RSSDRM Debate Resumes Over 'Managed Copy' for Blu-Ray, HD DVD
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published May 24, 2007, 10:53 AM
A full three years after the idea for it was first raised, and well over a year since the first generation of high-definition DVD players was supposed to have included it, the debate over both the meaning and implementation of mandatory managed copy (MMC) for the final 1.0 version of the AACS copy protection scheme has been re-ignited.
As IDG correspondent Jeremy Kirk first reported for InfoWorld early this morning, representatives of the AACS Licensing Authority and essentially all the major US movie studios may be finally close to an agreement on MMC, though AACS LA Chairman Michael Ayers did not reveal what that agreement may entail, and which side may have compromised the most.
The idea of managed copy is to enable an HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc write-enabled player connected to the Internet to make a limited number of backup copies of legally purchased discs per customer. As the system has been outlined before, movie studios would operate online sites called clearing houses, which would review the customer's records, determine whether she's entitled to a backup, and authorize or decline the transaction - thus triggering the player's response to its user.
Managed copy is a controversial idea among customers because of all the technologies it would entail: First, it assumes clearing houses keep records of their clients, in order to permanently limit the number of backup copies a client can produce. Second, it assumes player consoles have permanent connections to the Internet, perhaps using dedicated, registered DNS names - so not only do clearing houses keep track of clients but of players as well. Third, the system could place the content producer in the role of mediator, which may have serious legal implications especially if studios wish to charge extra for backups.
Antitrust laws passed in the 1960s prohibit studios from unfairly profiting from their productions in a way that may stifle free-market competition. Such laws forced studios then to sell off their interest in theater chains, as well as vice versa, in the famous case of Loews' spinning off its interest in MGM. The validity of such laws with regard to whether studios can engage in distributing -- or even selling, as some studios may reportedly still prefer -- backups online, may be challenged.
Further, the possibility exists that clearing houses may become "preferred" online sites for all kinds of content distribution - preferred, that is, by the AACS-endowed players that would contact these sites first in order to maintain copy protection, in so doing, possibly upstaging others who may see managed copy as a new opportunity for an open market in movie download sales.
Reports from the AACS LA that a deal on MMC may at last be at hand, have circulated practically since negotiations for the final specification first began several years ago. BetaNews has not seen evidence from outside sources corroborating the AACS LA's statement this morning.
Yet another perennial sticking point among the key players in the negotiation, including both studios and manufacturers, has been the meaning of the first "M." Sure, it stands for "mandatory," but whose mandate are we referring to?
Manufacturers of consoles contend it means giving console owners a guarantee that they'll be able to make at least one copy of discs they purchase. Studios, meanwhile, counter that it means the mandate that the content owner will have first right of acceptance or refusal over whether a customer can make a backup.
And over the years, whenever a publication prints either definition for MMC but not both, it gets flooded with urgent requests for corrections from the side that definition did not favor.
But part of Ayers' statement this morning revealed that a compromise may be in order, involving customers pre-purchasing backups when they buy the original discs, wherever they buy them. For example, a backup-preventative "Spider-Man 3" may sell for $49, while a one-backup version sells for $54 and a three-backup for $59.
This would give retailers an olive branch, putting them back in the business of selling supplemental content. At the same time, it leaves consoles connected to the Internet so that customers can, in one likely scenario, redeem their pre-purchased backup coupons from clearing houses.
BetaNews has contacted the AACS LA for further comment on this issue, which may be forthcoming.
F the AACS...I am legally allowed to make a backup copy for FREE of any movie I own for personal use. I'm just not allowed to break the protection, which is in the DMCA, which I say F to that as well. As far as I'm concerned, until both formats are completely hacked, stay away. They are hacked as of now, but obviously there are some things that need to be done to hack them, not as easy as CSS. But once it becomes super easy to hack them, just laugh at the MPAA and their ridiculous prices for "pre-bought backups".
Score: 0
|So much angst and indignation over the formats... ;-))
All I can say is that they are going to have to get ALLOT of stuff ironed out before I buy any of the HD formats... so All of the hand wringing at this point is just noise.
Score: 0
|The following quote is from another article on this topic over at ars technica and is important to the discussion:
[Back before either HD DVD or Blu-ray launched, there was a war of words between the two camps over the feature. The dividing line between them is that the HD DVD folks *require* all studios to support managed copy (so-called "mandatory" managed copy), while the Blu-ray camp doesn't. Required or not, studios have the option of charging for any and all managed copy use, so it is not the case that HD DVD will offer free managed copy on every disc.]
http://arstechnica.com/n...ng-later-this-year.html
In general, I'm not opposed to an online registry keeping track of backups I've made. I've long thought the registration of CD/DVD burners to the owner, much like the registration of an automobile, would go a long way towards slowing down CD/DVD piracy, especially if each burner wrote its serial# to each disc at the beginning of the burn process.
