Wal-Mart to charge up to $4 for DVD conversion to UltraViolet?

Walmart, I fart in your general direction.

Jeff

This stupid UltraViolet cloud services will FAIL. We can do this on our own by ripping our own DVD and upload to our own storage server (cloud service).

I can't imagine anyone using this service unless they are "technology challenge"... which I'm sure there are idiots out there that will try it.

Can you imagine, Jane Sixpack taking her 6 kids and stack of DVDs down to Wal-mart to be "Converted"?
100 movies converted = $400 ... "Shall I put that on your Bank Card?"

Why do they have to be "Converted"? One would presume that they already have the digital copies on their servers. I would think simply providing proof of purchase should do it.
As a matter of fact, there is very little reason this could not be done on the net. A simple web app that reads the DVD in the drive and authorizes that movie in your UV account.
Why do they have to make this so effing difficult?

And oh, as many of you know, a Conversion then upload would take HOURS to accomplish.

This has "laughing stock" written all over it.

It should have been done like the digital copy download you get in some blu-ray movies, but with the proof of purchase like ThePastor said would get you access to the file on UV. I wonder if Wal-Mart will actually convert anything? I am going to assume they will not as that does take a while to do. So would the uploading of the files to the UV cloud storage. I think this whole pay for the UV copy is to cover Warner's server fees. On top of that do they really have to stamp the top of your DVD? I doubt this will work like there thinking it will.

Originally posted by ThePastor:

---

Why do they have to be "Converted"? One would presume that they already have the digital copies on their servers. I would think simply providing proof of purchase should do it.

---

You will not actually be ripping, converting and uploading the files in-store. A "conversion" like means exactly what you say; you bring in the DVD and are then given a key to access the file from their servers, already ripped. We shall see the full process tomorrow.

For anyone who wants to build a large digital collection LEGALLY, this is not a bad alternative, although it is quite expensive. I read recently that it would take someone streaming a movie 50 times for it to cost the studio the $4 it is charging.

This has "laughing stock" written all over it.

Lame... why charge when we trading in discs for digital copy which makes no sense at all..

This will not work if people buy new movies and would be dumb if people later then trade it in for more money and should of bought it online in the first place.

Unless it's a really really old movie on dvd.

What a bleeping farce!!! This is a serious attempt to sucker disk owners into giving-up what rights they possess by owning the physical media.

If you think you can trust Wal-Mart...remember their fiasco into music downloads...and their inglorious departure from that DRM absurdity.

With ISPs and bandwidth caps...how many times are we being suckered into paying over and over to view what is purchased.

Remember there are portable devices that already give us our owned data portability,from players, to laptops to memory cards.

JAJA don't make me laff ,"ultraviolet cloud"!

Originally posted by g_slide:

---

This stupid UltraViolet cloud services will FAIL. We can do this on our own by ripping our own DVD and upload to our own storage server (cloud service).

I can't imagine anyone using this service unless they are "technology challenge"... which I'm sure there are idiots out there that will try it.

---

I rather doubt it. Any moron can rip a disk so you would need to be dumber than that to pay them to do something you can do for free. You are either too smart or not smart enough to use a cloud service. That is the BEAUTY of such a stupid plan.

This reminds me of all the times large systems crash only to find they hadn't done proper backups. This has happened to DRM sites and Hotmail. They hadn't been backing up even their expensive business mailboxes. Anyone that loses all their media gets what they deserve.

I'll save my money, thanks, and I'll pass on this dumb and worthless project of the Movie Studios.

Originally posted by ThePastor:

---

Can you imagine, Jane Sixpack taking her 6 kids and stack of DVDs down to Wal-mart to be "Converted"?
100 movies converted = $400 ... "Shall I put that on your Bank Card?"

Why do they have to be "Converted"? One would presume that they already have the digital copies on their servers. I would think simply providing proof of purchase should do it.
As a matter of fact, there is very little reason this could not be done on the net. A simple web app that reads the DVD in the drive and authorizes that movie in your UV account.
Why do they have to make this so effing difficult?

And oh, as many of you know, a Conversion then upload would take HOURS to accomplish.

This has "laughing stock" written all over it.

---

They keep your DVDs I bet...

Originally posted by DVDBack23:

---

Originally posted by ThePastor:

---

Why do they have to be "Converted"? One would presume that they already have the digital copies on their servers. I would think simply providing proof of purchase should do it.

---

You will not actually be ripping, converting and uploading the files in-store. A "conversion" like means exactly what you say; you bring in the DVD and are then given a key to access the file from their servers, already ripped. We shall see the full process tomorrow.

For anyone who wants to build a large digital collection LEGALLY, this is not a bad alternative, although it is quite expensive. I read recently that it would take someone streaming a movie 50 times for it to cost the studio the $4 it is charging.

---

LEGALLY, What are you talking about?

There is no copyright on home recording,its EXEMPT.

