Do Not Discuss the removal of Protected BD files here

[suspeimp]

I do remember that car having a little more off the line when it had a muffler.

[mophious]

Originally Posted by prerich

For future reference, and to avoid any misunderstandings... Do not, discuss the removal of protected BD files in this or any other forum on Blu-ray.com. This site is for the discussion of using this media in its intended format (i.e Blu-ray disc). Discussions that try to circumvent the normal use of the Commercial BD format will be viewed as possible or probable piracy attempts with warnings and or bannings being given. I will personally close all threads (if another mod doesn't see it first) that indicate this type of activity! This warning is for all users of this site.

Prerich

I agree.

[lenco12]

Originally Posted by Nathan P

Is it possible to make this a sticky at the main forum level?? i.e at the main screen as opposed to just on this sub forum otherwise i can forsee that the mods may be busy -especially as number of ripping questions seems to be on the rise

what are we talking about I'm clueless

[Matthew1987]

Originally Posted by prerich

That's why we moderate these forums - mods "censor" undesireable content on these forums. By definition now - any attempt to decrypt an encrypted media file - can be viewed as a piracy attempt - I work in IT and that's the way its currently viewed. As a moderator I will continue to censor discussions - thats my job. There are many other forums that will discuss those things. They are not allowed on this forum. Case closed.

Prerich

This is completely ignoring azrieluk's point.

If you want, you can have this rule. But to say that all people who oppose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) support piracy is completely wrong.

Here's a fact about DRM:

Although companies claim that the purpose of DRM is to prevent piracy, that's clearly not it's main purpose. The main purpose of DRM is to give companies control over and restrict the use and/or marketing of their products. DRM is routinely used in ways that in no way, shape, or form have anything to do with copyright.

Just two examples: DVD and Blu-ray discs use the no-fast-forward feature to force viewers to sit through advertisements. And Valve uses Steam to have complete control over and restrict the use and marketing of their products. There are MANY more examples, but I won't get into them right now.

DRM deprives customers of rights that the law would otherwise allow them. And DRM has always been cracked -- which has resulted in a world where the pirates can use the products without the unjust restrictions, but honest paying customers are forced to suffer from them.

DRM does NOT prevent piracy, and that's not it's main purpose. There are many people who strongly oppose DRM even though they strongly oppose piracy.

And no, I am NOT a supporter of piracy.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by Matthew1987

This is completely ignoring azrieluk's point.

If you want, you can have this rule. But to say that all people who oppose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) support piracy is completely wrong.

Here's a fact about DRM:

Although companies claim that the purpose of DRM is to prevent piracy, that's clearly not it's main purpose. The main purpose of DRM is to give companies control over and restrict the use and/or marketing of their products. DRM is routinely used in ways that in no way, shape, or form have anything to do with copyright.

Just two examples: DVD and Blu-ray discs use the no-fast-forward feature to force viewers to sit through advertisements. And Valve uses Steam to have complete control over and restrict the use and marketing of their products. There are MANY more examples, but I won't get into them right now.

DRM deprives customers of rights that the law would otherwise allow them. And DRM has always been cracked -- which has resulted in a world where the pirates can use the products without the unjust restrictions, but honest paying customers are forced to suffer from them.

DRM does NOT prevent piracy, and that's not it's main purpose. There are many people who strongly oppose DRM even though they strongly oppose piracy.

And no, I am NOT a supporter of piracy.

This is A False Statement ~ I can fast forward or skip any preview on all my BD's

Id be real careful as well

[bigshot]

Removing DRM is not always illegal.

I operate a 501(c)(3) non-profit digital archive related to filmmaking. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act has a provision where non-profit digital archives that provide their services to the public for free may copy and store and retrieve copyrighted material without cost or permission from the copyright holder.

For me, removing DRM for the purposes of providing an educational service to the public is completely legal.

[Matthew1987]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

This is A False Statement ~ I can fast forward or skip any preview on all my BD's

Id be real careful as well

That may be true of some movies, but I've heard that it's not true of all of them.

But anyway, that's actually perhaps the mildest thing that Blu-ray's DRM does. A far, far more serious thing that it does is, it makes it so that you CAN'T EVEN VIEW THE MOVIE DIGITALLY unless your video card, video connection, and monitor are ALL HDCP-compliant.

That is not trivial at all. HDCP is a proprietary specification, and implementing it requires a license from one particular company. Although most modern HDTVs are HDCP-compliant, almost no computer monitors or projectors are.

This is purely an artificially imposed restriction. All video connections in use today are capable of full 1080p resolution, and the digital ones have the same visual quality as HDMI. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever for users to need a special video connection, let alone a special video card, let alone a special monitor, to view digital full 1080p video with Blu-ray.

