-
-
The cat and mouse game continues. In a few weeks or months we'll see updated ripping software that gets around this scheme.
I'm curious as to how they can encode a DVD to make it "unrippable" but still playable. It's a technical paradox. Rippers and DVD players do the same exact thing; they read the bits off the DVD and decrypt them. Only after this step does the function differ: copying to hard drive vs. MPEG decoding and sending to a display.
I think Hollywood needs to re-read the history books and re-learn what software companies learned the hard way back in the 80s: copy protection doesn't work. -
As kevin says history repeats itself so I don't see this lasting long. There's already a few different ways to stop DVD's from easily being copied but they're all fairly easy to bypass with freely available tools online.Comment
-
Normally I'm on the side of the consumer but as of the past year or so I've seen way too many people taking advantage of blockbuster/net flix etc in building their dvd collections. At this point I'm anti consumer on this and hope they do whatever it takes.Comment
-
You got it Shane. I don't care what the studios come up for protection on the disc itself, with as long as it doesn't involve a reduction in PQ/SQ. If you want the movie, buy the movie..
David - Trigger-happy HTGuide AdminComment
-
Quick Clarification on what I meant regarding taking advantage of netflix/bb. They are copying them pure and simple. No buying their 2nd hand stuff.Comment
-
I would suspect extra protection schemes do take about valuable disc space. So it probably will to a degree....just speculation.with as long as it doesn't involve a reduction in PQ/SQ. If you want the movie, buy the movie.
The studios may have created less grief if (and this is just a thought) they included an original disc and one for playback (no fancy graphic cover or anything like that...) call it the fair use copy. I wonder if they would have taken the hit they claim they have. I guess the answer is probably, but if their pricing model was more reasonable...that's the claim with CD's but it has never been tested because CD's started out really high then P2P came along and then the studios dropped prices, then they started suing dead grandmothers
. Too little too late.
It's a 27 Billion dollar industry....they couldn't afford to lose 1 billion in price adjustments (what do they have to lose, they claim copying is costing them 1 billion anway?)
With a new format on the horizon it would seem that the studios are poised to do the same thing over again by pricing the new product (initially) too high, thus prompting people to copy. It would be interesting to know where the sweet spot really is.
I think, for many, if the movie was $10 they'd probably wouldn't even give copying a second thought (nothing to back that up....but that number works for me
). I know Best Buy uses that model with older releases by stating "Why rent when you can buy" for their $10 and under selection. Why can't the studios rationalize this on first releases?
*Most* movies, I simply wait a few months and pick it up for usually $10 less on the Blockbuster used shelf ($17 or lower versus $27 or higher) or hit the used market. Having the movie now or waiting a couple of months doesn't make too big a difference since since quite often I buy watch and then don't get around to it again for a good while.
Even Blockbuster is now into the trading model (which is a good move I think).
Unfortunately, hacking movies won't go away because many will rise to the challenge simply for the challenge, so, this cat and mouse game will continue (as Kevin put it).
Also one copied disc does not equal one lost sale.... The economics would go deeper than that. I really don't think it's that direct. Mind you I'm no economics major, but I suspect that was dumbed down significantly.
Shane's right though, most people buy/rent... copy... and then sell/return orig....no two ways about that.
The devil is in the details :BSell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.Comment
-
Encryption will have no meaningful effect on disk capacity or likely on image quality. There is no reason it needs to.I would suspect extra protection schemes do take about valuable disc space. So it probably will to a degree....just speculation.
BBComment
-
Thx said it doesn't.Encryption will have no meaningful effect on disk capacity or likely on image quality. There is no reason it needs to.
Comment
-
Gordon makes a lot of sense. It's all about pricing. If the price is right most consumers out there won't give copying a second thought. Heck there are movies out there right now in the Walmart special bins that are just about the price of a rental. I do like Gordon does, unless it is something I want right away, I just wait and buy it off the previously viewed rack at Blockbuster or wait until some Special Edition replaces an earlier edition and the earlier one ends up in Walmart's special bin.Comment
-
This is such an interesting social and economical debate.
No doubt there are many sides to support both.
I think the real problem movie studios face is not the person copying from blockbuster. In fact The studios conceded a long time ago that it's ok for people to watch movies they don't own, by making rentals legal. I suspect that Blockbuster is probably the 3rd largest purchaser of DVD's (behind walmart and bestbuy)
Downloading is the real problem.
We've all seen what happened to CD's... Where are all the used CD stores - in my town they've all gone out of business. And I notice that used CD's on ebay sell for a lot less than they used to. We had CD burners for Years and years and this didn't happen. We had MP3's for years and it didn't happen. And as soon as comcast pulled in to the neighborhood with 1.5mb connections, it happened. I wish music CDs were $6, but that wouldn't save the music industry - there's a whole generation of Kazaa kids out there, kids that have been tought that the value of a CD is $0.
Oh well, I for one own about 700 CD's, 300 DVD's and 150 LaserDiscs all originals.Comment
Tweet
Comment