It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

MPAA to start watermarking all videos/having all DVD Purchasers IDed

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
reply to post by warrenb
 


Redbox requires a credit card to purchase. Instant ID.

On another note, I think requiring an ID to rent a movie is blatantly unconstitutional. Proof of age is one thing, but being put into a database so your actions can be monitored and tracked? 1984 anyone?


Borrow it from a neighbor, lol. Anything that can be used on a computer can and will be cracked. They should stop wasting money on that, PRICE MOVIES MORE APPROPRIATELY, then go from there. Charging $20 for a movie when you can buy a pack of 100 DVDs from newegg.com for close to that??? They want SHEEP.

Truth; PAY people more, and/OR charge less for the movies. That will eliminate the NEED for some to pirate things.




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Not sure if this has been mentioned before in the replies to this thread yet, but here goes:

Did any of you realise that the MPAA has been using this tacic, or a variant of it for years now?

Every movie you see in theatres will be sporting 'Watermarks'. EVERY single one. These watermarks were first introduced to the Movie Theatres, in a way, to try to combat people recording movies out of the theatres, by simply adding little 'marks' to the screen at certain points of a movie. This way, when a patron had recorded said movie, and uploaded it to the internet, for instance, the movie company, upon downloading this 'ripped' release, can pinpoint EXACTLY which theatre the footage was filmed in because of these watermarks.

Watch the screens in the theatres a little closer, now... Those little 'nicks and scratches' that show up, seemingly randomly on the screen are NOT simple 'nicks and scratches' but they are those very same watermarks.

I find it utterly hilarious that people would attempt in ANY way to say that this is a violation of their own rights. This is the MPAA covering its own rights, of its own products...

Pirates arguing that it is a breach of their rights to locate them using these methods in place to protect the ACTUAL copyrights/rights of the works in question?

Doesn't that just seem a little retarded?




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralX

Truth; PAY people more, and/OR charge less for the movies. That will eliminate the NEED for some to pirate things.


MORE DISGRACEFUL THINKING RIGHT THERE.


Good lord... If that is truly the way so many people see it, they're definately not looking at this properly.


DVD's and Movies, are not, nor will they EVER be, NEEDS... people's priorities seem skewed, and out of touch with reality MORE and MORE lately... Now... on the other hand, if, say, a loaf of bread cost Americans $20... THEN you'd have a true NEED, and people would riot. Lineups around the block for drinking water? Another TRUE NEED.

If you honestly categorize movies as a 'need' then there's some serious soul-searching, and world understanding to be done.



Honestly...

Sometimes I truly wonder where this world is going... I wonder what Ancient Peoples thought the future might be like... I wonder wh-- *flicks on tv* ---
SCREW IT! THE GAME'S ON!!


I wonder when the term 'Hard-Earned Dollar' actually began to take on the meaning "Wow it took me 3 weeks to download this ripped copy or dragonball 12 in horrible quality that is just a slap in the face to EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO WORKED ON THIS MOVIE TO PAY THEIR BILLS/FEED THEIR FAMILIES."

/rant



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jephers0n
Not sure if this has been mentioned before in the replies to this thread yet, but here goes:

Did any of you realise that the MPAA has been using this tacic, or a variant of it for years now?

Every movie you see in theatres will be sporting 'Watermarks'. EVERY single one. These watermarks were first introduced to the Movie Theatres, in a way, to try to combat people recording movies out of the theatres, by simply adding little 'marks' to the screen at certain points of a movie. This way, when a patron had recorded said movie, and uploaded it to the internet, for instance, the movie company, upon downloading this 'ripped' release, can pinpoint EXACTLY which theatre the footage was filmed in because of these watermarks.

Watch the screens in the theatres a little closer, now... Those little 'nicks and scratches' that show up, seemingly randomly on the screen are NOT simple 'nicks and scratches' but they are those very same watermarks.

I find it utterly hilarious that people would attempt in ANY way to say that this is a violation of their own rights. This is the MPAA covering its own rights, of its own products...

Pirates arguing that it is a breach of their rights to locate them using these methods in place to protect the ACTUAL copyrights/rights of the works in question?

Doesn't that just seem a little retarded?




No, watermarking a movie is well within their rights and doesn't effect the consumer one bit. What is unconstitutional is requiring ID upon purchase. Its a blatant violation of the tenth amendment, which prohibits the federal government from passing any laws that it is not expressly permitted to by the constitution. Requiring consumers to be tracked in order to purchase or rent a movie falls under this.

Now, voluntary ID'ing by retailers would be okay constitutionally, but inevitably you will have retailers who refuse to do it unless its required by law, and those retailers will get all of the business.

I'm not sure if the MPAA has the right to disallow retailers to sell their products based on whether or not they will track ID, but my first instinct is that they don't. And if they do, then I think they will find their profit margins decreasing very quickly.

[edit on 4/30/2009 by LiquidLight]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidLight
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


The Tenth Amendment stops them from doing it. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of Federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.

If they allow this, it will simply prove once and for all that the government is in the pocket of big business and that the constitution means nothing to them.


Constitution? 10th Ammendment???

Apparently you all live in 1998 because here in 2009, neither of those things has meant much of anything for some time now.



new topics

top topics
 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join