DVD Ripper
-
Your chef example fails because food is a one-use item. DVDs and CDs where intended to be used over and over and over and over again. Just like a book. Why shouldn't I be able to make a "backup" copy in case it gets lost or damaged? Or even put it on a different media (like a memory stick) so long as I don't try to sell it or otherwise distribute it.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunIt was not failed. It was intended as such. Please read my responce to Jeremy.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Why shouldn't I be able to make a "backup" copy in case it gets lost or damaged? Or even put it on a different media (like a memory stick) so long as I don't try to sell it or otherwise distribute it.
Because that was not in the rights of the original purchase.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
movies has gone to the gutter in the last decade?
My theory is because the money isn't the sameWell, John Carter opened for 70 million and lorax raked in over 30 million. They'll make more on other stuff, that was just box office numbers. T.V. and movies have "gone in the gutter" because they are high priced and inconvenient. It doesn't have that much to do with piracy. I know people who pirate movies and it's for the same reasons why other people don't go. So weather they pirated it, or just didn't partake of it, the money was gone either way. In regards to the chef scenerio: I have chef's in my family. If I liked something that much they will figure out how to re-create it without a replicator. They have done this type of thing in the past. I have eaten in resturants where the atmosphere, the service, and other things make it a very pleasurable experience. The replicator to get the food would not provide the experience, and thus I would still go to the chef. If the chef is relying on his recipe being secret to keep him in business he is executing a flawed plan anyway. it would never last, and I don't think he should be surprised when you don't come back. On that same token a crappy establishment with rude servers, a run down building, and less than higenic conditions would not be able to run the chef out of business.
If it moves, compile it
loctrice wrote:
Well, John Carter opened for 70 million and lorax raked in over 30 million. They'll make more on other stuff, that was just box office numbers.
I am sure you also realize that movies production costs have also skyrocketted in the last decades so those are Gross not Net.
loctrice wrote:
In regards to the chef scenerio: ...
Simply put if someone 'copies a secret recipe they would get their pants sued off them. Take Coca-Cola for example. If someone found out their recipe and left the company and gave it to Pepsi the damagages would be irreversable. However, the culperate that did so would likely end up in prison for life (coca cola would ensure that). Making a close copy is one thing, and exact is a whole different story. Pepsi did it when they were founded. If you want you can go and make your own parady film and rip to any system you want. (keep in mind if you sell it you need to pay for the copywrite on the storyline).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
I'm not sure where you're coming from on this. If I pay for a stream of a movie, it's a single use item with an short expected life. If I buy a DVD of a movie, I can expect that DVD to last for decades if I care for it well. So, yes, a DVD has an expected life, but that expected life is measured in decades, not weeks, months or even years. Obviously your analogy about food doesn't work because the food is a consumable resource, whereas the a DVD is non-consumable. I could in theory watch the same DVD every night for years and it would be perfectly legal, but if I want to copy it to a computer so I can watch it once a year it's illegal? A better analogy would be music. You are legally allowed to record whatever comes over the radio. You can even record a handful of songs, make a nice mix out of them, burn them to a CD and give them to a friend. All perfectly legal. The fact that the movie industry is suffering so badly from piracy is in my opinion an indication of how poorly it is handling it's DMR. Again, if you look at the music industry, they were getting creamed by Napster. At the time everyone I knew was downloading music. I'd go to a party and there would be a laptop out playing music, if what you wanted to hear wasn't on there, download from Napster. They found a way to let you download and easily pay for music and now I don't know anyone who is downloading music without paying for it. Are there people "stealing" music? Sure, but the problem was fixed not by turning us into criminals as much as it was fixed by giving us the option to not be criminals.
-
My father is in the merchant marine, and he each time he goes to see he goes out and buys dozens of DVDs. He just got back and wants to now rip all of his DVD collection onto a USB hard drive so his movie collection is both larger and takes up less space in his bag. Anyone have recommendations for a good DVD ripper? I looked at HandBrake, but it says that it doesn't work on copy protected DVDs. What percentage of DVDs are copy protected? Just to be clear, he paid for all the DVDs, he just wants to watch them in a different format now.
