Poll: How much would you pay to make a copy of a Blu-ray Disc?
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted June 20th 2009 1:23PM
posted June 20th 2009 1:23PM
posted June 20th 2009 1:23PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Hahaha, are you kidding? I will pay once for AnyDVD-HD and be done. Dear Hollywood, dont waste your time, you have already pissed us off....
I already paid once for a AnyDVD HD. Even that was more than what should have been needed.
Pay to make a copy of something I already own?
What do they think I'm smoking?
1. Who's the wise guy that chose $30/copy?
2. Isn't AnyDVD-HD already or going to a subscription based service?
AnyDVD HD is already on a subscription based model, but they sell a lifetime subscription, it just costs more than they way they used to sell it.
I don't understand how any ripping software like AnyDVD, that was designed to burn SD to your computers hard drive, can somehow be upgraded to burn blu-ray to your hard drive. To copy the blu-ray would you not need to install a burner capable of transferring the blu-ray from your hard drive to a (more expensive) blu-ray disc. When you factor in all the new costs 'm not sure it's worth it.
AnyDVD was made for SD DVD's, but AnyDVD HD was made to handle ripping HD-DVD's and Blu-ray's. BD-ROM drives (read-only) are now less than $100, so it wouldn't cost that much to be able to rip Blu-rays to hard drive. Yes, it would be more expensive to re-burn a copy since BD blanks aren't cheap yet, but there are a lot of people looking to get that movie off of a physical disc and onto some other medium, like a HTPC or video streaming device. For those people, the new costs are worth it.
I don't want the disc at all, just let me download the 20-something gigs and be done with it..
If you don't want the disc, you might be interested in the rent, rip, & return system. You rent the disc you want, pay for a legal managed copy that you could rip directly from the disc, then return the disc. The ripping process would probably be faster than downloading. This might be the route I go if the price is right for the managed copy.
Wow, so much complication for something already covered in the "fair use" part of the copyright law. If people accept to pay for this, it'd do two things: 1) give the RIAA ideas to do the same 2) prove to these companies/organizations that "fair use" doesn't exist and people don't know a thing about their rights.
Agreed! I didn't like any of the options, you should be able to make a free fair use copy - bottom line.
I came in here to write the same thing. As someone who works in software - and is trying to working in the entertainment industry I understand the need to protect copyrights, but if I bought something I should be able to use for my personal use as much as I want. It is completely fair use for me to rip a Blu Ray I own for use on my Zune.
aXXo for me...Mmm sorry couldn't resist!
I wish aXXo started to use 5.1 AC3 or better in releases.
I have a right to copy my media to a server. For that I will pay nothing but the cost to make the ISO or whatever.
zero, zip, zilch. They have no right to be trying to do a end run around fair use through copy protection and stop legitimate normal folks from backing up their content or even useing it on multiple sources once they bought it for one.
$10??? That's the lowest you expect them to charge??? That's the absolute most I would pay for this kind of thing, on a really good movie, with the killer app usage of the digital copy.
It's a copy of a movie that I already bought!!!
This had better be nothing but a convenience charge, or better yet, the first one should be free.
Even though I may be naive, I seriously hope they develop some sort of technology that would allow those who bought the disc to make as many copies as we want for OURSELVES only.
Like if I paid for the disc, I should be able to have backups or make copies. This is obviously impossible because let's face it, most people will make copies for people they know.
Like it's not fair to Hollywood for us to be allowed to make free copies for relatives or friends, but it's not fair to us to not be able to make copies of something we already paid for.
At most, I would support an extra fee upto 5 dollars more for disc if they allowed it.
Couple of points: I voted for the second option, but I think the other options were kind of silly and the question isn't grounded in any realistic MC environment.
- BDs frequently come with "digital copies" right now, meaning some studios recognize the value of letting users copy their movie to a computer (or similar) from the get-go. It's highly improbable therefore that many discs are going to require payment for the very first copy a user makes. (My guess would be a coupon in the box, which neatly gets around the "what to do about rentals")
- Studios are also going to want to encourage people to "buy" copies than use, uh, other means to get hold of copies. $10 is ridiculous given all the marketing, manufacturing, copying, etc is being paid for by other parties. So studios could easily get away with, and feel very comfortable with, charging $5 for "additional copies" after the first one. At worst, they wouldn't do that right away (when the BD first comes out they'd keep prices high just to protect the retail copy), but would be likely to drop the price to something much lower within six months.
