or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal - Page 14

post #391 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:18pm
post #392 of 491
Stealing might be wrong, but ripping your own discs for your own enjoyment isn't stealing.
post #393 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:18pm
post #394 of 491
Those of you who are claiming that it is illegal to back up movies you own for your own personal use are completely wrong about the DMCA and the recent copyright office "ruling" (not really a ruling but a denial of a request for an exemption).


People like you have been promulgating falsehoods about the actual state of law for years and have created unnecessary fear, uncertainty and doubt about a legal issue that is albeit unsettled but still true:


The DMCA ONLY SAYS IT IS ILLEGAL TO MAKE, SELL OR PROVIDE DECRYPTION TOOLS OR SERVICES -- IT HAS NOT YET BEEN SETTLED IN ANY COURT OF LAW IN THE USA (and I don't believe any other Country) WHETHER IT IS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL TO BUY OR USE A DECRYPTION TOOLS FOR FAIR USE PURPOSES (IE: BACKUP MOVIES THAT YOU OWN FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL PURPOSES -- PERIOD.).


This is the state of the law. There have been two cases - -both the REALDVD and the Kaleidescape case where both Judges stated unequivocally that the DMCA does not nor has there been any ruling that has addressed whether the PURCHASE or USE of decryption software (ie: AnyDVD) is illegal or not.


PLEASE learn these very important facts before spouting off on a subject that you are uneducated about. Most people believe that it is illegal when it is not.


Even the latest opinions in the tri-annual review by the US copyright office of the DMCA said that they are not the venue to define what is what is NOT fair use. This body is not a court of law but a review board to DETERMINE WHAT THEY WILL GRANT AS AN EXEMPTION WITHIN THE CURRENT DMCA. THEY ARE NOT THE CONGRESS OR A COURT OF LAW THAT CAN CHANGE THE ACTUAL LAWS DEFINED WITHIN THE DMCA. THE DMCA WAS NOT AND I REPEAT NOT CHANGED BY THESE COPYRIGHT OFFICES EXEMPTIONS or denial of exemptions.


This is very important to understand if you want to know the legality of making backup copies of movies you own for your own personal use. Dealers of mvoe servers also are 100% legal as long as the USER is the registered buyer and user of the decryption software. The DMCA has two parts to it essentially access versus copy rights. It is confusing but the Congress left open the definition of what is considered fair use since they know that they needed to protect BOTH the rights of the copyright holder and the consumer. The Copyright office simply said we are not going to interpret the law and make an exemption to allow ANYONE to make copies. They left it as is and the user is still responsible for only making backups for their own personal use of content they own.


It will take either the Congress to change the open-ended law or a court to interpret the law (which would only create precedence (not a change in the law)). Thus far, two courts have supported fair use.


The copyright office only sided with the CCA to NOT grant an full exemption to freely copy any movie you want to (space shift any movie you want onto any device you want). It did not address the question of fair use.


There are a number of very well written articles on the subject -- at CEPro, EFF and others that explains what is admittedly a complex subject (since the CCA and AACSLA (the acronym of the BD legal consortium) wants the public to believe it is illegal when it is not.


Until they CHANGE and DEFINE explicitly and exactly whether buying and using decryption tools is illegal or not -- buying and using decryption tools for legal purposes is LEGAL!!!


Until the law changes we are all free to share on multiple devices content we own for our own personal purposes -- as protected by the Copyright act, AHRA, Fair Trade Act, multiple cases and the DMCA. These laws protect BOTH the copyright holder AND the legitimate copyright consumer (user).

The copyright holder has to be held responsible to obey these acts (not just the consumer) in NOT restricting trade through collusion (multiple movie house and computer companies colluding to force or coerce us to buy things we should not have to buy) or in the case of protecting their content provide ways to fairly use their content with "strong" measures of protection. Which means that if they want to enforce illegal copying of their content they are expected by the DMCA to strongly protect their content (ie: Cinavia etc.) and provide practical ways for the consumer to use their content they legally purchase for personal usage (ie: Ultraviolet).

To enforce pirating laws and win any case against a consumer making backup copies for personal sharing of content they own, then they will need to offer Blu-ray sharing in home networks and someday on mobile PCs using a practical and reasonably priced method such as Ultraviolet.


In the interim, until the laws are changed it is legal to backup movies of movies you own for your own personal use.

PS: That means all the claims by companies such as Kaleidescape "other movie servers" is false and slanderous. They even stated in their own testimony that it is fair use to make backup copies for your own use. Other media servers are not being sued because they did not violate the license grement and try to use the CCA licensed technology with a disc being present.

