Do you own a HTPC and rip Bluray? The government likely thinks you are a criminal... - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-03-2012, 12:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
AVTechMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The State of Michigan
Posts: 668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Reminds me of a line Segal said from 'Under Siege'..."Sometimes you have to question authority."
AVTechMan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-03-2012, 01:58 PM
<><
Advanced Member
 
<><'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 844
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I haven't read all the posts, but you can help make it legal to rip dvds you own to hard drive:

Quoted from Public Knowledge | December 01, 2011.

Quote:


Why is This Exception Necessary?

Most people are fairly comfortable with the idea of copying copyrighted works they own from one medium to another. This is sometimes called space shifting or format shifting. For example, this is what you do when you rip a CD in order to create .mp3 files to transfer to your iPod.

Another example of this is when you transfer a movie from a DVD onto a laptop or a tablet device, like an iPad. However, there is one important difference between a movie on DVD and a song on a CD: unlike the CD, DVDs are encrypted. That means that while copying a song from a CD is a one step process (copy the file), copying a movie from a DVD is a two-step process (decrypt the file, copy the file).

Users are authorized to decrypt the movie in order to watch it, but are not authorized to decrypt the movie in order to copy it. As a result, that extra DVD step (decrypting) is illegal under the DMCA. That makes it impossible to copy DVDs the same way you copy CDs.

Why is PK Asking For This Now?

Fortunately, when it passed the DMCA Congress recognized that the provisions that made it illegal to decrypt a DVD without authorization could inadvertently make legal activities illegal. For example, if it is legal make copies of parts of movies for the purpose of commentary or criticism under fair use, but illegal to access the movie in order to make the copies, there is a conflict that needs to be resolved.

Part of the DMCA instructs the Copyright Office to conduct a review every 3 years to determine if legitimate uses are being adversely affected by the provision that makes it illegal to circumvent access controls like encryption. If the Copyright Office identifies a problem, it can grant a 3-year exemption (which can be renewed in the next proceeding) from the DMCA for that activity.

More Info: Help Make it Legal to Rip Your DVDs | January 26, 2012

<>< is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 02:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Somewhatlost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: some small blue-green planet thingy...
Posts: 1,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Again, just like the DMCA, this is a policy and political issue. If consumers don't like it they should elect different representatives who act in their interests rather than in the interests of big campaign spenders.

what good will that do?
whomever gets elected, it doesn't matter who, or what party, our Benevolent Media Overlords will be right there waiting with their bags of cash for the new guy...
end result = we the people are screwed, and we stay screwed...
(or we stop caring about our Benevolent Media Overlords laws, and just do what we want anyway)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

If anything, the current election cycle suggests the big money interests are gaining more control, not less, and no one seems to care.

how so?
I don't necessarily disagree...
but what makes you think it is getting disproportionally worse?

NOTE: As one wise professional something once stated, I am ignorant & childish, with a mindset comparable to 9/11 troofers and wackjob conspiracy theorists. so don't take anything I say as advice...
Somewhatlost is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
larryep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: PLANET EARTH
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
bluray player (kalaiscape) should be built with a shelf or door to house the disc. the disc is now in the player. don,t need a carusel.
larryep is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:44 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
hogues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somewhatlost View Post


how so?
I don't necessarily disagree...
but what makes you think it is getting disproportionally worse?

It absolutely is worse and you can thank the Supreme Court's brutal Citizens United v. FCC ruling for that. Before 2010 there were restrictions on corporations. unions, etc... but now those have been removed. Corporations can not only spend as much as they want but they have another tool at their disposal now, the threat of spending. Super PAC's can not only influence the elections through spending, but can threaten to spend millions against an elected official who does not vote the way that a corporation wants them too.

On topic, that's why electing new officials won't work, because they'll be subject to the same forces that the current officials are subjected too. And unlike some issues, there is no counterbalance to the corporate Super PACs. At least sometimes two corporations (or candidate's) Super PAC's will square off on an issue and flood both sides with money. Here, it's the media companies vs.... us. We loose every time. And that's why Citizens United was such a blow to republican (small "r") principles. The citizens of the Republic have very little chance by themselves against a Super PAC.

hogues is online now  
Old 02-04-2012, 11:17 PM
Member
 
scarpenter002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

It is all about the mouse... Micky Mouse to be exact. That little rodent should be in the public domain by now.. 80 years is long enough for Disney to milk that little bugger but they'll lobby congress for another extention of the "limitted time" that patents are supposed to last according to the Constitution.