I use DVDFab. It can remove copy protection, FBI notices, ads, and previews, and you're left with just the movie. I have over 700 movies on a couple of 2TB drives, as well as several complete TV series.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Jeremy Hutchinson wrote:
I'm not sure where you're coming from on this. If I pay for a stream of a movie, it's a single use item with an short expected life. If I buy a DVD of a movie, I can expect that DVD to last for decades if I care for it well. So, yes, a DVD has an expected life, but that expected life is measured in decades, not weeks, months or even years.
That depends. You may view it as decades of life, because as a consumer you said "Hey great tech, I will watch this again and again for decades". But as a producer they already knew they would benefit in said time frame from multiple formats, beit HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, 3D for either previos etc. etc. they calculate cost of a production and see what they will get over years in said formats. They also do other things like minor added content, Directors Cut, Behind the scenese, Collectors Editions etc etc All mostly marketing tactics but still that is what they are banking on. Removing the earlier skews their budget big time. The food analgy being a consumable resource was intended cause it illistrates the point. DVD's are not consumable, but their life expectency was not long by producer's standpoint, even if the consumers thought it was. You are right music is a good analogy, but it is still a mess. People pay for music more readily because of the stream of law suites that occured AND the industry finally adjusted their pricing (not by choice but being bullied by digital distributors). The same is now happening for the movie industry. It just takes longer as there is a lot more money at stake and a lot more formats to consider.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That depends. You may view it as decades of life, because as a consumer you said "Hey great tech, I will watch this again and again for decades".
But as a producer they already knew they would benefit in said time frame from multiple formats, beit HD-DVD, Blu-RayThe studios thinking I should be buying their movie every year to get the latest and greatest format and/or extras doesn't shorten the lifespan of the product I actually purchased from them. If they really want to limit the lifespan of their product, they should just do it. Put an expiration date right on the disk so the DVD players can't play a disk that's older than they think the lifespan should be. Then they can sit back and either roll in their money, or wonder why no-ones buying DVDs and is instead pirating...
-
loctrice wrote:
Well, John Carter opened for 70 million and lorax raked in over 30 million. They'll make more on other stuff, that was just box office numbers.
I am sure you also realize that movies production costs have also skyrocketted in the last decades so those are Gross not Net.
loctrice wrote:
In regards to the chef scenerio: ...
Simply put if someone 'copies a secret recipe they would get their pants sued off them. Take Coca-Cola for example. If someone found out their recipe and left the company and gave it to Pepsi the damagages would be irreversable. However, the culperate that did so would likely end up in prison for life (coca cola would ensure that). Making a close copy is one thing, and exact is a whole different story. Pepsi did it when they were founded. If you want you can go and make your own parady film and rip to any system you want. (keep in mind if you sell it you need to pay for the copywrite on the storyline).
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
f someone found out their recipe and left the company
This is not what I mentioned though. First off, we are not talking about stealing secrets, chef recipes are nearly never patented, and on and on. That being said, if someone made something taste remarkably similar without using the same recipe there isn't anything to be done for it. And, as others have mentioned, it still does not compare to dvd's.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I am sure you also realize that movies production costs have also skyrocketted in the last decades so those are Gross not Net.
That's a valid way to say it's not because of piracy.
If it moves, compile it
-
Figures. That is what is wrong with copyright law, it's taking what used to be "Fair use" and making it a criminal act. If you're going to make me a criminal for making an personal use copy of something I already paid them for, why would I pay them in the first place? The end result is the same...
Technically, it's not copyright law that makes ripping DVD's you own illegal in the US. It's the DMCA's Anti-Circumvention clause. Also note that part of the law allows the Librarian of Congress every three years to issue "exceptions" to the Anti-Circumvention clause of the DMCA. 3 years ago, the Librarian issued an exception that said jail breaking your phone was allowed. Note it might still violate warranties and contracts, and get you kicked off a network, but due to the exception issued, it was not punishable under the law. They are currently going through the exception process again. Public Knowledge[^] has submitted a request for the Librarian to issue an exception for ripping DVDs for personal use (i.e. format-shifting). This was one of three requests to the copyright office to allow ripping of legally purchased DVDs this year. Hopefully we will get an exception granted this year, then ripping will no longer be illegal.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
f someone found out their recipe and left the company
This is not what I mentioned though. First off, we are not talking about stealing secrets, chef recipes are nearly never patented, and on and on. That being said, if someone made something taste remarkably similar without using the same recipe there isn't anything to be done for it. And, as others have mentioned, it still does not compare to dvd's.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I am sure you also realize that movies production costs have also skyrocketted in the last decades so those are Gross not Net.
