Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
folks, another issue to consider. right now the removal is based on the networks claiming that itunes is basically another network. for all we know, Apple is already working on a counter claim that they are in fact not another broadcast network at all but more just an digital version of best buy etc. if they are and they are successful with the claim we may find the movies coming back up at least for purchase (they might have to remove rentals during such conflict periods but then again if they can claim a blockbuster defense maybe not)
 
Your "utter contempt" bit says it all. You have utter contempt for ANYONE that disagrees with your views or beliefs about "how the world works".
That is absolutely and utterly bogus. There are plenty of posters on this forum with whom I disagree and have perfectly productive debates. And, once again, my opinions and beliefs are not my description of how the system works, nor has that description ever been inaccurate.

The dramatic whiners and ones who feel the need to reduce everything to polemics are not among them. There is no point in attacking someone's description in a sad attempt to paint them as someone with "beliefs" and "agendas" so you have something to rail against emotionally.
You cannot acknowledge that in order to change the world to make it better (for the people, not just the fat cats you love so much) you have to speak out against the current status quo "crap" that pervades society.
You know, I spend most of my time dealing with "small fish" and industry-internals. In neither case is there a "corporate" "side" to take. If you'd actually bother to pay attention, you will see that I correct mistaken notions and interpretations on both "sides" around here, and do so consistently.

I am quite tired of you intimating otherwise in a cheap attempt to draw polemical lines around flimsy arguments, padding them with absurd and irrelevant tirades to make them look substantial.
You clearly did not read the part where I said I wanted to RENT it (in HD on AppleTV seeing as that is the device I own).
And this changes anything, how?
You are clearly wrong. The Napster versus iTunes case and statistics thereof proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
What does Napster have to do with distribution agreements between content providers? These agreements and their exclusivity terms predate Napster, predate the Internet, and predate the entire piracy debate itself. Or is Napster somehow proof of deals between movie studios and ABC in the 1960s, too, in a case of time-traveling inanity?
Maybe your "sophisticated" self could explain how one can make a backup of a DVD without violating the tampering with copy protection clauses of the DMCA.
The DMCA does not apply to users making lawful, archival backups. Moreover, no one has even tried to sue a private individual for that reason.
What you bypass or break is a violation of the DMCA. You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. Why am I not surprised?
Because your accuracy and knowledge in that is as limited as everything else you've had to say in this protracted personal fight against me.

17 USC 1201(a)(1)(B):
"The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) [the anti-circumvention provision] shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works" (emphasis added)

17 USC 1201(c):
"Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."

The DMCA is not the best law, but it is not the evil that incompetent armchair lawyers make it out to be.
You trying to defend that kind of customer service behavior
I haven't once mentioned customer service, much less taken a side. Your assumption about the kind of notice given is baseless, but I never said that I disagreed that Apple should put up a notice when it finds out it has to pull a title--though that still only helps you if you visit the store in that final few days.
 
And this changes anything, how?

(sigh) I see I'm making a liar out of myself by responding once more, but I feel several things need to be made clear once and for all.

It changes things because there's a very real price difference between buying something and renting it. You are suggesting that it's OK that movies are pulled from iTunes because I can go out and buy a movie on DVD in standard definition (which I do not want) or have to buy a Blu-ray player and then buy the movie for $25+ OR drive 50 miles to the nearest Blockbuster that rents Blu-ray movies when all I want to do is watch a movie like Superbad in HD off AppleTV on iTunes for $4.99 (or $3.99). The DIFFERENCE is both cost and convenience. I have a 93" screen. I don't want to watch standard definition any longer. I tend to watch movies ONCE unless I really like them a lot so renting make much more sense than buying movies. AppleTV provided a very viable appreciated model to watch movies then at $4.99 for a new HD movie rental in an area with little Blu-ray support at this time and very few movie rental places in general. The idea I should get in my car and drive an hour each way to a place that rents HD movies just because some company decided to remove their movies from iTunes creates a poor customer satisfaction level.


What does Napster have to do with distribution agreements between content providers?

