Because I can watch any movie I want with the click of a button, or on any device I want, for my own personal use.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Digital rights protection in vista
- Thread starter colbyman
- Start date
- Status
Because I can watch any movie I want with the click of a button, or on any device I want, for my own personal use.
Has nothing to do with DRM in Vista, futher more the DRM has nothing to do with the Format war. You'd still have to buy a device to read the damn disk.
Edit:
Ironic that intelli-text brings up Blu-ray from format war.
and that is a right (well I have in the EU) and an ability you have right now. The HD stuff removes that right
marcusj3000
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 399
yes but was a dvd made for you to strip the data off and put on a pvr I don't think that fell under fair use. fair use was to be able to play the disc itelf in any device not strip it of it's contents.
which disk?
Which has nothing to do with DRM capabilities in Vista other than the fact that you wish to beable to disable it because you dont' require it. That has to do with the DMCA (which circumventing copyright protections on a disk is illegal, regardless of use, in the US) If you can find a way to back up your disks without circumventing the technology that may be outside the scope of the DMCA, and would probably be protected by Fair Use, all of which has no bearing on Vista's DRM compliance as the DRM in Vista isnt' protecting anything. The DMCA debate should be left for a different thread.
The DRM removes that right. Yes. Notice how AACP is used on both formats? Coincidence? I dont think so.
I've given my reasons why I think it should be optional in Vista.
What content has been stripped.
In the UK it is actually a right to make a personal backup of your medium. In fact the law goes as far as saying you can make a copy for use in your car.
I have that legal right to (in theory) copy a DVD to play in a portable DVD player in my car.
That right has been taken away from me with BlueRay/HD-DVD if I was to get a Vista-computer with a BR/HDDVD driver. The law hasn't changed, the law still stands, but some exec somewhere who thinks piracy is responsible for drop in sales (not shite films or records no couldn't be that...) has taken it on themselve to restrict my rights, a right I have under British law
thank god the EU is really keeping an eye on the whole DRM thing
marcusj3000
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 399
but for the man that said I put them on my pvr that isn't fair use.
why not? it is his disk, he bought it
w/e In the US its illegal but thats not even the point, and Vista isn't eroding that right at all anywhere, despite what you might say.
Also unless I'm mistaken, Fair Use says they can't sue you over it, doesn't mean they (MPAA/RIAA) have to make it easy for you to make a backup, which is also not Vista's fault, btw.
MS is one "the great enablers" They help to make it possible.
They are promoting DRM (and as a good thing.. they had to stop a load of FUD ads in the UK cause of their false-advertisment you know), and that is just as bad
/me resists the urge to involk goodwins law
I already addressed that point, several posts back, this is going in circles. MS has to pick there points to stand on to, they probably figured it was easier and a more marketable decision to include the capability for playback of protected content than omit it. Where they dropped the ball was in not allowing those who don't wish to playback protected content to remove it. A point which I have vehemently agreed with you already.
marcusj3000
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 399
when you make a copy you violate the license of the content provider do you not? All the disc I've seen has a disclaimer on it for unauthorised duplication on it without permission. so making a backup on a disc and then putiing it on a pvr results in mass production of someones content which is indeed illegal.
marcusj3000
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 399
then you would turn it on to make a backup of the content then turn it off after you are done.
Fair use protects circumstances like these, except where the DMCA explicitly prohibits it. US only of course. Its not relevant to the Vista DRM discussion at all really, as Vista does nothing to prevent or enable backing up or copying. People will still rip discs in vista and it will do nothing to stop them.
Continuing from the lock analogy just because you can pick locks doesn't mean you should tell others to throw away their keys. You should tell them that they can choose to do so but not force them. You may feel that the key is a dead weight but to most it's a convenience.
Now that law: Isn't that mad house you americans call the congress voted in by the people to serve the people? Start lobbying!!! Class actions or what ever!!!
Now that law: Isn't that mad house you americans call the congress voted in by the people to serve the people? Start lobbying!!! Class actions or what ever!!!
That's pathetic
Comparable circumstances exist for whatever region people might care to mention, with local laws imposing constraints upon more general principles. People cannot reasonably take one statement of principle from a legal document and argue that it necessarily constitutes an all-encompassing over-ride to everything else which may or may not be ralated. All legal rulings need to be taken into account.
As I understand it, the EU imposes constraints upon what types of content protection mechanisms may be imposed, but it still validates the legality of content protection mechanisms rather than ruling any such mechanism invalid by default. Unless a specific mechanism has already been ruled invalid then it is valid! Fair usage principles do not make content protection mechanisms illegal measures until and unless the legality of the specific measure has been tested and ruled upon.