By attempting to license and use the CCA's decryption software without obeying their now proven in court legally binding contractual requirements of having the physical disc present and skirt the legal process through endless (8 years and counting) litigation Kaleidescape has actually impeded the media server market by creating more unnecessary confusion, less competitive alternatives and soon will have their disc-less DVD server banned (since losing their case 9 months ago) because they arrogantly thought they could take advantage of a inept court (the CEO is on record in the court proceedings stating that they could delay the ruling for years with endless litigation -- and succeeded but not without notice by the Judge).

Innovation and balanced LEGISLATION of both new fair use and copy protection NOT big company LITIGATION and INTIMIDATION (against smaller companies) is the only way to bring better solutions to market for the consumer, the dealer channel AND the copyright holder.


Know your rights and fight the power to be free!
post #395 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:19pm
post #396 of 491
But there are of course various ways in which the abuse of something by too many people leads to the denial of, or restrictions on, that thing to people who would use it responsibly. Of course we all want the right to do something that we feel we will do responsibly, but we all also would be likely be the first ones down at the City Hall if a large percentage of people began abusing one of those things and it endangered us. Given that there is no way to know ahead of time who will do the right thing and who won't, and the damage will already by done if you managed to catch the people who don't after the fact, ultimately the only solution is to limit or deny access.

I'm absolutely sure I can drive safely at 100mph on a highway. But there's no way for the state to know who can drive safely at 100mph, and the only way to find out is to allow the damage to be done, by which time it's cold comfort for the people who suffered the consequences of that discovery. Therefore we limit driving speeds.

If the large percentage of people out there won't stop rationalizing theft, and the means to that theft is a product, and there's no way to separate the responsible for the irresponsible, then it may be that the only way to address the issue is to remove the profit incentive to make such products. Yes, there will be home brewed solutions of various types, but it has never been a realistic goal to prevent all theft, just to discourage it as much as possible.

I'll say it again, if all the people who I've seen on these threads spent a tithe as much time ragging on the people around them that they know are stealing stuff, and there was some sort of overall growing negative societal pressure against doing it, these types of issues would slowly go away. But almost no one does. Instead the ire is directed at everyone else but those people causing the actual problem, and so we dig ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole.
post #397 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by PobjoySpecial View Post

I agree, as long as the file is never played on two or more devices at the same time. If you lend the file to a family member or friend, then you couldn't watch it until the borrowed file was returned or destroyed. Otherwise, I would classify that as theft.

Q: Is it morally OK to commit benign piracy?

We've established that backing up DVDs can be morally OK, but doing so breaks the law... which is immoral. .

I disagree.
Here is a quote of what morality is:

"The original descriptive definition of “morality” refers to the most important code of conduct put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society. When the examination of large diverse societies raised problems for this original descriptive definition, different descriptive definitions were offered in which “morality” refers to the most important code of conduct put forward and accepted by any group, or even by an individual. Apart from containing some prohibitions on harming some others, different moralities can differ from each other quite extensively."
It is acceptable by the majority of the population to download stuff from the internet. Therefore it is not immorral at all. That is like saying it is immoral to do 1 km/hr over the speeding limit. Yes it is against the law, but there are no moral issues. Wrong: yes. Morally wrong? No. What if you had to speed up to avoid an accident which might kill someone? morally right: yes. against the law: yes.
I have seen the commercials where they try an protray downloading as immoral to try and guilt people into thinking about morality issues. They failed and people laughed at them (the chocolate bar analogy).

@"voting booths": LOL. Google: Why democracy doesn't work. wink.gif
I saw a cartoon that depicted some politicians and the caption was "Democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for supper" biggrin.gif
post #398 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:20pm
post #399 of 491
Pobjoy -- to answer your question: "Why would something that is illegal to produce be legal to consume?" --

Because Congress created two sections to the DMCA -- with the intent to PROTECT BOTH the rights of the copyright holder and the consumer.

Because it is the ACT (not the actual decryption software) of copying movies you DON'T OWN and/or SELLING them is what is illegal.

Because it is not illegal to OWN a firearm but it is illegal to USE it for illegal purposes. And it is illegal to MAKE certain firearms.

So in this case until the Congress changes the law they have not found any other way of protecting consumers fair use rights AND protecting the copyright holders rights.

Every article on the subject ends with the legal expert explaining the simple point that until the law is explicitly changed regarding copying movies you own for your own use -- IT IS LEGAL.

