FCC Allows Blocking of Set-Top Box Outputs 288
bth writes with this excerpt of an AP story as carried by Yahoo: "Federal regulators are endorsing Hollywood's efforts to let cable and satellite TV companies turn off output connections on the back of set-top boxes to prevent illegal copying of movies. ... In its decision Friday, the agency stressed that its waiver includes several important conditions, including limits on how long studios can use the blocking technology. The FCC said the technology cannot be used on a particular movie once it is out on DVD or Blu-ray, or after 90 days from the time it is first used on that movie, whichever comes first."
PREDICTIONS ARE IN (Score:5, Insightful)
1) pirates unaffected
2) legit consumers annoyed and prevented from seeing their movie
Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN (Score:5, Interesting)
3) legit customers resort to piracy
4) MPAA cites increasing piracy to justify further usability-sacrificing restrictions
GOTO 1)
(really, you could flatten this loop anywhere, but the only realistic place to break out of it is at step 4)
Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN (Score:5, Informative)
MPAA considered harmful.
Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN (Score:5, Insightful)
(really, you could flatten this loop anywhere, but the only realistic place to break out of it is at step 4)
The problem is that the only one of those things most execs give a flying damn about addressing is (1). If along with their new DRM they added amazing new capabilities--say creating a mobile device with apps and sleek form factor that plays your protected content anywhere, to address (2), or giving an online store to easily purchase content to fix (3)--then that wouldn't be half bad. Unless of course Apple does that, in which case fuck all.
But seriously. I have an iTouch with some limited content on it, and will be upgrading to its bigger cousin when I have the money to spare. It does kind of bother me that I can't take my iTunes-bought video and put it on various devices--along with other objections--but the iPhone OS model, which is culminated in the iPad, is really an object lesson for people who think that suing is the only way to stop piracy.
Yes, iPhones get hacked, and yes, they only operate with iTunes, and yes, apps and music are still stolen a lot in spite of their efforts. However, the biggest advantage they have over the *AAs is that they give you compelling reason to use their products. And hey guess what! The consumers love them for it.
And no Apple bashing, please. This isn't comparing Apple to Linux, Microsoft, or Google. It's comparing them to RIAA/MPAA. I think we can all agree they're better than THEM.
Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it any more OK for Apple to lock down a handheld media device than it is for the MPAA to lock down your set-top-box?
Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot commenters hold monopolists to a higher standard
Nope, the law holds companies that are in a position to abuse their market share to a higher standard. Slashdot readers, by and large, don't accept 'but we don't have a monopoly' as an excuse for being an asshat. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's admirable.
Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it any more OK for Apple to lock down a handheld media device than it is for the MPAA to lock down your set-top-box?
1) You do not have to buy an Apple; you can get other smartphones. But much of America has no choice but to get TV from their cable company. I cannot get FiOS where I live (been on waiting list for 4 years) and trees prevent me from having satellite. So I'm stuck with that set top box. You know, the box I shouldn't even have to have if Comcast were to use a STANDARD to encode their digital so that my Media Center could work without an IR blaster? That box right there.
2) Apple is a vendor. Comcast is a vendor. The MPAA is not a vendor. You cannot choose to or not to purchase from them. They insidiously work behind the scenes on crap like this, whereas you know up front when buying an Apple that it's locked down. It's a minor but notable distinction from the point above.
Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do people continue to insist that 'nothing' is a viable choice in the *marketplace*?
My way or the highway does not constitute a market choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because 'nothing' can be a highly motivating factor for those that want 'something' (typically your money).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't compare these things. [ ( Satan + Hitler + Cartman + Wicked Witch of the West ) ^ 10 year total execs bonuses ] are better than **AA . It's like comparing light years with yards.
But, still, Apple is trying very hard, what makes them second place...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When I buy a DVD or a CD I either pay for plastic or the convenience of enjoying the content when and how I please. In one case I will only spend pennies in the other a lot more. The iTunes solution is even less appealing than the plastic.