It is crazy of entertainment companies to do this. Even if HDCP were to stop piracy of high-definition videos, which it hasn't, have those companies ever considered how much money they will lose from people who won't buy Blu-ray products because they're made incompatible with their system by these artificially imposed restrictions?

From the point of view of copyright law, it makes no difference whether a video is in high definition or not. Either way, it's intellectual property. This has nothing to do with copyright enforcement; it's purely about catering to the wants of these incredibly greedy and selfish companies.

Consider the following fact: DVDs have sold just fine WITHOUT these draconian restrictions.

These companies claim that HDCP prevents piracy of high-definition videos. But what HDCP actually does is it makes it so that for many people, including me, the ONLY way that they can view high-definition videos IS to view them pirated.

HDCP is a spectacular victory for people who pirate videos. It ensures that for many people who want to view high-definition movies legally, the only way that they can view high-definition movies at all is to view them pirated.

HDCP is High-bandwidth Digital Content Prohibition.

[Rob71]

And yet I, who was a J6P up until a few short years ago can view every single Blu-ray produced. I even began buying my equipment before I read up on the technology.

I don't know you, so don't take this as an accusation. But almost to the person, everyone I know personally who has argued your points, when I visit their home have tons of burned DVD's and/or HDD's full of films. And as yet they can't show me the DVD's of them. I know this is anecdotal, but when large numbers of people share the same anecdote, it ceases being anecdotal.

[Steel Panther]

Originally Posted by Rob71

And yet I, who was a J6P up until a few short years ago can view every single Blu-ray produced. I even began buying my equipment before I read up on the technology.

I don't know you, so don't take this as an accusation. But almost to the person, everyone I know personally who has argued your points, when I visit their home have tons of burned DVD's and/or HDD's full of films. And as yet they can't show me the DVD's of them. I know this is anecdotal, but when large numbers of people share the same anecdote, it ceases being anecdotal.

Funny enough, they all have the same logic.. "I don't want to pay $34 for a copy of The Doors" or "Season 4 of (Show X) is $55 - screw that"

[KrugStillo]

Interesting topic however I find it funny how alot of people around here go beyond frowning on this notion and actually make moral judgements on it.

Come on people no one is being slaughtered or physically violated over this. We are talking about huge corporations who make tons of money off of the collector's by releasing the same film 10 times in various editions. These are not highly moral individuals. They would steal from you the first chance they get.

Now I am not advocating piracy but I also cannot condone it. Let's face facts I'm willing to bet that at least 75% of the mods that censor these forums have themselves burnt copies or recieved burnt copies of DVD's. Back in the VHS days most people recorded films off of cable or duped them from rental copies. They sold copy removal boxes at the major retailers. They still sell duplicating software at stores like BEST BUY.

So how is a consumer supposed to take this stuff seriously if the same companies than shove DRM down your throat are probably recieving kick back money from the companies that release the software to crack it. It all comes from within, people don't just magically figure out how to crack this stuff. Employees of the major corporations involved sell off the codes to smaller companies.

There is no black and white, good or bad here. There is just layers of grey. So while I can understand censorship as a good business practice for legal reasons putting moralistic judgements on those that mention or god forbid support piracy is plain wrong.

If everyone could afford to buy every release they wanted there would be no piracy. I'm willing to bet most of the people who are against it probably make tons of dough and buy everything they want anyway.

Food for thought but I would like to reiterate that I do not support or condone piracy. I support freedom of speech.

[FlipperWasIrish]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

I'm willing to bet most of the people who are against it probably make tons of dough and buy everything they want anyway.

You would lose the bet. Most people learn to budget and set priorities for what they "want" as part of the process of becoming an adult.

It is up to each individual in what direction to set his/her moral compass.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Removing DRM is not always illegal.

I operate a 501(c)(3) non-profit digital archive related to filmmaking. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act has a provision where non-profit digital archives that provide their services to the public for free may copy and store and retrieve copyrighted material without cost or permission from the copyright holder.

For me, removing DRM for the purposes of providing an educational service to the public is completely legal.

I also hold a 501c3 (a church) and if you research copyright law, there are exceptions. We had to obtain a license to view The Passion of the Christ - and that for a limited amount in a year's time. Many 501c3's believe they have "fair use" rights, but I also belong to another 501c3....a School system and my department deals with this on a daily basis - it intepetation of that law would be as such:
A non- profit digital archive (not a non-profit showing a movie that was made for profit) obtaining there content from sources that are for free, may collect and retrieve copyrighted material without cost or permisson from the copyright holder. It's part of fair use - but to show Transformers for free at a public venue without licensing from the copyright holder is a violation of copyright law.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Matthew1987

This is completely ignoring azrieluk's point.

