8 ms·

Why Watching DVDs on Linux is Illegal in the USA

216 points by vilgax 14y ago

jzwinck 14y ago
Equally weird is that watching PBS content online is blocked if you're not physically sitting in America. For those who don't know, PBS is a US non-profit TV network, partially funded by the federal government and to varying degrees the states. Yet their website actively blocks would-be viewers outside the US, including US citizens (who are required to pay US taxes wherever they live). Oh, and when I took my Korean-made but US-bought TV to the UK, guess what? Its Netflix feature stopped working completely. Whether buying a DVD or streaming video online, I'm tired of not getting what I pay for.
- nwh 14y ago
  That's because you're not paying to buy a copy of the content. You're leasing it from them, apparently.
  - jzwinck 14y ago
    I'm not really sure what you mean here. In the PBS case, I cannot possibly (legally) access the content my tax dollars pay for, because they block it on their site, and I don't live in the US now. It hardly seems like a lease if there's no way I can ever access the assets...it's more like I'm paying for something but getting nothing. In the Netflix case, the problem is that LG sold me a TV which unbeknownst to me always advertises itself to Netflix as being "in the US." This means that when it is not physically in the US (according to its IP address), Netflix sees a discrepancy and blocks it from accessing any content--US or otherwise. Apparently LG fixed this bug within the last year, but there's no update available for my TV (despite it having online firmware updates for other reasons).
    - btilly 14y ago
      In the PBS case, I cannot possibly (legally) access the content my tax dollars pay for, because they block it on their site, and I don't live in the US now. According to http://www.pbs.org/funding http://www.pbs.org/funding, tax dollars pay for about 15% of the budget across all PBS stations. And a large part of that money goes to ensuring that local stations can exist in places that they otherwise couldn't. While tax dollars are helpful, in no way are they paying for that content in the same way that the BBC is funded by people in England. In any case the reason for that geographical restriction is that PBS makes money from selling access to popular shows like Sesame Street worldwide. They could not make that money if organizations in that area had no incentive to pay for it. ...it's more like I'm paying for something but getting nothing. My taxes help to pay for the system of embassies and consulates that provide a support network for people like you. Since I live in the USA and have no plans to travel, I'm getting nothing from that tax money. Welcome to a fundamental fact of taxation, most of what our taxes pay for does not directly benefit us. Nor do we individually have any say about how that is spent. Once it has been taken by the government it is in no real sense "ours". Get over it.
      - jzwinck 14y ago
        > Welcome to a fundamental fact of taxation, most of what our taxes pay for does not directly benefit us. Once it has been taken by the government it is in no real sense "ours". That makes sense for things that are targeted at a particular audience, geography, etc. But television? They had to spend money to implement the blocking feature, and seemingly for no additional money they could let people in Europe watch. I'm not asking for special treatment. And I'm not interested in watching Sesame Street, but rather programs which are not offered for sale (I'd even pay $0.99 per episode, if I could). As a side note, if you want services from a US embassy, you often have to join a days-long waiting list, and then pay rather high rates for the services. Contrary to popular belief, it's not a place you just walk into because you're a citizen and they do things for you. It's more like a state-owned Kinko's plus law office in a prison-like setting. I appreciate your point about your taxes paying for them, but you should know they aren't giving me anything for free in there.
        14y ago
- khuey 14y ago
  The PBS thing is roughly the same situation as the BBC outside the UK, AIUI.
  - jzwinck 14y ago
    The BBC is different, actually. If you're a UK citizen, you do not have to pay income tax while you live and work abroad. And the BBC is funded partly by an explicit "TV license" payable by any household that has a TV in Britain. So again, if you leave (or just get rid of your TV), you stop paying for it. So maybe it's OK if you can't watch it then (bollocks still, but justifiable bollocks).
    - dfc 14y ago
      How much money do you think PBS gets from federal tax dollars?
      - benjohnson 14y ago
        Just enough money to keep it under control
  - alan_cx 14y ago
    Im sure the BBC had some way of enabling licence paying Brits abroad to still use iPlayer. Could be completely wrong, but some bell relating to this is ringing in the back of my mind.
- sjh 14y ago
  I'm in Tokyo, and streamed an episode of PBS' FrontLine from pbs.org only last week/the week before last.
  - jzwinck 14y ago
    Try this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-stonehenge.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-stonehenge.html . It is blocked in both London and Singapore; if it's available in Tokyo then perhaps you have an odd IP address (giving wrong geolocation), or PBS likes your islands better than mine.
    - sjh 14y ago
      That is also blocked in Tokyo: "We're sorry, but this video is not available in your region due to right restrictions."
- muyuu 14y ago
  Welcome to the new Internet. Now featuring borders.
  - anoncow 14y ago
    Yup, that is a feature and for our own "good".
- dfc 14y ago
  PBS does not get a lot of money from the federal government.[1][2]. Don't buy the republican talking points. But more importantly how is the geo blocking different from the blocking that the BBC does? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcas... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS
  - jzwinck 14y ago
    I explained in another comment why BBC is different: when British citizens leave the country, they stop paying for the BBC (via taxes and via TV license). When US citizens live abroad, they keep paying, but stop receiving. I have no idea what republican talking points you're referring to. Let's just stipulate that if the republicans say the same thing I say, it's a coincidence. I don't even live in the US.
    - dfc 14y ago
      "When US citizens live abroad, they keep paying, but stop receiving." You keep referring to PBS as if it is a service provided by the government. PBS is not a government service, it is a private entity. Why do you think paying taxes entitles you to universal acces to PBS? My local university and the local fire department received some federal funding. A miniscule slice of your taxes paid for that funding. Do you expect to enroll in classes at Syracuse University for free now? Do you expect the Syracuse Fire Department to come help your cat out of the tree whereever you are?
