Copy protection is a waste of time/money

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Richard, Aug 5, 2004.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    The people looking to copy something for malicious reasons (rip offs
    they sell)
    will ALWAYS find a way to subvert copy protection of any kind. The
    average
    person who might copy something for personal use is no threat to the
    studios
    when it comes to DVDs and are the ONLY ones who might be stopped by
    copy protection. In this sense, copy protection is like a gun law;
    It only stops
    those who aren't a threat from owning guns.
     
    Richard, Aug 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Richard

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Richard wrote:
    > The people looking to copy something for malicious reasons (rip offs
    > they sell)
    > will ALWAYS find a way to subvert copy protection of any kind. The
    > average
    > person who might copy something for personal use is no threat to the
    > studios
    > when it comes to DVDs and are the ONLY ones who might be stopped by
    > copy protection. In this sense, copy protection is like a gun law;
    > It only stops
    > those who aren't a threat from owning guns.


    Believe it or not, there are corporate types that truly, deeply, sincerely
    believe that there is such a thing as "fool-proof copy protection", and that
    they can be the ones to achieve it. Try to convince them otherwise, and you
    may as well be trying to convert their religion.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Aug 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard

    Zodiac Guest

    Copy protection is fool-proof. Ask any fool.

    "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    news:ceufk7$c7p$...
    > Richard wrote:
    > > The people looking to copy something for malicious reasons (rip offs
    > > they sell)
    > > will ALWAYS find a way to subvert copy protection of any kind. The
    > > average
    > > person who might copy something for personal use is no threat to the
    > > studios
    > > when it comes to DVDs and are the ONLY ones who might be stopped by
    > > copy protection. In this sense, copy protection is like a gun law;
    > > It only stops
    > > those who aren't a threat from owning guns.

    >
    > Believe it or not, there are corporate types that truly, deeply, sincerely
    > believe that there is such a thing as "fool-proof copy protection", and

    that
    > they can be the ones to achieve it. Try to convince them otherwise, and

    you
    > may as well be trying to convert their religion.
    >
    > Mike
    >
    >
     
    Zodiac, Aug 6, 2004
    #3
  4. Richard

    jayembee Guest

    (Richard) wrote:

    > The people looking to copy something for malicious reasons
    > (rip offs they sell) will ALWAYS find a way to subvert copy
    > protection of any kind.


    Isn't that like saying that it's a waste of time and money
    to get a club or lojack for your car, because the professional
    car thieves will always find a way to steal your car anyway?

    I doubt that the studios figure that they'll be stopping the
    pros. They more than likely add on CP to stop the random joes
    who want to build their collection by renting & copying instead
    of buying.

    > The average person who might copy something for personal use
    > is no threat to the studios


    The average person is no threat. But the accumulation of a lot
    of such average persons might be.

    I sincerely doubt that it costs the studios much in time and
    money to put CP on their discs. If it stops enough copying
    to make it cost effective, then they aren't losing anything
    in the deal.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Aug 6, 2004
    #4
  5. Richard

    Justin Guest

    jayembee wrote on [6 Aug 2004 08:56:29 -0700]:
    > (Richard) wrote:
    >
    >> The people looking to copy something for malicious reasons
    >> (rip offs they sell) will ALWAYS find a way to subvert copy
    >> protection of any kind.

    >
    > Isn't that like saying that it's a waste of time and money
    > to get a club or lojack for your car, because the professional
    > car thieves will always find a way to steal your car anyway?
    >
    > I doubt that the studios figure that they'll be stopping the
    > pros. They more than likely add on CP to stop the random joes
    > who want to build their collection by renting & copying instead
    > of buying.


    Not having copy protection would remove one extra charge that the pros
    can be charged with when they eventually get caught.
     
    Justin, Aug 6, 2004
    #5
  6. >he people looking to copy something for malicious reasons (rip offs
    >they sell)
    >will ALWAYS find a way to subvert copy protection of any kind.


    true.

    >The
    >average
    >person who might copy something for personal use is no threat to the
    >studios


    also true. The Hollywood movie companies are overreacting. I have recorded
    Gilmore Girls, The King of Queens, and Little House on the Prairie among other
    shows off of tv, and I still bought the season dvd sets of those shows when
    they came out.

