Spot, I think what people are picking up from the press is a recent suit filed by the RIAA as outlined here. Recent blogs, however, have raised the question of whether the RIAA literally meant every case of ripping, or just ripping with the intent of having the ripped file distributed over the Internet. The RIAA mentions putting files into a "shared" folder, without clarifying who does the sharing. A user with networked computers in his house? A person intending to distribute the file with a P2P program?

All of this makes me wonder if the manufacturers harken back to the good old analog days. Put yourself in their shoes.

The consumer buys a record and it begins to degrade from the first play. And of course pressing your own record was pretty much out of the question. You can make a cassette recording but that is much lower quality than the original source and also degrades with each play. Albums were inherently had perfect built in "copy protection" that allows for fair use. And the manufacturer didn't have to pay a dime for it or for enforcement. The Laws of Physics took care of it.

Same thing with VHS tapes with the addition of Macrovision, which made analog to analog dubs all but impossible for the average consumer. And again those dubs come with a noticeable reduction in quality.

The digital era has brought the ability to make perfect clones so now it is either "fair use" out the window or no copy protection at all.

Johnmeyer,
I must point out that some of us ARE making backup copies. I buy movies for my kids, and it takes about 10 minutes to copy it and then about 5 to burn to a DVD. I put the original on the shelf, and the kids watch the copies. Go through purchasing 4 versions of Nemo or Incredibles at $18-20 a pop and you might do the same. If I download from iTunes, I use Tunebite to make a backup. I keep the original, the kids have copies on their computers, because they're always messing up their systems and I'm not paying for a downloaded movie twice.

Listen, I have no interest in making a copy of a movie I haven't purchased; I can download one for free off the internet with about 3 clicks if I wanted. But I'm willing to pay a fair price (iTunes is reasonable) for a movie. But the millions of people out there making illegal copies aren't my problem as they aren't my fault, it's the music/film industry's problem to figure out how to prevent as many people as possible from making illegal copies while honoring me for buying their product.

Until they do that, "Jimmy crack Korn, and I don't care."

It's always been dead easy to pirate a HD movie.
Prints get lost, HDCAM tapes can be dubbed etc.
I know a bit about this, one of my clients hda their movie being sold on the streets in Asia before they could get it onto their cable channel. Personally I just couldn't believe that anyone would pirate religious content but there you go.

Even without getting a master it's very easy to make a dub to tape from a BD player. The boxes that do HDMI to HD SDI have been on the market for some time and I'm certain the real pirates in Asia have been buying them up in bulk or else making their own. Every HDTV with HDCP have most of the parts you need.

Now comes the problem. How to make a pirated BD disk for sale?
Ah well now here's the thing, the one that so many here overlook.
By the BD and HD DVD spec as it stood you cannot. The players will not play unprotected content. I'm not talking about a red laser disk, I'm talking about a full authored BD or HD DVD disk the same as a Hollywood disk. Vista it seems will not play unprotected content, it already implements the full spec. I suspect this explains why we still don't have DVDA with BD authoring capability.

And that's a problem for many of us. With SD DVDs we could make a DVD just like a Hollywood one (content excluded). CSS was optional, you wanted the protection you paid the prices and off you went. If you were only making 50 copies of a kids concert you didn't really need it and replication was too expensive. With BD the only way to distribute is by replication as you must have CSS or the disk just will not or may not play.

Now it's possible this is/has/will change. I can imagine the uproar from consummers will eventually outweigh the needs of the studios.

Bob.

"The players will not play unprotected content. .... Vista it seems will not play unprotected content, it already implements the full spec. I suspect this explains why we still don't have DVDA with BD authoring capability."

Well, that would just be plain silly since there's several BD discs on the market without BD+ and virtually all BD players don't have BD+ yet. (BD+ was only recently approved by the Blue-ray DVD Association).

The Vista comment seems to have originated within the legion of anti-Microsoft gamers. I hate Vista as much as anyone else (because it adds overhead and driver complications without providing me with even a single benefit to do my job as a photographer and videographer. But your last statement is just incorrect.

"But your last statement is just incorrect. "

I really hope you're right. I'm only going on the experience of another Vegas user. There seems to be so much confussion, complication and FUD it's very hard to sort out fact from fiction from finger problems. That the landscape is still in a state of flux makes it all the harder to know where we're at. Thankfully so far no one has asked me to make a HiDef disk of any kind, phew!

In the interim I've bought a cheap HDD based player that plays out 1080p very nicely so I can showcase my HD work very conveniently. Although I believe this will be the future of HD content I still can't quite see how to build a business model on it so at some stage I'll have to take the leap to BD. Everything else I have in place, it's the last leg that's the problem.

Bob.

Spot, I think what people are picking up from the press is a recent suit filed by the RIAA as outlined here. Recent blogs, however, have raised the question of whether the RIAA literally meant every case of ripping, or just ripping with the intent of having the ripped file distributed over the Internet. The RIAA mentions putting files into a "shared" folder, without clarifying who does the sharing. A user with networked computers in his house? A person intending to distribute the file with a P2P program?