      - asveikau 14y ago
        The irrational fake-libertarian does not care for such arguments. They freak out if minuscule amounts of their money go to something they don't support, and expect loads of control in exchange for this transaction. Did you know if I buy a burger at McDonald's I can totally boss around that entire company? Except it's not really the price of a burger that entitles me to do so; I can just leave some change in the take-a-penny tray.
- superuser2 14y ago
  The clean technological solution to roaming US citizens is national ID with a federal government CAS API. I'm guessing people opposed to intellectual property would appreciate that even less.
- rhplus 14y ago
  The PBS geo-blocking is reasonable to understand. Video streaming can get expensive and international delivery almost certainly isn't in the foundation's stated mission at this point. Things also get complicated when you consider that PBS is not just one non-profit, but many "member stations", each operated as a separate non-profit. It's not their main objective navigate through the difficult task of making international streaming pay for itself (i.e. through correctly targeted ad partnerships or additional fund-raising). It's easier to just block it. But back to the numbers: I'd estimate that PBS is paying around $0.05 per show to stream. I'm basing this on CDN costs in the range $0.10/GB - $0.20/GB, the size of 30 minute shows weighing in between 125MB and 250MB, plus storage and admin overheads. I might be wrong, but it looks like they're delivering their bits via CloudFront[1] and so those costs basically double for viewers outside of the US and Europe[2]. Even if it's not CloudFront, the basic cost structures stay the same. Why on earth would they want to serve content to users who mostly aren't giving them money and are costing twice as much to serve? One last point: the link below are for Downtown Abbey, for which PBS certainly doesn't have international streaming rights. [1] http://video.pbs.org/videoPlayerInfo/2335534842 http://video.pbs.org/videoPlayerInfo/2335534842 [2] http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/pricing/ http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/pricing/
  - jzwinck 14y ago
    The example I linked in another comment (www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-stonehenge.html) is blocked in Europe, despite your pricing data showing that it would cost PBS the same to deliver there as in the US. So I'm not convinced it's about delivery cost. For clarity, let's not talk about Downton Abbey--that's a more complicated topic because it's not PBS-produced content as far as I know.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >I'd estimate that PBS is paying around $0.05 per show to stream. I'm basing this on CDN costs in the range $0.10/GB - $0.20/GB, the size of 30 minute shows weighing in between 125MB and 250MB, plus storage and admin overheads. If they actually own the rights to the show they want to distribute to the public for free and the primary thing stopping them is the cost of a CDN, why aren't they using BitTorrent? At least as an option that says "no CDN in your country, international users use this"?
spindritf 14y ago
In Poland you can make a backup copy of a DVD circumventing "security" measures where necessary. More, you can share that copy with members of your family and people in your social circle. It's considered fair use. Anyway, while this law seems completely and horribly broken, technology allowed us to escape it a bit. I don't even have optical drives in my computers any more. Of course, this means that watching any movie or tv show on a computer requires downloading it from... a source because popular online players (some offer content for free, like TVN, a large private broadcaster; and not just a clip here and there — full episodes, even whole films) usually require Silverlight which doesn't really work on Ubuntu. Luckily, that — downloading copyrighted materials for personal use — is, again, legal†. † some exceptions apply.
- TomaszZielinski 14y ago
  It might be legal from criminal law POV but you can still be sued in a civil court for most of those use cases. Of course that rarely happens. For those interested how a post-communist country criminalizes copyright violations, here's a link to the relevant section of our Copyright Act: http://prawo.legeo.pl/prawo/ustawa-z-dnia-4-lutego-1994-r-o-prawie-autorskim-i-prawach-pokrewnych/rozdzial-14_odpowiedzialnosc-karna/?on=21.10.2010&exact=yes http://prawo.legeo.pl/prawo/ustawa-z-dnia-4-lutego-1994-r-o-...
  - ajuc 14y ago
    It's all about distribution ("rozpowszechnianie"). If you download copyrighted material - the people that made it available without permision offended tha law, but you had not. I think it's very useful distinction, and the only one that makes sense. Also there are exceptions for short excerpts from copyrighted material, satire, etc (considered fair use). That's why Poles were so infuriated when USA tried to enforce ACTA on us.
  - gngeal 14y ago
    "It might be legal from criminal law POV but you can still be sued in a civil court for most of those use cases." You can get sued for anything, but the court will throw it out if the civil case is unfounded. I don't know how you have it in Poland, but the Czech copyright act stipulates that private copies ("copies for sole personal use") of everything except software and "electronic databases" (telephone directories etc.) are completely outside the purview of copyright protection, up to and including the disregard for the legality of the source of the copy (confirmed by a verdict of the Supreme Court in 2006) If something similar is the case in Poland, what basis could a civil case possibly have?
pfortuny 14y ago
I just realized the other day that public projection of a DVD in an oil rig is illegal (yes, they appear explicitly in the banner). Funny: hospitals, schools, ..., oil rigs! Unbelievable.
- kzrdude 14y ago
  Why is it illegal? Just because the DVD FUDscreen says so doesn't mean it is.
  - pfortuny 14y ago
    No, I just wanted to point out that they do include the rigs in the banner. Like they were obsessed with rigs or something. Why not inlcude 'shareholders' meetings' or 'space stations' as well?
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      Likely because they hope you're still within the 12 mile zone of some country. Outside of those I really wonder what their legal position is. The blurb telling you it is illegal is probably not all there is to it.
      - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        It would be contributory infringement, at least, for the buyer in the country they "bought" the DVD in. I wonder if there's a clause disallowing transport of the DVD to a non-Berne Convention country (or non-TRIPs or whatever).
    - codeulike 14y ago
      Haha, yeah I always wondered about that. Like they've got something against riggers or something. I imagine there must have been a case decades ago of people on oil rigs showing movies and then claiming exemption from the rules due to being out at sea.
    - DanBC 14y ago
ishansharma 14y ago
I don't love in USA but I have an impression that laws like this are made just to put more money in pockets of RIAA and other similar ass.es. Most of the copyright laws are standing on the line of sanity and one small change can make them appear like creation of a kindergarten kid.
- babarock 14y ago
  The way I look at it the problem is a bit more subtle than that. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a US-citizen either. Recent technology is making several business models (of which the RIAA is a great example) obsolete. These businesses are powerful enough not to die the way the typewriter or the analog photo film did. These laws (like the DMCA) are a cry for help, a last resort from a dying industry. This is why their side of the argument has always appealed to emotions and not reason. ("How would the world be without movies?" - a complete straw man). I don't believe it's a conspiracy to make the rich even richer, it has more to do with the difficulty of renewing oneself when technology makes you obsolete. The problem is that a few (or more) innocent casualties are going to get hurt as the Hollywood Titanic (yay, a metaphor!) goes down, but ultimately this whole "technological protection measures" shenanigan is going to disappear. Hollywood is doomed and it knows it. That being said, I think the US is ahead of other countries when it comes to finding a solution to this problem. The effects of the SOPA/PIPA protests had on Congress is the obvious example, but more broadly, the constant ongoing debate looks promising. This debate is always avoided or dismissed as nonesense in France (where I currently live) and it cannot possibly be held in the Middle East (where I'm from). I just wished the judiciary system wasn't so harsh on the scapegoats of this whole mess. Because let's face it, the victims (again, obvious one is Schwartz, but there are many others) are scapegoats and everybody knows it.
  - Torn 14y ago
    We have anti-copyright-theft trailers in cinemas, and they employ similar straw men. "Imagine a world with all cinemas... gone". As if piracy will stop people going to the cinema for films they really want to see.
  - alan_cx 14y ago
anoncow 14y ago
We continue trying to find ways to create new outlaws. 6 strikes came into effect and nobody is bothered. The govt does not represent the people. What is said is not meant. We live and are expected to live chasing things we don't want and as slaves to masters, hoping to be masters someday. It is extremely disturbing to be able to think about all this and live life. It is no wonder that some people choose to ignore all of the negativity and live whatever is left of their lives.
- ishansharma 14y ago
  I fully agree with you. I remember reading an article about how democracy is for ideal world which does not exist. In a perfect situation, we wold have representatives who understand people. But what we have is a large group of selfish people who take money from businesses and pass such stupid laws. They censor everything they can't understand or tht threatens their power in any way. Internet is one such medium as it increases information flow and power of people and decreases their!
  - AutoCorrect 14y ago
    those that want power aren't fit to wield it, those fit to wield it don't want it.
    - ishansharma 14y ago
      Spot on! I observe this thing in my university too. All the top students who have caliber to do something won't touch it because it involves too much bureaucracy and as a result, everything is done by, well, incompetent people who spread corruption! I guess it only grows when we go up in the chain.
- thoughtcriminal 14y ago
  To live the American dream, you need to be asleep.
- sp332 14y ago
  "6 strikes" doesn't make any new criminals. It's a voluntary deal with certain ISPs that doesn't (directly) involve criminal charges or civil lawsuits.
flexie 14y ago
Yet another marginalization of freedom serving the interests of a the few well-lobbbied rightsholders.
caf 14y ago
I was a little taken aback to realise that a new generation of hackers that doesn't remember a world without the DMCA is now here. DVD Jon isn't a kid anymore... he'd be pushing 30 by now.
craftman 14y ago
Guys, the best way to react to this is to create our own content (music, films, books, theater, whatever...) then share and appreciate with friends. We dont need those companies to invent our life.
- demetrius 14y ago
  That would be great, but I can’t imagine living without all the pirated books. You can replace entertainment, but how can you replace everything else?
  - craftman 14y ago
    Sorry, I dont know. I always bought my books since I am a student (spending lot of money into them btw). Unfortunatly, books that worth the money, and my time reading them are not so numerous. Anyway, I guess internet is still a good place to find publicly available information not yet copyrighted by some doomed organisation.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
The weirder thing on Linux is that you can watch Amazon's streaming videos in Firefox, but not in Chrome. Apparently the Flash plugin for Chrome on Linux removed drm for some reason, so Amazon killed it as a supported platform.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  It's even weirder than that because you can watch Amazon videos just fine using Flash in Chrome Google TV. In fact, until the most recent Google TV update that was the only way to take advantage of this high-profile, remote control button-worthy feature.
jdhuang 14y ago
Curious to hear whether these weird Linux-asymmetries apply to Blu-Ray or online digital media (e.g. Hulu/Netflix) too. I would be willing to accept the fact that DVDs were invented so long ago that some of their restrictions are a little archaic.
- betterunix 14y ago
  These issues absolutely apply to Bluray, and to basically any other format with copyright restrictions. It is not an issue of DVD being invented long ago; the DMCA is what is obsolete here.
lysium 14y ago
It's also illegal to do so in Germany.
- cygx 14y ago
  In principle, circumventing DRM does indeed violate copyright law (or rather the German version thereof). However, there's also the right to make private copies, and I'm not aware of any relevant case law. Keep in mind that this is civil law, and "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" ("No plaintiff, no judge").
