Considering the courts already told Real that circumventing the DRM on a DVD (even if you place new DRM to ensure it is only a single backup copy for the user) is piracy. Period. End of Story. Can't legally do it.
Thus, I doubt Apple is dumb enough to do the same thing. At most, I bet the import DVD is to import a digital copy available on select DVDs.
If it exists, it will be to import unprotected DVDs, like home movies and such. There is no way the movie studios struck some sort of deal with Apple that would let Apple import movies. Although Steve Jobs is quite charming...
Audioee, it is not just that the software can't be sold. It can't even be created. At least not without permission.
The reason the MPAA objects, even if the new file has stronger encryption, is because they don't care so much about piracy. They know piracy will happen anyway. What they care about is the control of the distribution. They saw what happened to audio CDs. CDs' lack of encryption has meant that the market dictated how consumers bought music. Turns out consumers want cheap single song downloads.
Why the MPAA is stupid is that they are resisting what the consumers want. iTunes is the second largest music retailer in the US (Walmart is #1). The MPAA should see that there is the potential for a whole new market. Preventing existing movies from being ripped prevents the formation of the new movie marketplace. One of the main reasons why mp3 players became such a hit is that people could rip and use their existing CD collections; they didn't have to buy their stuff all over again. If people could rip their movie collection, we would have a whole new industry of movie playing devices, movie distribution, etc. But, the MPAA fears a lack of control. So no (legal) ripping.
@gimpy1... absolutely spot on, drm has never been about the prevention of piracy, its always been about control of the distribution channel and methods of distribution. You are right in that if you allow people to do what it is they want to do, then you can create a new market around that once a particular habit becomes the "norm"..
iTunes being "locked" to only ipods has more to do with this wish by the labels to "control" the distribution channel rather than apple's un-willingness to allow 3rd party devices. However apple being a hardware based compony (they make the bulk of their profits from selling hardware..) this iTunes - iPod exclusivity has served them well along the way..
I do believe that if indeed itunes 9 allows 3rd party hardware access freely, then it will have been a bigger leap for the labels than it has been for apple...
allowing 3rd party devices to use itunes will not be a big deal to apple as they've always been comfortable with charging more for their hardware over other manufacturers as they are happy that their products offer a better end-user experience. (i.e. ipods are better than most if not all other mp3 players) whether that justifies their higher price tag is another debate.
The same with the iphones, the "exclusive" network deal is more to do with how the mobile operates do business than it is with apple, apple are very happy that their phone stands up well against anything else in the market.
[citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]I am not 100% sure how CSS works but I am curious why a direct copy of the contents can't be made?[/citation]
I have the same question. Why does the DVD have to be imported as a video file, why can't the contents of the DVD just be copied over, and played from the harddrive instead of the DVD? Does CSS prevent even the simple reading of the data, or just its playback?
you can create a direct copy and then mount that copy in an emulator and play it as though it was a DVD however there are other copy protections in place that prevent your computer from copying a DVD in the first place.