Space Shifting DVDs to Cost Extra? 361
Depending on who you listen to Steve Jobs has supposedly been pitching the idea of selling "premium" DVDs that would include an extra fee for the privilege of transferring your legally-purchased DVD to a different device. "The courts have held that "space-shifting" your CDs to a portable music device is a fair use. So you can legally import your CD collection to your iPod, or any other device, without paying a penny. But Steve Jobs apparently wants to charge you $4 for the privilege of doing the same with your DVDs."
Steve Jobs or the MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Luckily iTunes is not the only tool in town.
Re:No way... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that the issue is if Mr. Jobs wants to make money of Consumers the question is how.
DVDs are encrypted (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess if you don't like it, you shouldn't blame Jobs who's trying to exploit a commercial opportunity, but rather contact your lawmaker and explain in layman's terms why this is messed up.
But how much to watch on an AppleTV? (Score:4, Insightful)
They really need to make up their mind. Either they're selling us a license to their content (in which case the media should be irrelevant) OR they should be charging us for a physical product, in which case we can do whatever we want with that product including turning it into something we can use in ways they didn't expect.
If I buy some boards and a nails from Home Depot, they don't get a piece of the action if I try to sell the cabinet I made.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's do it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Charge me the extra $3-4 and leave off ALL DRM. That includes that macrovision crap and all of it. Don't require special software or hardware. Just don't put the DRM in place.
IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DVDs are encrypted (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly Steve ONLY makes money off you if you CAN rip your DVD to an iPod. So I suspect what he's saying is hey MPAA, if we pay you a small extra fee will you let us turn off your encryption so my customers can put your movies on my iPods?
A Non-Starter (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you Want to Pay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you could pay someone to figure it all for you (Buy purchasing commercial software that has a nice GUI)
Or you could watch DvDs on your TV and not your iPod.
Which of these things is worth less than the $4 it takes to Steve Jobs every time? For most people I'm thinking option 3 will be the only one. A smaller group might opt for the commercial software that does the same thing. Very few people will make the effort to get it all set up with open source tools or to wait the length of time it takes to reencode all the mpeg files. I think that most people (who don't read slashdot) will be happy to pay Steve Jobs the $4. I think Steve knows that, too.
"supposedly", "apparently" (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this might be a radical departure for Slashdot editors, but have you ever considered only linking to articles that have, I don't know, actual facts? Instead of rumor and innuendo to drive Apple bashing for Page Hits.
Also, did you hear that rumor about ScuttleMonkey? Supposedly he likes to have sex with washing machines. Apparently it's something he does quite a lot...
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Apple is able to pull in a few extra fees for developing and licensing the technology then good for them I suppose. They are in the business of selling hardware remember. I'm sure they would sell more hardware if there was an easy and legal way to transfer content from original media, but there is not and Apple is dealing with it in a way they are good at.
This is not how purchasing media should work (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But, you're missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is (apparently) offering to help. They would expect payment - natch.
Now with DVDs and Handbrake it is slightly different; i wouldn't pay $3 to $4 to save me the work of turning a DVD into h.264 format, but some people would. I would probably willingly pay some lesser amount. What people need to realize is that even though it is your right, it is still work.
Re:DVDs are encrypted (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I read it, what he's saying is "hey MPAA, if our mutual customers pay you a small extra fee will you re-encrypt your movies in an iPod-compatible format so our mutual customers can put the movies on their iPods, but not on other devices which may not be compatible (and which are not sold by Apple.)
The ideal situation for the consumer would be no DRM and no DMCA... too bad consumers (aka "we the people") don't have any influence in Washington or we wouldn't be in this situation.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that the issue is if Mr. Jobs wants to make money of Consumers the question is how.
The thing is, I don't think that Apple is going to make much money off of this. They traditionally don't make much on content.
I have to wonder if this isn't a way to advertise "ripping" your movies as a feature of their hardware. Remember that the original slogan for the iPod was something like "Rip, Mix, Burn" but they had to stop that lest they be accused of encouraging infringement. This way, it's all DMCA friendly.