I'll answer the question, but you seem to have magically forgotten the previous topic at hand, which was what does piracy have to do with such agreements. The original Napster versus a store like iTunes is the piracy example. The link is established between PIRACY and AVAILABILITY and the CONSUMER's behavior thereof through that example and it has been noted by the news many times. The (original) Napster was accused of being a major piracy hub for music. After being disbanded in its original incarnation, it was followed up by Limewire and Bit Torrent, which are both still active today. The news regularly accused the US of being a "Piracy Nation" with polled estimates at well over 50% of the population having downloaded illegal music. But the percentages of people pirating music DROPPED in a VERY significant fashion when online stores like iTunes opened up making it easy to purchase LEGITIMATE online music for a reasonable price (typically 99 cents). In other words, it became clear that given a choice between being a criminal and paying for music, most of the supposed criminals were willing to pay for their music. So why did they do it? They were NOT willing to spend $18+ on a CD for ONE song, however (i.e. people take action of some kind when they feel they are being utterly ripped off; furthermore most people make a distinction between digital COPYING and actual material theft as does the law, which is why it's called 'copyright' law and not THEFT except by those out there that either don't understand or don't believe there is a difference).

The point is that the music industry failed to make online song-by-song music AVAILABLE and so people took matters into their own hands. Call them criminals anyway if you wish, but it's beside the point. What this example shows is that IF companies make their products available for reasonable prices, people will BUY them. If they do NOT make them available (say by removing them from online purchase availability such as the iTunes example stated in this thread), many people will pirate them rather than be forced to buy or watch it on a format they have NO interest in (be it Blu-ray or HBO, it doesn't matter). The lesson here is if you give the consumer what he wants, he'll reward you with his support. If you ignore what the consumer wants, then you will pay the consequences (be it no sales or piracy). THAT is the lesson of Napster versus iTunes.

You can say that they shouldn't behave that way, but this is a report of the way people behave much in the way National Geographic would report how animals behave. If a company wants to make sales and not tick off their potential consumers, they need to make decisions that take the consumer into account, not disregard them entirely for a quick sale to another company. Yet, that is their choice. What doesn't make sense, however, is when they COMPLAIN about such "loss of sales" when in fact they are not making it EASY to buy their product. Ignore the consumer and he will not buy your product. It's that simple.

Is that clear enough yet or is my link of piracy to company distribution agreements still not plain enough for you? Is what I'm saying stupid to your eyes or what? Does the fact that even members of these forums openly stating they are going back to Bit Torrent to get movies since they aren't available on iTunes any longer not an indication of such a link?

Geeze, I can't wait to see your reply that grinds that simple concept into twisted shreds and tries to make it say something stupid instead of what it actually says. That seems to be your specialty.

These agreements and their exclusivity terms predate Napster, predate the Internet, and predate the entire piracy debate itself. Or is Napster somehow proof of deals between movie studios and ABC in the 1960s, too, in a case of time-traveling inanity?

WTF?! Do you even know what this thread is about? It's about ONLINE availability of movies and in a related fashion, music. Are you suggesting that iTunes and the Internet existed in the 1960's? Did the VCR for that matter? NO. The MANNER the public uses will depend on the state of technology (the path of least resistance). The fact that a lack of home recording and playback technology in the '60s promoted more movie ticket sales has NOTHING TO DO with iTunes availability and the public's reaction in 2008!

This remark just goes to show HOW FAR off course you are willing to go to steer around the actual issues just so your argument some way some how still holds a bit of water. Unfortunately, it's obvious to all that 1960 legal agreements have NOTHING TO DO with ones in 2008 because the world has changed.

The DMCA does not apply to users making lawful, archival backups. Moreover, no one has even tried to sue a private individual for that reason.

The devil is in the details, not the surface bits you quote, but ignore the whole.

