Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > New copy-proof DVDs on the way?

Reply
Thread Tools

New copy-proof DVDs on the way?

 
 
mrbingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2005


Donald Link wrote:
:: On 20 Feb 2005 09:22:07 -0800, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
::
::: Uh oh, how will you steal DVD's now?
::
::
:: The same way people have been doing it since the begining of time.

Is that internet time, or real time ?

Chris


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Margrave of Brandenburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-22-2005

"Donald Link" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 20 Feb 2005 09:22:07 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> >Uh oh, how will you steal DVD's now?

>
> Shows how stupid you are. As soon as it comes out in full force it
> will be cracked, either with a simple software fix or a minor purchase
> of hardware. What man fixes another can destroy. What most business
> failed to observe is that they do not get the brightest and the best,
> but mostly the cheapest and usually off shore, Like the unemployed
> Russian scientist after the cold war, there a ton of brilliant people
> just looking for a way to shove it up the butt of underpaying brain
> dead businesses. Plus, the thousands of hackers and crackers that
> work together as a team to break the stupid scheme companies come up
> with rather than make the prices reasonable enough to make it usless
> to copy. If Mickey Mouse would make their software operating systems
> more reasonable they would not have all the illegal copies running
> around. At half the price they would make a lot more since the
> activation scheme they started.


Shows how stupid YOU are. Their goal is not to eliminate piracy.
Rather, the goal is to maximize profit. Improving security with
copy-protection schemes is worthwhile only to the extent that the
cost of the security is less than the cost of the piracy.

Most individual DVD disks are NOT copied. Sure, the number that
ARE copied can be reproduced MANY times. But many of those
who make or take the copies would likely NOT be paying customers
if the copies were not available.

So the software owners must balance the cost of the lost revenue
due to copying (which is less than the total retail value of the pirate
copies), and compare that to the cost of developing and implementing
a copy-protection scheme.

Security only has to be "good enough". How good is that? Just
good enough to maximize profits.

Hollywood is NOT stupid.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Night Dweller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2005
"mrbingley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newszkSd.19867$(E-Mail Removed). uk...
>
>
> Donald Link wrote:
> :: On 20 Feb 2005 09:22:07 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> ::
> ::: Uh oh, how will you steal DVD's now?
> ::
> ::
> :: The same way people have been doing it since the begining of time.
>
> Is that internet time, or real time ?
>
> Chris
>


Do people not realize that if you truly want the movie you could always
record from the dvd player to another format, then convert and burn back to
the dvd? You will never stop it. Just move on.

Night Dweller (Active movier goer, Movie buyer, Movie burner) sue me.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Donald Link
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-23-2005
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:16:52 -0500, "Margrave of Brandenburg"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Donald Link" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On 20 Feb 2005 09:22:07 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>> >Uh oh, how will you steal DVD's now?

>>
>> Shows how stupid you are. As soon as it comes out in full force it
>> will be cracked, either with a simple software fix or a minor purchase
>> of hardware. What man fixes another can destroy. What most business
>> failed to observe is that they do not get the brightest and the best,
>> but mostly the cheapest and usually off shore, Like the unemployed
>> Russian scientist after the cold war, there a ton of brilliant people
>> just looking for a way to shove it up the butt of underpaying brain
>> dead businesses. Plus, the thousands of hackers and crackers that
>> work together as a team to break the stupid scheme companies come up
>> with rather than make the prices reasonable enough to make it usless
>> to copy. If Mickey Mouse would make their software operating systems
>> more reasonable they would not have all the illegal copies running
>> around. At half the price they would make a lot more since the
>> activation scheme they started.

>
>Shows how stupid YOU are. Their goal is not to eliminate piracy.
>Rather, the goal is to maximize profit. Improving security with
>copy-protection schemes is worthwhile only to the extent that the
>cost of the security is less than the cost of the piracy.
>
>Most individual DVD disks are NOT copied. Sure, the number that
>ARE copied can be reproduced MANY times. But many of those
>who make or take the copies would likely NOT be paying customers
>if the copies were not available.
>
>So the software owners must balance the cost of the lost revenue
>due to copying (which is less than the total retail value of the pirate
>copies), and compare that to the cost of developing and implementing
>a copy-protection scheme.
>
>Security only has to be "good enough". How good is that? Just
>good enough to maximize profits.
>
>Hollywood is NOT stupid.
>

