5 ms·

Movies are probably the most easily justifiable for DRM. They aren't the sorts of 'products' that people watch over and over again (unless they get a cult follo

by sudomal 13y ago

Movies are probably the most easily justifiable for DRM. They aren't the sorts of 'products' that people watch over and over again (unless they get a cult following). A single viewing of a movie reduces the value to a point where it may not be purchased. That's why distributors release them in as many stunted, protected, phases as possible - they want a return on their investment before it becomes relatively worthless.

DanBC 13y ago
> Movies are probably the most easily justifiable for DRM. They aren't the sorts of 'products' that people watch over and over again (unless they get a cult following). Children watch movies VERY MANY TIMES. They also manage to destroy the physical media. I'm not sure what the law is about making a backup of the disc (is backup exempted, or am I circumventing an effective copyright measure?) but morally I think it's okay to make a back up of a DVD. Having said that, I'm on my 3rd DVD of Despicable Me.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  > Children watch movies VERY MANY TIMES. They also manage to destroy the physical media. 100% agreed and can personally attest to that!!
  - menubar 13y ago
    These kids are destroying property that does not belong to them. This is a felony punishable by prison time and hard labor. You'd better turn them in at the nearest police station before Hollywood finds out and sends their hired thugs after you.
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      Believe me, there are some days I'm sorely tempted!
    - aaronem 13y ago
      What? I mean, full marks for hyperbole, but even DIVX never tried to claim the buyer didn't own the physical medium. It's the ownership of the bits stored thereon that's under discussion.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Making backups as such is legal under general global copyright laws. In USA however, if a content seller makes it very difficult to make a backup, then distributing devices to circumvent that may be illegal under DMCA.
- ensignavenger 13y ago
  Are they scratching the disks to cause the damage- or are they actually wearing the disks out??? (Just curious- I agree 100% that you should have the right to make a backup of a DVD in case it gets destroyed.
stonith 13y ago
I dislike DRM in all of its forms, and hope that Mozilla does take a stance against having it in FF, but I agree with this sentiment. I don't want to own a movie, I want to watch it. I don't want to own music, I want to listen to it. What I don't agree with is the assumption from content producers that DRM is particularly useful. If the content is displayed on a screen or played out speakers, DRM isn't going to work.
- SeanDav 13y ago
  Except if you don't own it you may be told you can't watch the film with more than 2 friends or on Friday evenings or Christmas Eve. You may be told you cannot listen to your music if travelling to another country, or copy it to your new $10,000 hi-fi so you can really enjoy it.
belorn 13y ago
Media distributors have all the right to modify their works in any way they feel like. It is after all their property and they should enjoy the Property rights associated with it. If they want to encrypt it, scramble it, create CDs with strange sectors, they are completely free to do so. My hardware however is not theirs, it's mine. I should have the same property rights to my property as they should have to theirs. Goods that still are controlled by the manufacturer has thus been designed to infringe on my property rights after ownership has been transfered. It is wrong, and should be illegal. DRM is a technical design to corrupt property rights. The actual owner has none of the rights in "Bundle of rights"¹. One losses any of the control associated with property rights². It removes the concept of private property in ways we should never allow. It is simply a worse crime in history than eminent domain, mostly because everyone nowadays carries it in their pocket. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights
- antocv 13y ago
  Lets not forget the laws against reverse-engineering. Lets not forget that people were seriously wondering if "jail-breaking" their iPhones is illegal or not. Thats how far it has gone. Its a disgrace to anything that a democratic liberal society is. What is next, you are not allowed to run a certain program on your devices? Then it will be illegal to access certain web-sites with your devices. Then perhaps it will be illegal to have read a text on a print-out. Watch out, citizen, what you are writing is illegal, you are not allowed to do that! Remember Eben Moglens talk on the war against general purpose computing.
  - rquantz 13y ago
    It is already illegal to access certain websites. It's just that those websites are generally considered morally abhorrent. I'm not necessarily arguing against your point, except to say that slippery slopes are generally more complicated than the people warning against them think they are.
    - 13y ago
antocv 13y ago
So is it "a viewing" that is being sold? Are they buying my eyes, am I selling? How much do other companies pay for my eyes to see their shit advertisement even though Im not selling? And I dont get or see any of that money. I already payed for the bandwidth to see the movie, it was already on my private property, it is my right to save it and to re-sell it or to mix it with other movies. But no, the intellectual right of the creator supersedes private property, and even my own intellectual creativity - no remixing. Send intellectual property and rights to the trashcan, write into the constitution that anything written and created is available for remixing and redistribution by any means.
- br78 13y ago
  You're allowed to remix it as much as you like in your own home for your own amusement, the problem comes when you publicly release that remix.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    Not really. Once you subvert the DRM module, you've already broken the law.
  - tesseractive 13y ago
    Though enforcement is a gray area as long as it's a noncommercial release and is not a realistic substitute for purchasing the original copyrighted content. Even the RIAA never tried to sue DJs releasing free online mixes they made.
shmerl 13y ago
Nothing is justifiable for DRM. Even if you don't watch movies over and over again, you can watch them once in a while. Good movies have good replay value. And bad movies won't get any more sales, just because they'll use DRM for some reason.