They could do like Coke and introduce "New Mickey Mouse" next year, and after he fails, bring back the original Mickey Mouse, but relabeled as "Classic Mickey Mouse", hence resetting the clock for another 75 years.

CIH Wannabe...one step at a time
scarpenter002 is offline  
Old 02-05-2012, 12:33 AM
Member
 
logan801's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryep View Post

bluray player (kalaiscape) should be built with a shelf or door to house the disc. the disc is now in the player. don,t need a carusel.

My thoughts exactly 4' tall rackmount kalaiscape with 12 spikes inside to through all the BD's on lol
logan801 is offline  
Old 02-05-2012, 07:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,305
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 199 Post(s)
Liked: 1035
The whole thing just make me angry...

I am going to refrain from comment and try to stay in a good mood for the superbowl.

GO PATS !

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
Old 02-05-2012, 08:11 AM
Senior Member
 
mo0sic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
We are screwed with citizen united. Donate to Colbert's super PAC. He seems to be the only one doing anything about this.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...pe_redirect=no
mo0sic is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 04:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,305
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 199 Post(s)
Liked: 1035
This entire thing makes no sense...

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
Old 06-26-2012, 08:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sundance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
So everybody is a criminal but them.
Sundance is offline  
Old 06-26-2012, 09:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,305
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 199 Post(s)
Liked: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundance View Post

So everybody is a criminal but them.

Yup.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
Old 06-26-2012, 10:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
StardogChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I am going to refrain from comment and try to stay in a good mood for the superbowl.


GO PATS !

That didn't work out so well, did it? frown.gif

 

 

StardogChampion is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 03:20 PM
Senior Member
 
Lone Cloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Just as a reminder, when you buy a movie, you are not buying the rights to the movie, you are buying the rights to WATCH the movie from the specific media you purchased.


If you actually bought the rights to the movie (you now own the movie), then you could do whatever you wanted with it, but that would be very expensive.


If you buy the rights to watch the movie via the media you purcased (what everyone actually does, far cheaper than trying to buy Star Wars away from Lucas), then you can only watch it from the media you purchased.


At least that is how it is viewed from a legal standpoint. Personally, I make archival backup copies for safe keeping of my movies, which is legal to do. Anyone in the industry will tell you that you must occasionally test your backup to ensure it is still valid, and I do so now and again. I store these archival backups on my HTPC.

You know, there is no sign in the stores that you can only watch with the media you buy. When you see the warnings presented on the DVDs, the word "backup" is not used. Do they tell you you can't sell your DVDs at yard sales?

Really, the bottom line has nothing whatever to do with art. If it did, these same interest groups would be outraged at television stations chopping sections out of movies to make way for commercials. They would be militant about the dubbing of words into the acts that weren't there to begin with. They would stand together against the disruption of the flow of their movies when there is a four minute pack of commercials every five minutes. They would sue the television stations for using those animated pop ups that run DURING the movies, advertising for other shows or for erection pills.

Really, is it still the Mona Lisa if the top of her head is missing and her forehead has a banner advertising vaginal cleanser?

The common sense answer to this is that I believe I should have the right, after a legal purchase of whatever media, to watch this media whenever I choose to. The format I watch it in seems nonsensical to worry about.

I can well understand movie producers wanting to prevent the losses associated with sale of copied media, but I have no patience for them calling their property "art" or calling anyone associated with them "artists"
If they want the world to protect their content, they need to start treating that content like the art they claim it is. If it's truly art, then stand up to protect it, and quit prostituting out ruined versions of it for money.
Lone Cloud is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 03:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Cloud View Post

You know, there is no sign in the stores that you can only watch with the media you buy. When you see the warnings presented on the DVDs, the word "backup" is not used. Do they tell you you can't sell your DVDs at yard sales?
Really, the bottom line has nothing whatever to do with art. If it did, these same interest groups would be outraged at television stations chopping sections out of movies to make way for commercials. They would be militant about the dubbing of words into the acts that weren't there to begin with. They would stand together against the disruption of the flow of their movies when there is a four minute pack of commercials every five minutes. They would sue the television stations for using those animated pop ups that run DURING the movies, advertising for other shows or for erection pills.
Really, is it still the Mona Lisa if the top of her head is missing and her forehead has a banner advertising vaginal cleanser?
The common sense answer to this is that I believe I should have the right, after a legal purchase of whatever media, to watch this media whenever I choose to. The format I watch it in seems nonsensical to worry about.
I can well understand movie producers wanting to prevent the losses associated with sale of copied media, but I have no patience for them calling their property "art" or calling anyone associated with them "artists"
If they want the world to protect their content, they need to start treating that content like the art they claim it is. If it's truly art, then stand up to protect it, and quit prostituting out ruined versions of it for money.