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
I worry about this as a precedent. If we keep going down this route, eventually media purchases will be tied to a single device, using digital hardware IDs. I could see a day when you buy a movie, and only have "rights" to play it on one specific DVD player. You would have to provide the hardware ID of that DVD player at the time of purchase. It's no secret that content providers want you to repurchase the same movie a dozen times. One for home use, one for in your car, one for your portable player, one for your PSP, etc. DMCA makes this consumer nightmare possible.
Re:But, you're missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reality check? (Score:2, Insightful)
Get real folks. If Apple pulls another $4 out of your pocket of course they're taking a cut. What are we? School children?
And Poor Saint Jobs, forced by the big bad media companies into doing this? C'mon! Jobs sat down with them and together they cut a deal that will hopefully see both of them make bigger profits. It's highly unlikely that Jobs is giving away the farm with no benefit to Apple shareholders. To suggest otherwise is incredibly naïve.
Apple miscalculation (Score:3, Insightful)
There's just very little reason to buy video from Apple at this time. DVD players are overwhelmingly cheap, and DVDs are cheap and easy to buy OR RENT. Netflix, Blockbuster, Wal Mart, Target etc etc are all too happy to put DVDs in your hands. They are making loads of money on them, as are the studios, the only people not cashing in are the writers (see: WGA strike).
The primitive state of broadband means downloads are not pressuring the industry, there is piracy but it's just not like it was for music in the Napster days. At that time you could literally get virtually any song on your hard drive within a few minutes. For video, you need to figure out BitTorrent, then wait wait wait for the download. Or you need to set up iTunes and then wait wait wait for the download.
THEN you have to get your TV hooked up to your computer, and then tolerate visibly worse quality. This was not the case with MP3s, they sounded just as good as CDs to most people, despite the specs, and people already had headphones to plug in to their computers, or a miniplug to hook up to the stereo cost $5 at Radio Shack.
Amid this backdrop, Apple is trying to make a market for video downloads. But the effort is futile until broadband speeds get up closer to FTTP (fiber) levels. Even then, the studios probably won't hand Apple a new market to dominate like they did last time. Wired recently quoted one studio head who said he gave in to Jobs on iTunes because Jobs pointed out that Mac's 5 percent market share mitigated the risk -- if the studio's worst nightmares came true, the impact would still be minor. No one is going to be fooled this time around into thinking Jobs just wants to make an innocent little side service for Mac users. You can bet a Google or Netflix is going to get licensing parity (which did not happen with iTunes).
Re:No way... (Score:5, Insightful)
And Steve Jobs is on the Disney board of directors.
Re:But, you're missing something... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But how much to watch on an AppleTV? (Score:3, Insightful)
What does the AppleTV do that a tivo, xbox media center, or mythtv box couldn't do years ago?
Re:But, you're missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is (apparently) offering to help. They would expect payment - natch.
Generally I agree with you, although it's slightly more complicated than that because of the DMCA.
To use your 2nd amendment analogy (my thoughts on that subject being an entirely different story, but I'll go with it for the purposes of illustration), it would be like saying you have the right to bear arms, but then saying it's illegal to actually open the box that the weapon comes in because the copyright is owned by the box maker and they don't want you opening it. So then Apple comes in and says they have a legal box-opener that's sanctioned by the box maker, and only they can sell it to you.
That would be pretty ridiculous, right? You can buy the weapon, you can legally use it, but you have to buy the means to open the package separately from some third party? That's what's going on here.
I do agree completely that those offering a service should be compensated for it. I just bought an "MVI" DVD, for example, that includes the band in question's full audio CD, plus pre-ripped mp3's of the entire CD (and yes, real mp3's, on a Warner Music disc), plus 5 bonus tracks, plus about seven videos, plus extra junk like wallpaper, buddy icons, etc. I paid $2 extra over the standard audio CD for all that and I was happy to do it. I probably would have paid $2 extra just for the officially-ripped mp3's by themselves (only because I figure they've gotta have some better quality system to do it with than my LAME... although I'm probably wrong). Point being, it's an extra thing that I don't have to do, and I'm pretty tech savvy - I could do it myself pretty easily - but a lot of people couldn't, they don't even know how to import a CD in iTunes. So for them, they're paying for something that they wouldn't otherwise have at all.