You are absolutely right -- something doesn't just seem to be wrong it is wrong, This unsettled law only creates confusion, impedes free trade (and impedes the growth of an industry).

All that is needed is for the movies houses to add Blu-rays to UltraViolet -- and the issue would be nullified.
post #400 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by caper_1 View Post

It is acceptable by the majority of the population to download stuff from the internet. Therefore it is not immorral at all. That is like saying it is immoral to do 1 km/hr over the speeding limit. Yes it is against the law, but there are no moral issues. Wrong: yes. Morally wrong? No. What if you had to speed up to avoid an accident which might kill someone? morally right: yes. against the law: yes.

Wow, that's some serious 1984 logic there. Everyone downloading knows perfectly well it's wrong. It's been widely discussed in the media and elsewhere. Don't confuse morality with an almost zero chance of getting caught. Everyone knows perfectly well it's wrong to benefit from the work of others without their consent. They just do it because they know they won't get caught. If there were no police providing you with protection, you would ge robbed all the time, if not worse. There are plenty of examples of what happens when law enforcement breaks down, even in the most civilized countries. That doesn't suddenly make those things moral just because they are consequence free. Almost everyone would LIKE to take stuff from other people or never pay their taxes or cheat on their spouses, at some level. And if they could do so and have zero chance of getting caught, large numbers of people would. But that wouldn't make it moral.

And of course your analogy is utterly inapplicable. I'm sort of doubting your are ever going to have to steal stuff from the internet to save yourself.
post #401 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

I'm sort of doubting your are ever going to have to steal stuff from the internet to save yourself.

Huh?? I didn't catch what you are trying to say here.
save myself from what? I subscribed to netflix AND Music unlimited (which is like a music based netflix). Netflix quality sucks and selection in Canada also sucks. Music Unlimited was worth having if you listen to a lot of different and new tunes. I simply wasn't using it enough, and only listen to select few albums which I own.

I still think you are confusing morality with right & wrong. There is a very big difference.
Downloading mp3's: wrong. but is it Morally wrong? Mp3's are also not even a copy of the original. What if I download a song but never listened to it? Did I benefit in any way ?

So laws define moral decision? What about Tyranny? Do we as citizens get to make the laws?.. or are we dictated our own laws? Does it matter who we vote into office? Gimme a break.

I love your "robbery" analogy. I am sure police stop <1% of total robberies. People around here "check cars" all the time at night. Ooops, forgot to lock my doors... now all my stuff is gone. Where were the police? I even know of a case where someone lied to cops and told them their dog was stolen. The cops went to the actual owner's house and stole the dog for the thief.

Anyway, hollywood should offer high quality movie interface with the money they make. This whole topic isn't about stopping pirating or whatever you choose to call it. It is about keeping the honest people honest. Criminals will always exist. You will never stop them all. People will choose the obey the laws they want, and will risk consequences on the ones they break; for example, speeding. People do it on purpose. All day every day. Is it "MORALLY" wrong? Hell no. If they get caught, they know they will get a fine. So what?
Edited by caper_1 - 2/6/13 at 10:06am
post #402 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:20pm
post #403 of 491
I took university courses in morality, leadership, etc etc. There are several theories of morality, Utilitarianism for example. I am not about to severely derail this thread with philosophical debates. You still do not fully understand ethics and morality. yes you can google the definition, but that means nothing. In a nutshell, deciding and acting on what is right and wrong is usually simple. Those are not moral dilemmas. If the right answer is doubtless, again, not moral. If the government says something that was once right, is now wrong, is it really wrong now?? What if someone has no morals? Are they making an immoral decision? It is when doing the 'right' thing is not 100% clear that morality and ethics really get involved. Example: You must save kids from being hit by a train. Your kid is among them. You cannot save them all. If you save your child, all of the other children will die. What do you do?
Anyway, I am not saying all this is right or wrong. I believe that we aren't robots and being dictated laws that are absurd which cannot be enforced, the general population will accept or deny as a society, any contravention to such laws. Jaywalking for example... do you see people calling police to report jaywalkers, or even a citizens arrest? No, if you tried that, by-standers would protect the jaywalker. You could cry out that he was breaking the law, and then be shunned, laughed at, and potentially beaten.
This whole digital era is not as black and white as you believe it to be.
post #404 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:21pm
post #405 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by caper_1 View Post

I still think you are confusing morality with right & wrong. There is a very big difference.
Downloading mp3's: wrong. but is it Morally wrong? Mp3's are also not even a copy of the original. What if I download a song but never listened to it? Did I benefit in any way ?