Hollywood is stupid period! Not only are they stupid but they are
greedy. Look at the accounting practices they have tried where some
movies make maga bucks and they claim they lost money just to screw
people out of equity. Saying Hollywood is not stupid is like saying
the rocks are not hard. If they think they will eliminate piracy then
they are the dumbest pricks around. The cost of security will always
be less than the cost of priacy! What they failed to realize is that
they can squirm and twist and in the end they are doomed to
frustration. The only solution is to make the cost of their product
reasonable to the point that piracy is a loosing business. Then and
only then will they be successful. Plus, most discs that are popular
are copied period. Sure the majority are not because they are crap to
start with. The good movies are copied. The bad are not. Therefore
the majority of movies are not copied. Again, you assume the people
who make copies would not be paying customer. You are wrong. Plus, a
lot of people actually make copies of discs they paid for just to have
protection against damaged discs. A lot more do this than you think.
Also, if your argument about maximize profits held true then Hollywood
is a dismal failure just like the software vendors who could sell a
lot cheaper and make more money even if they used activation. I think
a fair compromise would be to use copy protection and activation along
with a fair price. Until that happens priacy will always be the way
to go for people who just do not have the resources to pay the high
prices.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Margrave of Brandenburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2005

"Donald Link" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:16:52 -0500, "Margrave of Brandenburg"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Donald Link" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> On 20 Feb 2005 09:22:07 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Uh oh, how will you steal DVD's now?
> >>
> >> Shows how stupid you are. As soon as it comes out in full force it
> >> will be cracked, either with a simple software fix or a minor purchase
> >> of hardware. What man fixes another can destroy. What most business
> >> failed to observe is that they do not get the brightest and the best,
> >> but mostly the cheapest and usually off shore, Like the unemployed
> >> Russian scientist after the cold war, there a ton of brilliant people
> >> just looking for a way to shove it up the butt of underpaying brain
> >> dead businesses. Plus, the thousands of hackers and crackers that
> >> work together as a team to break the stupid scheme companies come up
> >> with rather than make the prices reasonable enough to make it usless
> >> to copy. If Mickey Mouse would make their software operating systems
> >> more reasonable they would not have all the illegal copies running
> >> around. At half the price they would make a lot more since the
> >> activation scheme they started.

> >
> >Shows how stupid YOU are. Their goal is not to eliminate piracy.
> >Rather, the goal is to maximize profit. Improving security with
> >copy-protection schemes is worthwhile only to the extent that the
> >cost of the security is less than the cost of the piracy.
> >
> >Most individual DVD disks are NOT copied. Sure, the number that
> >ARE copied can be reproduced MANY times. But many of those
> >who make or take the copies would likely NOT be paying customers
> >if the copies were not available.
> >
> >So the software owners must balance the cost of the lost revenue
> >due to copying (which is less than the total retail value of the pirate
> >copies), and compare that to the cost of developing and implementing
> >a copy-protection scheme.
> >
> >Security only has to be "good enough". How good is that? Just
> >good enough to maximize profits.
> >
> >Hollywood is NOT stupid.
> >

> Hollywood is stupid period! Not only are they stupid but they are
> greedy. Look at the accounting practices they have tried where some
> movies make maga bucks and they claim they lost money just to screw
> people out of equity. Saying Hollywood is not stupid is like saying
> the rocks are not hard. If they think they will eliminate piracy then
> they are the dumbest pricks around. The cost of security will always
> be less than the cost of priacy! What they failed to realize is that
> they can squirm and twist and in the end they are doomed to
> frustration. The only solution is to make the cost of their product
> reasonable to the point that piracy is a loosing business. Then and
> only then will they be successful. Plus, most discs that are popular
> are copied period. Sure the majority are not because they are crap to
> start with. The good movies are copied. The bad are not. Therefore
> the majority of movies are not copied. Again, you assume the people
> who make copies would not be paying customer. You are wrong. Plus, a
> lot of people actually make copies of discs they paid for just to have
> protection against damaged discs. A lot more do this than you think.
> Also, if your argument about maximize profits held true then Hollywood
> is a dismal failure just like the software vendors who could sell a
> lot cheaper and make more money even if they used activation. I think
> a fair compromise would be to use copy protection and activation along
> with a fair price. Until that happens priacy will always be the way
> to go for people who just do not have the resources to pay the high
> prices.