First, "art" in the intellectual property sense has nothing to do with "art" in painting or sculpture or music sense. "art" can refer to a drug or a tire or any kind of invention, trade secret, or other intellectual property.

Second, if the author cared about commercials being inserted into his work, then he could condition the sale to the network on not having commercials or having limited commericals. Indeed, Augusta National does exactly that in its broadcast contracts for telecast of the Masters. Obvsiouly, in most cases, the authors don't care about the commericals. They choose to take the money instead. It's their property; that's their choice.

Third, it doesn't matter whether there's a sign in the store, because the license terms are on the package or the disk itself, or both.

Fourth, you CAN sell the DVD at a yard sale, you just can't keep a copy of it after you sell it. You either keep it, or you can sell it. Not both.

Why do you have any "right" at all? When you buy the disk you enter into a contract and you receive only those rights that the author chose to sell to you. What sense of entittlement leads you to think you have any inherent God-given "right" beyond what the author agreed to sell?

You may think the terms are nonsensical, but if you don't like the terms that the author chooses to impose as conditions of the sale, then do without. You don't have any right to just take it because you don't like the conditions the seller imposes. Nobody's making you watch that movie or the American Idol finals.
Zon2020 is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 07:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
augerpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Zon2020 doesn't it take an affirmative action to enter into a contract? I don't sign a paper or click ok (yet) when I play a movie. I highly doubt simply paying for, or playing a movie will constitute entering a contract, even in our moronic court system.

I was going to type a long post regarding property rights in the Roman heritage and the subtle propaganda that is the phrase "intellectual property", but I'm too bored of internet debate. Let me just say when it comes to copyright and patent law, consider the overall aim. NOT simply to benefit the creator, but benefit all of society, the consumer, and progress. This is why you are forced to publish how it works to get patent protection, which by the way is limited monopoly for a limited time. Otherwise you have to keep it secret and risk a competitor stealing your idea. Which brings me to a second consideration: it is simply human nature to look at what another is building, and then build it himself, and maybe improve it along the way. This is our right. This is our nature. To suggest that a person has rights to an idea(!) into perpetuity is an attack on humanity. To me, an attack on at least 400 hundred years of Enlightenment, the free flow of information that enabled the West to push technological progress farther than anyone in history.

That may seem sensationalistic but consider this, under the DMCA it is illegal "take apart" code and figure out how some software works. The software companies argue it is absolute, the coder community, much less, but so far have only taken the position that people have a right to know if there software is secure. Some countries (lobbied by American media companies) have even prohibited discussion of "hacking" (kind of like forums that prohibit talk on how to rip DVD's). Now how would the muscle car era have happened had GM and Ford taken the same position? Couple guys standing around a new Camaro, wondering how to make it faster, but don't open the hood!!! And you sure as hell better not take out the cam so you can put a better one in!! In fact, it is best to not even talk about it, lest the MAN bring the hammer down. Then again maybe Ford should be paying royalties to the family (corporation now) of the long dead genius that invented the wheel. I hope the Louvre paid Egypt a licensing fee for that glass pyramid out front.

I know someone might suggest that I'm blurring the line between copyright and patent, but consider this: if I build a little battery powered calculator it is patent law, BUT if I write a program that is functionally the same, it is copyright law. Interesting, no?

Everything coming out of big companies mouths is nothing but sophist legalese. There are higher aims, and human nature to consider. To promote those higher aims, modern society has thrown a bone to creators, a pat on the back and thank you, with a limited monopoly for limited time. But companies have taken this goodwill and demanded more, turning that goodwill into entitlement!! Now we have all sorts of nonsense and parsing of judgements is needed to understand just what the hell I can do with the movie I just bought. And hey, if I licensed the right to watch, than if I lose my disc they will send me a new one for $2 like MS will with windows right? No? Well I have many different devices, and I'm an on-the-go kind of guy in this on-the-go world, surely my license covers playing that media everywhere with the fee I paid? No?