Regarding the legality of bypassing CSS for ANY proposed court defended reason (all were shot down with a 'watch' on one of them placed for reporting purposes):

http://cryptome.info/dmca-dvd.htm

This page shows that while backups might be legal, the programs used to back them up are NOT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Decrypter

Furthermore, Jon Johansen was prosecuted (in Norway) for the DeCSS debacle, but was acquitted under Norway Law (apparently they are more sensible than the U.S.). If he ever came to the U.S., he would be prosecuted under the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA. That doesn't mean you are legally allowed to back up DVDs in the U.S., save a recent licensed Real player at considerable cost and which adds even more DRM in the process.

Because your accuracy and knowledge in that is as limited as everything else you've had to say in this protracted personal fight against me.

I would say it's your accuracy knowledge that are in question. And there's nothing personal going on here from my side other than my personal assessment of your intractable ego. You seem to pop into various threads where I give my opinion on a topic and start attacking me, all while admitted you have "contempt" for me. Well golly gee, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure out who is the attacker here.

17 USC 1201(a)(1)(B):

Once again, the devil is in the details. While it is apparently legal for you to make a backup of a DVD, the tools to make those backups are ILLEGAL so it is impossible for you to legally make that backup short of writing your own software to do so. Even then, there is no legal way (short of buying a license) to get the deCSS code needed to enable that software to be able to backup the DVD. An explanation is provided here:

http://www.aprogrammingpro.com/2008/10/13/is-it-legal-to-make-backup-copies-of-dvds-you-own/

Thus, the industry will go after companies trying to make backup programs for DVDs available to the consumer as those are quite illegal. So perhaps you could tell me how I can legally backup a DVD without the requisite software needed, which is illegal under the DMCA?

While you waste my time trying to make it appear like I'm stupid (mostly to people who couldn't care less what either of us have to say) and causing me to have to point out where you are wrong and where I got my information, I could be spending my time doing more useful things like working on my next pinball game. So excuse me, but I'm done here.
 
It changes things because there's a very real price difference between buying something and renting it. You are suggesting that it's OK that movies are pulled from iTunes because I can go out and buy a movie on DVD in standard definition (which I do not want) or have to buy a Blu-ray player and then buy the movie for $25+ OR drive 50 miles to the nearest Blockbuster that rents Blu-ray movies when all I want to do is watch a movie like Superbad in HD off AppleTV on iTunes for $4.99 (or $3.99).
This still has nothing to do with anything. It is available for sale. It is available to rent. If it is not convenient for you, then you must do without or suffer the inconvenience. It does not violate your consumer rights to be inconvenienced.
I'll answer the question, but you seem to have magically forgotten the previous topic at hand, which was what does piracy have to do with such agreements. The original Napster versus a store like iTunes is the piracy example. The link is established between PIRACY and AVAILABILITY and the CONSUMER's behavior thereof through that example and it has been noted by the news many times.
Stop. For once, pay attention.

This is a distribution agreement between the studio and TV networks. The TV network is offering a sum of money for an exclusive right to show the work, and as part of that agreement, digital services are not permitted to engage in the digital transmission during the exclusivity period.

There is no anti-piracy angle to it. None. These actions are not taken in response to the threat of piracy, nor do they have any appreciable impact on the rate of piracy. The titles remain fully available for sale and rental during this time from a number of alternate sources. Even if every single former customer decided out of misplaced outrage to start pirating films, it's a change of a tiny fraction of 1%.
What doesn't make sense, however, is when they COMPLAIN about such "loss of sales" when in fact they are not making it EASY to buy their product. Ignore the consumer and he will not buy your product. It's that simple.
The less than 1% of revenue from the services clearly suggests that fewer than 1 in 100 consumers are the slightest bit inconvenienced. It is outrageous to claim that the "burden" of going to a rental store, local retailer, or Amazon is somehow crushingly unfair and that they can't turn on the TV or get it while it's available. Even if they miss out, it's just a movie. One movie.
Does the fact that even members of these forums openly stating they are going back to Bit Torrent to get movies since they aren't available on iTunes any longer not an indication of such a link?
That requires the presumption that they ever stopped using BT, that they ever purchased anything, and that they're not just stamping their feet so they have something to bitch about, and most importantly, that they constitute even a tiny fraction of either the buying public or of pirates.
The devil is in the details, not the surface bits you quote, but ignore the whole.
The 'surface bits' are better known to professionals as, you know, the law.
Regarding the legality of bypassing CSS
Again, your ignorance leads you astray. Those comments are for proposed blanket exemptions. They have no bearing. If you refer to the decision, moreover, it becomes clear that the need for such an exemption is unnecessary because no one has been actually harmed: "There was no showing that copy or use controls could not be circumvented without violating Section 1201(a)(1)".