    >average
    >person who might copy something for personal use is no threat to the
    >studios
    >when it comes to DVDs and are the ONLY ones who might be stopped by
    >copy protection.


    also trie.

    >In this sense, copy protection is like a gun law;
    >It only stops
    >those who aren't a threat from owning guns.


    definitely true.
     
    Waterperson77, Aug 6, 2004
    #6
  7. of course, I don't believe that it's illegal to freely make available for
    download material that you are the sole copyright owner and producer of when
    you haven't made any agreements otherwise.

    It's just the MPAA shills in these newsgroups (and the Hollywood movie
    companies) saying that it is.

    According to them, if I as an artist produce a movie that is entirely my own
    and make it immediately or later freely available on the internet for free
    download (even though it's never been in a movie theatre, on tv, or elsewhere)
    that I'm breaking the law unless I pay the MPAA for permission to do so, and
    that anyone downloading my movie is breaking the law period by doing so, even
    though I NEVER ever signed any agreement with the MPAA that gave them any kind
    of permission or control over my movie.

    And the same with music and the RIAA, ASCAP, etcetera.

    That's what the MPAA shills in these newsgroups claimed.

    The Hollywood movie studios are getting WAY too big for their britches

    It is obvious that it is now time to start boycotting the Hollywood movie
    studios, the MPAA, ASCAP, RIAA, and (BMI? BMG?)
     
    Waterperson77, Aug 6, 2004
    #7
  8. Richard

    Jay G Guest

    Waterperson77 <> wrote:
    > of course, I don't believe that it's illegal to freely make
    > available for download material that you are the sole copyright
    > owner and producer of when you haven't made any agreements
    > otherwise.


    It's not.

    > It's just the MPAA shills in these newsgroups (and the Hollywood
    > movie companies) saying that it is.


    I've never seen either anyone on this newsgroup, or a Hollywood
    studio make such a claim. Could you cite where you've seen this?

    -Jay
     
    Jay G, Aug 7, 2004
    #8
  9. Richard

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Zodiac wrote:
    > Copy protection is fool-proof. Ask any fool.


    I stand corrected. ;)

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Aug 7, 2004
    #9
  10. Richard

    Mike Kohary Guest

    jayembee wrote:
    > (Richard) wrote:
    >
    >> The people looking to copy something for malicious reasons
    >> (rip offs they sell) will ALWAYS find a way to subvert copy
    >> protection of any kind.

    >
    > Isn't that like saying that it's a waste of time and money
    > to get a club or lojack for your car, because the professional
    > car thieves will always find a way to steal your car anyway?


    Not really - car thieves will look for the easy targets. There's no reason
    to even go after cars that are well defended. Not so in the computer realm,
    especially among today's community of hackers, where the greater the
    challenge, the greater the respect.

    > I doubt that the studios figure that they'll be stopping the
    > pros. They more than likely add on CP to stop the random joes
    > who want to build their collection by renting & copying instead
    > of buying.


    Amazingly, many studio corporate types figure exactly that. As I said
    elsewhere, some of them truly believe they can wipe out piracy altogether.
    Amusing, that. ;)

    But the point is this: copy protection and the prosecution of pirates is
    something of a waste of time. Not totally; these measures do have some
    value. But many industries interested in protecting their copyrights (most
    notably the music recording industry) depend on these measures to such a
    degree that it's self-defeating, while simultaneously ignoring common sense
    measures such as offering high quality products at reasonable prices that
    provide little incentive for consumers to copy. Many of these types seem
    religiously attached to the proposition that a pirate is some evil
    scum-sucking sub-human that deserves all that's coming to him, rather than
    recognizing the FACT that most "pirates" are simply mom-and-pop types
    ignorantly copying their friends' purchases. It's become a retribution
    thing with the companies - witness how long they've taken to climb on the
    digital music download train. Why weren't they the first ones out the door?
    Why put Napster out of business with legalities, rather than with superior
    software and service (or ideally, a combination of both. By simply driving
    Napster out of the game, they raised the stature of the P2P underground,
    which they couldn't attack at all, while failing to provide an alternative
    of their own for the next 2 years!).

    It's not that copy protection is a complete waste of time, but it's not
    effective by itself. It is only recently that the studios seem to be coming
    around to this idea, but their efforts sure look lame coming so late and
    with so little.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Aug 7, 2004
    #10
  11. Richard

    Dick Sidbury Guest

    Mike Kohary wrote:

    > jayembee wrote:
    >
    >> (Richard) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>The people looking to copy something for malicious reasons
    >>>(rip offs they sell) will ALWAYS find a way to subvert copy
    >>>protection of any kind.