Hollywood and musicians are selling convenient access to their content. Anything less reduces the value of their product. Once we understand the dynamics we can build the business model. Unlike the past there are billions of opportunities to make a profitable sale its only
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I tried to watch Kitchen Nightmares tonight OTA. The last 15 or so minutes were so garbled that I have no idea what happened
Edit (not a real edit, just a "I hadn't quite posted yet" edit): I'm much happier now that I've watched the fireworks display for the BMets game.
Back to the point: If I'm close enough to the city center to see fireworks from every window in my apartment (I live on Oak St, Binghamton - as for privacy, if you really want to go door to door and ask about skine on Slashdot, then
Re: (Score:2)
So in mathematical terms, this is a function with a limit of infinite downloads and the MPAA stopping to offer anything that anyone could decode at all. ^^
I approve. Please continue. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN (Score:5, Insightful)
1) pirates unaffected
Its better than that. Pirates should be celebrating.
What this means is that the MAFIAA thinks they can do day & date releases on Pay-Per-View and in the theaters.
However, there will always be at least a handful of people with the means to capture such PPV transmissions and distribute copies on the net. So it means no more need for crappy camcorders in the theaters and the consequent risk of the recently legislated crazy-ass sentences for getting caught doing so. Now, the pirates can comfortably record new theatrical releases in the safety of their own homes and their hundreds of millions of friends on the net can all download new theatrical releases in HD-quality long before the movies are released on bluray.
Re: (Score:2)
bluray
Am I the only one who sees that word as "blurry" unless it is capitalized "BluRay"?
Re: (Score:2)
bluray
Am I the only one who sees that word as "blurry" unless it is capitalized "BluRay"?
Maybe you're seeing a bit blurry?
The "blur" in Blu-ray (Score:2)
Am I the only one who sees that word as "blurry" unless it is capitalized "BluRay"?
You're not the only one, once movie studios start using the Image Constraint Token [audioholics.com] on Blu-ray Discs next year. A player has to downsample outputs without HDCP (e.g. component and early DVI) to SDTV resolution if the disc has an Image Constraint Token. When your TV tries to upsample it back to fill the 1080p panel, your Blu-ray will become a bit more Blu-rry.
Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And even if they find no other method to capture the video, a decent cam with a tripod and a high quality LCD or projector is still better than a handheld cam in a theater
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yea, similar stuff is already being done but in a more obvious way, random numbers popping up on the screen.
Waiting for them to move to more subtle ways so that atleast when paying for the stuff I dont have to have blocks of numbers with opaque backgrounds showing up in the middle of the screen blocking my view
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is the signal is encrypted so it's a bit more complicated. Fortunately these guys [hdfury.com] have done all the dirty work for you if I understand this correctly.
Wait, the signal from the STB to the TV is encrypted? Are you sure you don't mean the coax from the wall to the STB? I don't think most TV's are smart enough to deal with non-pathetic crypto.
As for tapping off the STB-TV line, if it isn't HDMI, you could do that but you might have trouble getting full HD. If it is HDMI, you've got to fuck with the hardware/firmware/drivers to persuade the STB to send a signal at all, unless its broadcast flag is off in the first place.
Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this has been pointed out before, and I am myself tired of repeating this, but it's necessary:
1) It doesn't matter what encryption they use, the decryption key is on the device, so we'll get it eventally
2) The signal travels a long way. They can encrypt as many miles as they want, and they can encrypt the last mile, but the last 3 meters (the 3 meters from your TV to your eyes) can't be encrypted. So, eventually, the signal will need to be decrypted and there, it is vulnerable.
3) If they resort to putting mandatory DRM on your brain, and send the signal encrypted till it reaches your eyes, refer to 1) (the decryption key will be on your brain and we can get it).
What baffles me is why we are still trying to find technical workarounds to a commercial issue. People want to produce content. People want to watch content. Companies want to make money by being the middle man. This middle man has done nothing but move group 1 further and further apart from group 2. But regardless of how much they try, they won't prevent people from producing content, and won't prevent people from wanting to watch that content. We will eventually realize the artificial limitation here, remove the middle man, and find a way to pay the producers and get our content without *AAs.