After six months, I find it improbable that the copying charge would be higher than half of what the market price for the actual disk is. If Wal-Mart's selling it for $15, then no movie studio is going to expect to sell an MC for more than $7.50.
Would I be prepared to pay $5-10 to load, permanently, a copy of a disc I rented, or borrowed from a friend, onto an STB? I think I would give that serious consideration, especially given there'd be no quality loss.
Would I prepared to do that for a disc I bought? I'd be less inclined, but that's where "sticking a coupon in the box for the first copy" comes in.
The poll presents unrealistic options, it's almost a push poll in the sense that it's presenting the MC option in a way that's likely to turn people against it rather than presenting a fair description of how it will work and trying to determine how popular it will be as a result.
Of course, MC in Blu-ray will be a flop anyway, because most (all?) of BDs made before the end of the year will not support the feature, so it's going to be a feature that just doesn't work with the majority of discs in circulation. Why the hell did that format "win" (or rather, not lose yet) the format war again?
You do all realize the one and only REAL reason for Mandatory Managed Copy, do you not? It has nothing to do with consumers and nothing to do with fair use. It isn't even about stopping individual pirates. The whole point is to create a legal groundwork to go after the software developers who write programs that can be used to make copies!
Let's face it, consumer piracy all happens through the PC. A person sticks a disc in a PC drive, they load some copying software, they click a few buttons and BANG: illegal copy. Once that copy is made, up it goes onto bittorent and now everyone in the world can get it for free. Cool for sticking it to the greedy greedy piggies in Hollywood? Sure. But even though they are disgustingly rich, greedy bastards, they still have the legal right to get paid for their work.
They can't stop the bittorrents once they're out there; they can't legally stop people from making that first copy thanks to "Fair Use" law. But they CAN go after the copying software IF they provide a legal means to allow Fair Use, which they currently do not. The lack of a legal alternative is the only reason copying software gets away with things as they are today. They basically make the argument that they break the DRM encryption for the sole purpose of allowing Fair Use and since there is no other way to make that Fair Use copy, the argument stands.
But introduce Managed Copy and even go so far as to make it Mandatory on every disc and that age old argument crumbles. Now the studios can counter and say, "look, every disc allows you to make at least one, full-resolution duplicate using OUR software. Clearly, now, the ONLY reason for making copying software that breaks our DRM encryption is to circumvent our copyright protection. There is no legal reason to break our DRM because we have satisfied Fair Use."
Bingo bango, the studios can now sue the software makers into oblivion!
Great theory Rob, but there is one problem. They are already suing the software makers, so how does this change things.
I hope you are right because if you are then the first copy will be free.
The fact is that this enables real companies to make real software that supports all the things we want to do with our movies without the fear of being sued. Now if Hollywood goes and charges a full price of a disc for even a single copy then yeah, this will all be for naught.
The Studios are suing now, but they are not always winning. The software makers have some legal counter-points and some precedent at the moment, thanks to Fair Use. There's never been a problem with copying software that does not break any DRM encryption. Obviously, if you just want software to make copies of your own home movies, that's just fine. The problem has always been about breaking that DRM copy protection.
Studios have gone after the software makers for hacking the DRM and they have every legal right to do so. But they have not always won their cases because of the whole Fair Use issue. Now, with MMC, they can make a much stronger case because they can (hopefully will) provide a completely legal means to satisfy Fair Use. And with a completely legal Fair Use alternative, it's going to be considerably harder for software makers to claim that they have any legal recourse what-so-ever for breaking DRM.
Will software makers still try? Probably. MMC just gives Hollywood a much stronger legal argument is all I'm saying.
Not that I don't believe you Rob, but could you link to just one case in which the MPAA has sued and not won? Don't say Kaleidescape either as that was a CSS licensing dispute and not a DMCA case.
Sorry for the lateness of my reply, Ben. I work on Sundays and was not able to sit down and type until now :)
You are quite right in your skepticism of my statements. While I certainly do not know of every MPAA lawsuit ever filed, cases to which I could link online are, so far, all in the MPAA's favor in matters of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). However, it is important to note that only court cases that actually went to trial and lasted through a judge's decision will appear online. Almost all cases that are settled include confidentiality agreements and thus, we, the public, cannot know for sure what outcomes might have taken place had ALL suits gone to and completed trial.