bpatrianakos 14y ago
This is nothing to get in a tizzy about. DMCA is stupid, we know, but the reality is that laws are made all the time that have some asinine edge-case side effect that makes a totally innocent action a criminal offense. The important question here is, are you likely to be prosecuted for such a dumb thing. I think it's relatively safe to say you won't. Obviously we can't say the same for those of us who'd be inclined to build our own DVD playback software but to use it to view a DVD is, in reality, not going to get you in trouble. I'm not saying I support this. I absolutely don't. My question is, what's the point here? To me, this comes off as another article meant to get all the anti-copyright, anti-DMCA people to all come together and pat each other on the back for how smart they are for being against such silly laws. This stuff is good to know and interesting but I'm still a little disappointed its on the front page of HN. It seems like exactly the kind of thing the guidelines say not to post. It's an easy up vote - who can't get behind the idea of DVD playback on Linux being illegal being, well, ludicrous.
- hughw 14y ago
  Before I read this article, I didn't know exactly why Ubuntu comes without a DVD player, and I didn't understand CSS encryption. The article also offers interesting historical notes. Thanks to the OP for posting.
- rpgmaker 14y ago
  This is why this was posted on HN: "This stuff is good to know and interesting". I did know some of it but there might be some people who don't. Specially people that are new to linux.
- anoncow 14y ago
  There really is no point putting up a "fight". The content creators do not want to give their hardwork away. The content creators have to do whatever it takes to live. If the measures that they take legally bugs us, then we should create our own content and distribute it the way we want to or approach the courts. Talking about how a proprietary format is taking away our freedom will do nothing. And yes put your money where your mouth is. Support companies that do it the right way.
dimadima 14y ago
Whaaaaaat? This is the oldest news ever. I'm going back to sleep, and when I wake up, this site better not be a throwback to 2002, OK?
zabuni 14y ago
Minor quibble with the article. Handbrake is not illegal. It does not break encryption, it merely transcodes. It, by design, does not come with a copy of libdvdcss, and you have to download it through other means. It will also, on a mac, go find VLC's copy and use it. The people behind Handbrake are somewhat touchy about this, for good reason.
JohnHaugeland 14y ago
This isn't even close to correct. What the DMCA says is that you can't strip and redistribute the content, not that you can't strip and watch it. This is an old false stalking horse. And even if this is correct, this wouldn't make you a criminal; since nobody knows, this does not rise to the level of intent. Notice how if this was true, people would be making a fortune going after TiVo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Panic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Panic Notice that he's also saying that it's legal to jailbreak a phone (it isn't, anymore,) and that the reason it was legal was an exemption to the DMCA (which is completely incorrect.) Notice that the thing he's claiming is illegal is a link to a thing that's actually about a completely different topic - space shifting, ie they claim, taking the DVD, decoding it, then transferring that decoded version to another device. Oh, and that place he's citing is also wrong. This isn't what the problem is in the eyes of the copyright office. Space shifting is perfectly legal, and is done on large consumer devices all the time. iTunes can do it, your Archos can do it, the SlingBox can do it, the high end TiVo can do it, I think the Hopper might be able to, et cetera. Quoting the source he claims said this was illegal: > "And the RIAA and the MPAA agree with you. In > 2005, their lawyer (now the Solicitor General of > the United States) assured the Supreme Court that > “The record companies, my clients, have said, for > some time now, and it’s been on their Website for > some time now, that it’s perfectly lawful to take a > CD that you’ve purchased, upload it onto your > computer, put it onto your iPod." > > Movie executives agree as well. Mitch Singer, the > Chief Technology Officer of Sony Pictures Entertainment > explained to author Robert Levine that the idea for > the movie industry’s UltraViolet program evolved out > of Singer’s own frustration with transferring movies > between PCs in his home. And, of course, the Fair Use clause of the copyright act makes it perfectly clear that you're allowed to do this as long as you aren't transmitting it to other people. Have fun. Go nuts. There was a point at which it was, briefly, illegal to decode DVDs under Linux, but it had nothing to do with any of this, and it's long since undone. What was actually going on was that the MP3 decoder is under patent by Fraunhofer AG, and back in the mid-1990s, before most people understood what Linux was, but when MP3 players were starting to become popular, Fraunhofer started to assert their patent to take money from device manufacturers. A few MP3 makers protested that they were using the MP3 stuff built into Linux, and as such they weren't the ones using the tech, Linux was, and Fraunhofer ought to go after Linux. Fraunhofer fell for this, and in response, the community removed MP3 stuff to insulate itself from legal nonsense. A couple months later Fraunhofer figured out what Linux was, and issued a free use license like decent people, but the community was so long since neckbearded out over the topic that they never put any of it back in. And then the legends of what was going on began. This is why you don't take legal advice from random programmers on the internet. This is a bunch of moral panic over a misunderstanding of the copyright system. There's absolutely no reason that it's illegal to watch a DVD in America. This just isn't true at all.
unreal37 14y ago
Who are these people who want to play DVDs on Linux? I have Windows and I have played a DVD on my computer exactly "never" times in the past 20 years. If you want to play a DVD on Linux, boot Windows for that. Or use a DVD player. Or don't watch DVDs any more. Or crack it in the comfort of your own home for only your own use, and noone will ever prosecute you.
SeppoErviala 14y ago
This is not limited to Linux but affects all players that use libdvdcss. For example, Windows and OSX versions of VLC come bundled with the library.
sbouafif 14y ago
In France using VLC to watch a DVD is illegal too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI http://www.videolan.org/press/eucd.html http://www.videolan.org/press/eucd.html