One day, one day, I will no longer have to point out the illogic of this argument, which has been getting tossed out since the mid-90s, and it's even more wrong now than it was then. Everyone knows that taking what doesn't belong to them, without permission, is just wrong. It doesn't matter if the person you took it from ever misses it or needs it, or whether you immediately get any benefit from it. Robin Hood sounds great unless you are the person he's robbing. The fact that someone who stole from you turned around and gave it away doesn't make any difference. If you died tomorrow and had no relatives to leave your stuff to, and I broke into your house and took your TV, no one would be inconvenienced in any way or miss that TV. But no reasonably moral person would do it, because it's not about whether you were inconvenienced or not. It's wrong because I would be taking something that's not mine without permission or compensation.

And the main reason why this argument is wrong is that when the number of people taking those MP3s are 1% or 2% of the population, then it doesn't much matter. When there are as many songs being stolen as paid for, then it clearly is a problem. It clearly is stealing in every sense of the word. All these people aren't hardened criminals or people who would never buy music if they couldn't steal it. Enormous amounts of music that would have been purchased by a moral person is being stolen instead. And it's no longer remotely a victimless crime. The effects on the music industry are significant and they have been widely publicized, and therefore people are doing it knowing full well the consequences of their actions. How is that not immoral?

The standard ad absurdium response to this position of yours is, if I came up with a machine that could copy cars, and I decided to copy those cars and give them away, would that be immoral? Of course it would be. What I'm copying only has value because people worked hard to create something that had value. I didn't do anything to create that value, but I destroy the ability of the people who did to get compensated for that work. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the car company still has the cars, and I didn't take any of them. That's infantile logic to argue that that means nothing wrong was done. I've destroyed the incentive to create that value anymore, and I've done so by taking something I didn't create (the value of a designed, built, and delivered car.) The actual car is irrelevant in this case. I've stolen the value.

So, though no one actually took any cars off the car lot without paying, I've destroyed an industry and all the jobs that goes with it. And before you whip out the other baseless argument of, well no no one is guaranteed success in business, face the fact that this would be very destructive to society as a whole, as IP theft is. The end result of this thinking is ever less (and lower quality) music, movies, and software, because people aren't going to do the hard work to create it unless they get compensated for it. And the people who are still paying for it aren't going to continue to pay more and more (necessary as the legal market shrinks) to support the ever growing number of people who are stealing it without consequences. More and more of them will start stealing it as well. So those actions also encourage others to steal, which is also clearly immoral, IMO. And clearly we've already experienced this cycle quite significantly.


The level of rationlization of wrong doing on this subject boggles my mind. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the internet is The Lord of the Flies writ large. It's living proof that even otherwise reasonable people will, if they can get away with it, do things that they know are wrong. The fact that they then try to rationlize it makes it even scarier.
post #406 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

Enormous amounts of music that would have been purchased by a moral person is being stolen instead. And it's no longer remotely a victimless crime. The effects on the music industry are significant and they have been widely publicized, and therefore people are doing it knowing full well the consequences of their actions. How is that not immoral?

Actually the real data states that the majority of people you call pirates actually do go and buy the same music and movies they download. Source. Actually the study says they buy 30% more than non-file sharers. There is also a small subsection of downloaders who, no matter what, would never go out and buy the music or movie they downloaded. In this case there was not a lost sale.

You are repeating lies that the MAFIAA put out there to try to justify suing thousands of people. The facts are as the internet became widely available, their outdated business model suffered, and instead of changing with it and using it to their advantage, they hired lobbyists to bribe the government into making laws that prop up their profit margins. Itunes and others changed the game with 99 cent songs instead of $15 albums that were mostly filler. People could more easily choose and pay for just what they wanted. That profit went to apple instead of music labels. Most people also don't like buying a DVD and sitting through 15 mins. of unskippable garbage either. Now, netflix is a billion dollar company which would have never existed if studios made streaming movies available first.
post #407 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by PobjoySpecial View Post

Why would something that is illegal to produce be legal to consume? That is pretty shaky territory to be making a case. The intent of the DMCA seems pretty clear to me, but you are right that it is a grey area. Until this is definitely settled, you can either err on the side of caution or use this oversight to justify your behavior. The reality is you have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than getting into any legal trouble.

This is beginning to feel a lot like prohibition. Something doesn't seem right when you need to go to a speakeasy to fight your "power to be free." That's usually reserved for the voting booths...