The fact that intellectual property such as movies, books etc etc are subject to copyright law rather than a licensing scheme is irrelevent. Where copy protection mechanisms are in place and a terms of use agreement is used then the terms of that agreement become a legal contract which has been entered into. Unless those specific copy protection mechanisms are ruled to be inappropriate ones then it will be a legally binding contract. If those specific mechanisms are ruled to be inappropriate then the contract will be voided.
Again, you are misrepresenting a situation. Fair use laws do not give anybody unrestricted usage.
That's illogical. The law you mention stipulates that you can make personal backups. It doesn't stipulate that a PC OS must necessarily enable the facility to circumvent copy protection mechanisms in order that you can make the backup. As a matter of fact the OS doesn't even provide the capability of making direct copies of disks, protected ot otherwise. You need third-party software for that task. The OS only provodes the capacity to write files to disk, not make backup copies of entire [optical] disks.
The arguments which some of you are continually raising here are so far outta line that they're become nothing other than mischief making. Every time mention is made of DRM and Vista on the same page the same soap-boxing nonsense is raised time after time, and its not even based on a fair interpretation of the legal situation to begin with. The result is almost inevitably a trashed and locked thread, and that's a dmaned shame.
Look at this thread. 10 pages and all simply because a newcomer has innocently (and justifiably) asked if the DRM related inclusions will render his existing content unusable. They won't. That's all which needed to be said! Trashing the thread with soapboxing and then trying to invoke Godwin's law to put a stop to the objections to that action is mischief making!
well since i'm not gonna go read thru the nonsense....
duby...what did vista have that the IT dept you work for decided it needed to upgrade right away?
when i was a tech for a school district stuck with Win2k SP4 even though they had 2-3 years to move up...but the old adage came into play "if it ain't broke don't fix it." so we stuck with Win2k. i think after I left they moved to XP...but shit...thats an upgrade that took forever. even the DOD computer systems I had used during a couple summer jobs had XP SP1 but it had been months since SP2 came out and they STILL hadn't upgraded. not very smart if you ask me....but anyway.
duby...what did vista have that the IT dept you work for decided it needed to upgrade right away?
when i was a tech for a school district stuck with Win2k SP4 even though they had 2-3 years to move up...but the old adage came into play "if it ain't broke don't fix it." so we stuck with Win2k. i think after I left they moved to XP...but shit...thats an upgrade that took forever. even the DOD computer systems I had used during a couple summer jobs had XP SP1 but it had been months since SP2 came out and they STILL hadn't upgraded. not very smart if you ask me....but anyway.
This isn't true.
Terms of use agreements are only binding if you agree to them. Take a DVD for example. If I buy a movie at the store, and it has terms of use (ie. I will not make unauthorized copies), I can simply disagree with the terms of use. I still own the DVD, having purchased it, and can use it however I'd like, so long as I do not break any laws (namely copyright law).
What a complete and utter load of nonsense, jimmyb!
Terms of use conditions, so long as they don't themselves infringe upon legalities, are binding. Accessing the disk contents constitutes agreement to them. People can't simply choose to 'opt out' of the terms of use and still access the contents.
If you don't agree to the terms of use the only "use it however I'd like" you have access to would be to use the physical disk as a frisbee, use it to make a wind mobile, break it up and use it to make a mosiac.........
This is getting sillier by the minute!
Terms of use conditions, so long as they don't themselves infringe upon legalities, are binding. Accessing the disk contents constitutes agreement to them. People can't simply choose to 'opt out' of the terms of use and still access the contents.
If you don't agree to the terms of use the only "use it however I'd like" you have access to would be to use the physical disk as a frisbee, use it to make a wind mobile, break it up and use it to make a mosiac.........
This is getting sillier by the minute!
Accessing the disk contents does not constitute an agreement.
This is why with software you explicitly have to click "yes" to a license agreement. This is also why shrink-wrap licensing is non-enforceable.
calebb
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2000
- Messages
- 8,758
No kidding.
This should be moved to the soapbox forum or locked. Every aspect of this argument has been thoroughly debated multiple times.
This should be moved to the soapbox forum or locked. Every aspect of this argument has been thoroughly debated multiple times.
calebb
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2000
- Messages
- 8,758
Incorrect. (and argumentative / counterproductive to the topic at hand)
I cant prevent what people buy. Most people are already buying Vista. I have to know Vista to support it.
But that doesnt make it OK... It's not alright....
marcusj3000
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 399
You can't tell them that they need to make DRM optional and uninstallable. DRM is included to meet the goals of content makers and to make sure their OS remains viable. MS has no controll over DRM the content providers do and they have made it crystal clear to MS that if they don't include it then they won't allow the MS to use their content. MS had the choice of not to include it and piss of the masses or include it and turn a deaf ear to the minority and we see which direction they chose.
Oh rly? MS came up with PlayForSure and have FULL control over it and who can use it
so they are not as innocent or as "bend over and just take it" as you make out
....so would that mean you're a computer tech for a store or something? I guess what I was trying to ask was, what do you do? lol
- Status