I understand what folks are referring to; I also know the law has not been modified as of yet, preventing persons from making personal copies so long as they are not circumventing DRM. *Very* few CD's espouse or use DRM.
The act of ripping to a drive is not illegal. Sharing it with others outside your home environment is. Regardless of the pundits, regardless of the "i wish it were so (in either direction), the model essentially still follows that of analog. No one outside your home can listen to an LP when you listen to it (unless it's radio, which has a different set of rules), and no one can listen to your iPod while you're listening to it. In fact, rather than principle, the RIAA has been much more lenient than they need to be. No one is prosecuting anyone for putting the same song on their iPod while it's on their spouses iPod while it's on their daughter's iPod, although it is illegal to be found so, as a single license purchase. Not one person has been prosecuted, nor noticed, of illegal replication when they've allowed someone in their home to listen to the files at multiple points. By legal technicality, Home Media Servers that allow different people to access the same song within the same house at the same time on different players are illegal. No one is attempting to stop those, either.
File sharing/shared folders for P2P networks are another discussion entirely.

I can only shake my head at the absurdity of the question however, which can be easily rephrased as "why do people put locks on their doors."

I live in a suburban area. Very sparsely populated. It's common for me to leave my home unlocked, keys in vehicle. On the flip side, the owners of property out here are more likely to shoot you if you enter their domain....but I digress.
In the bad areas of Chicago, Atlanta, DC, people not only have locks on their doors, but bars on their windows, roll up covers for their businesses, alarm systems, and often, weapons with a propensity to shoot first. Protecting your property is human, animal, natural, entitled, expected, and to argue otherwise is simply hypocrisy at it's most stupid, IMO.

Yes, but .....

I never bought a single thing twice on DVD, and I have no intention of indulging the studios by doing so on an HD format. I've waited years for certain movies to receive a respectable, 2-or-more disc DVD release; I see no reason why I shouldn't do the same for Blu-Ray. The one exception to the double-dip, for me, was buying the 2-disc Signature Series release of Gladiator, and later buying the 3-disc Extended Edition... new commentaries, documentary, and a great movie. Seemed like a reasonable buy.

However, the HD releases completely devoid of additional content are inexcusable, and the studios should be ashamed of themselves. I can understand the delay in including these things on DVD after it was first introduced, but it's not as if these people aren't fully aware now of how to put together a good disc, be it DVD or Blu-Ray.

There's so many sides to these issues it becomes hard to really know what to think.
I know many will (have) complain about paying twice to "own" a movie, once on SD and then again on HD. However maintaining archives is a hugely expensive business, even if not moreso in the digital age. Unless the studios believe there's money to be made at some future point why will they spend the millions per year it takes to maintain the vaults.
This isn't a trivial matter down here where we don't have a studio system as such. One iconic Australian movie just vanished, within the lifetime of most of the talent in it. A seriously degraded print was found in a L.A. garden shed and it cost a large sum to retrieve a decent print from that.
On the other side of the same issue though many 'lost' works have been recovered thanks to the efforts of members of the public who years ago had made what today would be considered pirated copies. Some countries are blessed with a national archive of art works including music and film that are funded out of the public purse but the costs are considerable and no doubt in many countries the public would baulk at funding such archive out of their purses.

To get back to the matter more directly at hand. Amendments to the Australian and UK copyright acts are being proposed to formally legalise format and time shifting. Having read through the many pages of the proposed changes drafting such legislation without creating loopholes is quite tricky.

Bob.

Bob.

Speaking of Australian movies, I can't wait to see to see any of the Baz Luhrmann movies in BluRay, particularly Moulin Rouge.

"I can only shake my head at the absurdity of the question however, which can be easily rephrased as "why do people put locks on their doors."

Sorry Spot... gotta say it... I think the absurdity here is comparing DRM to locks on your property in the first place. Locks on a consumer's property be it in the middle of Harlem or out in the country is the consumers choice. And we put locks on our door because we feel more comfortable that way, but in the end we all well know that they won't do a thing against the person who has no respect for them.

DRM and copy protection is not our choice and is being rammed down the consumer's throat. If we buy a disk today, we have no choice but to accept it with the protection that's on it... we don't even have a choice of the TYPE of protection. Now don't get me wrong..... I understand why it is there and I understand that an artist needs to, and should be properly paid for the work and all the rest of that.... but if the consumer feels bumps in the road because of all this DRM stuff.... then there is something bad wrong.... and BD+ in my eyes is protection gone too far. It's interfering with normal playback operations of law abiding people, and I for one am GLAD Slysoft and AnyDvd has stripped it of its power.

And BTW.... I am a PROUD owner of AnyDvd as well as DvdDecrypter, and I also consider myself a law abiding citizen who is a bit angry that I am forced to go to these depths because I want a disk for the cottage as opposed to having to lug all of them back and forth in the car. I don't like giving my money to Slysoft.... but hey.... that's the direction I'm being pushed. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than having to buy 2 of everything. So I say in the end.... the only thing this is all doing.... is what I originally said.... the only thing that's happening here is that we're making companies like Slysoft richer, better noted, and more powerful by continuing down this line. If they come up with another protection method, Slysoft will break it and consumers like me WILL buy it.