What I am opposed to is this online registry being owned/controlled by the media publishers. I would be much more inclined to trust an independent third party, especially if there is more than one so there is competition for the consumer's business. I think the bank metaphor works quite well here (thanks deminicus!); if you don't like how your "content bank" is treating you, then you can pull your assets and move them to a competitor, much like rolling over an IRA.
Score: 0
|Copyright is supposed to protect creators from the frenzy of the free market, but only for a little while. Interfering with the free market is onerous and distasteful. It's hard for some to understand why even this exception is a good thing.
How we get from protection against market forces to controlling what individuals do in the privacy of their own home with their own property is hard for me to understand.
Interfering with the free market is a bitter pill, but interfering with me on my property will get you shot.
Score: 0
|Good thing they aren't messing with your property then, eh?
Thing is, as I am sure you understand, you don't own the content on the Disc you bought. That little copyright symbol on it means you are only buying the right to view it/listen to it privately.
I agree that they shouldn't mess with that content, you've purchased the license to possess it in the form you bought it. An example would be making the discs writable in a certain way so that they could at some point disable it.
I also agree that Copyright is being used in ways other than or over and above how it was intended. Through extensions, transfers, and so on, these things are lasting *much* longer than they should. Copyright on a book written 50 years ago? On a song produced by someone who dies 20 years ago? That's ridiculous.
Copyright exists for a good reason, but has lately been extended and expanded beyond that purpose. I have said in the past that we need to limit terms and kill transfers of copyright, and I stand by that still.
Score: 0
|If you sell it to me it's mine and I will do with it as I please. This is fundemental property rights.
You can't sell a thing and then expect to retain control over it. At least not without a signed contract.
Score: 0
|That's a very nice 19th century view of property you've got there.
Unfortunately, times change and there was no accounting for digital content back then.
Welcome to the 21st century. Content is owned (the property of) the Copyright Holder, not the bloke who buys the CD at the store. All you are buying is the right to view it.
If you sell it to me it's mine and I will do with it as I please.
They sold you the right to view it, and you're right, that right is yours. You can view it however you wish. You can squint at it, use only one eye, blink *really* fast, whatever. It's your to view as you please. They did *not* however, sell you the right to do anything else with it.
You aren't buying property. You're buying a license to view the content on the media. Kind of why your whole "property" argument breaks down.
Your buying rights, not physical goods (aka property).
Score: 0
|Horseraddish! You own what you buy. If you want to attach restrictions you need a signed contract.
Score: 0
|And another thing. Nobody owns content. You might own a copyright that gives you the privilege of a limited monopoly for a limited time, but that is not the content.
Art, literature, math, and science are part of our culture; they belong to all of us. And because we want to encourage the growth and development of our knowlege and culture WE grant limited monopoly rights. WE do not grant ownership of our culture.
Score: 0
|lmao...
See that copyright symbol?
There's your contract. Signed into law by the United States of America.
Don't understand what it means? Back to school with ya, then. It's a simple concept.
Score: 0
|Bwahahahahaaaa....
Information wants to be FREE!!!
Content wants to be FREE!!!!
Commie. :p
Score: 0
|Has anyone here ACTUALLY read a Software agreement? Because buying a Movie on DVD or a Game anymore is all you are buying is "Software".
For the most part, software agreements essentially says that you did not buy anything, the fee that you paid at the store is more or less to RENT our products. If at any point and time you violate the agreements of the product, we (Movie / Software Maker) can come and take it back.
Bottom line with them is weather you are a Movie buff with 400 DVDs or a PC Analyst with hundreds of pieces of legit software, all in all, none of it is yours.
Score: 0
|"Bottom line with them is weather you are a Movie buff with 400 DVDs or a PC Analyst with hundreds of pieces of legit software, all in all, none of it is yours."
- Which is why the general buying public take one look at that kind of hidden & dishonest legalese nonsense and say loud & clear
'go f*ck yourself'
and just ignore them.
You are absolutely right tho, business wants mechanisms which remove ownership from the consumer so as to turn us into on-going renters (ideally paying per view/use) and the consumer does not want that.
If we are to believe our capitalist dogma then ultimately the market will always win out and the corporations pushing this 'bought law' with their 'bought Gov' are on to an expensive, if drawn out, looser.
Score: 0
|They can whirl in circles all they like but if no-one is obeying a stupid & unworkable law then they have got to respond to what the consumer wants, there's no point threatening & trying to preach to the public when they are decidedly never going to listen to the obvious message (of sheer bloody minded greed).
Once a law loses the general support and consent of the people it really is pointless trying to defy the inevitable & prop it up with ever-harsher measures.
'Intellectual property' is not just the same as a physical 'good' and in the digital realm you do not have the same kinds of control as in the physical world, there's no point trying to pretend otherwise.
.....and hellish nightmare worlds of vast registers & data banks to check if you're 'entitled' to copy or not are never going to work either.
LMAO, who'd a thunk it?
The corporations go up their own a*ses to mimic anyone's worst nightmares of any imaginable totalitarian regime (& with all the benefits of digital technology).
Way to go guys.
No wonder you can't get the people to go along with your bright ideas.
Either the 'industry' start responding to what people (obviously) want, the way they want it, or the people will continue to go elsewhere.
Simple as that.
Personally (with a handful of - thankfully growing - exceptions) I reckon there are too many dinosaurs that are too stupid to get the message & who will continue to try to use the law until they go bust or their share-holders pull the rug on them for the whole extremely costly mess they are helping to create.
I wonder when the shareholders & bankers who funded the laughable fiasco that is AACS are going to start asking questions about the fortune they shelled......and for what?
Score: 0
|wtf? what if your copy gets fuked up?!!
Score: 0
|Then you too are......well, you get the picture.
Score: 0
|can't beleive in these things, so what happens if your first backup copy fails to write properly?
Score: 0
|Score: 0
|I wouldn't go near this HD crap for no amount of money. It's a total waste. All you're doing is renting media until the next format rollout. And they wonder why piracy will erode their profits until they actually have to work for a living.
Score: 0
|I got a better acronym than MCC, it's LEASH. I don't know what it stands for, but what the idea basically puts you on a leash, a short one at that. It's just another trick by Hollywood to squeeze more money out of you, while at the same time keeping tight control over what you do with the content you purchase. "We don't trust you. So we'll charge you extra for the technology that makes sure you don't make more copies than we allow. It's for your own good. Now let's go buy the guy who came up with the idea a solid gold car!" :)
Score: 0
|i may be wrong, but when you buy dvd, you technically buy rights to the content. The physical disk is just a way to convey the content. I wish as the net grows I will be able login to my "content bank" and play whatever just as easily as checking my gmail
Score: 0
|You buy the rights to view the content on the media privately.
You are not buying the rights to transfer, transform, or distribute that content. If you were to buy those rights, the movie would cost you well over several million dollars.
Score: 0
|And once again, someone totally misses the whole point, in favor of his own agenda.
Score: 0
|...and once again, Zaine Ridling cannot bring himself to post anything more than a lame-ass insult.
What point would that be, jackass? Or are you just pretending you're 3 again?
Score: 0
|Tool, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but he didn't insult you. You took it as such.
He simply pointed out his opinion that "you missed the point in favor of your own agenda". (Whatever agenda that is...)
You, on the other hand, did insult him without cause.
Dude, grow a thicker skin. People aren't always going to agree with you.
Score: 0
|You're wrong. You *obviously* have an agenda.
See how that works? That's not insulting, eh?
If you think he was being genuine, you apparently don't know him very well.
Why even involve himself at this point if his intention is something other than "You're wrong"? What's the point? If you're going to tell someone their wrong, at least have the decency to explain why you think so. Anyone who actually *had* a point to make would have further explained what they thought the point was (from their perspective). He didn't. Trolls never do.
{EDIT: Besides, even that would have been fine, had it not been that I wasn't posting an opinion. The post he replied to was stating facts about Copyright Law that anyone who even deals with the issue in passing know as such.}
Score: 0
|You got me...
My agenda is the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated.
You found me out man... :) Lighten up, I was just interjecting because I felt you were a bit harsh on the guy. You're a smart man, don't stoop to name calling, cause we're better than that...
Although I do agree, if he said you didn't "get it" then at least quantify the reasons why he feels that way.
Score: 0
|The Golden Rule is great.
I suppose that means I should simply forget that he exists, but that's not an easy thing to do when he is constantly getting his "stupid" on in every thread or topic that threatens his entitled world-view.