by sudomal 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

> Movies are probably the most easily justifiable for DRM. They aren't the sorts of 'products' that people watch over and over again (unless they get a cult following). Children watch movies VERY MANY TIMES. They also manage to destroy the physical media. I'm not sure what the law is about making a backup of the disc (is backup exempted, or am I circumventing an effective copyright measure?) but morally I think it's okay to make a back up of a DVD. Having said that, I'm on my 3rd DVD of Despicable Me.

chris_wot 13y ago
> Children watch movies VERY MANY TIMES. They also manage to destroy the physical media. 100% agreed and can personally attest to that!!
- menubar 13y ago
  These kids are destroying property that does not belong to them. This is a felony punishable by prison time and hard labor. You'd better turn them in at the nearest police station before Hollywood finds out and sends their hired thugs after you.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    Believe me, there are some days I'm sorely tempted!
  - aaronem 13y ago
    What? I mean, full marks for hyperbole, but even DIVX never tried to claim the buyer didn't own the physical medium. It's the ownership of the bits stored thereon that's under discussion.
PeterisP 13y ago
Making backups as such is legal under general global copyright laws. In USA however, if a content seller makes it very difficult to make a backup, then distributing devices to circumvent that may be illegal under DMCA.
ensignavenger 13y ago
Are they scratching the disks to cause the damage- or are they actually wearing the disks out??? (Just curious- I agree 100% that you should have the right to make a backup of a DVD in case it gets destroyed.

stonith 13y ago

I dislike DRM in all of its forms, and hope that Mozilla does take a stance against having it in FF, but I agree with this sentiment. I don't want to own a movie, I want to watch it. I don't want to own music, I want to listen to it. What I don't agree with is the assumption from content producers that DRM is particularly useful. If the content is displayed on a screen or played out speakers, DRM isn't going to work.

SeanDav 13y ago
Except if you don't own it you may be told you can't watch the film with more than 2 friends or on Friday evenings or Christmas Eve. You may be told you cannot listen to your music if travelling to another country, or copy it to your new $10,000 hi-fi so you can really enjoy it.

belorn 13y ago

Media distributors have all the right to modify their works in any way they feel like. It is after all their property and they should enjoy the Property rights associated with it. If they want to encrypt it, scramble it, create CDs with strange sectors, they are completely free to do so. My hardware however is not theirs, it's mine. I should have the same property rights to my property as they should have to theirs. Goods that still are controlled by the manufacturer has thus been designed to infringe on my property rights after ownership has been transfered. It is wrong, and should be illegal. DRM is a technical design to corrupt property rights. The actual owner has none of the rights in "Bundle of rights"¹. One losses any of the control associated with property rights². It removes the concept of private property in ways we should never allow. It is simply a worse crime in history than eminent domain, mostly because everyone nowadays carries it in their pocket. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights

antocv 13y ago
Lets not forget the laws against reverse-engineering. Lets not forget that people were seriously wondering if "jail-breaking" their iPhones is illegal or not. Thats how far it has gone. Its a disgrace to anything that a democratic liberal society is. What is next, you are not allowed to run a certain program on your devices? Then it will be illegal to access certain web-sites with your devices. Then perhaps it will be illegal to have read a text on a print-out. Watch out, citizen, what you are writing is illegal, you are not allowed to do that! Remember Eben Moglens talk on the war against general purpose computing.
- rquantz 13y ago
  It is already illegal to access certain websites. It's just that those websites are generally considered morally abhorrent. I'm not necessarily arguing against your point, except to say that slippery slopes are generally more complicated than the people warning against them think they are.
  - 13y ago

antocv 13y ago

So is it "a viewing" that is being sold? Are they buying my eyes, am I selling? How much do other companies pay for my eyes to see their shit advertisement even though Im not selling? And I dont get or see any of that money. I already payed for the bandwidth to see the movie, it was already on my private property, it is my right to save it and to re-sell it or to mix it with other movies. But no, the intellectual right of the creator supersedes private property, and even my own intellectual creativity - no remixing. Send intellectual property and rights to the trashcan, write into the constitution that anything written and created is available for remixing and redistribution by any means.

br78 13y ago
You're allowed to remix it as much as you like in your own home for your own amusement, the problem comes when you publicly release that remix.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Not really. Once you subvert the DRM module, you've already broken the law.
- tesseractive 13y ago
  Though enforcement is a gray area as long as it's a noncommercial release and is not a realistic substitute for purchasing the original copyrighted content. Even the RIAA never tried to sue DJs releasing free online mixes they made.

shmerl 13y ago

Nothing is justifiable for DRM. Even if you don't watch movies over and over again, you can watch them once in a while. Good movies have good replay value. And bad movies won't get any more sales, just because they'll use DRM for some reason.