Do Not Discuss the removal of Protected BD files here

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Matthew1987

Still, some of them aren't. And that's only NEW monitors. The vast, vast majority of monitors currently in use are NOT HDCP-compliant. This issue will not go away anytime soon.



Good point.

One of the most destructive tactics that companies have used with DRM is gradual change. 10 years ago, people would have been SHOCKED by what DRM is like today.

In February 2001, a very interesting article was published in Discover magazine. I remember very well when I read this article not long after it was published. This article was written by a person who is a computer scientist and a professional musician, and in it, he gives a thought experiment where he predicts what might happen over the next 15 years with DRM.

Here's the article:

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/feb/featnapster

It has now been almost 10 years since that article was published. It is very interesting to look back at it, because some of the things in his thought experiment have happened.

For example:



Something just like this has happened with video. HDCP, of course. In fact, 2004 was the exact year that the FCC approved HDCP.

Another thing about HDCP is that it is very anti-democratic. It gives a single company complete control over DRM with video.

This article illustrates the fundamental problem with using DRM against piracy: For it to be effective, we would have to abolish democracy.

All of this means that I have a few deeply felt ideas about Napster, the free software millions of people use to share their music collections over the Internet.

All I needed to read. Napster was not in any way "sharing". It was outright theft. Same with movie torrents. Not a difficult idea to grasp. Sharing is loaning a CD or DVD to a friend for a few days or weeks, then they return it.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Matthew1987

This article illustrates the fundamental problem with using DRM against piracy: For it to be effective, we would have to abolish democracy.

I do not want this thread to be turned into a political rant, this thread exist to inform forum members of the policies of Bluray.com. We currently live in a Democratic Republic - where not the people - but officals elected by the people make the laws. They should represent the views of the people they serve. Any political views - take them up with your Congressman/woman, until the laws change - the stance at Bluray.com is firm.

I've tolerated the constant rant about DRM - we get it. If you want to talk about DRM, start another thread in the General forum. However do not use this warning forum for the discussion of DRM - that is not the topic or pupose of this thread. This thread serves a warning to those who discusss ways of circumventing protection measures to rip BD's (which is currently illegal by the interpetation of the current law).

Any further discussion about DRM should be a new forum.

Prerich
Moderator

[PrivatePixel]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Why is it different to rip a DVD or BD to play on your iPad?

Simple: Apple (among other digital content providers), as well as the studios involved, will be losing a revenue source, however small it may be. As the rips from any media are digitally encoded, studios are concerned that the consumer may distribute such material through P2P networks, etc. (basically, they're worried that you may become involved with pirating movies). There's no way for them to distinguish the honest consumer from the unscrupulous ones, so the DRM blanket covers everyone.

[Matthew1987]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Napster was not in any way "sharing". It was outright theft. Same with movie torrents. Not a difficult idea to grasp. Sharing is loaning a CD or DVD to a friend for a few days or weeks, then they return it.

Good point. However, that doesn't mean that DRM will solve the problem, or that solving that problem is even the main purpose of DRM.

I've now discovered that soon after that article was published, a person wrote in a letter criticizing that article and the author responded. Perhaps I should have included that in my previous post. Here it is:

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/apr/letters

Originally Posted by PrivatePixel

Simple: Apple (among other digital content providers), as well as the studios involved, will be losing a revenue source, however small it may be. As the rips from any media are digitally encoded, studios are concerned that the consumer may distribute such material through P2P networks, etc. (basically, they're worried that you may become involved with pirating movies). There's no way for them to distinguish the honest consumer from the unscrupulous ones, so the DRM blanket covers everyone.

What I have to say in response to this is what I've said already in previous messages in this thread.

Originally Posted by prerich

I do not want this thread to be turned into a political rant, this thread exist to inform forum members of the policies of Bluray.com. We currently live in a Democratic Republic - where not the people - but officals elected by the people make the laws. They should represent the views of the people they serve. Any political views - take them up with your Congressman/woman, until the laws change - the stance at Bluray.com is firm.

I've tolerated the constant rant about DRM - we get it. If you want to talk about DRM, start another thread in the General forum. However do not use this warning forum for the discussion of DRM - that is not the topic or pupose of this thread. This thread serves a warning to those who discusss ways of circumventing protection measures to rip BD's (which is currently illegal by the interpetation of the current law).

Any further discussion about DRM should be a new forum.

Prerich
Moderator

Looks like it's time to move on to discussing something else...

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by PrivatePixel

Simple: Apple (among other digital content providers), as well as the studios involved, will be losing a revenue source, however small it may be. As the rips from any media are digitally encoded, studios are concerned that the consumer may distribute such material through P2P networks, etc. (basically, they're worried that you may become involved with pirating movies). There's no way for them to distinguish the honest consumer from the unscrupulous ones, so the DRM blanket covers everyone.

That's a self justifying argument.

I'm under no obligation to buy my media from any one source or any particular format. If I can copy my LP to a cassette to play in my car legally, I should be able to do the same with movies. If I am not breaking the law, I shouldn't be required to surrender my right because other people are.

[Mordir]

Originally Posted by bigshot

That's a self justifying argument.

I'm under no obligation to buy my media from any one source or any particular format. If I can copy my LP to a cassette to play in my car legally, I should be able to do the same with movies. If I am not breaking the law, I shouldn't be required to surrender my right because other people are.

You call his statement a self justifying argument and to support your stance provided a self justifying argument. You can't surrender what you don't have. The flaw in your line of thinking is you don't have the right you think you do.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Mordir

The flaw in your line of thinking is you don't have the right you think you do.

This is the root of the argument. According to the laws of this country, does someone who purchases a form of media have the right to use that media privately any way they see fit, or are they limited to only those ways as permitted by so-called "licensing" agreements?

I don't have an answer to that question. I do find it ridiculous to argue that one does have the right to the media, but not to remove the encryption preventing you from accessing it.

[bigshot]

The Betamax case found that individuals had the right to tape copyrighted programs off the air for their own personal use. Blurays and DVDs didn't exist back then, but the basic concept of the right to copy shouldn't change with format changes. If companies want to put a lock on a physical object they sell to me, I should have the right to unlock it and back it up once it's my property.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by bigshot

The Betamax case found that individuals had the right to tape copyrighted programs off the air for their own personal use. Blurays and DVDs didn't exist back then, but the basic concept of the right to copy shouldn't change with format changes. If companies want to put a lock on a physical object they sell to me, I should have the right to unlock it and back it up once it's my property.

That is where the "right" begins and ends. You can't take the right to basically time shift a viewing of a TV show, that you were "invited" to view for free, and translate it to another, completely different situation.