In many states, FL for example, it is illegal for a 16 year old to buy tobacco but it is legal for a 16 year old to use tobacco.

DVD copying for your own use clearly falls under the fair use act. From wikipedia, Section 3 (of the fair use act) also amends the DMCA to add exceptions for six types of circumvention. Circumvention by libraries and archives, to skip objectionable content, to transmit over a personal network, to gain access to public domain works, for public interest work and research, and for preservation are added as a new set of exceptions.[13]

So you are allowed to to transmit over your personal network and to preserve your legally purchased DVD by copying it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PobjoySpecial View Post

What I don't understand is your ethical stance. To get this thread back on topic, lets assume that backing up your DVD collection is definitively declared illegal.

1) Is it ever alright to deliberately break this law?

2) Where do you draw the line and why? Ripping personal DVDs, Recording OTA, Ripping rental DVDs, Downloading Bootleg Copies, Shoplifting?

3) Is it alright to ignore an unpopular law?

4) Is it wrong to be ridiculed for supporting an unpopular law?

1. Have you ever driven over the speed limit?

2. ripping personal DVD (falls under fair use)
recording OTA (DVRs exist so yes)
ripping rental DVD (this one is iffy because it is possible to rent a dvd for a week and lend it to 20 people, is that illegal? In that case the movie studio got their money, you are actually ripping off the rental company. Is it illegal to invite a friend over and watch a movie on netflix? 10 friends? 30? What if your friends don't have a subscription? You are ripping off netflix then)
Downloading bootleg copies (what if you go and buy the movie after you watch it?)
Shoplifting? Are you serious?

3. see speeding. Plenty of people speed, is that ok, if they try to enforce it and only catch 1% of speeders?

4. how is being ridiculed relevant?

Pobjoy Special, not picking on you specifically, just discussing.
Edited by ZmHD69PigQ - 2/8/13 at 7:01am
post #408 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:21pm
post #409 of 491
Expanding on fair use a bit... The fair use act was proposed in a subcommittee in congress but was never passed, so the fair use act is really nothing. It WOULD have changed the exemptions to include copying for personal use. For the details of the law, you have to go back to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the law is you cannot copy a DVD for any reason except in a few specific cases such as educational use.
Edited by ZmHD69PigQ - 2/8/13 at 8:31am
post #410 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

One day, one day, I will no longer have to point out the illogic of this argument, which has been getting tossed out since the mid-90s, and it's even more wrong now than it was then. Everyone knows that taking what doesn't belong to them, without permission, is just wrong. It doesn't matter if the person you took it from ever misses it or needs it, or whether you immediately get any benefit from it. Robin Hood sounds great unless you are the person he's robbing. The fact that someone who stole from you turned around and gave it away doesn't make any difference. If you died tomorrow and had no relatives to leave your stuff to, and I broke into your house and took your TV, no one would be inconvenienced in any way or miss that TV. But no reasonably moral person would do it, because it's not about whether you were inconvenienced or not. It's wrong because I would be taking something that's not mine without permission or compensation.

And the main reason why this argument is wrong is that when the number of people taking those MP3s are 1% or 2% of the population, then it doesn't much matter. When there are as many songs being stolen as paid for, then it clearly is a problem. It clearly is stealing in every sense of the word. All these people aren't hardened criminals or people who would never buy music if they couldn't steal it. Enormous amounts of music that would have been purchased by a moral person is being stolen instead. And it's no longer remotely a victimless crime. The effects on the music industry are significant and they have been widely publicized, and therefore people are doing it knowing full well the consequences of their actions. How is that not immoral?

The standard ad absurdium response to this position of yours is, if I came up with a machine that could copy cars, and I decided to copy those cars and give them away, would that be immoral? Of course it would be. What I'm copying only has value because people worked hard to create something that had value. I didn't do anything to create that value, but I destroy the ability of the people who did to get compensated for that work. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the car company still has the cars, and I didn't take any of them. That's infantile logic to argue that that means nothing wrong was done. I've destroyed the incentive to create that value anymore, and I've done so by taking something I didn't create (the value of a designed, built, and delivered car.) The actual car is irrelevant in this case. I've stolen the value.