You can legally dupe or convert any DVD or Bluray in your home(USA).

Originally posted by hal90002010:

---

LEGALLY, What are you talking about?

There is no copyright on home recording,its EXEMPT.

You can legally dupe or convert any DVD or Bluray in your home(USA).

---

You most certainly cannot.

Originally posted by DVDBack23:

---

Originally posted by hal90002010:

---

LEGALLY, What are you talking about?

There is no copyright on home recording,its EXEMPT.

You can legally dupe or convert any DVD or Bluray in your home(USA).

---

You most certainly cannot.

---

You most certainly can. Could you please point to a law and case
to support your theory. If it has not been upheld by a court case, its not a law.

Which consumer act would you like me to Quote.

Originally posted by hal90002010:

---

Originally posted by DVDBack23:

---

Originally posted by hal90002010:

---

LEGALLY, What are you talking about?

There is no copyright on home recording,its EXEMPT.

You can legally dupe or convert any DVD or Bluray in your home(USA).

---

You most certainly cannot.

---

You most certainly can. Could you please point to a law and case
to support your theory. If it has not been upheld by a court case, its not a law.

Which consumer act would you like me to Quote.

---

You are claiming that just because you are in your own home, you can make copies of copyright protected DVDs and Blu-rays? Please, I would LOVE to hear your quotes.




You are not a library, therefore you cannot use the Fair Use doctrine to "backup" or "archive" copy-written material. You are also not a professor or using short clips to create new critical work. You CANNOT LEGALLY break the DRM on commercial DVDs and Blu-rays in the U.S. This remains ILLEGAL, as stated in my first post.

I think that is VERY debatable. I do not believe backing up your own copy of something you have a license for has NEVER been taken to court for a copyright infringement. Instead persons have been sued. You can be sued for almost anything such as ice on your front step. Have you ever made a copy of a page out of a book? Were you arrested? If it was illegal why would their be Xerox machines in the library. I assure you being in a library makes no difference. It has always been legal to record the radio and TV even though all of it it copyrighted.

I would expect more from the staff. You shouod have been reading your own articles.

Also, only a moron would advertise to the world that they were doing something that might be illegal.

Originally posted by Mez:

---

I think that is VERY debatable. I do not believe backing up your own copy of something you have a license for has NEVER been taken to court for a copyright infringement. Instead persons have been sued. You can be sued for almost anything such as ice on your front step. Have you ever made a copy of a page out of a book? Were you arrested? If it was illegal why would their be Xerox machines in the library. I assure you being in a library makes no difference. It has always been legal to record the radio and TV even though all of it it copyrighted.

I would expect more from the staff. You shouod have been reading your own articles.

Also, only a moron would advertise to the world that they were doing something that might be illegal.

---

I'd expect more from an addict than that completely broken argument. What you are saying is someone can go and murder another human, but if they don't get caught it isn't illegal right? Murder is still illegal, you just happened to get away with it.

I posted the FBI warning and the library of congress link, anyone want to argue with actual facts?

It is legal to make "backups" for home use, but it is illegal to circumvent the DRM on discs and to use tools to do so. Everyone here is arguing a technicality. You can make the backups, but you are breaking the law to do so.

Originally posted by DVDBack23:

---

Originally posted by Mez:

---

I think that is VERY debatable. I do not believe backing up your own copy of something you have a license for has NEVER been taken to court for a copyright infringement. Instead persons have been sued. You can be sued for almost anything such as ice on your front step. Have you ever made a copy of a page out of a book? Were you arrested? If it was illegal why would their be Xerox machines in the library. I assure you being in a library makes no difference. It has always been legal to record the radio and TV even though all of it it copyrighted.

I would expect more from the staff. You should have been reading your own articles.

Also, only a moron would advertise to the world that they were doing something that might be illegal.

---

I'd expect more from an addict than that completely broken argument. What you are saying is someone can go and murder another human, but if they don't get caught it isn't illegal right? Murder is still illegal, you just happened to get away with it.

I posted the FBI warning and the library of congress link, anyone want to argue with actual facts?

It is legal to make "backups" for home use, but it is illegal to circumvent the DRM on discs and to use tools to do so. Everyone here is arguing a technicality. You can make the backups, but you are breaking the law to do so.

---

Yes, that is the law. What you seem to ignore is laws are open to interpretation. That is why we have courts. Killing someone might be murder or might not. That is up to a jury to decide. Copying copyrighted material is in the grey area of the law which has loop holes to protect everyone's rights. If it is such a 'broken argument' why has no one been taken to court for backing up material that they own? That is because no matter what you say, the argument is not broken at all.

Just because you work for or even own AD doesn't mean you are always correct. However, like the rest of us you have the right to your own opinion and I think you have argued your position well after a second read. I missed a few important qualifiers on my first read. I agree, most of the laws hinge on technicalities, the splitting of hairs.

What I said is...

