Blu-Ray To Allow Users To Make 'Copies' -- With Lots Of Strings Attached

from the asterisk dept

"Beginning next year, studios and other content holders will be required to give consumers the ability to make one copy of any Blu-ray Disc they buy," says the article (via Engadget). Sounds great -- movie studios and others finally realizing that people should be able to freely back up DVDs they legitimately purchase. The devil, of course, is in the details. While discs will have to support this "managed copy" feature, it will require new hardware, and there's no mandate that DVD player manufacturers include support for it at all. The copy, as you'd expect, is all DRM'ed up, and in order to make the copy, the Blu-ray player will have to connect to an "authorization server". This is the sort of model that's caused lots of problems in the past, when companies decide to pull the plug on the servers, rendering the feature useless. But the biggest potential problem with the feature is that movie studios and others will be free to charge whatever they wish for it. That means this really isn't a backup or a copy at all, it's simply the distribution means for the latest incarnation of the entertainment industry's favorite business model: getting people to pay for the same content over and over. That's why the studios want to block things like Real DVD -- not because they'll increase piracy, but because they cut off the only business model the studios can see for digital content.

Filed Under: blu-ray, copies, drm, dvds

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2009 @ 5:46pm


    "The future of media likely a registration model. There is no chance that media companies will continue in the long run to produce content that they cannot profit from. You make a single blu-ray disk, hand it to TPB guys, and everyone and their dog has a copy tomorrow for free. That isn't a supportable business model."

    Prove this is what will happen.

    Also, I am not saying that these collection agencies shouldn't exist whatsoever, just that it should be up to artists to decide whether or not they want these collection agencies (like the RIAA) representing them. If an artist wants to give away his music for free without having some unnecessary third party profiting from it (ie: some random artist making music on his computer or whatever) he should have that right. If he wants to allow restaurants to play his music without a license or without paying some third party some royalties, that should be his right. If an artist wants a collection to help him collect money, that's fine too. But don't ask the government to hold the RIAA's hand and force artists to fund them if they don't want to.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.