On the one hand surely the answer is simple enough. If you don't like the DRM don't buy the product. If enough people don't like the product and don't buy it, would seem an effective way to get the state of things changed.
Having said that, most consummers are probably in blissful ignorance about the issue. This will very likely change. Changes to the copyright act here will permit format and time shifting. Bypassing a DRM will still remain illegal. Bit of conflict you might think, giving us a right we cannot exercise. So there's a bit of sting in the tail of these new laws. The product packaging will have to disclose the facts, what DRM is used and what limitations it places on your rights.
Hopefully the legislation will require a minimum font size and appropriate wording.

Bob.

"Having said that, most consummers are probably in blissful ignorance about the issue. "

Well that's just it with BD+... most consumers are NOT ignorant and unaware. You instantly know the difference when you place a BD+ disk in your machine. There were 3 BD machines that couldn't even play it without an update and one machine that didn't have an update for quite sometime. Even with the updates, load times are much longer.

BD+ is a perfect example of how to spiral things out of context.... and control.

Locks on a consumer's property be it in the middle of Harlem or out in the country is the consumers choice. And we put locks on our door because we feel more comfortable that way, but in the end we all well know that they won't do a thing against the person who has no respect for them.

Yet more absurdity....
Locks are a choice for the consumer because the consumer owns the contents of their home/auto. In other words, the owner of the content has the right to "lock it up." *You, my proud friend, own nothing. You've never copyrighted a product, so how is it you come to be an authority on this subject?
In this case, the studios are the "consumer," locking up what is theirs. Consumers know that whether they live in the 'burbs, in the rural areas, or deep in the heart of a crime-ridden city, locks will not deter the most motivated criminal. Do you really think the studios don't know this?
Go create a product worth stealing; experience finding it free on the internet when it's the foundation of your bread and butter. Until then, you're merely putting so much meaningless yada in the air.

The studios are not consummers. The people who buy their products are the consummers.
I guess if the studios are consummers they don't need us y to buy their malware.
And yeah I'd be pretty unhappy if someone stole my work. But I'd be a damned site more unhappy if those who had legitimately bought my work suddenly found they couldn't play it. The interesting thing here taking your analogy is that the the BD+ spec permits changes to our property without our authorisation within the confines of our property. So now who is the one doing the break and enter?

How do you feel when you visit a website that trashes your PC?
How is what the BD+ spec permits any different?
Is there a warning label on the players and the disks that the functionality may be changed without your consent?

Bob.

"You, my proud friend, own nothing. You've never copyrighted a product, so how is it you come to be an authority on this subject?"

I'm a consumer and I put the bread on your table. If it wasn't for people like me, you would be in a different line of work.... that makes me an authority.

It's a shame you have to see your work being stolen away from you and it is not fair, but on the other hand if you thought is was not going to happen then you're a bit naive. Shop owners know perfectly well that some of their product will "grow legs and walk away", and that's why they cover it in the prices on their product.

Fact one... when you get into this the first thing you need to admit is that there will be a certain amount of loss due to less scrupulous people.
Fact two.... You can't change Fact one.

"Is there a warning label on the players and the disks that the functionality may be changed without your consent?

Well... yes and no.

There are warnings on the disks as to what firmware is required to play them, but it does not go into depth and it does not state any adverse affects that may be caused with a given firmware update. There is also no sufficient warning of what will occur if a firmware upgrade fails (which is the same as a failed bios flash on a computer.... disaster)

Farss: "On the one hand surely the answer is simple enough. If you don't like the DRM don't buy the product. If enough people don't like the product and don't buy it, would seem an effective way to get the state of things changed."

Agreed. I usually buy CDs, but recently I wanted one song ("Let Them Be Children"), and I had the choice between the highly restrictive wma version or the more flexible format (mp3). I resent the wma limitations, and gladly paid a little extra for the mp3. In fact, I was ready to go buy the CD rather than the wma, before I found that walmart had the mp3.

Spot, very good post about the iPods usage, etc. I happen to rip my CDs to both my home hard drive and to my office machine, keeping a rotating set of CDs in my car. I'm glad we can still do this. In fact, this is the main reason I still prefer buying CDs to buying music online, although I suppose I could just burn CDs from music I purchase online.

DRM is such a sticky subject, whether it's music, videos, or games. I don't buy many computer games anymore, but the ones I have bought, I have - where possible - copied onto a NAS drive so I wouldn't have to insert the game CDs to play them. IMHO, that's fair.

OTOH, if I then shared those games out, that would be completely wrong.

As examples of good practice, I'd point to Sony Vegas, 123di, and MemoriesOnTv. All these allow me to install my software on multiple computers, but protect themselves. In the latter two cases, I can install on up to three computers, but even after three, if I call and explain (for example, maybe reformatting a hard drive), they'll work with me. Vegas is the same, I just don't know the number. I know I ran into an issue when I had to keep reinstalling it, but support confirmed that all installations were to the same machine, and gave me another full set of registrations.

I'm heading off for a while, so I'll take this opportunity to wish everyone a Happy Easter!