That's a valid way to say it's not because of piracy.
If it moves, compile it
loctrice wrote:
remarkably similar
Your key words there. Similar is not an exact copy.
loctrice wrote:
And, as others have mentioned, it still does not compare to dvd's.
It does compare to DVDs. You are actually taking my intended point as a flaw in the logic.
loctrice wrote:
That's a valid way to say it's not because of piracy.
Its also a valid way of pointing out that there growth in "Gross" profits is producing the same "Net" profits when extrapoloting overhead. However, they did not account for pirating and thus took massive losses. So actually it does not at all say its not because of piracy.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
It was not failed. It was intended as such. Please read my responce to Jeremy.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Why shouldn't I be able to make a "backup" copy in case it gets lost or damaged? Or even put it on a different media (like a memory stick) so long as I don't try to sell it or otherwise distribute it.
Because that was not in the rights of the original purchase.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Because that was not in the rights of the original purchase.
Fair use laws give me that right.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Technically, it's not copyright law that makes ripping DVD's you own illegal in the US. It's the DMCA's Anti-Circumvention clause. Also note that part of the law allows the Librarian of Congress every three years to issue "exceptions" to the Anti-Circumvention clause of the DMCA. 3 years ago, the Librarian issued an exception that said jail breaking your phone was allowed. Note it might still violate warranties and contracts, and get you kicked off a network, but due to the exception issued, it was not punishable under the law. They are currently going through the exception process again. Public Knowledge[^] has submitted a request for the Librarian to issue an exception for ripping DVDs for personal use (i.e. format-shifting). This was one of three requests to the copyright office to allow ripping of legally purchased DVDs this year. Hopefully we will get an exception granted this year, then ripping will no longer be illegal.
Good info :) Its all a mess thats for sure. I think it will be a while before anything is accepted broadly. The whole 3 years makes sence cause there is too much to consider and too many things changing right now.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
I use DVDFab. It can remove copy protection, FBI notices, ads, and previews, and you're left with just the movie. I have over 700 movies on a couple of 2TB drives, as well as several complete TV series.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
DVDFab
Thanks! I'm gonna try that one.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Because that was not in the rights of the original purchase.
Fair use laws give me that right.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
Fair use laws give me that right.
Wrong, yet debatable. Has been being debated over the last decade. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html[^] Here is fair use per the Copywrite office.
Copywrite Office wrote:
1.) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2.) The nature of the copyrighted work 3.) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4.) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Where does it explicitly say you can copy for backup? Note:
Copywrite Office wrote:
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
Since it does not clearly give you the right you have to ask for it. I doubt you did that, and if you did I doubt they gave you the right.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Fair use laws give me that right.
Wrong, yet debatable. Has been being debated over the last decade. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html[^] Here is fair use per the Copywrite office.
