#Now you see me 2 makemkv movie#

15-20€ per cinema ticket, for any of the small collection of German dubbed they have at what times they decide to show them, ~30-45 minutes of going to the cinema (plus costs thereof), ~20 minutes wait till the ads stop and the movie starts, 'enjoy' the full length of poorly dubbed movie in an uncomfortable environment, ~30-45 minutes of going back home (plus costs thereof). ~5-15€ per BR, rip it to external drive, watch what I want when I want anywhere in my local network with Jellyfin or on that connected computer with mpv in full quality, with any of the available audio tracks (though usually original audio), in multiple different playback speeds with no extra time and/or money investment not to mention the time investment of going to the city, standing in line for tickets, waiting for the movie to start and going back home, not even being able to have a beer unless you can/want to take the bus (slightly more money if it's even still running at that time) or a taxi home (considerably more money). while sitting together in a hot and stuffy room with a bunch of other (noisy) people with no option for original audio but only trash-tier dubs (in Germany you'd have to go to one the bigger cities like Berlin for the option)

#Now you see me 2 makemkv plus#

while being gouged for double the BR-retail price PER person PLUS overpriced amenities, But who knows, maybe there's an alternate universe where content creators allow all the above bullet points and – as a consequence – very few entities invest in creating art! In the end if I had to choose between that universe and the one we have today, I'd still take the one we have today where art is legally well protected enough that we have a plethora of it. * I can put the film on other devices I own to watch via more convenient methods (my phone, tablet, home theater setup)Īre those requirements fundamental to having a legal system that protects the rights of copyright owners? Honestly I don't think they are! Because the DRM schemes that enable the above situation clearly aren't stopping pirates in the first place. * I am not forced to watch advertisements or piracy warnings before the film

#Now you see me 2 makemkv tv#

* I can then personally view that movie with myself and my family on the display I want (the last hotel I stayed at didn't have a HDCP compatible TV so I couldn't display my purchased film on the TV) I don't actually know if my desired end-state is practical or even possible, but I can at least describe what it looks like:

Raymond's guns away and bar him from owning a gun for life: ) The irony is, that means the Feds have every right to take Eric S. (Remember DeCSS? Yeah, hosting that is still a federal crime, irrespective of what you or your audience intends to do with it. Trafficking in circumvention devices, including publishing or downloading firmware that disables access protection measures, is illegal full stop. That is illegal in the USA, with certain specific, narrow exceptions, whether you use such circumvention to infringe copyright or not. I'm talking about circumventing DRM which is a separate offense from copyright infringement. The ruling does NOT cover recording off the TV willy-nilly, or copying things you own there is a dicta in Justice Blackmun's dissent stating these things to be explicitly illegal.īut I'm not talking about doing the copying itself. The Betamax Supreme Court case was won - 5-4 - because the court found a single, very narrow, noninfringing use for a VCR: recording a television program that will air only once and never again after that single airing, and you cannot be around to view said television program at its scheduled time, and you intend to destroy the recording after viewing it once. copyright law makes no exception for copying content you own, though I do agree it may be hard for media companies to prosecute so you'll probably get away with it.