New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal - Page 10

Originally Posted by vincecooks 

A simple solution, legally, would be to let content purchasers rip/copy their media for personal use/flexibility/backup, but not to let them burn that content back to optical disc format. Things like SD cards complicate the issue a bit, but as far as selling counterfeit copies goes, being prevented from returning the content to the original medium would be a big deterrent to illegal distribution. Enforcement, as always, complicates the issue further but one way to implement a policy like this would be to police the software creators. Disallow the compression/burning part of the software bit allow the decryption/ripping. Who knows, if a policy like that was successful maybe DRM/encryption would be deemed unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey 

It sounds like you are talking about commercial piracy, which I don't think is the real concern anymore. No one really cares about burning it back onto a medium, all that matters is ripping it so it can be gotten onto disc, and hence to the internet. That's the issue. I think that commercial pirates are probably ultimately doomed by the internet as well. Though anyone with the resources to engage in larger scale commercial piracyprobably wouldn't have much problem getting around any such limitations anyway. Burners must exist, in order to the create the (legitimate) originals, and if they exist they can be purchased.

Originally Posted by defmoot 

Haven't followed this thread or the issues involved, but fwiw:
Rep. Darrell Issa Wants To Make It Clear That You're Allowed To Rip Your DVDs...

Originally Posted by fritzi93 

Interesting article.
Tell you what though, for a tech site, most of the comments on the article are incredibly ignorant.

Originally Posted by vincecooks 

So Mr Issa agrees with me, even if Mr Roddey doesn't...

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey 

Ummm.... I've said at least three times on this thread that no one cares if you rip your own legally purchased content and can point to it on the shelf. There's just no way anyone is going to waste time on that.

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey 

As both you and I have said though, there's no way you are going to have any problems if you are ripping your legally owned discs and not sharing them. Absolutely no one will ever know, and there would be zero incentive to do anything to you for it. It would gain them nothing, cost them dearly in public sentiment, and you aren't the manufacturer of the software, just using it. I would have zero paranoia about ripping my own DVDs that I legally own, or even rented discs as long as I don't keep them around after I've sent back the dics. As long as I'm not sharing them I have as much chance of anyone even taking notice as I would have ever had, which is zero. Hell, it's almost zero if you are sharing them.

Originally Posted by BizarroTerl 

Yeah, I'm going to delete all my rips right now. MPAA/RIAA hold your breath.

Originally Posted by Veeper 

I hate to tell you this jack, but the fact that you're posting here on a computer puts you in the top 1% of the world. Please though, keep enlightening us on this "circle" of wealth.

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey 

As to the RIAA, this isn't anything to do with them, so that's irrelevant. They don't use any copy protection on CDs, and they've long indicated on their web site that they have no problem with you ripping your own legally owned CDs to your hard drive for your own personal use. Presumably that's still the case. But of course they are still treated as though they are some sort of evil secret society out to control the world's governments or something.

Originally Posted by pittsoccer33 

In response to Congressman Issa's comments - the copy protection schemes on dvd and bluray are patented technologies. The software that breaks them infringes on those patents.

Originally Posted by Floydster 

I agree with this. They will let you make copies of your own CDs, but each copy cannot be further copied. That keeps regular people from burning 50 copies that can be further copied and selling them. A very sensible approach. I think it is the Millennium Copyright act that pi**es everyone off.

Originally Posted by sebberry 

I'm surprised that the copyright nannies haven't filed lawsuits against manufacturers of devices that enable streaming, etc..

Think about it - if it's illegal to rip DVD and blu-ray to your computer, and if it's illegal to build a collection of shows recorded from TV, then the primary use of these streamers is to stream illegally obtained media.

If you sue all the hardware and software makers out of business, there won't be hardware to enable easy access to your "illegal" media collection.

Originally Posted by TNO821 

The answer is easy: the primary use for the streaming devices is to stream legal user-created content. You know, stupid phone-recorded HD videos of the baby or the dog doing cute crap, or of family vacations, etc.
Is the above actually true? In many situations, no, of course not. But it's a foolproof easy defense. And sometimes it's even the truth.

Originally Posted by bravia3D 

What is next with these idiots? Soon they will say NO ONE can buy movies anymore or own them because it's illegal. They will want us to rent them or stream them for a fee and we can't keep them. This seems pretty much where it's going in the future.

Originally Posted by Kirnak 

I'm sure Industry executives would love nothing more than to have each movie you buy licensed to a particular device. If your Bluray player dies, you have to re-buy all of your movies to use with your new Bluray player.

Originally Posted by PeterB123 

I'm sure Industry executives would love nothing more than to have each movie you buy licensed to a particular device. If your Bluray player dies, you have to re-buy all of your movies to use with your new Bluray player.

Originally Posted by sebberry 

I'm surprised that the copyright nannies haven't filed lawsuits against manufacturers of devices that enable streaming, etc..
Think about it - if it's illegal to rip DVD and blu-ray to your computer, and if it's illegal to build a collection of shows recorded from TV, then the primary use of these streamers is to stream illegally obtained media.
If you sue all the hardware and software makers out of business, there won't be hardware to enable easy access to your "illegal" media collection.

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey 

Wow, that post is pretty case in point why the industry is screwed. Movie and music companies are now among the least protected industries on the planet, well other than the drug and sex trades I guess. They have almost completely lost their rights, rights which are specifically laid out in the Constitution, not something that they purchased. Google, Apple, Amazon, Comcast, etc... are the real power bases these days, but somehow people try to make out like the music and movie industries are running the country. It ain't so.
People in Congress understand what intellectual property based industries mean to this country. We aren't an industrial country anymore. We are an ideas country these days, and the fruits of some of our only industries in which we are undisputed leaders is being ripped off by everyone. If the IP based industries reach the point where it's just not worth taking substantial financial risks to create new products and companies, we are going to be in a bad way. And it clearly can go that far. It's hardly been any time since the internet became what it is today, and look at the damage it's already done.
If insuring that they not only survive but thrive means you actually have to insert a disc in a player, I'm having a little trouble crying a river for you. If everyone would put as much energy into applying peer pressure to the people around them to stop stealing as they do condemning the IP industries for trying to protect themselves from this threat, we might not be even having this conversation.

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey 

Of course there's a difference, just like there's a differerence between people who drive responsibly and those and those who don't or who use guns responsibly and those who don't. The problem is that the law cannot pre-distinguish between them. That's just the way it is. If enough people abuse something, then all of us end up losing because of the need to stop them. If as many people drove recklessly as download music, I'm pretty sure that those of us who do drive responsibly would nonetheless be looking at a lot more restrictions on our driving.

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey 

If it were that simple, again, we wouldn't be having this conversation. File sharing could easily be stopped in such a situation, but that situation doesn't exist. A huge amount of time is spent out there by people to make it possible to steal digital media without getting caught or noticed. And of course the people who are in the best position to do so really don't want to do it, e.g. ISPs. They have every reason to try to turn a blind eye.

Originally Posted by dima333a 


P.S. I think Netflix's mode of distribution is great and fights piracy much better than any law. a) - it is affordable b) - you cannot and do not need to copy anything c) it is fairly convenient. That is the whole point of revising the industry - do not try to enforce, what you cannot enforce. Change the way you are doing business, so that enforcing is not required. There are a lot of examples when piracy is not an issue, simply because of the business model.