminal ones. Make people pay damages based on the economic damage they inflict. Otherwise, the government is just a corporate thug.

 

[Randy]

So clearly this is an attempt by the media producers to thwart those that would copy originals and sell those copies for their own profit.

So the follow up question is 'who should you really be mad at'? If the media producers did nothing they would forfeit millions, if not billions in rightly earned profits.

What would be a better way to administer copyright protection that would be effective and not punitively affect someone that rightfully purchases said media?

Instead of all this draconian DRM, they should be going after the people distributing pirated content.

31 years in the fire service taught me that Fire Prevention is much easier than fire fighting. Perhaps this was part of their approzch.

 

[Deacon]

So clearly this is an attempt by the media producers to thwart those that would copy originals and sell those copies for their own profit.

So the follow up question is 'who should you really be mad at'? If the media producers did nothing they would forfeit millions, if not billions in rightly earned profits.

What would be a better way to administer copyright protection that would be effective and not punitively affect someone that rightfully purchases said media?

Instead of all this draconian DRM, they should be going after the people distributing pirated content.

When the RIAA did that based on very accurate and real data, despite the fact some of the worst violators were children, they took hell for it.

So.. if the answer it merely to prosecute and sue those who may not be capable of defending themselves or paying back the plaintiffs, is that a real solution? How many thousands of people will need to be caught and at what cost to the FBI and local police?

And I don't think anyone would agree going in to get paid retroactively. Basically what you suggest is media producers forfeit their profits initially (due to piracy) and try to recoup those profits through punitive judgments against those that are caught.

 

[Akula]

And I don't think anyone would agree going in to get paid retroactively. Basically what you suggest is media producers forfeit their profits initially (due to piracy) and try to recoup those profits through punitive judgments against those that are caught.

And that's assuming such punitive judgments are ever paid. Some folks it doesn't matter what the judgment is for- they can't pay it. Or won't. A $1m judgment against a college kid who didn't think things through may as well be $1b. They won't be paying it- they don't have the money. So even that promise is pretty pie in the sky.

Not that I like restrictive DRM, but I get why the media producers would prefer to get their money up front. That way they actually GET money.

 

[Haywood]

And I don't think anyone would agree going in to get paid retroactively. Basically what you suggest is media producers forfeit their profits initially (due to piracy) and try to recoup those profits through punitive judgments against those that are caught.

No. I'm saying that sufficient punitive damages applied across enough culprits would raise the risk to an unacceptable level and dry up supply.

 

[Haywood]

And I don't think anyone would agree going in to get paid retroactively. Basically what you suggest is media producers forfeit their profits initially (due to piracy) and try to recoup those profits through punitive judgments against those that are caught.

And that's assuming such punitive judgments are ever paid. Some folks it doesn't matter what the judgment is for- they can't pay it. Or won't. A $1m judgment against a college kid who didn't think things through may as well be $1b. They won't be paying it- they don't have the money. So even that promise is pretty pie in the sky.

Not that I like restrictive DRM, but I get why the media producers would prefer to get their money up front. That way they actually GET money.

When that college student has to declare Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in order to deal with the damages, it is likely to leave a lasting impression.