If you want, you can have this rule. But to say that all people who oppose Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) support piracy is completely wrong.

Here's a fact about DRM:

Although companies claim that the purpose of DRM is to prevent piracy, that's clearly not it's main purpose. The main purpose of DRM is to give companies control over and restrict the use and/or marketing of their products. DRM is routinely used in ways that in no way, shape, or form have anything to do with copyright.

Just two examples: DVD and Blu-ray discs use the no-fast-forward feature to force viewers to sit through advertisements. And Valve uses Steam to have complete control over and restrict the use and marketing of their products. There are MANY more examples, but I won't get into them right now.

DRM deprives customers of rights that the law would otherwise allow them. And DRM has always been cracked -- which has resulted in a world where the pirates can use the products without the unjust restrictions, but honest paying customers are forced to suffer from them.

DRM does NOT prevent piracy, and that's not it's main purpose. There are many people who strongly oppose DRM even though they strongly oppose piracy.

And no, I am NOT a supporter of piracy.

I have no fight with people approving or disapproving of DRM.... no problem at all, but to actively discuss how to remove DRM is not allowed on this forum. It's the discussion on how to actively remove DRM that's not allowed on this forum. End of discussion.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Matthew1987

That may be true of some movies, but I've heard that it's not true of all of them.

But anyway, that's actually perhaps the mildest thing that Blu-ray's DRM does. A far, far more serious thing that it does is, it makes it so that you CAN'T EVEN VIEW THE MOVIE DIGITALLY unless your video card, video connection, and monitor are ALL HDCP-compliant.

That is not trivial at all. HDCP is a proprietary specification, and implementing it requires a license from one particular company. Although most modern HDTVs are HDCP-compliant, almost no computer monitors or projectors are.

This is purely an artificially imposed restriction. All video connections in use today are capable of full 1080p resolution, and the digital ones have the same visual quality as HDMI. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever for users to need a special video connection, let alone a special video card, let alone a special monitor, to view digital full 1080p video with Blu-ray.

It is crazy of entertainment companies to do this. Even if HDCP were to stop piracy of high-definition videos, which it hasn't, have those companies ever considered how much money they will lose from people who won't buy Blu-ray products because they're made incompatible with their system by these artificially imposed restrictions?

From the point of view of copyright law, it makes no difference whether a video is in high definition or not. Either way, it's intellectual property. This has nothing to do with copyright enforcement; it's purely about catering to the wants of these incredibly greedy and selfish companies.

Consider the following fact: DVDs have sold just fine WITHOUT these draconian restrictions.

These companies claim that HDCP prevents piracy of high-definition videos. But what HDCP actually does is it makes it so that for many people, including me, the ONLY way that they can view high-definition videos IS to view them pirated.

HDCP is a spectacular victory for people who pirate videos. It ensures that for many people who want to view high-definition movies legally, the only way that they can view high-definition movies at all is to view them pirated.

HDCP is High-bandwidth Digital Content Prohibition.

What do you mean????!!!! My PC has been HDCP compliant for about 3 years now!!!

[prerich]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

Interesting topic however I find it funny how alot of people around here go beyond frowning on this notion and actually make moral judgements on it.

Come on people no one is being slaughtered or physically violated over this. We are talking about huge corporations who make tons of money off of the collector's by releasing the same film 10 times in various editions. These are not highly moral individuals. They would steal from you the first chance they get.

Now I am not advocating piracy but I also cannot condone it. Let's face facts I'm willing to bet that at least 75% of the mods that censor these forums have themselves burnt copies or recieved burnt copies of DVD's. Back in the VHS days most people recorded films off of cable or duped them from rental copies. They sold copy removal boxes at the major retailers. They still sell duplicating software at stores like BEST BUY.

So how is a consumer supposed to take this stuff seriously if the same companies than shove DRM down your throat are probably recieving kick back money from the companies that release the software to crack it. It all comes from within, people don't just magically figure out how to crack this stuff. Employees of the major corporations involved sell off the codes to smaller companies.

There is no black and white, good or bad here. There is just layers of grey. So while I can understand censorship as a good business practice for legal reasons putting moralistic judgements on those that mention or god forbid support piracy is plain wrong.

If everyone could afford to buy every release they wanted there would be no piracy. I'm willing to bet most of the people who are against it probably make tons of dough and buy everything they want anyway.

Food for thought but I would like to reiterate that I do not support or condone piracy. I support freedom of speech.

I support freedom of speech, but if I were to say certain things or to write certain things, I would have the law all over me. Some things are illegal and that's just the facts.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

Interesting topic however I find it funny how alot of people around here go beyond frowning on this notion and actually make moral judgements on it.

