Only one copy scheme I know of (321 Studios) put a notice on copies that stated it was a copy for archival purposes. I don't agree with illegal copying. Legitimate back up copying should be allowed, though. I used 321's software while my disabled son was in the home as he would without fail damage DVD's so that they were unusable. I haven't copied any DVD's since he was placed in a group home as I am very careful with them. However, legitimate needs exist for copying of media that people own and will not be re-distributing to anyone else. Why doesn't the industry simply focus it's attention on this. All of my older software used to have a built in allowance for making one back up copy. I know that can't be done with static media, but why not develop something that will allows back up copies but indicates that they are not the original. They certainly could not be distributed as originals and isn't that the issue here - redistribution of content without remuneration for it? And you individuals out there who are complaining about the cost of the original DVD's. It isn't the cost of the media, but the costs of producing these movies in the first place that you are paying for. Older content (check WalMart) IS as cheap as you are saying it ought to be.

thepeggasus By older content do you mean older movies or something that has been on DVD for a while?

Latest releases should be no more than $15 for the typical release and I'd allow up to $25 for something that is a genuine special collector's edition. And I don't mean those padded releases that contain basically advertising junk like those First Looks and Behind the Scenes things where everyone fawns over each other, lies about how much fun it was to make the movie and how great all their co-workers were.

The cost of DVD has nothing to do with the cost of making a movie. And even if it did that's not my problem, the studios should stop wasting insane amounts of money on silly special effects and try something novel like maybe getting decent scripts. There is also no reason to be paying actors 10s of millions of dollars. Give them a percentage - movie tanks they don't get wads of cash.

They face a single insurmountable problem. The same one they faced with the failed attempt at CD copy prevention. If the disc can be read by any device, then it can be copied. If my CD player can manage to convert the bits on the disc into audio, then my CD-ROM can rip those bits. I don't expect this thing to do much to stop copying. And the professional counterfeiters, who are the only ones actually stealing from the movie industry, will continue on their merry way making exact duplicates of the originals.

As with CDs though this new hack will probably create massive compatibility problems so the safest bet will be to simply spend your money on something else. I have hundreds of CDs and DVDs - my CD collection has essentially stopped growing since I refuse to give anymore money to the RIAA thieves; looks like the movie industry would like me to stop buying their products too.

As my computer does not have any 'Digital' inputs for Video and Audio I use a 3.5mm stereo converter to my DVD Player and just an analog Video cable to the video input card. With this new protection, will I still be able to watch DVDs on my DVD Player through my graphics card? That is, on a standard Pioneer External DVD Player (not an external computer drive).

Tell them they can't have it.

The minute it hits dvd's, anydvd will have an upgrade ready. I do not buy dvd's because of their price. I would buy them for $8 to $10 a pop however.
Nice try MV!

future news report:

"and in other news, the new RipGuard DVD protection schema is defeated with one swift update to the popular DVD replication program DVD Decrypter. The MPAA has now introduced legistlation to outlaw distribution of the product due to its ability to flawlessly bypass the security protection months after being introdued onto the market"

DVD X Copy anyone? ;)

This is probably the dumbest waste of money ever.

In another related article they stated "it defeated" get this... ** "97%" ** "of the software on the market"

Think about that for a second...
97% isn't good enough.

The working 3% will proliferate within days of the first DVD, are these people that stupid?

DVD copy protection really is pretty lousy today, but c'mon, is it worth the money spent on this garbage? I once read a programming book a long time ago that mentions 10 major laws of software (in context to marketing or creating). The author mentioned that the last point is extremely important so he boldfaced the text and enlarged to 36-point text size (which I cannot do on the betanews web site) with the following text:

EVERYTHING CAN BE COPIED.

It was true then (about 1994) and it is certainly true today. Get over it, and quit wasting time and money on this 'protection' that is only effective for about the first two weeks after deployment!

and lower the cost of DVDs. If the movie studio's (and music studios & game manufacterer's) didn't waste BILLIONS of dollars on trying to protect something that CAN'T be protected, and instead lowered the cost of their products, they'd generate many more sales.

These increased sales, even with the lower cost, would generate increased revenue for them. For those of you that will argue this point, it's a proven principle of economics that lower prices will result in increased sales. If we make the assumption that the manufacturer ceases spending vast amounts of money on copy protection (that in the end never works anyway) and lowers their prices they WILL reap larger revenues than if they spent the money on copy protection and charged higher prices.

I pose the question, if a popular movie comes out on DVD for $8 or $10 instead of $18 or $20, how many more people would purchase it? If 10 million copies are sold at $20 ($200 million in sales), 30 million would be sold at $10 ($300 million in sales) because:

1) More people could afford it

2) They wouldn't feel like they were getting robbed and being forced to say thank you to the thief.

Agreed - If the media costed say $3 or $4 more than a blank DVD/CD - there wouldn't be much of an incentive to waste time on ripping and downloading the media and spending the money on blank dvds/cds. If you had enough time and bandwidth, you may still want to download just to see if you like it, or "test drive it" so to say.

Agreed. I started to feel robbed when I wanted to sell back the DVD I bought (about 100). Nobody wanted it. I got 10 quid (pounds) for start trek DS9 1st season (80£ new). Since (3 yeras ago) I have buy only 10, the one which deserve it in my mind (the one I want to see again twice and more). If it would cost the price of a paper back book I should purchase more.

Another thing they can do to boost sales would be spending less time dealing with piracy and start making some movies we might want to see. If they made less movies like alone In The Dark I might still want to buy movies.

They are right that the internet is destroying the movie industry but it has nothing to do with piracy. It is a great tool to get a heads up before wasiting our money to see there bad movies ;)

Yeah, I expect downloading would be limited to the truely poor or those who want to test drive. I have notice dowloading books as ebooks to read a few chapters before buying it has become popular. And most of the people I know who have done this have either bought the book the next day or not bothered reading it..

Face it, the types that download movies are not the types that are going to purchase the DVDs if they were a few dollars cheaper. It's not in their nature to buy ANYTHING if it can be downloaded for free.

It can be said that higher prices can be attributed to theft in all aspects of commercial products. Software prices are higher due to piracy. Clothing prices are higher because of shoplifting (a 2002 report shows shoplifting cost retailers $31 billion).

Macrovision is spending the money here, not the companies that author and replicate DVDs. If their per-unit royalties go up, it's probably pennies, and does not mean that you are going to pay a lot more for the DVD.

So don't make it sound like the technologies that Macrovision is working on is going to affect how much you pay for the DVDs. Downloading the DVDs will cost consumers more in the end than added copy protection.

Correction jaffo 818...Copying any type of media is NOT free...Think about the cost of the blank media,cost of some kind of printing on said media..time and resources used...Plus some kind of storage.The real tightwads like me borrow them from mates,originals not copies.

I never mentioned anything about costs of burning DVDs of the downloaded movies. You make it sound like after all is said and done, the freeloaders are spending quite a bit of money.

What in the world does this have to do with the argument I presented?

You do have a point--sadley I believe profits are high for the movie industry BECAUSE of the price. They may be hard-headed, but when it comes to making money, the movie industry isn't stupid--they charge $20 for the DVD because it makes them the most money.

so macrovision spends the money on the new copy protection and abc company wants to use this new copy protection that macrovision created. They have to PAY for the ability to use it so yes it is costing the companies money on this.

I download and try the game or read the first couple of chapters of a book cause if it sucks I am not going to waste anymore time or money on it that I already have. The same goes for a movie that I want to buy or see. I own over 300 dvds and I have prolly downloaded most of them to see if I liked the damn thing.

Lets face it, everything is getting way out of hand on prices for a product. I would be apt to buy more dvds than I already do if they were infact half the price they are now. I would glady do the same with games I somewhat like, but paying 40-60 bucks for a game that I may get 4 hours of playtime out of cause it is not that great makes me very jilted against going out and buying another game. Demos are a waste of time most times cause they limit what you can actually do on it and not test them out to there fullest potential. When I go test drive a car the sales guy just doesn't give me two tires and a rim to test out on.

So to make this rant end, if they are so worried about piracy, just lower the price make a product the public actually wants to spend money on, figure in the few scumbags that wants to ruin it for the rest of us and sell it.

Most people these days cant code themselves out of a ppaperbag or direct a movie worth a damn, so I dont figure they will start tomorrow either.

The argument you presented jaffo was that no matter what price the DVD`s were sold for,the guys copying them would not pay,they want them for free...My point was that to copy a DVD there is still some cost involved,ok.I do not support piracy But I do think the Movie tycoons are money hungry.

How many of us have picked up a DVD in the "Bargain Bin" for $5 that we wouldn't pay $20 for? I know I have. I recently picked up copies of Hot Shots & Hot Shots: Part Deux for $5 each. I know, I know, stupid movies. I happen to think they're quite funny, but I wouldn't pay $20 for them. I did however willing shell out $5 each for them.

When movies are priced @ $5 or $10 each, you're correct that it would cost more to buy the blank media and download/copy them so what would be the point, but when the movies are priced correctly to begin with, it's worth buying the original copies.

No they're not the types to buy movies even if you did prevent them from downloading. Therefore they do not represent any lost revenue for the movie industry. Most of them also don't really care about quality and most are just hoarders.

Alleged piracy of software has little to do with what it costs. The alleged losses of the industry are based on the same fallacious argument used by the entertainment industry, that every illegal copy is a lost sale. That is obviously nonsense. Software is just pretty expensive to make. Some like Microsoft have a 1000% markup on their software.

Macrovision's products, although worthless as anti-copying measures, are expensive to license and will add to the consumer cost of products.

So downloaded movies cost the industry nothing, but media campaigns, law suits and useless anti-copying measures cost a lot.

If they sell their products at lower prices impulse purchases will go up dramatically and their profits will increase. Of course it is a little pathetic for an industry that already makes billions in profits every year to be whining about their profits.