We can't really blame the studios for copy protection

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by sneakers, Apr 25, 2007.

  1. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    You saw the first links I posted (that are for Canadians . . . the 3 for $10 deals), and recently you saw the normal standard links that I posted (offered for Canadians).

    Unfortunately, because you don't know what the other offer codes are for Americans, you're only aware of the .49 cent deal (which is ok, but I agree with you, it's certainly not great). I don't keep a list; otherwise I would let you know what the better offers are for Americans. But you should be aware Columbiahouse does offer better deals than that .49 cent deal (yes, even for Americans); they may not be easy to find, but there's no way that's Columbiahouse's only offer for American customers.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2007
  2. oldjoe

    oldjoe Well-Known Member

    And again, disc failure is all speculation based on media quality, handling and means of storage based on ones individual practices. Your opinions of the "scum" will not affect what they do as pirating is a fact of like just like any other criminal activity.
    A $3 DVD movie is just not a reality in the U.S. New movies, on the average, are a minimum of about $15 until they are placed in the bargain bins, which is quite some time after their release, of the discount stores where they hit their low of about $5.
  3. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    If it were all just random "speculation", there would be no point in making a choice to buy better quality media. Informed people make those choices because they believe they will not only achieve better quality burns, but also because their burns will still be read without issue for a longer period of time. If it's just pure "speculation" people, including blank media companies, would not be interested in longevity testing; people can and do make informed decisions about their blank media choices. So while I may agree with you that longevity is based on the blank media one is using and the manner in which it is handled (and burn quality), it is still safe to say that some will last longer than others, regardless of whether you agree they may fail in 5-10 years. Similarly, and more to my original point, pressed/commercial dvds will last longer than burned dvd-rs (so there is some additional benefit in buying a pressed disc over a dvd-r); whether you agree with my prediction about when dvd-rs will begin to fail has no bearing on the longevity of pressed/commercial dvds vs dvd-rs; pressed dvds last longer.

    You won't find me stating that my "opinion" affects what pirates do anywhere.

    Fair enough.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2007
  4. customshopkv1

    customshopkv1 Well-Known Member

    US consumers (California especially) are being raped. Gasoline, Electricity, Natural Gas and cost of living just to name a few. I really don't see the problem in renting movies and making a copy of them. Money saved even though only a dollar or two adds up. It's not like the discs are being mass produced and distributed to make a profit. If a copy is sitting in my dvd case under my bed and being watched ever once and a while I really don't see the harm. I probably would not go and rent the same movie more then once if I didn't copy it. I am not justifying it an any way, the law is the law. Again, there is a difference here:

    1. The person how buys an original movie and copies it.
    2. A person who rents or borrows an original and makes a copy for themselves.
    3. A person who rents or borrows an orininal and makes multiple copies for distribution to make a profit.

    Obviously the person in catagory 1 is doing what is right, while the catagory 2 and 3 are breaking the law. The severity of the infraction referenced in catagory 2 and 3 is completely different IMHO. I am not saying people in catagory 2 are right, but I don't think they are bad people who should be prosecuted. If people make a big deal about "buying originals", then there really shouldn't be companies (i.e. Netflix, Blockbuster, Hollywood Video) renting movies. Isn't renting a movie impacting the movie industries profit in the long run?
  5. oldjoe

    oldjoe Well-Known Member

    And once again, media life is still no more than educated speculation. Research into media longevity is an ongoing process and no absolute conclusions have been made. Lower grade media will, in all likelihood, deteriorate faster than quality media but that does not prove inconclusively that a commercial DVD will last longer than a burned DVD. Not to imply it is the norm but I have ran across some pretty crappy commercial media.
    We have digressed from the original issue of copying rental DVD's vs. purchasing a commercial DVD from an economical view.
    Less than $3 compared to $5. When I went to school, that was a significant difference.
  6. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    You mean "does not prove conclusively" . . .
    `Disc rot' notwithstanding, a properly made stamped/commercial dvd will last longer than (burned) dvd-r media, which uses organic dye that will degrade over time. If you want to believe otherwise, that's your choice; it's not worth my time debating.

    As I've pointed out earlier, for Canadians the difference can be even smaller (and I suspect it's also approximately the same for Americans if I bothered to look around hard enough via Columbiahouse), and I still fail to see how a $2-$3 difference would provide any great demand for pirates. So the cost difference is becoming much smaller, if one, as a consumer, looks hard enough. And then there's a moral implication . . . sure people can pirate movies--but does that make it right? For a $2-3 difference, I find pirating hard to justify (which is not to say I agree with what probably amounts to price setting by the industry on new in-store releases).
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2007
  7. oldjoe

    oldjoe Well-Known Member

    The facts, and not my belief's, are the issue. DVD testing, on any level, has yet to prove that a commercial disc will in fact retain it's data in tact for a longer period of time than a burned DVD.
    And once again, I am NOT promoting any illegal activities on any level but the fact remains that copying rental DVD's is very appealing form a financial point of view.
    The Columbia House alternative may well be a viable alternative for some but they have less than a shining reputation in the U.S. but that's a whole different issue.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2007
  8. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    Then you may find some chemistry studies on the subject interesting. Organic dye degrades over time; it's a fact. (My girlfriend graduated university in chemistry; I remember some of her studies and testing in organic chemistry).

    On what grounds do you believe you're privy to all testing that has ever occurred? Some graduate students I know of did test stamped and burned media. In all cases, the burned media failed first (their use of the equipment, for that purpose, was not condoned by the university; as such their findings were not published).

    By the way, I had a case of dvds that I left in the trunk/boot of a car over one month during summer in a parking lot. Half of the burned backups now fail (all Verbatims and TYs--and some of the ones that will play indicate worse quality scans than before), and all of the commercial discs still play. Granted, that's hardly a "test" that I had conducted on purpose (and I don't pretend that it's a scientific test; however, the results are not surprising, at least, to me).