216 points by vilgax 14y ago

Equally weird is that watching PBS content online is blocked if you're not physically sitting in America. For those who don't know, PBS is a US non-profit TV network, partially funded by the federal government and to varying degrees the states. Yet their website actively blocks would-be viewers outside the US, including US citizens (who are required to pay US taxes wherever they live). Oh, and when I took my Korean-made but US-bought TV to the UK, guess what? Its Netflix feature stopped working completely. Whether buying a DVD or streaming video online, I'm tired of not getting what I pay for.

nwh 14y ago
That's because you're not paying to buy a copy of the content. You're leasing it from them, apparently.
- jzwinck 14y ago
  I'm not really sure what you mean here. In the PBS case, I cannot possibly (legally) access the content my tax dollars pay for, because they block it on their site, and I don't live in the US now. It hardly seems like a lease if there's no way I can ever access the assets...it's more like I'm paying for something but getting nothing. In the Netflix case, the problem is that LG sold me a TV which unbeknownst to me always advertises itself to Netflix as being "in the US." This means that when it is not physically in the US (according to its IP address), Netflix sees a discrepancy and blocks it from accessing any content--US or otherwise. Apparently LG fixed this bug within the last year, but there's no update available for my TV (despite it having online firmware updates for other reasons).
  - btilly 14y ago
    In the PBS case, I cannot possibly (legally) access the content my tax dollars pay for, because they block it on their site, and I don't live in the US now. According to http://www.pbs.org/funding http://www.pbs.org/funding, tax dollars pay for about 15% of the budget across all PBS stations. And a large part of that money goes to ensuring that local stations can exist in places that they otherwise couldn't. While tax dollars are helpful, in no way are they paying for that content in the same way that the BBC is funded by people in England. In any case the reason for that geographical restriction is that PBS makes money from selling access to popular shows like Sesame Street worldwide. They could not make that money if organizations in that area had no incentive to pay for it. ...it's more like I'm paying for something but getting nothing. My taxes help to pay for the system of embassies and consulates that provide a support network for people like you. Since I live in the USA and have no plans to travel, I'm getting nothing from that tax money. Welcome to a fundamental fact of taxation, most of what our taxes pay for does not directly benefit us. Nor do we individually have any say about how that is spent. Once it has been taken by the government it is in no real sense "ours". Get over it.
    - jzwinck 14y ago
      > Welcome to a fundamental fact of taxation, most of what our taxes pay for does not directly benefit us. Once it has been taken by the government it is in no real sense "ours". That makes sense for things that are targeted at a particular audience, geography, etc. But television? They had to spend money to implement the blocking feature, and seemingly for no additional money they could let people in Europe watch. I'm not asking for special treatment. And I'm not interested in watching Sesame Street, but rather programs which are not offered for sale (I'd even pay $0.99 per episode, if I could). As a side note, if you want services from a US embassy, you often have to join a days-long waiting list, and then pay rather high rates for the services. Contrary to popular belief, it's not a place you just walk into because you're a citizen and they do things for you. It's more like a state-owned Kinko's plus law office in a prison-like setting. I appreciate your point about your taxes paying for them, but you should know they aren't giving me anything for free in there.
      - 14y ago
khuey 14y ago
The PBS thing is roughly the same situation as the BBC outside the UK, AIUI.
- jzwinck 14y ago
  The BBC is different, actually. If you're a UK citizen, you do not have to pay income tax while you live and work abroad. And the BBC is funded partly by an explicit "TV license" payable by any household that has a TV in Britain. So again, if you leave (or just get rid of your TV), you stop paying for it. So maybe it's OK if you can't watch it then (bollocks still, but justifiable bollocks).
  - dfc 14y ago
    How much money do you think PBS gets from federal tax dollars?
    - benjohnson 14y ago
      Just enough money to keep it under control
- alan_cx 14y ago
  Im sure the BBC had some way of enabling licence paying Brits abroad to still use iPlayer. Could be completely wrong, but some bell relating to this is ringing in the back of my mind.
sjh 14y ago
I'm in Tokyo, and streamed an episode of PBS' FrontLine from pbs.org only last week/the week before last.
- jzwinck 14y ago
  Try this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-stonehenge.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-stonehenge.html . It is blocked in both London and Singapore; if it's available in Tokyo then perhaps you have an odd IP address (giving wrong geolocation), or PBS likes your islands better than mine.
  - sjh 14y ago
    That is also blocked in Tokyo: "We're sorry, but this video is not available in your region due to right restrictions."
muyuu 14y ago
Welcome to the new Internet. Now featuring borders.
- anoncow 14y ago
  Yup, that is a feature and for our own "good".
dfc 14y ago
PBS does not get a lot of money from the federal government.[1][2]. Don't buy the republican talking points. But more importantly how is the geo blocking different from the blocking that the BBC does? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcas... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS
- jzwinck 14y ago
  I explained in another comment why BBC is different: when British citizens leave the country, they stop paying for the BBC (via taxes and via TV license). When US citizens live abroad, they keep paying, but stop receiving. I have no idea what republican talking points you're referring to. Let's just stipulate that if the republicans say the same thing I say, it's a coincidence. I don't even live in the US.
  - dfc 14y ago
    "When US citizens live abroad, they keep paying, but stop receiving." You keep referring to PBS as if it is a service provided by the government. PBS is not a government service, it is a private entity. Why do you think paying taxes entitles you to universal acces to PBS? My local university and the local fire department received some federal funding. A miniscule slice of your taxes paid for that funding. Do you expect to enroll in classes at Syracuse University for free now? Do you expect the Syracuse Fire Department to come help your cat out of the tree whereever you are?
    - asveikau 14y ago
      The irrational fake-libertarian does not care for such arguments. They freak out if minuscule amounts of their money go to something they don't support, and expect loads of control in exchange for this transaction. Did you know if I buy a burger at McDonald's I can totally boss around that entire company? Except it's not really the price of a burger that entitles me to do so; I can just leave some change in the take-a-penny tray.
superuser2 14y ago
The clean technological solution to roaming US citizens is national ID with a federal government CAS API. I'm guessing people opposed to intellectual property would appreciate that even less.
rhplus 14y ago
The PBS geo-blocking is reasonable to understand. Video streaming can get expensive and international delivery almost certainly isn't in the foundation's stated mission at this point. Things also get complicated when you consider that PBS is not just one non-profit, but many "member stations", each operated as a separate non-profit. It's not their main objective navigate through the difficult task of making international streaming pay for itself (i.e. through correctly targeted ad partnerships or additional fund-raising). It's easier to just block it. But back to the numbers: I'd estimate that PBS is paying around $0.05 per show to stream. I'm basing this on CDN costs in the range $0.10/GB - $0.20/GB, the size of 30 minute shows weighing in between 125MB and 250MB, plus storage and admin overheads. I might be wrong, but it looks like they're delivering their bits via CloudFront[1] and so those costs basically double for viewers outside of the US and Europe[2]. Even if it's not CloudFront, the basic cost structures stay the same. Why on earth would they want to serve content to users who mostly aren't giving them money and are costing twice as much to serve? One last point: the link below are for Downtown Abbey, for which PBS certainly doesn't have international streaming rights. [1] http://video.pbs.org/videoPlayerInfo/2335534842 http://video.pbs.org/videoPlayerInfo/2335534842 [2] http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/pricing/ http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/pricing/
- jzwinck 14y ago
  The example I linked in another comment (www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-stonehenge.html) is blocked in Europe, despite your pricing data showing that it would cost PBS the same to deliver there as in the US. So I'm not convinced it's about delivery cost. For clarity, let's not talk about Downton Abbey--that's a more complicated topic because it's not PBS-produced content as far as I know.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >I'd estimate that PBS is paying around $0.05 per show to stream. I'm basing this on CDN costs in the range $0.10/GB - $0.20/GB, the size of 30 minute shows weighing in between 125MB and 250MB, plus storage and admin overheads. If they actually own the rights to the show they want to distribute to the public for free and the primary thing stopping them is the cost of a CDN, why aren't they using BitTorrent? At least as an option that says "no CDN in your country, international users use this"?

spindritf 14y ago

In Poland you can make a backup copy of a DVD circumventing "security" measures where necessary. More, you can share that copy with members of your family and people in your social circle. It's considered fair use. Anyway, while this law seems completely and horribly broken, technology allowed us to escape it a bit. I don't even have optical drives in my computers any more. Of course, this means that watching any movie or tv show on a computer requires downloading it from... a source because popular online players (some offer content for free, like TVN, a large private broadcaster; and not just a clip here and there — full episodes, even whole films) usually require Silverlight which doesn't really work on Ubuntu. Luckily, that — downloading copyrighted materials for personal use — is, again, legal†. † some exceptions apply.

TomaszZielinski 14y ago
It might be legal from criminal law POV but you can still be sued in a civil court for most of those use cases. Of course that rarely happens. For those interested how a post-communist country criminalizes copyright violations, here's a link to the relevant section of our Copyright Act: http://prawo.legeo.pl/prawo/ustawa-z-dnia-4-lutego-1994-r-o-prawie-autorskim-i-prawach-pokrewnych/rozdzial-14_odpowiedzialnosc-karna/?on=21.10.2010&exact=yes http://prawo.legeo.pl/prawo/ustawa-z-dnia-4-lutego-1994-r-o-...
- ajuc 14y ago
  It's all about distribution ("rozpowszechnianie"). If you download copyrighted material - the people that made it available without permision offended tha law, but you had not. I think it's very useful distinction, and the only one that makes sense. Also there are exceptions for short excerpts from copyrighted material, satire, etc (considered fair use). That's why Poles were so infuriated when USA tried to enforce ACTA on us.
- gngeal 14y ago
  "It might be legal from criminal law POV but you can still be sued in a civil court for most of those use cases." You can get sued for anything, but the court will throw it out if the civil case is unfounded. I don't know how you have it in Poland, but the Czech copyright act stipulates that private copies ("copies for sole personal use") of everything except software and "electronic databases" (telephone directories etc.) are completely outside the purview of copyright protection, up to and including the disregard for the legality of the source of the copy (confirmed by a verdict of the Supreme Court in 2006) If something similar is the case in Poland, what basis could a civil case possibly have?

pfortuny 14y ago

I just realized the other day that public projection of a DVD in an oil rig is illegal (yes, they appear explicitly in the banner). Funny: hospitals, schools, ..., oil rigs! Unbelievable.

kzrdude 14y ago
Why is it illegal? Just because the DVD FUDscreen says so doesn't mean it is.
- pfortuny 14y ago
  No, I just wanted to point out that they do include the rigs in the banner. Like they were obsessed with rigs or something. Why not inlcude 'shareholders' meetings' or 'space stations' as well?
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Likely because they hope you're still within the 12 mile zone of some country. Outside of those I really wonder what their legal position is. The blurb telling you it is illegal is probably not all there is to it.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      It would be contributory infringement, at least, for the buyer in the country they "bought" the DVD in. I wonder if there's a clause disallowing transport of the DVD to a non-Berne Convention country (or non-TRIPs or whatever).
  - codeulike 14y ago
    Haha, yeah I always wondered about that. Like they've got something against riggers or something. I imagine there must have been a case decades ago of people on oil rigs showing movies and then claiming exemption from the rules due to being out at sea.
  - DanBC 14y ago

ishansharma 14y ago

I don't love in USA but I have an impression that laws like this are made just to put more money in pockets of RIAA and other similar ass.es. Most of the copyright laws are standing on the line of sanity and one small change can make them appear like creation of a kindergarten kid.

babarock 14y ago
The way I look at it the problem is a bit more subtle than that. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a US-citizen either. Recent technology is making several business models (of which the RIAA is a great example) obsolete. These businesses are powerful enough not to die the way the typewriter or the analog photo film did. These laws (like the DMCA) are a cry for help, a last resort from a dying industry. This is why their side of the argument has always appealed to emotions and not reason. ("How would the world be without movies?" - a complete straw man). I don't believe it's a conspiracy to make the rich even richer, it has more to do with the difficulty of renewing oneself when technology makes you obsolete. The problem is that a few (or more) innocent casualties are going to get hurt as the Hollywood Titanic (yay, a metaphor!) goes down, but ultimately this whole "technological protection measures" shenanigan is going to disappear. Hollywood is doomed and it knows it. That being said, I think the US is ahead of other countries when it comes to finding a solution to this problem. The effects of the SOPA/PIPA protests had on Congress is the obvious example, but more broadly, the constant ongoing debate looks promising. This debate is always avoided or dismissed as nonesense in France (where I currently live) and it cannot possibly be held in the Middle East (where I'm from). I just wished the judiciary system wasn't so harsh on the scapegoats of this whole mess. Because let's face it, the victims (again, obvious one is Schwartz, but there are many others) are scapegoats and everybody knows it.
- Torn 14y ago
  We have anti-copyright-theft trailers in cinemas, and they employ similar straw men. "Imagine a world with all cinemas... gone". As if piracy will stop people going to the cinema for films they really want to see.
- alan_cx 14y ago

anoncow 14y ago

We continue trying to find ways to create new outlaws. 6 strikes came into effect and nobody is bothered. The govt does not represent the people. What is said is not meant. We live and are expected to live chasing things we don't want and as slaves to masters, hoping to be masters someday. It is extremely disturbing to be able to think about all this and live life. It is no wonder that some people choose to ignore all of the negativity and live whatever is left of their lives.

ishansharma 14y ago
I fully agree with you. I remember reading an article about how democracy is for ideal world which does not exist. In a perfect situation, we wold have representatives who understand people. But what we have is a large group of selfish people who take money from businesses and pass such stupid laws. They censor everything they can't understand or tht threatens their power in any way. Internet is one such medium as it increases information flow and power of people and decreases their!
- AutoCorrect 14y ago
  those that want power aren't fit to wield it, those fit to wield it don't want it.
  - ishansharma 14y ago
    Spot on! I observe this thing in my university too. All the top students who have caliber to do something won't touch it because it involves too much bureaucracy and as a result, everything is done by, well, incompetent people who spread corruption! I guess it only grows when we go up in the chain.
thoughtcriminal 14y ago
To live the American dream, you need to be asleep.
sp332 14y ago
"6 strikes" doesn't make any new criminals. It's a voluntary deal with certain ISPs that doesn't (directly) involve criminal charges or civil lawsuits.

flexie 14y ago

Yet another marginalization of freedom serving the interests of a the few well-lobbbied rightsholders.

caf 14y ago

I was a little taken aback to realise that a new generation of hackers that doesn't remember a world without the DMCA is now here. DVD Jon isn't a kid anymore... he'd be pushing 30 by now.

craftman 14y ago

Guys, the best way to react to this is to create our own content (music, films, books, theater, whatever...) then share and appreciate with friends. We dont need those companies to invent our life.

demetrius 14y ago
That would be great, but I can’t imagine living without all the pirated books. You can replace entertainment, but how can you replace everything else?
- craftman 14y ago
  Sorry, I dont know. I always bought my books since I am a student (spending lot of money into them btw). Unfortunatly, books that worth the money, and my time reading them are not so numerous. Anyway, I guess internet is still a good place to find publicly available information not yet copyrighted by some doomed organisation.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

The weirder thing on Linux is that you can watch Amazon's streaming videos in Firefox, but not in Chrome. Apparently the Flash plugin for Chrome on Linux removed drm for some reason, so Amazon killed it as a supported platform.

fpgeek 14y ago
It's even weirder than that because you can watch Amazon videos just fine using Flash in Chrome Google TV. In fact, until the most recent Google TV update that was the only way to take advantage of this high-profile, remote control button-worthy feature.

jdhuang 14y ago

Curious to hear whether these weird Linux-asymmetries apply to Blu-Ray or online digital media (e.g. Hulu/Netflix) too. I would be willing to accept the fact that DVDs were invented so long ago that some of their restrictions are a little archaic.

betterunix 14y ago
These issues absolutely apply to Bluray, and to basically any other format with copyright restrictions. It is not an issue of DVD being invented long ago; the DMCA is what is obsolete here.

lysium 14y ago

It's also illegal to do so in Germany.

cygx 14y ago
In principle, circumventing DRM does indeed violate copyright law (or rather the German version thereof). However, there's also the right to make private copies, and I'm not aware of any relevant case law. Keep in mind that this is civil law, and "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" ("No plaintiff, no judge").

