The 13 Netflix DVDs still featuring ARccOS copy protection
We hoped that we had pretty much heard the end of Sony's ridiculous ARccOS copy protection -- which added in corrupted sectors in order to prevent copying (and legitimate playback in a myriad of players) -- but sadly, not all wishes are granted. Dave Zatz noticed an announcement on Netflix's website which spells out the remaining DVDs in which ARccOS is still in play, with 007: Casino Royale, Black Christmas, The Grudge 2, Pursuit of Happyness, Stranger than Fiction, The Holiday and a smattering of other halfway popular titles in the mix. It also shows the list of players known to be affected by the DRM, so you may want to take a peek before renting any of the aforesaid titles. Thanks, Big Content!






















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
JP23 @ Aug 11th 2008 5:01PM
How is something about DVD's in the HD forum? Blu-Ray or HD-DVD yes but DVD?
squiggleslash @ Aug 12th 2008 10:33AM
It might be Sony's attempt to make BD+ (Blu-ray's "1980s Home Computer Game copy-protection system") look good.
"Sure, some Blu-ray discs don't have BD+, which means there's a good chance they will not play in your legitimately bought player, probably resulting in you not only having to take the disc back, but also getting insulted by a jobsworth at the returns desk who will insist you're a dirty thieving pirate for returning a defective disk, but, hey, DVD had the same problems!*
* Though no DVD that, y'know, followed the DVD spec and therefore nothing that really was a DVD, had those problems. So we're lying. But we're Sony, we won the format war, nyah nyah."
Interesting question: Is there any way the DVD Forum could intervene and force a withdrawl of said discs on the grounds that, as they don't follow the spec, they cannot use the DVD trademark? There was talk of Philips doing the same thing a few years ago to CDs that didn't follow the Red Book format, and Philips themselves started threatening publishers who resorted to similar tricks.
squiggleslash @ Aug 12th 2008 10:51AM
Oops, "don't have BD+" above was supposed to be "have BD+". Should be obvious from context, but just in case...
StealthMonkey @ Aug 11th 2008 5:20PM
Does anyone else find it funny that there are some SONY DVD players on the list of DVD players incompatible with SONY's ARccOS?
Darryl @ Aug 11th 2008 7:07PM
It is just part of Sony's planned obsolescence. If you don't go to blu-ray buy a new DVD player so you can play our DVDs with new and improved DRM.
BrokenMonkey @ Aug 11th 2008 5:20PM
If you're going to use an unnecessary word like "myriad" could you at least use it properly? As a noun it's "a myriad of" and as an adjective it's just "myriad".
EQC @ Aug 11th 2008 8:49PM
Personally, I'm just offended that he used the common meaning of myriad and not it's original definition. My other personality (from ancient Greece) is disappointed that there aren't literally 10,000 players on which these movies won't play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myriad
BrokenMonkey @ Aug 11th 2008 8:55PM
I always hate when people use myriad when it's not necessary, it's one of those words that people use to sound smart but in the end it makes you sound dumb (another one is plethora). Unfortunately I have seen it come up a lot lately, especially in the Engadget and Joystiq family blogs. I agree that it would be much better used in its original definition.
Frank Furter @ Aug 12th 2008 8:42AM
Wow, a myriad of commenters don't like the author.
LouVelvet @ Aug 29th 2008 5:28PM
I was interested in learning about this "myriad" debate, as I have used the word throughout my life as a noun, but have seen it in lyrics and poetry used mainly as an adjective. Since indeed, the original (archaic) use of the word meant literally the number 10,000 -- would it then be acceptable to use it in its noun form without placing it between the words "a" and "of"? For example, you ask me, "How many dollars did you win in that contest?" and I could simply reply, "Myriad." I am asking because I am not an English or a Greek language scholar, but I am curious to know. Of course, I am aware that this is the "archaic" definition, and therefore it is all but completely dead in today's lexicon, and I would never actually use it in this context... but would it still technically be correct?
Galley @ Aug 11th 2008 5:30PM
"Stranger Than Fiction" ripped just fine on my Mac.
MadMike @ Aug 11th 2008 5:59PM
Two words: SlySoft AnyDVD.
DustoMan @ Aug 11th 2008 7:04PM
Wait... Sony's own copy protection scheme breaks it's own players including the slim PS2. LOL! Brilliant.
EQC @ Aug 11th 2008 9:02PM
My thoughts:
put all the DRM you want on CD's/DVD's/whatever.
But: the nature of the DRM, what it prevents you from doing, and the possible side effects MUST be listed in very large type on the front of the packaging. That way consumers will be informed. If a CD is altered so that you can't rip MP3's from it, plenty of people will avoid buying it (if they know in advance). If a DVD won't play in a computer or certain DVD players, and people know in advance, many won't buy.
A "standard" DVD or CD will work in a computer, in every DVD player, etc. etc. If it has been altered (via extra DRM) to limit its usability, then it should not be legal to just sell it as though it were a standard DVD or CD. Where are our lawmakers to ensure that consumers know what they're buying? Why should it be the consumers job to spend hours online figuring out what DVD's and CD's aren't really normal DVD's and CD's?
As it stands now, the typical story line might go:
- Grandma buys Sony's DRM'ed DVD
- Takes it home, tries it out...it doesn't work on her DVD player
- She takes it back to the store to return it
- Clerk says "sure, you can exchange it for the same movie if this copy is broken"
- Grandma finds that the new copy is broken too. Takes it back to the store.
- Clerk says "well, we can't give you your money back or exchange for a different title, that's the rules with DVD's and CD's."
- Grandma says "Why?"
- Clerk says: "Because of piracy! If we allowed returns, people would buy movies and copy them and then return them for money!"
- Long story short, movie studio gets $$profit$$ and grandma still doesn't have a movie.
...Way to go Hollywood...you got everybody scared about piracy and took away return policies. Then you put non-standard DRM all over your crap to prevent piracy. But the "no returns" policy still stands, and your broken DRM'ed non-DVD's don't work like they should. Thanks for the effort!
gus @ Aug 12th 2008 1:27AM
why sony why this bullshit? this is why you and other companies bring piracy, owners that bought these movies that have issues have to bypass it to watch our own legally bought movie!
their will ALWAYS be a way to bypass everything Always so dont put this crap!
jjsevdt @ Aug 12th 2008 11:24AM
It's supposed to prevent copying? I was able to back up and burn Pursuit of Happiness with no problem. Who knows.
squiggleslash @ Aug 12th 2008 12:26PM
The irony is it encourages copying, because the only way to get the damned thing to work on many people's players is to get a knowledgeable friend to rip a copy.
Sean @ Aug 12th 2008 12:34PM
Stuff like this is why I keep my old, cracked Apex player around. If I need to copy a Sony disc with bad sectors, I just copy it analog to my DVD recorder and use that one. This has the side-benefit of letting me skip all the previews and logos and warnings (which have really been piling up lately) and just record the movie.