So, though no one actually took any cars off the car lot without paying, I've destroyed an industry and all the jobs that goes with it. And before you whip out the other baseless argument of, well no no one is guaranteed success in business, face the fact that this would be very destructive to society as a whole, as IP theft is. The end result of this thinking is ever less (and lower quality) music, movies, and software, because people aren't going to do the hard work to create it unless they get compensated for it. And the people who are still paying for it aren't going to continue to pay more and more (necessary as the legal market shrinks) to support the ever growing number of people who are stealing it without consequences. More and more of them will start stealing it as well. So those actions also encourage others to steal, which is also clearly immoral, IMO. And clearly we've already experienced this cycle quite significantly.


The level of rationlization of wrong doing on this subject boggles my mind. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the internet is The Lord of the Flies writ large. It's living proof that even otherwise reasonable people will, if they can get away with it, do things that they know are wrong. The fact that they then try to rationlize it makes it even scarier.

Valid points of course. However, there will always be criminals. This whole bowl of wax in't going to fix everything. Are the gains worth the expense?? The expense of lawyers, encryption, etc etc etc. Who are you really going to stop? There are much smarter people out there who will find ways around it all of course.

The questions I have been asking are to play devil's advocate. I wasn't expecting and answer as if I asked them directly to you. You aren't going to convince the majority of the world that downloading is bad and they should be ashamed. There are too many weird ways to look at it. Can I lend my disc to a friend? What if I play the music in my band, and I was paid by the bar manager? Can I record off the radio? Anyway, laws are laws, and you will pay the price if you get caught breaking them. But convincing everyone they should be ashamed is an impossibility.
post #411 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZmHD69PigQ View Post

...their outdated business model suffered, and instead of changing with it and using it to their advantage, they hired lobbyists to bribe the government into making laws that prop up their profit margins. Itunes and others changed the game with 99 cent songs instead of $15 albums that were mostly filler. People could more easily choose and pay for just what they wanted. That profit went to apple instead of music labels. Most people also don't like buying a DVD and sitting through 15 mins. of unskippable garbage either. Now, netflix is a billion dollar company which would have never existed if studios made streaming movies available first.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PobjoySpecial View Post

1) Yes, but I make a deliberate effort to obey the speed limit. I don't feel that my transgressions in the past we're justified. They were either accidental or before I considered the morality of my actions. I'm participating in this thread as a means to consider my own morality on ripping my DVD collection.
Do you do a full stop at EVERY single stop sign too?
post #412 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZmHD69PigQ View Post

Actually the real data states that the majority of people you call pirates actually do go and buy the same music and movies they download. Source. Actually the study says they buy 30% more than non-file sharers. There is also a small subsection of downloaders who, no matter what, would never go out and buy the music or movie they downloaded. In this case there was not a lost sale.

You are repeating lies that the MAFIAA put out there to try to justify suing thousands of people. The facts are as the internet became widely available, their outdated business model suffered, and instead of changing with it and using it to their advantage, they hired lobbyists to bribe the government into making laws that prop up their profit margins. Itunes and others changed the game with 99 cent songs instead of $15 albums that were mostly filler. People could more easily choose and pay for just what they wanted. That profit went to apple instead of music labels. Most people also don't like buying a DVD and sitting through 15 mins. of unskippable garbage either. Now, netflix is a billion dollar company which would have never existed if studios made streaming movies available first.

That is funny. You are quoting torrentfreak as a source for this information, and then you accuse me of using a biased source. Everything in your post is just worn out, tired rationalizations that have been refuted so many times but they never go away, because they make it easy for people to justify stealing. If you knew anything about the music industry you would know that it has collapsed tremendously. This isn't just a lie by the RIAA (and of course your calling it the MAFIAA just demonstrates that you are absolutely biased and not interested in really talking about the problem rationally.) What's particularly laughable is that, if normal buyers were basically buying like before, and all the downloaders were buying 30% more, then the music industry would be in a golden age right now. But of course it's revenues have fallen by half since file sharing was widely publicised. Even a first grader should be able to do the math and figure out that that claim is completely wrong. Anyone who has spent any time talking to young people will know perfectly well it's just a lie.

As to your other paragraph, again, just the usual thing. Look, the music industry isn't an IT industry, nor is the movie industry. If they DID do what you claim they should have done, then you would be here arguing that they were price fixing and a monopoly because their stuff was only available through their own online stores, and that I'm sure wouldn't have passed muster with the government either. They have to let other people sell their stuff, and when it was a B&M world companies that were designed to do that did it. When it went digital, it required companies that are designed to deal with that to do it. And Apple doesn't really take any more of the profit margin than B&M stores used to, though they may have less overhead involved in order to get their cut. Of course Apple claims that they have never really profitted from iTunes, or at least they were up until not too long ago.