To quote Megadeth: If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line, But it better work this time.
So, while all of you keep fighting each other over this moot point, I will go over to megavideo to watch Flash Forward S01E19.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably the only remaining working output would be HDCP-encrypted HDMI output, that's what would be connected to the TV.
to ensure that nobody buys!
Best DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Federal regulators are endorsing Hollywood's efforts to let cable and satellite TV companies turn off output connections on the back of set-top boxes to prevent illegal copying of movies
Good. Turning off ALL the outputs will certainly prevent those movies from being copied. I've always thought that such an approach will be the ultimately successful DRM the companies are looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
And with all those outputs turned off, people are just going to abandon Cable and Satellite TV altogether. Upon finding it harder to watch what they want, the cable companies' customers (imminent ex-customers most likely) will just download their content... legal or bootlegged. Most consumers don't really care - they'll follow the path of least resistance and rationalize their behavior.
They won't turn them all off (Score:5, Informative)
Just all the analogue ones. The media industry is convinced that HDMI with HDCP is completely uncrackable and thus what they need to go with. Output over HDMI only, and then nobody can capture your signal.
Of course there's plenty of ways around that, HDCP is not particularly good encryption and has been broken in numerous ways. However they are convinced if they can just get everyone on it, things will be great.
However that screws over anyone with an older display. If you have a display that was made before HDCP came in to play (or before they had digital inputs), you are SOL.
So what will happen is pirates will simply get around it and distribute the content, legit consumers will get screwed. Same as always.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't need to do that. I haven't gone looking recently, but there were HDCP remover devices out there. More or less they acted as repeaters, the input side negotiates HDCP so the device is happy, but the output side doesn't check with the device it is hooked to.
However, while those might be hard to locate because of the DCMA and all that garbage, you can simply convert it to analogue. The HDFury devices are quite popular with projector heads that have old equipment without HDMI. It takes HDMI, with HDCP
Here's a hint consumers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Pay for something else!
Could it be that Federal Regulators might actually want you to stop subscribing to crappy services?
Adam Smith would be so proud.
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be that Federal Regulators might actually want you to stop subscribing to crappy services?
Puhleez! They can't even decide on a secret handshake let alone anything that would be in the consumer's best interests. All Federal regulators want is to remain Federal regulators (until they get a better paying job in the private sector where they can lobby their replacements).
Saw it coming... rolled my own (Score:3, Informative)
Tactics like this are exactly why I prefer systems like MythTV [mythtv.org] for windows and EyeTV [elgato.com] for Mac. Heck, I can much more easily expand my storage space [promise.com] and install commercial skipping scripts [google.com] with those, so I'll just roll my own PVR.
For sources, you can get clear QAM service on most cable systems, including broadcast digital HDTV. And there's things like Boxee, Hulu, Miro and of course, bittorrent.
Re: (Score:2)
It really sucks that you can't use it with cable or satellite HDTV though.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know why not. There are HDMI capture devices out there, and it takes all of a few minutes to build an IR blaster and attach it to a serial port or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Sucks for MythTV users? Are you kidding?
If the cable company doesn't let customers watch the TV shows, then the customers need to download the shows via bittorrent. Once the customers download all their TV, then .. um .. what service does the cable company provide? Oh, right: nothing. Result: save money!
Sucks that they are actively trying to save me money by telling customers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just roll my own PVR
I have yet to see a home built PVR with the capabilities of the PVR that comes from the cable company. Until it does, home rolled PVRs are just an interesting project, but not a viable alternative (for me anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see a home built PVR with the capabilities of the PVR that comes from the cable company. Until it does, home rolled PVRs are just an interesting project, but not a viable alternative (for me anyway).