Time to bring a little sense (and justice!) back to patent/copyright law.

ipadpriorart.jpg
augerpro is online now  
Old 06-27-2012, 07:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
augerpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Addendum to the prior art pic I posted above: last year the US changed from "first to invent" to "first to file". Much of the progress in technology happens right here on the internet via discussions between participants, maybe a blog, a forum, or even Facebook. Now consider how much access Google has to these communications...how much access Facebook has...now think about what something like IBM's new Watson could do mining all that data...someone (clearly not a person, only a large corporation would have the resources to use Watson) could "overhear" a forum discussion on say, a better mousetrap, and then patent that immediately. If the inventor (now regretting the public forum discussion that pushed development of the better mousetrap) wants to prevent that under prior art, well piss off, should have filed sooner!

EDIT: didn't mean to right all this, but here I am paragraphs later. Anyway, Zon2020 hope you don't think this is a direct attack on you, you merely mentioned how the current paradigm works, and I'm, well, damn tired of the current paradigm and had to respond. Don't take it personal.
augerpro is online now  
Old 06-27-2012, 08:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jeffkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Well since the recording industry thinks we don't own the movie we purchased I suggest people stop buying movies. Just rent or stream which seems to be the desire of the movie industry. If they change their attitude maybe I will go back to buying movies for $20 instead of renting for $1.20.
jeffkro is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 08:21 PM
Senior Member
 
ericbsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Why do you have any "right" at all? When you buy the disk you enter into a contract and you receive only those rights that the author chose to sell to you. What sense of entittlement leads you to think you have any inherent God-given "right" beyond what the author agreed to sell?
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. You have a right to make archive copies, backup copies, or format shift any copyrighted material you have purchased. You can buy a book, scan it into your computer, and make a PDF. You buy a painting, take a picture of it, and use it as wallpaper on your computer. You can photocopy a book, put the original in a safe, and put the copy on your bookshelf for regular use. Further, under any interpretation of the laws, you have a right to fair use of that movie which would allow you to take snippets of the movie, audio, screenshots, etc and use it in many ways, such as cutting them into videos of your own, making parodies, or other various uses.

The problem isn't that you don't have a right to make a copy of a movie; the problem is that at the same time you have been granted the right to make copies you have been denied the right to sell or distribute any software that circumvents copy protection, such as CSS and AACS, within the USA (but not own!; you can own the software, you just aren't allowed to acquire it!). If it weren't for the copy protection this would be a total non-issue, you would both have the right to make copies of movies and be allowed to exercise that right.

--
Eric B. Smith
The future keeps telling us what the past was about. You make the past mean different things by what you do with the time that comes after.
ericbsmith is online now  
Old 06-27-2012, 09:14 PM
Senior Member
 
kesawi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by augerpro View Post

I know someone might suggest that I'm blurring the line between copyright and patent, but consider this: if I build a little battery powered calculator it is patent law, BUT if I write a program that is functionally the same, it is copyright law. Interesting, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by augerpro View Post

Time to bring a little sense (and justice!) back to patent/copyright law.

I've never understood why one form of intellectual property should have more protection for a longer period of time than another form of intellectual property. I agree laws should be consistent across all forms of intellectual property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

You may think the terms are nonsensical, but if you don't like the terms that the author chooses to impose as conditions of the sale, then do without. You don't have any right to just take it because you don't like the conditions the seller imposes. Nobody's making you watch that movie or the American Idol finals.

Breach of contract is a civil matter and should be handled as such. What I have an issue with is the criminalisation of a civil matter. I understand the argument put forward by the media industry that although intellectual propery is intangible, it is still property and therefore its theft should be treated as a crime like any other matter. So for people selling pirated media, then yes I don't think there is too much argument that it should be a criminal matter. However, I think it is a big stretch to criminalise ripping a Bluray which has been purchased for your own private use as been theft. It is a breach of contract and therefore should be dealt with as such.

kesawi is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 10:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
bimmerfreak0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Oblivion
Posts: 972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by augerpro View Post

Zon2020 doesn't it take an affirmative action to enter into a contract? I don't sign a paper or click ok (yet) when I play a movie. I highly doubt simply paying for, or playing a movie will constitute entering a contract, even in our moronic court system.[/IMG]

You are wrong. Assuming or "doubting" that the law is not logical and sensible is conclusory at best and reckless at worst. The law is not logical. Period. (I'm saying this from a lawyers perspective of course...what do I know.)