The music industry sold albums because that was the long since established delivery mechanism in the phyisical delivery world. And that really wasn't driven by the labels out of greed, it was driven by the artists, during the 70s. The labels were ALWAYs ragging on the artists to produce singles and lots of artists felt that the single was all about commerce, not art, and wanted to put out serious art (at least as they saw it.) So the album became the accepted means of delivery of music. Now, somehow the album is portrayed as some sort of conspiracy by the labels to make you buy stuff you don't want to buy, which just demonstrates no understanding of the history of the situation. Of course kids used to not all have ADD and lots of people actually enjoyed listening to albums. Now they can't sit still long enough to do so probably.

And they didn't hire lobbyists to try to prop up their profit margins. They lobbied the government to have their Constitutional rights protected. Copyright isn't some law made up by RIAA lobbyists. It's one of the few laws that is actually in the Constitution itself. And the government is supposed to protect IP owners against copyright infringment, but they aren't doing that. So there was little choice but to explore other means. But it's utterly specious to claim that they are trying to prop up their profit margins by lobbying. It's all about been about trying ot protect the rights they supposedly have, but really don't.

I don't know why I even bother to respond to these types of rants, since people like you will continue to just steal content and try to justify it by regurgitating the same old propoganda that has been spread around the internet by people who have a very vested interest in trying to make the victims the criminals here.
post #413 of 491
Pretty lively discussion.

You know, here these movie producers are claiming intellectual property rights over their "artistic" productions, yet art is the farthest thing from what I see. When you see a movie on television, it is chopped to shreds, words are bleeped out, they are often darker and these pop up ads and station logos run throughout the entire movie. No one in the movie industry is saying boo about any of that.

Can you really call a painting "Mona Lisa" if you chopped off the top third, pasted an ad on the bottom, are forced you to look at an ad every 25 seconds and made it 20% darker than it is in real life? Imagine if, before you walked into an art museum they had a big sign that said "These art works are darkened, cropped, covered with ads and only visible for 20 seconds at a time so that we can display other ads over them" . Bottom line, they keep talking about "art" and "property" and "stealing", yet they have no problem DEFRAUDING the viewing public about what it is they are broadcasting to you. Apparently, all of that is fine if the network pays them money to broadcast the mutilated version of the movie.

If you were to ask them when they should be able to charge someone for a movie disk, in their heart of hearts they would say 'every time it is bought, traded, given away or transferred'. Among the many outrages is that they have complete control over the durability of disks, yet they do not disclose what they do to make them wear out or scratch easily. Still, they insist we buy a new one when the one we laid out good money for doesn't play anymore? I am sure they also chafe at their movies being sold at garage sales without their getting any cut.

I have been collecting movies on VHS and disk for years. I get them new and often also from garage sales. For awhile, I was acquiring the recording, and only then downloading a digital version of that recording so that I could actually own and view what I paid for. I can't even count the number of times original recordings got stepped on or scratched or destroyed, forcing me to go to the back up version. So now doing that anymore is "stealing artwork". Well it's pretty hard to respect people who make high sounding claims about protecting their art, but who don't treat it like anything even remotely resembling art.

I do not believe downloading a movie you already own is stealing. I do not believe ripping a disk for your own backup use is stealing. It is merely illegal. The immoral people are the ones who are stealing from the rest of us, and paying with campaign contributions to make their theft legal.
post #414 of 491
If you bought a VHS version of movie, and you downloaded the DVD version, that is freaking stealing. And the people who make the movies don't control how the movie is presented on TV, so what are you even talking about with that? You are spewing hate for people for something that they have nothing to do with. The movie studios aren't getting the revenues from those ads on the TV station.

I just cannot believe that kind of rationalizations that people attempt to use to justify their actions. Your whole post is just an attempt to blame the people getting stolen from for the fact that they are getting stolen from. And blaming someone else for the fact that you break things is entitlement culture gone ballistic.
post #415 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

If you bought a VHS version of movie, and you downloaded the DVD version, that is freaking stealing. And the people who make the movies don't control how the movie is presented on TV, so what are you even talking about with that? You are spewing hate for people for something that they have nothing to do with. The movie studios aren't getting the revenues from those ads on the TV station.

I just cannot believe that kind of rationalizations that people attempt to use to justify their actions. Your whole post is just an attempt to blame the people getting stolen from for the fact that they are getting stolen from. And blaming someone else for the fact that you break things is entitlement culture gone ballistic.