Score: 0
|according to the US Copyright law, when I buy something like a movie or music, I am legally entitled to make a personal backup of it. So actually it wouldn't cost several million dollars, just what ever the price of the movie of CD is.
Score: 0
|according to the US Copyright law, when I buy something like a movie or music, I am legally entitled to make a personal backup of it.
Show me.
I'm 100% serious. Show me where in the Copyright Act it says *anything* at all about backups.
Of course, you can't. Why?
Because it doesn't mention backups. Period.
Backups have, in the past, been allowed by judges interpretations of the Fair Use doctrine. It is not specifically guaranteed in any way other than precedent.
...but that really wasn't what I was talking about. I have issue with backups. My response was to the poster above who claimed the content was *his* once he bought the CD, which is absolutely false.
Score: 0
|I got a better idea. How about I buy a movie or video game and make as many backups as I choose, on the type of media I choose, whether the movie studios and video game manufacturers like it or not. Sound good?
Score: 0
|Sounds great.
Well, minus the multiple copies and multiple formats. (At that point it no longer qualifies as a copy for archival purposes, but for alternate or concurrent use, which is not protected even by the wildest interpretations of the Fair Use doctrine.
But hey...it sounds good.
Score: 0
|So you're saying, if I have Spiderman 2 on DVD and my daughter wants to watch it in the living room with her boyfriend, while my son wants to watch it alone in his room at the same time, my choices are a) buy a second copy, b) have one of the parties wait until the other party is done watching the movie? Otherwise I'm violating Fair Use? By show of hands, let's see all of you who would do a) or b) rather than just making a second copy. Yeah, I don't see many hands going up. :)
Score: 0
|my choices are a) buy a second copy, b) have one of the parties wait until the other party is done watching the movie? Otherwise I'm violating Fair Use?
No. You're violating copyright. The Fair use doctrine is merely a set of standards within the Copyright Act that judges can use to determine whether a specific act of infringement should be allowed.
Technically, if you need to play the content on more than one device at a time, you should have a separate purchased copy for each instance. It's the same with most software as well.
By show of hands, let's see all of you who would do a) or b) rather than just making a second copy. Yeah, I don't see many hands going up. :)
This proves nothing regarding the legality of the issue. The lack of hands would show nothing more than the woefully lacking understanding of Copyright and the rights of the content producers that exists in the general public.
That said, I still think this measure above is a prime reason to avoid either of the new formats. There shouldn't be a charge (or a hassle) for honest backups. The idea is patently offensive to consumer rights and free-market.
Score: 0
|Well this is how the movie schmucks see it....Want to watch on more than one tv, buy another copy. If it scratched cry me a river on your way to buy a new copy. The first issue, never really had a problem but the second...well...I paid for the right to use it once, I'm not paying for it again just because they made a crap medium that is easily damaged.
Score: 0
|Here's the #1 reason to stick with DVD folks, and why I am hoping both formats fail miserably.
Charging for backups? Perhaps if they did the backup for you on their property with their equipment, but for home use?
No thanks.
Score: 0
|Can you say ridiculous?
Score: 0
|Wait, what? 50 dollars to buy a movie? Haha right.
Score: 0
|50 is normal for DVD in japan, but maybe its just cultural
Score: 0
|It must be. I live in Canada and most new DVD releases sell for $20-30 CDN here. Anything higher and nobody will touch it. By the way, $30 CDN = 27.68 USD = 20.58 EUR.
Score: 0
|Yea, but I'll buy mine for less than a dollar from China, thank you. Got a buddy who goes over there on business several times a year and brings home suitcases full of software and movies that cost him less than $100 (most expensive one is a $1).
Go Chinese go! Rip, burn, and slash those profits, baby!!
Score: 0
|This is exactly why the movie studios screw the common customer... idiots like zridling that don't seem to understand what their actions force these lame movie studios to do...
I'll never understand the stupidity of some people.
Score: 0
|To everyone who hates having to put up with the activation process on MS, EA, and Blizzard products and all of the other ways DRM likes to show its ugly head; we have people like zridling to thank.
I have been to several talks given by high level MS managers, and every time the activation question has been brought up the response each time has been that this form of DRM was included to prevent the mass pirating occurring in the eastern communist (read extreme socialist; there has yet to be a truly communist state but that is a discussion for another forum) block countries, and that others are following suit for the same reason.
THANK YOU ZRIDLING, for helping make the job of supporting this activation required software all that more "enjoyable".
Score: 0
|