What capabilities are you not seeing in the DIY version? I haven't seen any DIY PVR systems that didn't have every feature under the sun (unless they were "lemme see what I can do with this old 486" versions). Seems to me that rather than whining about "missing features", it might do some good to specify which features you feel are missing - perhaps someone will suggest solution that escaped your notice, or perhaps a bored coder will be inspired to implement it.
Admittedly, I have yet to actually use a PVR/D
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Um, how exactly does this those folks downloading content off the net?
Oh, wait. It doesn't. Instead, it gives me one less reason to use an STB, and one more reason to ditch cable.
With every passing year I consume less and less commercial content. Hollywood's most effective DRM to date has been their adversarial attitude toward their customers; they can't seem to figure out that I'm not going to pay for what I can't enjoy. Funny, that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can still record TV with the tuner software but as yet I don't have guide information available so that I can scan ahead and choose what to record.
Can't you do it in the old way by reading a paper or online TV guide and then manually programming the start/stop times (like I do with a VCR)?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305806/ [imdb.com]
El secreto de sus ojos
Won Oscar. Another 34 wins & 19 nominations
IMDB score: 8.4
Total budget: 2.500.000 (two and a half million dollars)
Compare that to Avatar, that also has an IMDB score of 8.4 ... and costed ~280 million dollars (actual budget) and ~200 millions in marketing and other stuff.
It's not that the price tags are high because the movies are expensive ... the movies are expensive because the price tags are very high. They need to justify the outrageous amou
Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean not for nothing, but I don't think I've ever seen a movie being distributed on the internet that's been ripped from a cable box. There isn't even a Scene spec for it. By time movies hit Pay-Per-View, there's almost always a version of the film circulating the internet. Maybe somewhere, somehow, there's an exception, but the only piracy I could possibly see this deterring is Joe Sixpack using a set-top DVD recorder to lend to Frank Furter. Stopping piracy is one thing, but I'm wondering how much further this string of ridiculousness can go. Actually, that's probably a bad thing to wonder...
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't about preventing copies of movies. It's about controlling the use of external DVRs and any means to avoid watching ads. The cable/satellite service wants to be certain they can force you to watch ads tacked on around premium services and thrown up in the OSD when you do any operations like skipping around. They killed CableCard with their foot dragging and now they're going after the last hole in their fortress of pablum.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean not for nothing, but I don't think I've ever seen a movie being distributed on the internet that's been ripped from a cable box. There isn't even a Scene spec for it.
Scene is far from be all and end all of video piracy, especially when it comes to quality - scene is really only for stupid little kids who are more interested in their silly little rules and their rush to see who can 'release' something first - scene doesn't give a damn about quality, its all quantity and ego. There are plenty of people sharing movies outside of 'the scene' and all their drama.
Years before bluray, hddvd, or even x264 and mkv people were distributing full-bitrate HDTV caps as mpeg2 transport streams (.ts files). There were two main sources - over the air broadcasts and caps from channels like HBO and Showtime, occasionally people would share caps from 'wildfeeds' - 45mbps satellite backhauls. Ironically, as it is today, almost all PPV transmissions are unencrypted. They might have the 'no copy' bit set, but on the wire between the head-end and the cable box, they are in the clear. So if you tune to the right QAM channel you can record most PPV shows, even the ones your neighbors are watching (just hope they don't pause or rewind because you'll record that too). There are even some scripts floating around out there to periodically scan the block of channels used for PPV and record anything that shows up. Kind of the DVR version of google's "I'm feeling lucky."
This seems absurd, did I get that correctly? (Score:2)
Is this for real or did I misunderstand what this is about?
These set-top boxes will be loaded with image identification software, given targets (but nothing that is on DVD already and some other phony limitations) and the scan the output continuously for a matches. If they find one they will scream "Hah, Pirate!" and cut the output. Oh brother!
And when they find something, they most certainly won't send that data back over the wire, right?!
Re: (Score:2)
No TV?
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what sort of scam it is. It's a scam. Whether or not this only applies to PPTV or not, I don't care. I do not like. I actually purchase what I watch (rental DVD, own the DVD, watch on tv via cable) or I don't watch it.