Come on people no one is being slaughtered or physically violated over this. We are talking about huge corporations who make tons of money off of the collector's by releasing the same film 10 times in various editions. These are not highly moral individuals. They would steal from you the first chance they get.

Now I am not advocating piracy but I also cannot condone it. Let's face facts I'm willing to bet that at least 75% of the mods that censor these forums have themselves burnt copies or recieved burnt copies of DVD's. Back in the VHS days most people recorded films off of cable or duped them from rental copies. They sold copy removal boxes at the major retailers. They still sell duplicating software at stores like BEST BUY.

So how is a consumer supposed to take this stuff seriously if the same companies than shove DRM down your throat are probably recieving kick back money from the companies that release the software to crack it. It all comes from within, people don't just magically figure out how to crack this stuff. Employees of the major corporations involved sell off the codes to smaller companies.

There is no black and white, good or bad here. There is just layers of grey. So while I can understand censorship as a good business practice for legal reasons putting moralistic judgements on those that mention or god forbid support piracy is plain wrong.

If everyone could afford to buy every release they wanted there would be no piracy. I'm willing to bet most of the people who are against it probably make tons of dough and buy everything they want anyway.

Food for thought but I would like to reiterate that I do not support or condone piracy. I support freedom of speech.

I also make moralistic judgments on car thieves and burglars.

And I'm sure a lot of them do it because they are poor.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by prerich

I also hold a 501c3 (a church) and if you research copyright law, there are exceptions.

The particular situation I'm referring to is...

501(c)(3) nonprofit chartered for educational purposes
Digital archive or library open for free to the general public
The works fall within the scope of the collection

All non-profits should have similar rights. The fact that they don't is wrong. Archives and libraries are the reason copyrighted works survive. We wouldn't have the restored version of A Star is Born today if it wasn't for a "copyright pirate".

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by prerich

For future reference, and to avoid any misunderstandings... Do not, discuss the removal of protected BD files in this or any other forum on Blu-ray.com. This site is for the discussion of using this media in its intended format (i.e Blu-ray disc). Discussions that try to circumvent the normal use of the Commercial BD format will be viewed as possible or probable piracy attempts with warnings and or bannings being given. I will personally close all threads (if another mod doesn't see it first) that indicate this type of activity! This warning is for all users of this site.

Prerich

I don't care what anyone else says. Prerich and every other MOD is bang on the money with this attitude!

A lot of people make money based on the financial success of commercial entertainment endeavours. Take the time to watch the credits of one of your films on BD and you will see just how many people will suffer from the piracy technique. It's not a matter of how much money the "corporations" are making. A lot of the money they make is put right back into paying the cast and crew for their work on future projects. True, it isn't always a fair pay scale amidst said cast and crew, but that's no reason to cause hundreds of thousands of people to lose work and/or compensation for the work that they do!

[Joe Cain]

DRM is not meant to stop piracy, it is meant to deter piracy---which it does. DRM-stripping requires time, effort, and materials. If the average consumer could make unlimited duplications of a hard copy with practically zero effort or expense, how many would pay for content?

SlySoft's intellectual property is protected by copyright and requires subscription fees be paid to maintain functionality....yet their products allow users to break copyright law. Do you suppose they'd be in favor of someone jailbreaking their software keys, allowing for unlimited distribution and use of their intellectual property?

I'm tired of hearing about studios are greedy and selfish: that argument could be made of any corporation. Yes, they're selfish. They own property & they have rights regarding that property, including the rights to duplicate, distribute, and display that property, or authorize others to do so. And if they can't make the profit they want on selling that property they have no motive to make it available. I'm an informal labor historian and I have deep misgivings about unrestrained capitalism, but as a creator of intellectual property I also have deep convictions about my rights regarding that property.

[KrugStillo]

Originally Posted by FlipperWasIrish

You would lose the bet. Most people learn to budget and set priorities for what they "want" as part of the process of becoming an adult.

It is up to each individual in what direction to set his/her moral compass.

Morality is so subjective.

One man's blessing is another man's sin so I don't buy the whole morality debate. However I do feel that sometimes being judged for something that is really low on a scale of 1 to 10 is kind of foolish.

I'm not very religious but if you in fact are do you honestly believe that God won't let you into Heaven because you copied a few movies. I think there are much bigger issues than that.

I know I'm not supposed to talk religion I was just making a point please don't hurt me.

Maybe I overstated the case a bit but I still believe that people with money are less likely to consider piracy because they don't need to. Whereas people with less may consider it on the basis of finance. Of course there are those that would and do do it just because they can.

The whole thing is foolish to debate, it's gonna happen anyway so I guess the studios are just gonna have to come up with something new.

I just feel that since this is a public forum that unless you are divulging secrets your opinion shouldn't be censored. How's that? Better.