Quote:

---

I do not believe backing up your own copy of something you have a license for has NEVER been taken to court for a copyright infringement.

---

If it is such a broken argument why hasn't anyone been taken to court? If fact if you do research, you will find software companies that took businesses to court for backing up software lost their cases even though the 'shrink wrap' agreement stated that the users would not back up the software. The court's opinion was that the 'shrink wrap' concept was not legal, forcing a customer to give up their lawful rights if they were to use the software. THAT is why a case has never been tried. They could very well lose. It is far wiser to sue for small damages. That has come back with a vengeance in the US. $2000 is not worth fighting in court but is painful. Only kids, hackers using a neighbor's IP and fools download newly released movies and games using public torrents in the US.

I think even the DRM removal is not as solid as you think. In the US DRM removal from mp3s etc is legal. If you disagree, please explain why the court allows DRM removers to be made and sold in the US. In fact there was a court case carried in an AD article many yrs ago. The ruling was DRM removers that 'play' the material were legal those that remove the DRM regardless of if the music is playable are not. As for DRMed disks that is also VERY debatable. So debatable, that the lead developer for a major ripper has withdrawn his statements made on a public platform. To my knowledge, his product still removes DRMs on a disk but he has retracted all his statements why he had the right to do so. That statement is many years old so I suspect the legality may be in more doubt than I had suspected. That would indicate a change in the last year or 2. Very interesting...

Originally posted by Mez:

---

What I said is...

Quote:

---

I do not believe backing up your own copy of something you have a license for has NEVER been taken to court for a copyright infringement.

---

If it is such a broken argument why hasn't anyone been taken to court? If fact if you do research, you will find software companies that took businesses to court for backing up software lost their cases even though the 'shrink wrap' agreement stated that the users would not back up the software. The court's opinion was that the 'shrink wrap' concept was not legal, forcing a customer to give up their lawful rights if they were to use the software. THAT is why a case has never been tried. They could very well lose. It is far wiser to sue for small damages. That has come back with a vengeance in the US. $2000 is not worth fighting in court but is painful. Only kids, hackers using a neighbor's IP and fools download newly released movies and games using public torrents in the US.

I think even the DRM removal is not as solid as you think. In the US DRM removal from mp3s etc is legal. If you disagree, please explain why the court allows DRM removers to be made and sold in the US. In fact there was a court case carried in an AD article many yrs ago. The ruling was DRM removers that 'play' the material were legal those that remove the DRM regardless of if the music is playable are not. As for DRMed disks that is also VERY debatable. So debatable, that the lead developer for a major ripper has withdrawn his statements made on a public platform. To my knowledge, his product still removes DRMs on a disk but he has retracted all his statements why he had the right to do so. That statement is many years old so I suspect the legality may be in more doubt than I had suspected. That would indicate a change in the last year or 2. Very interesting...

---

I appreciate a good debate, thank you. For your second argument, let's get that out of the way quickly. You can rip your own CDs into MP3s/FLAC, etc. Music can be backed up, and legally, with no issues. Movies are a different beast, however.

Your main argument is that backing up movies is OK because it has never been taken to court. It has not been taken to court because, as I said before, backing up movies is technically "legal." It is illegal, though, to circumvent the DRM protecting said movies and illegal to use an software to do so. If SWAT was to break into your house, see a stack of DVD spindles all filled with movies you own in DVD form, none of which you are selling or sharing, you would only be guilty of using illegal software to circumvent DRM.

My guess is this tactic would be much less lucrative (and a waste of time) to the content holders in a court case than to accuse pirates (who share via p2p, torrents, etc) of copyright infringement and settle for $3000 out of court.

I agree on pretty much all your points.

You are 100% right about SWAT teams. After the pentagon attack by bot nets, all suspects I heard about suffered the same consequences. The door was bashed in and everyone was hand cuffed and made to sit in the corner. All computers, disks etc were taken with a word they they might get them back when they were finished with their stuff. Everyone I heard about had been dupes but they were required to answer many questions about software and copyrighted media. The ones that were able to answer all questions satisfactory got their stuff back in about 3 months. The rest went through a 'grinder'.

I am not surprised to hear the fine is now up to 3k per offense. I do wish to point out statistically, the person paying the fine is not usually the violator. I know from personal experience that wireless networks are not secure. After doing serious research I wired my house because I couldn't keep a hacker out. Had they not have gotten greedy by only downloading heavily in the wee hrs I would never have suspected someone was using my network. I do not have any close neighbors and the closest were never suspects. On eBay you can buy antennas that can capture and amplify a wireless network signal a mile away for a few hundred bucks. I also uncovered a hidden truth that wireless networks are not secure. It is called 'hole 196'. Then you have households where the kids down load stuff unknown to their parents. Often HS age children know a great deal more about computers than their parents. The 2-3 K fine is a wake up call for the household and a lucrative business for the movie or game firm.