A contract is formed when one party (the "offeror") makes an offer which is accepted by the other party (the "offeree"). An offer - a proposal to form a contract - can be as simple as the words, "I'll wash your car for you for $5." An offer can also be and SHOULD be written, and sometimes must be to satisfy the Statute of Frauds under Common law or the UCC. An acceptance - the offeree's assent to the terms of the offer - can be as simple as, "You've got a deal." Sometimes acceptance can be shown by conduct rather than by words. Contracts that can be accepted by performance/conduct are called unilateral contracts (vs. bilateral contracts).

When an offer has been made, no contract is formed until the offeree accepts the offer. When you make an offer, never assume that the offeree will accept the offer. Contractual liability is based on consent. When you pay the purchase price for a movie, you are NOT agreeing to a contract. You are actually making an offer, since advertisements are not "technically" offers under Common law or the UCC. A contract is formed when the seller "accepts" your offer by the conduct of you PAYING for the item. And remember, that contract has specific terms. Look at the back of the disc, and the writing on the disc, and the warnings before the movie, the warnings and prohibitions at the end of the credits, the links to websites giving more restrictions. Disclosures, disclosures, disclosures.

What you think you have from a pragmatist perspective and what you really "own" from a legally enforceable viewpoint are completely separate. You have no property or contract right in the movie itself. You have a property right in a plastic disc and contract between you and the distributor to be granted a LICENSE to use the movie in accordance with the agreement.

Plain and simple.
bimmerfreak0 is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 10:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jeffkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfreak0 View Post

You are wrong. Assuming or "doubting" that the law is not logical and sensible is conclusory at best and reckless at worst. The law is not logical. Period. (I'm saying this from a lawyers perspective of course...what do I know.)
A contract is formed when one party (the "offeror") makes an offer which is accepted by the other party (the "offeree"). An offer - a proposal to form a contract - can be as simple as the words, "I'll wash your car for you for $5." An offer can also be and SHOULD be written, and sometimes must be to satisfy the Statute of Frauds under Common law or the UCC. An acceptance - the offeree's assent to the terms of the offer - can be as simple as, "You've got a deal." Sometimes acceptance can be shown by conduct rather than by words. Contracts that can be accepted by performance/conduct are called unilateral contracts (vs. bilateral contracts).
When an offer has been made, no contract is formed until the offeree accepts the offer. When you make an offer, never assume that the offeree will accept the offer. Contractual liability is based on consent. When you pay the purchase price for a movie, you are NOT agreeing to a contract. You are actually making an offer, since advertisements are not "technically" offers under Common law or the UCC. A contract is formed when the seller "accepts" your offer by the conduct of you PAYING for the item. And remember, that contract has specific terms. Look at the back of the disc, and the writing on the disc, and the warnings before the movie, the warnings and prohibitions at the end of the credits, the links to websites giving more restrictions. Disclosures, disclosures, disclosures.
What you think you have from a pragmatist perspective and what you really "own" from a legally enforceable viewpoint are completely separate. You have no property or contract right in the movie itself. You have a property right in a plastic disc and contract between you and the distributor to be granted a LICENSE to use the movie in accordance with the agreement.
Plain and simple.

Which again proves my point don't collect movies, just pay for each use. I mean really how many times are you really going to watch your copy of "Dumb and Dummer" anyways?
jeffkro is offline  
Old 06-27-2012, 11:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
bimmerfreak0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Oblivion
Posts: 972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

Which again proves my point don't collect movies, just pay for each use. I mean really how many times are you really going to watch your copy of "Dumb and Dummer" anyways?

At least 27 times.

I have a policy...If I'll watch the movie at least once or twice per year over a 10 year period (that's assuming the disc lasts that long), it's more than justifiable to buy for me. Than let's add in what the wife likes and every animated movie for the children...and well...it add's up.
bimmerfreak0 is offline  
Old 06-28-2012, 07:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
captain_video's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 3,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

Which again proves my point don't collect movies, just pay for each use. I mean really how many times are you really going to watch your copy of "Dumb and Dummer" anyways?
I believe you mean "Dumb and Dumber."rolleyes.gif

Rent, rip, watch, delete. Screw the DMCA.tongue.gif
captain_video is offline  
Old 06-28-2012, 09:37 AM
Member
 
wsume99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 82
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

Which again proves my point don't collect movies, just pay for each use. I mean really how many times are you really going to watch your copy of "Dumb and Dummer" anyways?
Well my kids go through spurts where they will watch the same movie over and over for a week or so. Then they move on to the next movie and repeat. Eventually, like maybe a year later, they'll come full circle and repeat the whole process over again. I normally don't watch a movie more than once unless it is a real classic.
wsume99 is offline  
Old 06-28-2012, 10:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
augerpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfreak0 View Post

You are wrong. Assuming or "doubting" that the law is not logical and sensible is conclusory at best and reckless at worst. The law is not logical. Period. (I'm saying this from a lawyers perspective of course...what do I know.)
A contract is formed when one party (the "offeror") makes an offer which is accepted by the other party (the "offeree"). An offer - a proposal to form a contract - can be as simple as the words, "I'll wash your car for you for $5." An offer can also be and SHOULD be written, and sometimes must be to satisfy the Statute of Frauds under Common law or the UCC. An acceptance - the offeree's assent to the terms of the offer - can be as simple as, "You've got a deal." Sometimes acceptance can be shown by conduct rather than by words. Contracts that can be accepted by performance/conduct are called unilateral contracts (vs. bilateral contracts).
When an offer has been made, no contract is formed until the offeree accepts the offer. When you make an offer, never assume that the offeree will accept the offer. Contractual liability is based on consent. When you pay the purchase price for a movie, you are NOT agreeing to a contract. You are actually making an offer, since advertisements are not "technically" offers under Common law or the UCC. A contract is formed when the seller "accepts" your offer by the conduct of you PAYING for the item. And remember, that contract has specific terms. Look at the back of the disc, and the writing on the disc, and the warnings before the movie, the warnings and prohibitions at the end of the credits, the links to websites giving more restrictions. Disclosures, disclosures, disclosures.
What you think you have from a pragmatist perspective and what you really "own" from a legally enforceable viewpoint are completely separate. You have no property or contract right in the movie itself. You have a property right in a plastic disc and contract between you and the distributor to be granted a LICENSE to use the movie in accordance with the agreement.
Plain and simple.

And you can cite the law or case law that supports this with regard to media or even software?
augerpro is online now  
Old 06-28-2012, 11:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by augerpro View Post

And you can cite the law or case law that supports this with regard to media or even software?

That's pretty fundamental contract law - like first month of law school stuff - that consent can be established by conduct or performance, and that acceptance of an offer can be manifested by performance.. Every sale of any good or service is a contract; the only legal question is defining the terms of that contract.

The issue that has been controversial with respect to shrink wrap licenses is whether the buyer has the ability to review the terms prior to purchase and thus whether terms which the buyer had no opportunity to review are actually part of the contract. The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) addresses this by saying that such terms are not part of the agreement unless the person has the opportunity to rescind the transaction after having had an opportunity to review the terms (such as by returning the item) but if that opportunity does exist, then the terms are binding.
Zon2020 is offline  
Old 06-28-2012, 12:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
augerpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

That's pretty fundamental contract law

I understand that, but I've never seen it argued wrt to media or software. UCITA seems to bring some clarity, but since I don't know of one retailer that will accept software on return, we're back at square one.
augerpro is online now  
Old 06-28-2012, 12:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by augerpro View Post

I understand that, but I've never seen it argued wrt to media or software. UCITA seems to bring some clarity, but since I don't know of one retailer that will accept software on return, we're back at square one.

It's been litigated innumerable times and there are cases going back at least 15 years. It's not a novel issue.
Zon2020 is offline  
Old 06-28-2012, 01:28 PM
Member
 
JGFreeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Fun thing about this story is that my brother worked for a few years for the makers of the Video Request, a competitor to the Kaleidascape system. VRQ was designed specifically to avoid the litigation, and was designed to integrate with the Sony carousels. Basically was a fancy front end (movie posters, metadata) for the carousel changer.
JGFreeh is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off