I'm not missing much, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't watch the Simpsons so the reference is lost (I've caught an episode or 10 in the past, but nothing in the past 5 years).
Re: (Score:2)
Get a converter? I know there is a HDMI->Component and HDMI->VGA converter and it would probably be possible to convert the VGA or component signal to S-Video or composite if needed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not HDCP compliant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seems that there are devices that can decode HDCP to analog.
HDfury3 specifications:
Input: 2 x HDMI v1.3 (DVI 1.0 compatible) (Switch: Auto / PortA / PortB ) ...
Output: VGA FEMALE output connector, 10 bit analog resolution.
Output format: Either RGB or YPbPr, dip-switch selectable
HDCP supported (Integrated HDCP decipher engine, Pre-programmed HDCP key)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the HDFury2: http://hd.engadget.com/2008/08/18/hdfury2-adapter-kit-tunnels-hdcp-laden-hdmi-content-via-componen/ [engadget.com]
HDCP compliant HDMI in, Audio Optical/Analog and Component/VGA&RGB out.
Re: (Score:2)
That completely defeats the purpose of the block in the first place. Why did MPAA bother?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know.
DVD CSS has been completely broken for many years and now is about as useful as a "please don't copy this" message on the disk, but new DVDs still have it. In principle it is not possible to make a working DRM for non-interactive medium, but they continue to try.
Why the block? Maybe they hope that most people would not know about devices like HDFury and as such be prevented from copying the movie (or even seeing it, if they have an older TV that does not support HDCP). But again, legitimate con
Looks rather weak to me logically (Score:4, Insightful)
The FCC said the technology cannot be used on a particular movie once it is out on DVD or Blu-Ray, or after 90 days from the time it is first used on that movie, whichever comes first.
Wait, wait. What?
So let me get this straight... once the movie is released on DVD or Blu-Ray, the technology is not allowed to be used on it? As in, this only (theoretically) affects... what, just the movies that hit PPV a week or so before they hit DVD/Blu-Ray? That's it?
I mean, that's weak not just from a technological standpoint. That's weak the whole way around. Do people actually pirate movies off of PPV to any extent to make this even worthwhile? Do people actually USE PPV that much? I thought it was all DVD/Blu-Ray copies or leaked theatre reels or whatnot.
Wow. That just seems... sad.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had access to cable tv almost all my life and I don't ever remember my parents buying PPV (nor have I ever purchased PPV).
FCC, FDA, etc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Federal government isn't on our side. Anyone with a clue has already realized this.
Funny. Isn't that like some kind of cue for a people to "alter or abolish it?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Federal government isn't on our side. Anyone with a clue has already realized this.
Funny. Isn't that like some kind of cue for a people to "alter or abolish it?"
And promptly be labeled as terrorists and hated by all other Americans. And soon enough, get your citizenship stripped.
Seems to Me... (Score:2)
2: Go to the FCC and point out how this did nothing to prevent piracy, while annoying everyone in the process.
3: SoC dies the death it should have died long ago.
4: Profit!
And if this doesn't work, vote for the other party next election.
TV? (Score:2, Funny)
People still watch this "Television" thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this different? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Use this: http://www.hdfury.com/ [hdfury.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why the FCC made this decision the way it did. Actually, it seems like a really fair decision to me.
They did not say Hollywood could cut the analog (or unencrypted digital) signal any time they wanted. DVDs will be the same, and your Comcrud DVR can't disable it's non-HDMI output when HBO plays Spiderman 2 or some other previously released movie.
This is only for movies that aren't available otherwise in the home, and only for a limited time. As Ars Technica said, this was designed explicitly so tha
Re: (Score:2)
You don't. That's why this is good. So far, people are getting the message they've been fed. "Pirates are evil, you need to accept bullshit to fight them." Now the average person will understand that the pirates are not affected by this, but that their multi-thousand-dollar HDTV rigs will now be useless once Hollywood is done getting all these controls passed.