Copywrite Office wrote:
1.) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2.) The nature of the copyrighted work 3.) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4.) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Where does it explicitly say you can copy for backup? Note:
Copywrite Office wrote:
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
Since it does not clearly give you the right you have to ask for it. I doubt you did that, and if you did I doubt they gave you the right.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
The record companies think differently... Look at page 12, lines 1-7 here[^]: METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, INC. v. GROKSTER "And let me clarify something I think is unclear from the amicus briefs. The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod. There is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward." Also, see page 3, paragraph 17 here[^]: In the Matter of SONY BMG MUSIC NTERTAINMENT, a general partnership. "In 2007, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a government office which requires business to engage in consumer-friendly trade practices, has acknowledged that consumers normally expect to be able to rip audio CDs. Specifically, in response to the Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal, the FTC declared that the marketing and sale of audio CDs which surreptitiously installed digital rights management (DRM) software constituted deceptive and unfair trade practices, in part because the record company "represented, expressly or by implication, that consumers will be able to use the CDs as they are commonly used on a computer: to listen to, transfer to playback devices, and copy the audio files contained on the CD for personal use."" It is the DMCA that makes copying encrypted DVDs illegal. However, in the 2009 case RealNetworks v. DVD CCA, the final injunction reads, "while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies." (see
-
My father is in the merchant marine, and he each time he goes to see he goes out and buys dozens of DVDs. He just got back and wants to now rip all of his DVD collection onto a USB hard drive so his movie collection is both larger and takes up less space in his bag. Anyone have recommendations for a good DVD ripper? I looked at HandBrake, but it says that it doesn't work on copy protected DVDs. What percentage of DVDs are copy protected? Just to be clear, he paid for all the DVDs, he just wants to watch them in a different format now.
DVDFab[^], I've been using it for years, he wants the DVD Ripper to convert to AVI, MP4 and a range of other formats. DVD Copy will enable him to copy to DVD+-R if he wants to play the copies and keep the originals safe.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
The record companies think differently... Look at page 12, lines 1-7 here[^]: METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, INC. v. GROKSTER "And let me clarify something I think is unclear from the amicus briefs. The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod. There is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward." Also, see page 3, paragraph 17 here[^]: In the Matter of SONY BMG MUSIC NTERTAINMENT, a general partnership. "In 2007, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a government office which requires business to engage in consumer-friendly trade practices, has acknowledged that consumers normally expect to be able to rip audio CDs. Specifically, in response to the Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal, the FTC declared that the marketing and sale of audio CDs which surreptitiously installed digital rights management (DRM) software constituted deceptive and unfair trade practices, in part because the record company "represented, expressly or by implication, that consumers will be able to use the CDs as they are commonly used on a computer: to listen to, transfer to playback devices, and copy the audio files contained on the CD for personal use."" It is the DMCA that makes copying encrypted DVDs illegal. However, in the 2009 case RealNetworks v. DVD CCA, the final injunction reads, "while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies." (see
Good references but it is important to realize that one producers beliefs does not mean it is legal. Any other producer can sue if they so desire (under current laws). In fact the producer quoted still could because the company "MGM" or "Sony" etc. can later change it's mind. Companies are not obligated to follow precedence of previous executives decisions. The courts ruling are however, so we can all see where it is headed. But we are not yet there.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Jeremy Hutchinson wrote:
Just to be clear, he paid for all the DVDs
They all say that ;P Seriously, if there were good software for copying protected DVDs, well, the DVDs would not be really protected, so...
Rage wrote:
Seriously, if there were good software for copying protected DVDs
What a crap answer - of course there's good software for that. Try CloneDVD together with AnyDVD[^]
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932 -
Rage wrote:
Seriously, if there were good software for copying protected DVDs
What a crap answer - of course there's good software for that. Try CloneDVD together with AnyDVD[^]
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932Johnny J. wrote:
What a crap answer
This is no reason to punish me by giving me a link on a Swedish (?) website ;P My formulation was very bad. What I wanted to say is that there is no point in putting DRM if the disks can be copied anyway. One would assume that if they persists in protecting the disks, it is because no software can break them. Obviously not.
-
Johnny J. wrote:
What a crap answer
This is no reason to punish me by giving me a link on a Swedish (?) website ;P My formulation was very bad. What I wanted to say is that there is no point in putting DRM if the disks can be copied anyway. One would assume that if they persists in protecting the disks, it is because no software can break them. Obviously not.
Rage wrote:
This is no reason to punish by giving me a link on a Swedish (?) website
Nah, sorry - my mistake - just remove "/se", and it will be English: http://www.slysoft.com/[^] It turns out that when I enter that address on my computer, "/se" is automatically added by Slysoft...
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932 -
Jeremy Hutchinson wrote:
Just to be clear, he paid for all the DVDs, he just wants to watch them in a different format now.
Not that I care really, but that does not matter. It is still illegal (under the current laws). This is why they now even package multiple versions for sale. Disney is very known for this as they sell DVD only Blu-Ray Only DVD Blu-Ray Combo DVD Blu-Ray Digital Combo Buying either of the first 3 does not get you access to the digital version (with out using software to rip it). Buying the digital alone often costs around $20, but buying it in said package the math shows it is about $2-$5 (depends on sales etc.) DRM is still up in the air and will be for quite some time. There are millions of reasons. For example, the rights for distribution can be sold and re-sold. This has always been the case even before modern digital distribution. For example a TV show that goes off the air is often sold from the original network to some other network that plays its. They bought those rights and are making money of their distribution via advertising during the shows. Another form is to re-sale, such as when formatting changes (DVD, Blu-Ray, MPEG4 etc. etc.). Classic 50's movies are now being made on Blu-Ray. Just cause you bought it on VHS in the 80's doesn't get you that access or right to it. Some may disagree with this, but that is how things are. [Edit] Some more notes on DRM. The cost I put up above is not 'true', but a virtual cost. For example if you buy the combo (everything) it is about $30 where as the double combo is about $25. So it is virtually $5 more. However, the bulk of the cost is the right to view it. This is why buying the DRM only costs around $20. I am not possitive but I think having the DRM only grants you full access to view on any system, at your own cost. This means you are given the right to burn to DVD, Blu-Ray or the super Kewl next medium. You however pay the costs of the burner and the actual medium. Furhtermore, the DRM only grants access to that digital format. This means if the digital format itself changes you do not have access to it. A simply explanation of this is SD vs. HD. If you bought an SD DRM copy you do not have access to the HD DRM. However some DRM licences may provide you multiple access. As in the disney example above I beleive if you have their DRM licence you get formats for playing on iOS as well as Windows.
Computers have been intelligent
-
Jeremy Hutchinson wrote:
Just to be clear, he paid for all the DVDs, he just wants to watch them in a different format now.
Not that I care really, but that does not matter. It is still illegal (under the current laws). This is why they now even package multiple versions for sale. Disney is very known for this as they sell DVD only Blu-Ray Only DVD Blu-Ray Combo DVD Blu-Ray Digital Combo Buying either of the first 3 does not get you access to the digital version (with out using software to rip it). Buying the digital alone often costs around $20, but buying it in said package the math shows it is about $2-$5 (depends on sales etc.) DRM is still up in the air and will be for quite some time. There are millions of reasons. For example, the rights for distribution can be sold and re-sold. This has always been the case even before modern digital distribution. For example a TV show that goes off the air is often sold from the original network to some other network that plays its. They bought those rights and are making money of their distribution via advertising during the shows. Another form is to re-sale, such as when formatting changes (DVD, Blu-Ray, MPEG4 etc. etc.). Classic 50's movies are now being made on Blu-Ray. Just cause you bought it on VHS in the 80's doesn't get you that access or right to it. Some may disagree with this, but that is how things are. [Edit] Some more notes on DRM. The cost I put up above is not 'true', but a virtual cost. For example if you buy the combo (everything) it is about $30 where as the double combo is about $25. So it is virtually $5 more. However, the bulk of the cost is the right to view it. This is why buying the DRM only costs around $20. I am not possitive but I think having the DRM only grants you full access to view on any system, at your own cost. This means you are given the right to burn to DVD, Blu-Ray or the super Kewl next medium. You however pay the costs of the burner and the actual medium. Furhtermore, the DRM only grants access to that digital format. This means if the digital format itself changes you do not have access to it. A simply explanation of this is SD vs. HD. If you bought an SD DRM copy you do not have access to the HD DRM. However some DRM licences may provide you multiple access. As in the disney example above I beleive if you have their DRM licence you get formats for playing on iOS as well as Windows.
Computers have been intelligent
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
However, the bulk of the cost is the right to view it.
So, when I go to my neighbor's house and watch their DVD, I'm engaging in software piracy! OK, I'm kidding, I understand how it works. The laws are wacked. Let's go back to prohibition, that worked just as well as the piracy laws do now AND makes more sense to boot. Oh, that's right, it was repealed because lawmakers were sensible then and rampant ignoring of a law that can't be enforced was OK to repeal.