In other words, CSS has not made any lawful use unlawful.
This page shows that while backups might be legal, the programs used to back them up are NOT:
The situation is more complex than that, but is not relevant to the question of whether you are entitled to make noninfringing, archival backups of your DVDs. For the nth time, you are.
You seem to pop into various threads where I give my opinion on a topic and start attacking me
You have not been attacked, as is plainly evident by anyone reading. You are issuing broad proclamations and condemnations to other posters based on faulty assumptions and absolutely terrible interpretations of the law. When corrected, you immediately turn to polemics and false authority. The only way to fight this ignorance is with information. You are always the one to make it personal, and rather than learning from the process and refining your comments, you simply repeat them in the same histrionic and senseless manner.
Once again, the devil is in the details. While it is apparently legal for you to make a backup of a DVD, the tools to make those backups are ILLEGAL so it is impossible for you to legally make that backup short of writing your own software to do so.
No. For crying out loud, if you are making a noninfringing use, the prohibitions do not apply to you. The DMCA does not alter your substantive rights.
An explanation is provided here:
Again, you confuse 'explanation' with 'opinion of lay person working from incomplete facts'. As he says himself, "The following is my opinion only" and more saliently: "The reality is that as long as your [sic] not selling or making copies available to anyone, your probably in the clear either way." Nevermind that his inquiry is woefully incomplete and that taking legal advice from someone who can't differentiate 'your' and 'you're' is pure folly to begin with, his bottom line directly contradicts the purpose for which you used the article.

You have a right to make archival backups. The DMCA does not alter that right, as it itself specifically states. Ripping a DVD and using the rip to play back is not archival and not a backup, and even still will not get you successfully sued.

Like I said, the only way to fight ignorance is with information.
 
I'm sorry you cannot see the truth in any form, Matticus. You ignored everything I wrote (as usual) and believe what you think you know is the truth. Legal cases have been made against companies trying to offer legal backup methods for DVDs and that proves my point there. You ignore it and declare your own beliefs to be the one truth in the world. Any company you would run would ignore their consumers and the market place and instead attempt to prosecute them for being inconvenienced instead of trying to work with your consumers to create a viable sale as iTunes did with the Napster issue, which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt a LINK between availability and piracy, but you choose not to see it. You claim you do not give your opinions, but your opinions clearly are your own personal interpretations of events and laws and bare little resemblance to those of others out there on the Net. You have declared yourself Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Matticus and clearly are out of touch with reality. Good day to you, sir.
 
Legal cases have been made against companies trying to offer legal backup methods for DVDs and that proves my point there.
The point is (1) outside the topic at hand and (2) entirely self-contradicting. That topic, the personal right to noninfringing uses, is not supported in any way by your reference to "legal cases against companies", nor have any such cases curtailed in any way substantive rights of an individual making noninfringing backups, because, for at least the third time now, the prohibition in 1201 expressly does not apply to such individuals. Whether the author is guilty of copyright infringement has no bearing.

Further, "legal cases against companies" can't be made over lawful methods. In order to win a lawsuit, the law must have been violated. And yet again, the DMCA cannot be and never has been used against a person exercising his personal, noninfringing backup right.
Any company you would run would ignore their consumers and the market place and instead attempt to prosecute them for being inconvenienced
Again with the absurdity and polemics. You're an excellent troll, but a poor debater. You can continue to rant, but I assure you I do not tire of correcting ignorance and you will not succeed via childish tantrums. Ever.
 
Yeah, um OK. Have fun listening to the sound of your own voice, Matticus. Clearly, it's the only voice you are capable of hearing.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.