Then, maybe, people will accept that this is just entertainment, and stop supporting this shit as if it was something important and worth our atte
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, whoa, what do you mean "this is just entertainment?" Next you'll be telling me that dessert is merely the last course.
--
Toro
Why stop with just outputs? (Score:4, Insightful)
In related news... (Score:4, Insightful)
The FCC said the technology cannot be used on a particular movie once it is out on DVD or Blu-Ray, or after 90 days from the time it is first used on that movie, whichever comes first.
In related news... the Copyright Act of 1790 granted copyright for a term of "fourteen years from the time of recording the title thereof", with a right of renewal for another fourteen years if the author survived to the end of the first term.
I'm sure they won't enable the technology to do this, and then change the terms out from under us once the technological means are present.
-- Terry
"...to prevent illegal copying of movies." (Score:3, Informative)
No. To prevent legal copying of movies. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
Speaking of the MPAA (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone have the GPS addy of of Jack Valenti's final resting place in Arlington National Cemetery? Next time I am in Washington DC, I would go out of my way to stop there and piss on his grave. Actually, this could be a new Slashdot "thing".
FCC? How's this fit with Net Neutrality? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Paradigm Shift (Score:3, Insightful)
I would donate $10,000 for a new season of Firefly.
Re:Bad sign (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the "third way" and net-neutrality?
MPAA news (Score:5, Interesting)
$$ for advertising
It's not just the advertising but also the content. Five MPAA studios own all TV news outlets [pineight.com] except PBS, and they decide which stories to run or not to run.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, most news sources are slightly liberal (or at least not completely batshit Bill O'Reilly insane)...
Re: (Score:2)
most news sources are slightly liberal (or at least not completely batshit Bill O'Reilly insane)
CNN and especially MSNBC are more liberal than Fox News, but do they run stories about the coming global DMCA that is ACTA? No, because it would alert to the actions of the networks' corporate masters.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of cable subscribers still have analog televisions, since a digital TV is not required if you don't subscribe to your cable provider's HD channels. By turning off the analog outputs at Hollywood's notice, these subscribers won't be able to watch these movies. You don't have to want to copy the content in order to need those analog outputs to stay turned on.
Re:No this is good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Good. Then the average person who doesn't understand the whole debate will now get the message that they are being fucked with loud and clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they are sipping from the Champagne because once you have the ability to do something it's far easier to lobby for expansions of that ability, than it would have been to get it as they really wanted it to be in the first place...
Re: (Score:2)
Really who copies something from the outputs of their set-top boxes? Anyone here? (legit question)
If I understand, the question is "why record to an external medium when the DVR already has it recorded", correct?
Two reasons: 1) Long term storage of stuff you've recorded but you don't want clogging your DVR. Wouldn't be a problem if I could swap out the hard drive on the damn DVR, but I think it's 40GB or something equally stupid. I've recorded things to DVD that I want to watch again multiple times. 2
MPAA, is that you? (Score:2)
At least this answers the question of whether Jack Valenti has internet access in his coffin.
"Hey Bert, what's goin' on down there at grave 44D? Looks like somethin' outta that movie 'Tremors'..."
Re: (Score:2)
Links? :)
Wait... (Score:2)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
... I actually don't mind going out and buying good movies that I enjoy. I almost never unwrap them or play the disks, but I don't mind supporting the people who make good things happen that genuinely entertain me. I've actually watched more movies and bought more movies as a result of this then I ever have before. And I can pretty much do what I please with the disks afterwards, too (rip them to PMP, archive them on my media server, etc).
Quoted for truth. This pretty much sums up my response to DRM (Download it, go buy it if I like it, toss the shrink-wrapped DVD/CD into the box in the closet with the others (my "rainy day cache", for when the authorities come busting down my door because I'm torrenting, and must be an evil pirate. Hope they enjoy explaining to the jury how the 18 different linux distros I'm seeding are "copyright evasion tools").