But to pay for the right to do something that you otherwise should have anyway is the problem here.
Won't be an issue (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say all this has led to people wanting quantities of music and not quality music. In past when everyone paid for music you listened hard to who you were going to spend your money on. Record companies had to try their best to put out good music so get your money. Now a days people just want to say "I have 10,000 downloads of stuff". How much of that do you actually listen to versus just occupies space on a hard drive and is all that really stuff worth listening to??? I only bring this up because the war between the downloaders and RIAA has many bad side effects and a boatload of crap music is one of those side effects.
No thanks (Score:2, Insightful)
No thanks. You can keep your offer and I can keep my "extra fee". I'll just decrypt my DVD myself thankyouverymuch.
That is, I would... if I ever.... you know... bought a DVD in the first place. EVER. The fact that I don't own any DVDs might have something to do with the fact that.... you know... being annoyed that I would have to bother decrypting my DVD for it to be legitimate and properly usable.
I've never needed to decrypt a VCR tape. I've never needed to decrypt cd. I've never needed to decrypt an audio cassette tape. I've never needed to decrypt a goddamn book or anything else. I don't think it's exactly me being the one doing something new and bizarre and unreasonable here. Someone wants to sell me encrypted crap? And after I bought it, they expect me not to decrypt it?
Fuck. That.
Fuck. You.
Not. One. Mother. Fucking. Dollar.
And if for some reason I do buy something from you, I'm fucking decrypting it.
Want to imprison me under the DMCA? Well that would be interesting. And novel.
After a decade of the DMCA, I would be the first person convicted under it. Ever.
I offer a compromise. Yeah I know my suggestion is is a bit.... EXTREMIST here... but heay, just for shits and giggles I'm going to make my extremist suggestion anyway. And my radical extremist suggestion is... how about good old traditional copyright law. How about we don't criminalize noninfringing people. You know... good old copyright law before the DMCA crap criminalizing innocent noninfringing people, before the DMCA crap criminalizing legitimate valuable noninfringing products.
Yeah, I know. That makes me freak. It makes me an anarchist. It means I want to destroy everything and let people run around murdering and raping each other in the streets. Because I suggested good old traditional copyright law like we've had for over 200 years. I know, extremist and insane. My bad here.
I must repent my radical sins. I'll run out immediately and mail the movie studios each a big fat check... to make up for all of the DVD's that I never ever ever bought from them. I've been such a monster... it's so bad that I've completely lost count of how many DVD's I didn't buy.
-
Re:But how much to watch on an AppleTV? (Score:2, Insightful)
AppleTV is XBMC/MythTV for people who have lives and don't want to learn anything, just have it work.
For the record: I have XBMC and LOVE IT TO DEATH!! I have no life, this post is not flamebait.
Why Should We Have to "Buy" Back Our Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, it may be the case that through DRM they have made it difficult to exercise my rights without paying them (i.e. I have to break the DRM to enable my rights), but that brings up another problem with DRM and specifically the DMCA. It is unlawful (technically) to break the DRM (aka access protection mechanism) even if I break it for the purpose of re-enabling my rights to time or format shift or for fair use. As the law is currently written it is unlawful to break the DRM no matter what the intent and that is wrong. The DMCA needs to be changed so that safe harbors for breaking the access protection mechanism are created when the consumer is re-enabling RIGHTS that the creator or owner has seized improperly via DRM (aka the access protection mechanism).
Re:Let's do it! (Score:3, Insightful)
They're striating the market. They want to raise prices on content, but they don't want to look like they're raising prices on content. This way, the DRM crap will become a discount version--a reduced set of rights for a lower cost. The "premium" DVD will now act essentially as a VHS tape or a DVD without encryption or an audio CD.