If you only had a brain


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alpha
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2005
>
> If you only had a brain
>
>


That is exactly what I was thinking.....about you.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-25-2005
"Margrave of Brandenburg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

<snip>

> If you only had a brain


I have finally found your brain at the bottom of a very long quote <g>

 
Reply With Quote
 
NFP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2005
georgiarose wrote:

> A mate brought back a copy of Delovely from Thailand not so long ago and it
> is the first title I have been unable to copy. Not sure if it is a legit
> title or a pirate (probably the latter), but it has beaten me. It plays
> without issue in any ordinary standalone player but is seemingly not
> detected by any DVD drive. My Pioneer 106 or 108 refuse to acknowledge the
> discs existence, nor does my mates Lite-on or LG drives. The disc cannot be
> "explored" - it is as if there is no disc in the drive. Therefore none of
> the "rippers" work. Anyone had a similar experience?


It was my understanding that DVDROM drives require discs to be encoded
with UDF/ISO bridge format to be recognised (something about needing
ISO?), whereas standalone DVD players only require UDF.

Consequently, by not including the file system that DVDROM drives
require, the disc is supposedly unplayable except on standalones. This
approach to copy protection has not been used deliberately in the past
because of the huge installed base of DVDROM-based players versus
standalones and the potential to ****-off a large segment of the growing
market, but now with the proliferation of cheap standalones and one in
most homes, it is possible that the argument will be used that everyone
now has access to a standalone and so they don't need to support DVDROM
drive file system compatibility on discs.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, since operating systems will also
read UDF, but that was my understanding of the situation from an early
article.

IIRC, the original release of Elizabeth R4 was unplayable on DVDROM
drives because they left out the required file system.
 
Reply With Quote
 
GMAN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2005
In article <42224ec3$0$4734$(E-Mail Removed)>, NFP <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>georgiarose wrote:
>
>> A mate brought back a copy of Delovely from Thailand not so long ago and it
>> is the first title I have been unable to copy. Not sure if it is a legit
>> title or a pirate (probably the latter), but it has beaten me. It plays
>> without issue in any ordinary standalone player but is seemingly not
>> detected by any DVD drive. My Pioneer 106 or 108 refuse to acknowledge the
>> discs existence, nor does my mates Lite-on or LG drives. The disc cannot be
>> "explored" - it is as if there is no disc in the drive. Therefore none of
>> the "rippers" work. Anyone had a similar experience?

>
>It was my understanding that DVDROM drives require discs to be encoded
>with UDF/ISO bridge format to be recognised (something about needing
>ISO?), whereas standalone DVD players only require UDF.
>
>Consequently, by not including the file system that DVDROM drives
>require, the disc is supposedly unplayable except on standalones. This
>approach to copy protection has not been used deliberately in the past
>because of the huge installed base of DVDROM-based players versus
>standalones and the potential to ****-off a large segment of the growing
>market, but now with the proliferation of cheap standalones and one in
>most homes, it is possible that the argument will be used that everyone
>now has access to a standalone and so they don't need to support DVDROM
>drive file system compatibility on discs.
>


If they remove the bridge format then they will violate the book format and as
such will not be able to legally call them DVD's. Plus the copyrite holders
will sue.

>I'm not sure how accurate this is, since operating systems will also
>read UDF, but that was my understanding of the situation from an early
>article.
>
>IIRC, the original release of Elizabeth R4 was unplayable on DVDROM
>drives because they left out the required file system.

 
Reply With Quote
 
quietguy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-06-2005
Just for fun see if it will show up when you try it with DVD Rescue

David

GMAN wrote:

> In article <42224ec3$0$4734$(E-Mail Removed)>, NFP <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >georgiarose wrote:
> >
> >> A mate brought back a copy of Delovely from Thailand not so long ago and it
> >> is the first title I have been unable to copy.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Converting PAL DVDs to NTSC DVDs. Wild Coyote DVD Video 14 10-27-2004 08:58 PM
Shrinking 9gb DVDs to 4.7gb DVDs fkissam DVD Video 10 01-23-2004 03:32 AM



Advertisments