    I'm aware of the NIST study that may indicate a shorter lifespan on dvd-rom
    under certain conditions (they test based on the aluminum layer's exposure to oxygen). Regardless, I'm not having any problems with properly made stamped media, but I know lots of people having problems with burned media after a few years.

    Anyway, I don't feel there's much point discussing this issue further; I'm done with this thread.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2007
  9. DrinkLyeAndDie

    DrinkLyeAndDie Retired Moderator

    Actually, I do blame studios for copy protection.

    The first thing to look at are the categories of "Pirates":

    1. The home user who legitimately owns a collection of DVDs and for valid reasons makes backups of their collection so as to not end up with damaged discs. This tends to be the same type of person who makes copies of their CD collection as well. [For those who don't really believe people do this... my lesson as to why a backup collection is a wise idea was my 1st year of college when nearly my entire CD collection was stolen from my dorm room (10+ yrs ago) by the friends of my roommates. Nice people...]
    2. The home user who now and then wants a DVD but doesn't wish to purchase it so they buy a copied DVD.
    3. The home user who feels prices are over-inflated so they now and then copy a DVD themselves.
    4. The home user who hates the industry as a whole and copies any DVD they wish to own.
    5. The true "Pirate" that copies and sells DVDs on a large scale. This generally includes counterfeit DVDs.

    Who should the industry really be going after? The dilemma is ethical and moral. Should a person who say copies 1 DVD a year be considered a horrible person? Nonetheless, the person who really has done nothing wrong is the person who is Category 1 since they own the collection and they're just copying their own property.

    Does copy protection really work? Um, look at the black-market industry and the counterfeit DVDs flying around. Let me also point something out. Any protection will always be broken and since a large-scale "Pirate" is about making money... they'll find a way around it. Even for the home user the protection really doesn't make much difference when it comes to breaking it.

    So, who really gets hurt by copy protection? Well, the home user, of course. Piracy still exists even after many incarnations of protections that have evolved to the point of selling a consumer a flawed non-compliant DVD. Are the MPAA, Sony, AACS LA, etc actually benefiting the consumer in any way?

    One of the large excuses used over the years has always been... prices are higher because of stealing. I'll point out that even stores used this as an excuse for cigarette prices. I'm not kidding. The CD industry used this excuse years ago now and then they lost a class-action lawsuit. I got a check for $15 that I never cashed. I actually framed the check. It's a $15 check that means absolutely nothing at all. Have CD prices dropped since the lawsuit? Not that I noticed. In fact, CD prices were high when they were first released and never did drop all that low. Of course prices varied depending on where you lived.

    My point, in the end, is that the easiest excuse in the world for keeping prices higher or inflating them even more is to say that piracy is the cause. Then the normal user will get mad at the pirate instead of the industry that's squeezing more blood from us. Great tactic, actually. In the end, I see the industry, itself, as a thug. I see it as a drug dealer selling drugs to the many addicts. Get people hooked and you can set the price to whatever you want and blame something else for the reason prices have to change. They'll keep coming back for more.

    To conclude, copy protection is not a solution. In the beginning it was the studios against the large-scale pirates. Generally normal people, of course, agreed that the pirates were horrible. But times have changed. Now the normal person is automatically viewed as a pirate right from the beginning and even though they've done nothing wrong they are punished by both price and by the simple fact that they can't even view some of the DVDs they buy because the copy protection is so ridiculous. This is no longer a war between right and wrong. It's all about money and the consumers are given no respect at all.

    Anyway, just a my partial view on the whole situation. Copy protection will not be the solution to piracy.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2007
  10. oldjoe

    oldjoe Well-Known Member

    Given your past experience with the discs left in your trunk I can understand why you believe that commercial discs are somehow better than burned ones. I have found it to be generally certain..... for every story there is a contradicting story.
    I am not privy to any more disc testing info than any other informed user but I would think that someone would publish definitive results if and they actually were to achieve them. There is still no valid proof of any superiority longevity concerning commercial or burned DVD's so I will continue under the assumption that there is no quality difference until someone actually provides some valid studies confirming it one way or the other.
    In actuality there was never a point at all to discussing the longevity of media when the original discussion was the cost effectiveness of copying a rented DVD vs. the cost of purchasing a DVD.
  11. DrinkLyeAndDie

    DrinkLyeAndDie Retired Moderator

    That depends on what country the person lives in. ;)

    Nonetheless, we're nothing in the grand scheme of things. Remove us legitimate and fair-use activists and the piracy market will not be impacted one single bit.
  12. sneakers

    sneakers Well-Known Member

    How many people leave their burned discs in the trunk of a hot car? Most people keep them home at least I do so that test means nothing.

    If I were traveling with them I would move them to back seat and turn the air conditioner on. Anyone should know that the heat is not good for any discs burned or not.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2007
  13. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    Something else is getting missed here. How many rental DVD's are getting "backed up" that would never, EVER, be bought retail anyway?

    A lot of people back up rental DVD's "because they can" - and they build up a big "collection" that they never would have at all had if they had to buy the DVD.

    These peple aren't costing the industry a dime, but you can bet they are being counted in the "whining stats" of "how much money we lose". YES, what they are doing is still wrong - totally agreed. But they don't impact the bottom line at all - though we would be led to believe they are killing the industry.

  14. Franchise

    Franchise Well-Known Member

    If Hollywood would just put out the special editions that they always wait about a year to put out of great movies, more people would buy these things. My parents are no frills kind of people, but most of the people I do know watch the special features and feel cheated when a new edition comes out later down the line. It's just part of sponging the common man for more money that they don't really need.