    >>
    >>Isn't that like saying that it's a waste of time and money
    >>to get a club or lojack for your car, because the professional
    >>car thieves will always find a way to steal your car anyway?

    >
    >
    > Not really - car thieves will look for the easy targets. There's no reason
    > to even go after cars that are well defended. Not so in the computer realm,
    > especially among today's community of hackers, where the greater the
    > challenge, the greater the respect.
    >
    >
    >>I doubt that the studios figure that they'll be stopping the
    >>pros. They more than likely add on CP to stop the random joes
    >>who want to build their collection by renting & copying instead
    >>of buying.

    >
    >
    > Amazingly, many studio corporate types figure exactly that. As I said
    > elsewhere, some of them truly believe they can wipe out piracy altogether.
    > Amusing, that. ;)
    >
    > But the point is this: copy protection and the prosecution of pirates is
    > something of a waste of time. Not totally; these measures do have some
    > value. But many industries interested in protecting their copyrights (most
    > notably the music recording industry) depend on these measures to such a
    > degree that it's self-defeating, while simultaneously ignoring common sense
    > measures such as offering high quality products at reasonable prices that
    > provide little incentive for consumers to copy. Many of these types seem
    > religiously attached to the proposition that a pirate is some evil
    > scum-sucking sub-human that deserves all that's coming to him, rather than
    > recognizing the FACT that most "pirates" are simply mom-and-pop types
    > ignorantly copying their friends' purchases. It's become a retribution
    > thing with the companies - witness how long they've taken to climb on the
    > digital music download train. Why weren't they the first ones out the door?
    > Why put Napster out of business with legalities, rather than with superior
    > software and service (or ideally, a combination of both. By simply driving
    > Napster out of the game, they raised the stature of the P2P underground,
    > which they couldn't attack at all, while failing to provide an alternative
    > of their own for the next 2 years!).
    >

    While I agree with your main points, I think the idea that low prices
    and good service will kill pirates is not realistic. As a college
    professor, teaching computing, I see lots of students and interact with
    them technologically. It seems to me that students will copy to save
    virtually any amount of money as long as they perceive that they are not
    losing anything worth losing. They don't mind spending 400 dollars on
    an IPOD and then would download free good quality songs rather than pay
    50 cents for slightly higher quality songs that they received legally.
    Even the ones who will be software developers don't seem to see anything
    wrong (except in the abstract) about copying movies, software, and music.

    Clearly YMMV.

    dick
     
    Dick Sidbury, Aug 7, 2004
    #11
  12. Richard

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Dick Sidbury wrote:
    >
    > While I agree with your main points, I think the idea that low prices
    > and good service will kill pirates is not realistic.


    Sure, it's not. But that's precisely my point - you will never stop piracy,
    ever. It's flatly impossible. If the industries in question would realize
    and embrace that fact, they might be more clear-headed about responding to
    the problem. Instead, they tend to believe piracy can be extinguished, and
    operating off that false premise, they make decisions that aren't
    appropriate to address the problem at hand.

    So, given that you cannot stop piracy, what do you do? (I'm using the
    generic "you", of course.) Try to stop it anyway, as many companies
    currently do? Waste of resources. I think the better answer is to mitigate
    piracy as much as possible, which is what the measures I propose would do.

    A thieving pirate will never change his mind - he's not your customer, and
    you'll never win him over. So, ignore him. He's really not even hurting
    you, since he'd never buy your product anyway. He's just pissing you off;
    he's a mere annoyance. Instead, focus on the average person who is copying
    out of convenience and ignorance. I think that the vast majority of us
    would rather have the "official package" - I like the packaging, the cover,
    the disc art, and the general feeling that all of that produces that I own a
    sanctioned product of presumably higher quality than anything I could
    pirate. If anyone got it right, it was DVD producers, who usurped VHS with
    relative ease with low prices and high value. CD producers are only now
    getting a clue, which they should have gotten perhaps 5 years ago.