bpatrianakos 14y ago

This is nothing to get in a tizzy about. DMCA is stupid, we know, but the reality is that laws are made all the time that have some asinine edge-case side effect that makes a totally innocent action a criminal offense. The important question here is, are you likely to be prosecuted for such a dumb thing. I think it's relatively safe to say you won't. Obviously we can't say the same for those of us who'd be inclined to build our own DVD playback software but to use it to view a DVD is, in reality, not going to get you in trouble. I'm not saying I support this. I absolutely don't. My question is, what's the point here? To me, this comes off as another article meant to get all the anti-copyright, anti-DMCA people to all come together and pat each other on the back for how smart they are for being against such silly laws. This stuff is good to know and interesting but I'm still a little disappointed its on the front page of HN. It seems like exactly the kind of thing the guidelines say not to post. It's an easy up vote - who can't get behind the idea of DVD playback on Linux being illegal being, well, ludicrous.

hughw 14y ago
Before I read this article, I didn't know exactly why Ubuntu comes without a DVD player, and I didn't understand CSS encryption. The article also offers interesting historical notes. Thanks to the OP for posting.
rpgmaker 14y ago
This is why this was posted on HN: "This stuff is good to know and interesting". I did know some of it but there might be some people who don't. Specially people that are new to linux.
anoncow 14y ago
There really is no point putting up a "fight". The content creators do not want to give their hardwork away. The content creators have to do whatever it takes to live. If the measures that they take legally bugs us, then we should create our own content and distribute it the way we want to or approach the courts. Talking about how a proprietary format is taking away our freedom will do nothing. And yes put your money where your mouth is. Support companies that do it the right way.

dimadima 14y ago

Whaaaaaat? This is the oldest news ever. I'm going back to sleep, and when I wake up, this site better not be a throwback to 2002, OK?

zabuni 14y ago

Minor quibble with the article. Handbrake is not illegal. It does not break encryption, it merely transcodes. It, by design, does not come with a copy of libdvdcss, and you have to download it through other means. It will also, on a mac, go find VLC's copy and use it. The people behind Handbrake are somewhat touchy about this, for good reason.

JohnHaugeland 14y ago

This isn't even close to correct. What the DMCA says is that you can't strip and redistribute the content, not that you can't strip and watch it. This is an old false stalking horse. And even if this is correct, this wouldn't make you a criminal; since nobody knows, this does not rise to the level of intent. Notice how if this was true, people would be making a fortune going after TiVo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Panic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Panic Notice that he's also saying that it's legal to jailbreak a phone (it isn't, anymore,) and that the reason it was legal was an exemption to the DMCA (which is completely incorrect.) Notice that the thing he's claiming is illegal is a link to a thing that's actually about a completely different topic - space shifting, ie they claim, taking the DVD, decoding it, then transferring that decoded version to another device. Oh, and that place he's citing is also wrong. This isn't what the problem is in the eyes of the copyright office. Space shifting is perfectly legal, and is done on large consumer devices all the time. iTunes can do it, your Archos can do it, the SlingBox can do it, the high end TiVo can do it, I think the Hopper might be able to, et cetera. Quoting the source he claims said this was illegal: > "And the RIAA and the MPAA agree with you. In > 2005, their lawyer (now the Solicitor General of > the United States) assured the Supreme Court that > “The record companies, my clients, have said, for > some time now, and it’s been on their Website for > some time now, that it’s perfectly lawful to take a > CD that you’ve purchased, upload it onto your > computer, put it onto your iPod." > > Movie executives agree as well. Mitch Singer, the > Chief Technology Officer of Sony Pictures Entertainment > explained to author Robert Levine that the idea for > the movie industry’s UltraViolet program evolved out > of Singer’s own frustration with transferring movies > between PCs in his home. And, of course, the Fair Use clause of the copyright act makes it perfectly clear that you're allowed to do this as long as you aren't transmitting it to other people. Have fun. Go nuts. There was a point at which it was, briefly, illegal to decode DVDs under Linux, but it had nothing to do with any of this, and it's long since undone. What was actually going on was that the MP3 decoder is under patent by Fraunhofer AG, and back in the mid-1990s, before most people understood what Linux was, but when MP3 players were starting to become popular, Fraunhofer started to assert their patent to take money from device manufacturers. A few MP3 makers protested that they were using the MP3 stuff built into Linux, and as such they weren't the ones using the tech, Linux was, and Fraunhofer ought to go after Linux. Fraunhofer fell for this, and in response, the community removed MP3 stuff to insulate itself from legal nonsense. A couple months later Fraunhofer figured out what Linux was, and issued a free use license like decent people, but the community was so long since neckbearded out over the topic that they never put any of it back in. And then the legends of what was going on began. This is why you don't take legal advice from random programmers on the internet. This is a bunch of moral panic over a misunderstanding of the copyright system. There's absolutely no reason that it's illegal to watch a DVD in America. This just isn't true at all.

unreal37 14y ago

Who are these people who want to play DVDs on Linux? I have Windows and I have played a DVD on my computer exactly "never" times in the past 20 years. If you want to play a DVD on Linux, boot Windows for that. Or use a DVD player. Or don't watch DVDs any more. Or crack it in the comfort of your own home for only your own use, and noone will ever prosecute you.

SeppoErviala 14y ago

This is not limited to Linux but affects all players that use libdvdcss. For example, Windows and OSX versions of VLC come bundled with the library.

sbouafif 14y ago

In France using VLC to watch a DVD is illegal too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI http://www.videolan.org/press/eucd.html http://www.videolan.org/press/eucd.html