Ah, There you go.

You know, I am perfectly capable of stating hatred if I choose to. I do not cede the right to you or anyone to put words or emotions into my mind or my writing. It is tiring to have people around like you who think they have the right or even the logic to attribute thoughts to other people. You have neither. I never expressed hatred against these people. I stated that they care little about the art of what they create and a lot about the money.

Further, the idea that the creator of an artwork has no leverage to control its display is downright foolishness. If the network doesn't agree to display it accurately and fully, you don't sell it to the network. But they don't have a problem with networks mutilating it, do they, as long as they get their cut. The notion that they don't get money from the ads is too naive to address. If you can't or won't see how that works, you are deliberately wearing blinders and no explanation will get through to you.

The notion you present, that if a person purchases a production, that it is stealing if he acquires that exact production by downloading, is a notion I disagree with. I don't do it anymore, but it isn't stealing.

As far as what the creators do by mutilating a movie and then calling it the same thing, is dishonest to the core, and purchased via campaign contributions, If you insist on seeing them as the virtuous soldiers of our Lord Jesus, I am not responsible for your delusions
post #416 of 491
If you take the position that buying a 15 year old format of a movie (used to boot) entitles you to download a BD of the same movie is just ridiculous. It's flat out not legal. Think about it. If everyone who ever bought a VHS of a movie felt they had the right forever more to download that movie in every new format it ever comes out in, no one is going to bother ever creating a new format, because it wouldn't be worth the effort. That's like arguing that if you bought Illustrator 1.0 then you are entitled to download every new version of it forever more.

As to your continuing to act like the studios are somehow corrupt if they don't refuse to license TV channels to show their movies, that's just so wrong I don't even know what to say. If you don't like the format that movies are in on a TV channel, then don't pay for the channel. It's got nothing to do with the movie studio. They aren't going to try to dictate to TV stations that they can't beep out words, and it's certainly not their right to try to stop the TV channel from showing commercials or whatever they do. If you don't like that, complain to the programmers of the TV channel. If you want to see the movie in original form, then buy it, rent it, or go to the theater.

And OF COURSE they are paid for the licensing, and that money comes from ads since that's how TV makes money. If you think that that means that the movie creators are ripping you off, that's just psycho.
post #417 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:21pm
post #418 of 491
Dean Roddey, who really cares.............?

If ppl want to copy DVD's or install titles on their hard drive, that's exactly what's gonna happen. You can flap your lips all you want, NOTHING is going to change that. lsol
post #419 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

If you take the position that buying a 15 year old format of a movie (used to boot) entitles you to download a BD of the same movie is just ridiculous. It's flat out not legal. Think about it. If everyone who ever bought a VHS of a movie felt they had the right forever more to download that movie in every new format it ever comes out in, no one is going to bother ever creating a new format, because it wouldn't be worth the effort. That's like arguing that if you bought Illustrator 1.0 then you are entitled to download every new version of it forever more.

As to your continuing to act like the studios are somehow corrupt if they don't refuse to license TV channels to show their movies, that's just so wrong I don't even know what to say. If you don't like the format that movies are in on a TV channel, then don't pay for the channel. It's got nothing to do with the movie studio. They aren't going to try to dictate to TV stations that they can't beep out words, and it's certainly not their right to try to stop the TV channel from showing commercials or whatever they do. If you don't like that, complain to the programmers of the TV channel. If you want to see the movie in original form, then buy it, rent it, or go to the theater.

And OF COURSE they are paid for the licensing, and that money comes from ads since that's how TV makes money. If you think that that means that the movie creators are ripping you off, that's just psycho.

Thank you for your comments and insults. Thank you further for your spirited yet silly defense of the studios, The notion that they legally lose all control of the movie once they sell it, is uninformed at best. They use contracts. Contracts have terms. If they cared about the integrity of their art they would protect it by including it in contract terms. They do not.

Note that you are perfectly willing to impose a whole raft of legal limits on consumers who purchase movies legally, but somehow grant privileged status to networks who you think ought to have the right to destroy the original production but call it by the same name. The networks are defrauding the public with this and the studios are, with cash, complicit in the fraud.

I have, for some time, followed the law and have not downloaded movies unless specifically permitted by the law and the terms of my purchase, but these studios and writers and actors are not pure, sympathetic victims of the thieving downloaders. They are daily defrauding the public on a massive scale. They have no moral authority to lecture anyone. And neither do you.
post #420 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:21pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Latest Industry News
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Latest Industry News › New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal