Managed copy cancelled...

[Ruined]

Now that the format war is over...

Managed Copy to be sorely absent from finalized AACS specifications? - Engadget HD

In case you missed it,

For the record, Managed Copy was advocated primarily by Microsoft & HP. Now that they are not as involved, it looks like this spec is being flushed...

[Sehnzeleid]

See? Some things are worse than MPEG-2 on a BD-25.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

See? Some things are worse than MPEG-2 on a BD-25.

Yes. DRM tops all in the list of nasties in my book.

[Mr. Furious]

Shocking. Who would have figured Sony would eliminate a legal way to copy your media.

[chlngr1970]

Originally Posted by Mr. Furious

Shocking. Who would have figured Sony would eliminate a legal way to copy your media.

Did I know, no. Am I surprised? Not in the least. The BDA was dragged kicking and screaming to managed copy. This is JUST the move I would expect from them. And people wonder why I am against Blu Ray...

j

[videoworx]

Did anyone here actually bother to read the article?

"As expected, the issue here seems to circle around content licensing, with studios "not always having the content rights to allow for a Managed Copy."

In other words, it's the studios, not Blu-Ray (and certainly not Sony) that are suggesting Managed Copy gets axed.

Now back to the typical anti-Sony/Blu-Ray posts in 3, 2, 1...

[biglyle]

My goodness, the average consumer will be devastated

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by videoworx

Did anyone here actually bother to read the article?

"As expected, the issue here seems to circle around content licensing, with studios "not always having the content rights to allow for a Managed Copy."

In other words, it's the studios, not Blu-Ray (and certainly not Sony) that are suggesting Managed Copy gets axed.

Now back to the typical anti-Sony/Blu-Ray posts in 3, 2, 1...

Wow, don't you see that you're not supposed to make posts like this that make sense and counter the anti-Sony rants? Geez, when will you learn?

[brian]

Originally Posted by biglyle

My goodness, the average consumer will be devastated

Why should anyone here care about what "average" people think?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by videoworx

Did anyone here actually bother to read the article?

"As expected, the issue here seems to circle around content licensing, with studios "not always having the content rights to allow for a Managed Copy."

In other words, it's the studios, not Blu-Ray (and certainly not Sony) that are suggesting Managed Copy gets axed.

Now back to the typical anti-Sony/Blu-Ray posts in 3, 2, 1...

Lol, since when did Sony cease being a movie studio (among other things)? Lets not kid ourselves here.

Sony and Fox are by far the two most DRM-savvy studios. They were the only two studios heavily involved in the development of BD+, and there is a long history of their involvement with DRM. This is includes everything from making bold statements about using ultra-restrictive DRM in the future as well as actual deployment of nasty DRM technologies.

Whether it is the studios or the BDA-founders that have caused this - and in Sony's case they fall into both categories - the bottom line is it now appears that the lack of competition has given the corporations the confidence to start screwing over consumers in ways that would not have been possible when there was a format war. The same may have happened if HD DVD won, of course. Either way, the studios are pissing on the consumer with this latest development. It is all the more obvious that DRM is designed to force the consumer to buy multiple copies of the same movie (both of same and different formats) and have jack-squat to do with piracy.

One thing is for sure, SlySoft is going to be a lot richer as a result of this garbage.

[videoworx]

DRM is designed to force the consumer to buy multiple copies of the same movie

Really? Are they holding a gun to your head? Is your family being held ransom? I don't see studios forcing anyone to buy anything. Please, continue with the hyperbole, as you have been for ages.

Managed Copy is a nice idea on paper - but studios are - apparently - more comfortable adding separate digital copies to the discs (which are free, btw - in case you were wondering).

Besides, it was always assumed using the Managed Copy function would cost more to the consumer (the studios weren't going to let you copy the movie for free, regardless of format). In other words, studios would have been making money from Managed Copy, and - in your words - would have forced the consumer to buy multiple copies of the same movie.

lol.

[plissken99]

I personally don't care. I didn't have a use for it anyway. And if they want to get people to crack their movies by illegal means, this seems like a good way to do so.

[ganthc]

If the digital copy becomes more prevalent, then the managed copy becomes moot, right? Perhaps that's why studios are not on board at this point for it.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

If the digital copy becomes more prevalent, then the managed copy becomes moot, right? Perhaps that's why studios are not on board at this point for it.

Digital Copy is low resolution and DRM'd itself. It does not work with all players, either - specifically it only works on "PlaysForSure" and "iTunes" devices. In order to play it on something like PSP or Zune you have to bust the DRM. And it would restrict your media server abilities to Windows Media Player or iTunes only.

[Mr. Furious]

As far as I'm concerned, it just justifies my usage of tools to crack the protection to move it to other media. I'm not advocating piracy in the slightest, but I'm not going to give them additional funds for the same movie.

[elfman]

I still stand amazed at the amount of people that actually side with fewer options and fewer rights in their media ownership.

If next week we find out that the BR group decides to register each movie to a single player only, we would have a few people saying "That's fine with me, I'm just going to watch it in my HT anyway, so what's the fuss? Afraid you won't be able to pirate it?"... etc.

It's the same concept of "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist....", but of course in a much less important way, since we are talking about an entertainment medium and not real lives. But the idea is there.

/rant off

[biglyle]

Originally Posted by elfman

I still stand amazed at the amount of people that actually side with fewer options and fewer rights in their media ownership.

If next week we find out that the BR group decides to register each movie to a single player only, we would have a few people saying "That's fine with me, I'm just going to watch it in my HT anyway, so what's the fuss? Afraid you won't be able to pirate it?"... etc.

It's the same concept of "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist....", but of course in a much less important way, since we are talking about an entertainment medium and not real lives. But the idea is there.

/rant off

That is one big time ludicrous analogy.

Most people don't give a shit because they don't make copies, myself included.
You are buying a copy of the movie, I fail to see how not being able to make 10 copies is a violation of your rights. This is just one more thing for bitter people to bitch about. Its old, its tired and has pretty much made this forum a ghost town.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by biglyle

Most people don't give a shit because they don't make copies, myself included.
You are buying a copy of the movie, I fail to see how not being able to make 10 copies is a violation of your rights.

The point is, just because you don't make copies why embrace and/or defend limitations on viewing movies on more than one type of device? It's fine that you don't give a shit, but why speak up against those who do?

KM

[Mr. Furious]

I think it ultimately boils down to a sort of selfishness. I don't have use for it, so therefore, you shouldn't either.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Mr. Furious

I think it ultimately boils down to a sort of selfishness. I don't have use for it, so therefore, you shouldn't either.

Lack of world view

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Mr. Furious

I think it ultimately boils down to a sort of selfishness. I don't have use for it, so therefore, you shouldn't either.

I don't agree, and this sort of explanation is inflammatory. I could turn around and say the only reason you DO care is because you want to get stuff for free without paying for it, thus making products more expensive for the rest of us. Now look who is selfish!

But of course, the arguments can't be "boiled" down to such simpicity. Biglyle was merely saying that the lack of managed copy, which isn't even a reality now, won't impact a majority of consumers. Most consumers will still have their movie that works in their bd player in their home. He also said that he thinks the squabbling over DRM has been a point of contention that has possibly chased off some forum activity. No where did he say that because he doesn't use it you shouldn't either.

[biglyle]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

The point is, just because you don't make copies why embrace and/or defend limitations on viewing movies on more than one type of device? It's fine that you don't give a shit, but why speak up against those who do?

KM

I speak up against it because its the same 2 or 3 people who bring it up every other week when they have nothing else to bitch about. I could acre less if you are allowed to make copies or not, I am just sick of hearing it all the time.

It doesn't change the facts though. Most people don't make copies. I would say its safe to say that at least 70% of people who buy a movie have never, and will never make a copy. I would also guess that percentage is much, much higher, possibly as high as 90%. The majority doesn't give a fuck and its gets painfully old listening to Ruined spout the same nonsense week in week out. For him to say this is my lack of world view is utterly idiotic. I have been to almost 30 different countries in this world and I can tell you first hand that in most of them making copies of a movie is the least of their fucking concerns.
I don't see this as selfish at all, especially from the studios point of view. You bought one copy of a movie, thats all you paid for, thats all you should get. Why on earth you think you deserve more is beyond me.

[elfman]

Originally Posted by biglyle

That is one big time ludicrous analogy.

In what way? If you want to disagree with my assessment of this topic, then do so and stop saying anyone who brings it up is "bitching".

You, sir, more than anyone else here seem to make judgments of other's intentions, as best I can tell. Reread your posts and see how you claim those that disagree with you are "bitching" and are "bitter" and that "MOST PEOPLE/ 90%" (you claim with no WAY of documenting that) "don't give a f*ck" about it.... which I'm sure just means that you don't care and you project that onto the rest of the world to back up your opinion. And BTW, no one is forcing you to engage in this topic... so why complain about having to?

Whatever happened to an attitude of "Hey, that's not for me but whatever floats your boat"? I'd show you that same respect...

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by biglyle

I speak up against it because its the same 2 or 3 people who bring it up every other week when they have nothing else to bitch about. I could acre less if you are allowed to make copies or not, I am just sick of hearing it all the time.

It doesn't change the facts though. Most people don't make copies. I would say its safe to say that at least 70% of people who buy a movie have never, and will never make a copy. I would also guess that percentage is much, much higher, possibly as high as 90%. The majority doesn't give a fuck and its gets painfully old listening to Ruined spout the same nonsense week in week out. For him to say this is my lack of world view is utterly idiotic. I have been to almost 30 different countries in this world and I can tell you first hand that in most of them making copies of a movie is the least of their fucking concerns.
I don't see this as selfish at all, especially from the studios point of view. You bought one copy of a movie, thats all you paid for, thats all you should get. Why on earth you think you deserve more is beyond me.

A wealth of irony to soak up here

[videoworx]

No, Ruined. The irony is that Managed Copy would have allowed studios to charge multiple times for the same content on the same disc. And here you are bitching that it won't be included as part of the BD spec. Studios, in turn, are including completely free "portable" copies on the disc - compatible with the most popular media player in the world (and Sony will guarantee support for PS3/PSP playback on their releases).
These portable copies are on par with downloadable content at this point - which you have pointed out is good enough for the average consumer (if not everyone).
If you want to copy the exact BD data, bit for bit, to your hard drive (or another disc), you've got AnyDVD.

Where's the problem?

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by biglyle

I speak up against it because its the same 2 or 3 people who bring it up every other week when they have nothing else to bitch about. I could acre less if you are allowed to make copies or not, I am just sick of hearing it all the time.

So don't read those posts. Seems simple enough to me.

KM