Harry Potter released unprotected. The failure to copy-protect Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone suggests Hollywood may have decided it is cheaper not to bother [New Scientist]

...By not protecting Harry Potter, Time Warner has saved the five US cents or so per disc or tape that Macrovision charges. Analysts suspect that Warner left the release unprotected, to investigate whether this would have a significant impact on sales.

...But the company is clearly embarrassed by the revelations. When contacted by New Scientist, Warner UK refused to comment, first denying that the release is unprotected. In the US, Warner has claimed that some discs are protected and some not...

...US trade body the Video Software Dealers Association sums up trade concern. Spokesman Sean Bersell brands Warners' failure to protect Harry Potter as "short-sighted" and warns that it "undermines the legitimate market for its products."

Industry eyes are all now on the next big video release, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, which is due in August. If this is also unprotected, Hollywood may have decided that it is cheaper to let a few people copy than spend money on protection.

There is no, I repeat NO copy protection on this release, either in DVD or VHS format. Admittedly, it's going to sell gangbusters, and it's price point is low enough that there is little reason not to buy the film. Still, this is a huge move, akin to the release of Pretty Woman at $19.95 back when it was released on video, which pioneered lower pricing on VHS releases back in the early 90's.

10:16:33 AM    

I've Got Your Trivia Fix Right Here, Buddy.

"For all of you librarians interested in trivia, the trivia archive of the bar trivia questions that I have been working on are all archived here." [librarian.net]

Andy B. and Kate Are Going to Love This! Very cool, although it does need a search engine (naturally).

[Jenny Levine: Tech Goddess]

Cool move by REM. Reminds me of when Rage Against The Machine encouraged fans to trade their album on Napster by stopping their label from banning people for sharing it.

7:05:05 AM    

Another View on Replay TV and Forcible-content-watching

"Here is an alternative view of the Replay TV issue, that I haven't heard presented so far. Please feel free to post this to politech if you find it interesting.

Using Replay TV to skip commercials is not theft. Actually it should be completely legal, as the people of the united states have already paid for programming on the public airwaves.

First, the people of the US gave the broadcast companies access to the public airwaves. This access wasn't granted so that the broadcasters could then "sell" us programming. This access was granted so that the broadcasters could present us with content. We also granted the broadcasters the right to present us with advertising to help them meet the costs of producing the content they are presenting over the public airwaves.

If you accept this premise, then using a Replay TV to skip advertising is not theft in any way. The people have already paid for the content of a TV broadcast with a very valuable public resource, the RF spectrum it is broadcast on. So there really is no contract between the TV viewer and the broadcaster when it comes to advertising. In effect we have already paid our share...." [Allen Hutchison on Declan McCullagh's Politech, via Corante Copyfight]

1:22:31 AM