    You can't stop piracy, but you can minimize and mitigate its impact. By
    pursuing gross legal action and imposing anti-consumer protections instead,
    you alienate legitimate customers and throw good money after bad. Offer
    good value for a fair price instead - that will win you customers, and best
    of all, it's virtually free. :)

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Aug 7, 2004
    #12
  13. Richard

    jayembee Guest

    "Jay G" <> wrote:

    > Waterperson77 <> wrote:
    >
    >> It's just the MPAA shills in these newsgroups (and the
    >> Hollywood movie companies) saying that it is.

    >
    > I've never seen either anyone on this newsgroup, or a
    > Hollywood studio make such a claim. Could you cite where
    > you've seen this?


    His proof is probably an interview with some Hollywood type
    that he has on tape somewhere. Maybe even the same tape with
    that 2.35:1 broadcast of the Buffy musical episode, the ID
    bug that covers the screen, and other things that seem to
    air only on his planet.

    I can't wait until he posts all of this stuff on his website.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Aug 7, 2004
    #13
  14. Richard

    Russell Guest

    The problem isn't with the paranoia of the media industry,
    although that certainly exists in some degree.

    The legal industry (lawyers, judges, et al) has decreed that any
    rights that are not vigorously defended are forfeit. By
    "vigorously defended", they mean you must pay a lawyer to in
    order to retain your rights. Therefore every script kiddie or
    elderly grandmother who violates copyrights must be hanged,
    drawn, and quartered or the works will become public domain.
    This parody of justice extends to any kind of rights, not just
    copyright.

    Richard wrote:
    > The people looking to copy something for malicious reasons (rip offs
    > they sell)
    > will ALWAYS find a way to subvert copy protection of any kind. The
    > average
    > person who might copy something for personal use is no threat to the
    > studios
    > when it comes to DVDs and are the ONLY ones who might be stopped by
    > copy protection. In this sense, copy protection is like a gun law;
    > It only stops
    > those who aren't a threat from owning guns.
     
    Russell, Aug 9, 2004
    #14
  15. >The legal industry (lawyers, judges, et al) has decreed that any
    >rights that are not vigorously defended are forfeit.


    This is true for patents and trademarks, but not copyrights. A copyright holds
    fast no matter how many people violate it; a copyright holder can ignore
    violations for years or decades without losing the copyright . Vigorous
    defense of a copyright is seen as a deterrant (and a possible profit-maker),
    not as a legal necessity to keep the copyright active... I won't even hazard a
    guess as to how effective a deterrant it is.
     
    Robert Morgan, Aug 9, 2004
    #15
  16. Richard

    Russell Guest

    I'll concede the copyright point for now; but things are likely
    to change in the future and not for the better.

    I've also noticed that many an enterprise in management or
    financial difficulty may turn to law suits instead of
    identifying and fixing its internal problems. Collapse and
    bankruptcy are usually not far off. Lawyers and accountants are
    no substitute for good managers and engineers.

    Robert Morgan wrote:
    >>The legal industry (lawyers, judges, et al) has decreed that any
    >>rights that are not vigorously defended are forfeit.

    >
    >
    > This is true for patents and trademarks, but not copyrights. A copyright holds
    > fast no matter how many people violate it; a copyright holder can ignore
    > violations for years or decades without losing the copyright . Vigorous
    > defense of a copyright is seen as a deterrant (and a possible profit-maker),
    > not as a legal necessity to keep the copyright active... I won't even hazard a
    > guess as to how effective a deterrant it is.
    >
    >
     
    Russell, Aug 9, 2004
    #16
  17. Richard

    Justin Guest

    Russell wrote on [Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:13:42 -0500]:
    > I'll concede the copyright point for now; but things are likely
    > to change in the future and not for the better.


    Uh huh.

    Disney is a big proponent of indefinite copyright, Mickey should have
    been out of copyright YEARS ago.
     
    Justin, Aug 9, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Big Daddy
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    337
    Mark M
    Sep 3, 2004
  2. Aspiringpsychopath

    Do not waste your Money on the PCI-E MoBo

    Aspiringpsychopath, Dec 17, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    530
    David Preece
    Dec 18, 2004
  3. René Nielsen

    Re: Is A+ certification a waste of time and money?

    René Nielsen, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    444
    René Nielsen
    Aug 30, 2003
  4. dave
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,229
    Joe Silver
    Sep 4, 2003
  5. Peter H
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    445
    JP Morgan
    Sep 6, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page