What's really important is to try and understand where copyright law, fair use and the DMCA all overlap. My comments are directed mostly towards the existing exemptions for decrypting DRM under the DMCA. Software that decrypts CSS and AACS is legal right now, provided it is only for use under one of the exemptions in the DMCA - such as for educational purposes. That is an exemption that I am sure the MPAA would like to change and they have the opportunity to try and do so every 3 years. Right now, they would have a tough case against the makers or distributors of a piece of software that decrypts CSS or AACS while claiming to do so solely for educators and educational purposes. The MPAA has famously suggested that teachers could just record the images off of a display using a camcorder!
I couldn't find any open lawsuits brought by the MPAA against educational usage of decryption software, but I am personally of the opinion that they do not feel a particularly strong case can be made with the current exemptions still on the books.
With MMC though, they would have a strong weapon in an argument saying that any non-licenced decryption software is illegal under the DMCA - even for educational purposes - when a fully legitimate alternative is readily available. Under MMC, educators could request to copy movies and the studios could grant that request directly. No need for non-licenced decryption software and not nearly as ludicrous as the suggestion that they copy the material using a camcorder pointed at a TV.
The whole fair use argument in matters of decrypting software has routinely been shot down. I definitely was mistaken in my comments in that regard. Breaking the DRM does not really have anything to do DIRECTLY with fair use and copyright law. It's entirely possible to break DRM without ever actually copying copyrighted material and the DMCA is all about the DRM itself - not the content that it protects. Never-the-less, arguments of restricting fair use are still brought up in nearly every case and, IMO, for good reason! The problem is that fair use is not really a right, it is a defence.
Fair use is not about what we, as consumers, think is fair. A lot of people, understandably, have that misconception from the name! But in law, fair use only comes up when someone who holds a copyright says, "hey! That person just infringed upon my copyright!" To which the accussed can reply, "it is not an infringement, it is fair use!"
But breaking DRM is something - at least so far as the law is concerned - that is quite different. You can't break DRM legally except under an exemption. That's it. Simple. Done.
If you make a copy of a DVD or Blu-ray, you can claim that it is not copyright infringement because it is fair use. But fair use, under the law, does not ENTITLE you to be able to make that copy. So if you break DRM in order to do it, you have no real problem with copyright law, but you have a big problem with DRMC law.
Naturally, we're trying to change all of this. We consumers DO feel entitled to that fair use copy and we want the laws to change in order to reflect that.
My bottom line is that Mandatory Managed Copy gives the MPAA a very strong argument on all fronts. They get to possibly change the exemption laws under the DMCA to something they like better and they get to say to consumers, "hey, here's a way to get that fair use copy without circumventing the DRM!"
Rob,
For the most part we're in agreement. But forcing someone to pay an additional fee to exercise "fair use" really isn't fair use at all. So lets hope you are right and other who said the first copy will probably be free.
How can someone take a poll when there aren't any valid answers?
The ONLY valid answers are $0, or "The price of a blank disk".
Why should I have to pay for something I already own? I bought the disk and should be able to use it, and its contents in any manner I so choose as long as it is I that am using it and I'm not selling or renting it to someone else.
I should be able to make a backup copy of the disk, rip it to my HTPC, put it on any of my portable players, laptop, etc.
It seems to me I have paid copyright on all of my dvds yet I didn't get the whole movie.
and even with blue ray you still don't get what you can see at the cinema on a 4k digital projector.
This poll does not have enough choices.... there should have been another option.
None, Rips of my Originals
At least then you can gauge whether people would still rather rip versus paying for something they can already do with something like AnyHD-DVD.
From the majority of responses so far, it seems people have little understanding that fair use rights exist. Anyone reading this who has not heard about fair use rights should familiarize themselves with it.
It seems the industry is hoping that people in the US will forget fair use. Very unfortunate.
Look, just wait til the Chinese get their hands on this technology.. Soon we'll be getting Bluray's at $10 for 3..
They already did. Bluray disc copies had been selling in uncontrolled countries in Asia and South America for less than what you mentioned.
FAIR USE!
Once I pay for the content, I should be able to watch it where I want, when I want, and on any device I own.
Copy protection only impacts honest customers - the crooks have already found a way around it. This industry is ass-backwards, and it seems we'll need legislation to fix them.