The format changes and the license changes over time. The problem with equitable use arguments is that it presumes all media purchases are created equal. They're not. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a restriction on them selling something less to you for a lower price, which is exactly what they did when they entered the digital marketplace.
With this two-version setup, they've essentially embraced the shareware model of business. Yeah, that's basically a dinosaur too, but at least they're moving into the 1990s. Change doesn't come easily. This is something of a positive step. Just a few dozen more to go.
Re:No way... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No way... (Score:3, Insightful)
In a Low Def format, they'd look great on mobile devices, and be about as good as iTunes downloads, perhaps better. In other words, near-DVD quality. That doesn't mean VHS, it means about as good as most users get from DVD. While DVD offers 5.1 audio and a nominally higher resolution that maxes out the spec for SDTV, most users play DVDs using crappy standalone players with composite inputs and get a less than optimal experience.
In other words, a Low Def version would be as good as most users get from DVD, with fewer restrictions. It could be as good or better than DIVX rips. The problem with DVDs (or HD discs) is that riping a DVD takes much longer than ripping a CD, and actually transcoding it into something mobile-friendly MPEG-4/H.264 (similar to ripping a CD to MP3) literally takes hours. Consumers can't be expected to do that.
Putting a mobile version on disc would increase the demand for new HD discs and make them more broadly useful to users. It would not tie them to iTunes or the video iPods, because Apple's FairPlay is not compatible with mass market distribution on disc. It only works when downloading from a server within iTunes.
So all the conspiracy theories aside, Apple is trying to make HD discs useful by adding a rippible Low Def version. Clearly, Apple thinks it will benefit from a market with more available, useful content, but this would also benefit FOSS users and the market as a whole, and would push non-DRM, open formats rather than proprietary formats and online DRM.
The alternative is for Apple to sell this content itself via iTunes, with DRM.
Why Low Def is the New HD [roughlydrafted.com]
The video industry is heavily promoting HDTV as the biggest new thing since color. While it's uncontroversial that HDTV can deliver an exceptional picture for users of the latest large flat screen displays, sometimes a high pitched marketing message can drown out more interesting realities. In 2008, it appears that low definition video will actually have a bigger impact on consumers; Apple's strategies in video take that potential into consideration. Here's why Low Def is big and getting bigger--and why it's bigger than HD.
Re:No way... (Score:2, Insightful)
Quite the contrary, I think we'll soon see the age of very cheap, DRM-free content. It's approaching, now. You'll see.
I just wish it hadn't taken the dumb bastards a decade+ to start figuring it out.
Re:No way... (Score:1, Insightful)
And Steve Jobs is on the Disney board of directors.
And this is not a conflict of interests... how?
Being on the board of directors of a company that makes money off of movies is a conflict of interests? Are you even trying to make sense?
Not to mention that this whole story is bunk, so you fit right in.Re:No way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed it does, but that isn't all THAT terrible. There is software available that will unscramble and recode a DVD, the DMCA notwithstanding. Just set the computer up in the evening and by morning the job is done, while you sleep.
The DMCA is the prohibition of the 21st century. Just like in the 1920s, people could get their booze, so today, people can get their entertainment on whatever devices and formats they want. When enough of the population clamored for the end of prohibition, it was ended. So too it will eventually be with the digital prohibition. Meanwhile, you will just have to go to the digital equivalent of a "speakeasy" somewhere out in the dark alleys of the internet and get the digital "stuff" you desire.
Digital prohibition is even more futile than forbidding alcohol, even drugs and guns. It is impossible to keep people from getting what they REALLY want. Rather than buying useless laws from politicians, content providers should use that cash to develop ways to provide their goods in a convenient, economical manner for their customers. Meanwhile it is making a lot of money for the "pirates". This money could be going to the legitimate producers if these had even half a brain.
For Apple, this is about hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
This is probably the only way they can get the content providers to agree: Show them the money carrot. Make it legal for your customers to move movies to different media, and you'll get money. I think it's not so bad; everyone wins: