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 15

post #421 of 491
Like I said, the public don't care. More and more FREE stuff is available by the minute. I've seen newly released titles uploaded in their entirety on youtube in HD within a Month's time of release. There's no stopping it........ smile.gif
post #422 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:21pm
post #423 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....
I never bought the VHS in the first place. Well, I did buy the physical cassette (~ $.50 of the purchase price of ~$30) but $29.50 was the price for the license to watch the content of said VHS when and where I want to. So does my 'License to Watch' expire simply because the delivery technology fails or becomes obsolete? I think not. But if it did shouldn't the Studio give me a rebate or discount on a license to watch the same content on a newer and currently operational media?
As to your illustrator example the fact that you now can download it actually invalidates your example. Illustrator 1.0 likely came on 3.5" floppies and if I paid for a license to use it I couldn't install it on any of my current machines because they don't have floppy drives. I would, therefore, have to use a different media to accomplish that. Does that entitle me to new content (i.e. Illustrator Ver. 99.36)? NO. New media? Hell yes. wink.gif
post #424 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:24pm
post #425 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by PobjoySpecial View Post

You misunderstand the conversation. We are talking about ethics, not enforcement. We'd be glad to have you in the discussion. Is there anything relevant you want to say? smile.gif

Ethics, you mean like good and evil? See there's the problem, us plebs are controled by these so called ethics, while in the corporate world, they mean nothing.
post #426 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:23pm
post #427 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by vision-master View Post

Ethics, you mean like good and evil? See there's the problem, us plebs are controled by these so called ethics, while in the corporate world, they mean nothing.

Come on. If this was true, this issue wouldn't exist, because people would not be stealing content by the truckload, ignoring the most basic rules of ethics and morality and legality. And of course it would also mean that companies would have no rules to control them, but if you ever actually ran a company you'd understand that they are deluged by rules, and watched carefully by lawyers looking to make some bucks.

It's this kind of simplistic, one sided view of the world that has been created by the massive internet propoganda machine, to help people justify stealing stuff. The actual situation is that both sides have their rights and responsibilities, and sometimes both do wrong. In the last decade, the consumers have most definitely taken the lead on the wrong-doing front.
post #428 of 491
Ethics and morality, that's funny.

The cat is out of the bag, the old school control system is over............

What do you think indie bands are all about?

Independent music (often shortened to indie music or indie) is music produced independently from major commercial record labels or their subsidiaries, a process that may include an autonomous, Do-It-Yourself approach to recording and publishing. The term indie is sometimes also used to describe a genre (such as indie rock or indie pop); as a genre term, "indie" may include music that is not independently produced, and most independent music artists do not fall into a single, defined musical style or genre and usually create music that can be categorized into other genres.


You don't even have to purchase DVD's anymore -> Example. SADE Bring Me Home

Let me ask you this............ why can one not purchase 'Celebration Day' on DVD? Yeah, one disk, just the DVD?
Edited by vision-master - 2/9/13 at 1:26pm
post #429 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post

Come on. If this was true, this issue wouldn't exist, because people would not be stealing content by the truckload, ignoring the most basic rules of ethics and morality and legality. And of course it would also mean that companies would have no rules to control them, but if you ever actually ran a company you'd understand that they are deluged by rules, and watched carefully by lawyers looking to make some bucks.

It's this kind of simplistic, one sided view of the world that has been created by the massive internet propoganda machine, to help people justify stealing stuff. The actual situation is that both sides have their rights and responsibilities, and sometimes both do wrong. In the last decade, the consumers have most definitely taken the lead on the wrong-doing front.

The one being unbelievably naive and simplistic is you. You first of all claim an ethical superiority for corporates, who are ordinary people with ordinary ethics. They have neither a higher form of intelligence nor do they adhere to a higher ethical code. You further continue to falsely attribute positions to other people, claiming here that those who disagree with you believe in no rules at all. No one has stated that, and your attempt to attribute that to them is both illogical and rude.

And no, the wrongdoing is not equivalent. I see few corporate executives declaring bankruptcy, and plenty of media lobbyists paying off every politician in sight. The fraud being perpetrated by the networks and studios is far, far more extensive and dishonest than downloading. It;s just that they have money, and some people can't conceive of a person with wealth being wrong or crooked about anything.

It is about three things - money, cash and simoleans. It is about rigging the game to get them. Raising ethical concerns is just another attempt by dishonest people to distract people like you from the real and greedy objective.
post #430 of 491
And no, the wrongdoing is not equivalent. I see few corporate executives declaring bankruptcy, and plenty of media lobbyists paying off every politician in sight. The fraud being perpetrated by the networks and studios is far, far more extensive and dishonest than downloading. It;s just that they have money, and some people can't conceive of a person with wealth being wrong or crooked about anything.


Oh, it's much deeper than that. How about the subliminal mind control tricks they use........ smile.gif

Subliminal messages in Hollywood movies

Ever since the introduction of subliminal techniques in 1950’s, advertisers or those who are in desperate need to increase profits, use this sneaky technique, with the hopes of making the money that they want. But now, even movie directors are using it too! But what is the sole purpose of using it when movies are not one of the main mediums for advertising? In this case, subliminal messages in Hollywood movies can be pretty random, unlike those that of in advertisement.

Subliminal messages are hidden messages that are not noticeable immediately. Usually it needs some interpretation before discovering the real message. These messages exist in various forms including audio and visual messages. Usually the hidden messages are back masked in audio form. Hence, it is pretty hard to detect one, unless you have software to go along with it.


http://www.subconscious-mind.org/subliminal-messages/
post #431 of 491
Quote:
The one being unbelievably naive and simplistic is you. You first of all claim an ethical superiority for corporates, who are ordinary people with ordinary ethics. They have neither a higher form of intelligence nor do they adhere to a higher ethical code. You further continue to falsely attribute positions to other people, claiming here that those who disagree with you believe in no rules at all. No one has stated that, and your attempt to attribute that to them is both illogical and rude.

You aren't even reading what people are writing. I never claimed corporate moral superiority in any way. I said that they both do things wrong. However, I did say that, over the last decade, that the consumer HAS taken the lead in outright wrong doing. I know of no other example in modern history, at least in the western world, where such a massive wave of illegality has occurred.

A big problem is that, because of this decades long search for reasons to hate companies and therefore to justify stealing from them, somehow 'business' really only means massive corporation these days. But of course there are many times over more small and media sized and startup companies out there than there are mega conglomerates. The business world is no more monolithic than the world of individuals. There are all kinds of them.

But, I guarantee you that the folks out there stealing music or movies are stealing them just as often from small indie labels or studios as they are from big ones. The only reason they are probably more stuff from the big ones is that the big ones just happen to put out the most popular stuff. If you walked up to someone in the mall with an iPod and asked him how much of it he bought and how much was from major labors and how much was from small labels, the answers would likely be that he bought almost none of it, and he probably couldn't tell you what a label really is, much less which ones the music he stole was from.

That pretty much puts the lie to the common argument that people are stealing music to get back the big music companies for something. They are stealing it because they can get away with it. The rest is just rationalization.
post #432 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by vision-master View Post

And no, the wrongdoing is not equivalent. I see few corporate executives declaring bankruptcy, and plenty of media lobbyists paying off every politician in sight. The fraud being perpetrated by the networks and studios is far, far more extensive and dishonest than downloading. It;s just that they have money, and some people can't conceive of a person with wealth being wrong or crooked about anything.


Oh, it's much deeper than that. How about the subliminal mind control tricks they use........ smile.gif

I sincerely hope that was a joke. If not, then we are way off reality ranch here. What, you think that you are being controlled by movies? Have youe ver felt compelled after watching a movie to do something you'd never actually want to do?
post #433 of 491
No joke, fact. Matter of point it's not even about sponsership money, it runs even deeper........... (yes mind control of the masses).

Would you like some examples?

I watch no movies, only live performances.
post #434 of 491
OK then. Moving on...
post #435 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by PobjoySpecial View Post

No, but I make a deliberate effort to try. What are you trying to prove?
That you are an immoral person because you break the law.
post #436 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Cloud View Post


Raising ethical concerns is just another attempt by dishonest people to distract people like you from the real and greedy objective.
Well said. the ole re-direct tactic.
post #437 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by PobjoySpecial View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

I never bought the VHS in the first place. Well, I did buy the physical cassette (~ $.50 of the purchase price of ~$30) but $29.50 was the price for the license to watch the content of said VHS when and where I want to. So does my 'License to Watch' expire simply because the delivery technology fails or becomes obsolete? I think not. But if it did shouldn't the Studio give me a rebate or discount on a license to watch the same content on a newer and currently operational media?

Unless you specifically agreed to a terms of use granting you a license to the intellectual property in perpetuity, you bought a plastic box containing magnetic tape encoded with information... and nothing more.

You didn't buy the equivalent of a user key for Windows 7. Even if you did, you have no legal right to improvements made on that content. Downloading a digital copy of your VHS tape would be the equivalent of pirating Windows 8 because you claim you received a "license to use Windows" when you purchased Windows 7.

Do you honestly believe you are in the right?
You sir are so wrong. I bought a license to enjoy the content of my VHS. The content of the DVD or BluRay version is the same. The media and presentation I won't argue are superior. BUT...the content is the same. Just as the other poster tried to use Illustrator as an example of upgrading, you make a lame attempt at using Windows as an example. Your Windows example is totally invalid. Now were I to scratch my Windows 7 install disk I would not hesitate to download a copy of Win7. Likewise if my VHS copy of Casablanca were to become unwatchable I would certainly look to download a copy. The downloaded copy I'm pretty sure would be the same movie. That is, unless, someone has created Casablanca 3.0....tongue.gif
post #438 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:23pm
post #439 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

You sir are so wrong. I bought a license to enjoy the content of my VHS. The content of the DVD or BluRay version is the same. The media and presentation I won't argue are superior. BUT...the content is the same. Just as the other poster tried to use Illustrator as an example of upgrading, you make a lame attempt at using Windows as an example. Your Windows example is totally invalid. Now were I to scratch my Windows 7 install disk I would not hesitate to download a copy of Win7. Likewise if my VHS copy of Casablanca were to become unwatchable I would certainly look to download a copy. The downloaded copy I'm pretty sure would be the same movie. That is, unless, someone has created Casablanca 3.0....tongue.gif

You are flat out wrong. You are NOT getting the same thing you paid for. You are getting a much improved version of it. You do NOT license an infinite right to have access to every new format of a movie. You just don't. If you spent 15 minutes researching the matter you'd know you are wrong. You are paying NOTHING for the large amount of money invested in creating newer, much higher fidelity formats, or the conversion over to the gear required to support it.

You do have a license to use Illustrator or Windows 7 in the version you purchased, for as long as you want. And it's your license that's important, not whether you installed from a disc or not. But you cannot get an improved later version just because you purchased the previous one. A BD of a movie is clearly an improved, newer version of the content, and you have no more right to download it just because you purchased a VHS than you do to download Illustrator 2 just because you purchased Illustrator 1.
Edited by Dean Roddey - 2/9/13 at 3:53pm
post #440 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:23pm
post #441 of 491
What is ticking me off??
The studios making people purchase multiple formats of one program - at the same time in one purchase.

I only buy DVDs of concerts and I’ve been collecting music-concerts on video since I got my first VCR in the 80s. Lately I noticed that if you want to buy a certain DVD-concert the studios make you buy the same program on 2-CDs as well. The latest one I purchased like this was “Led Zeppelin – Celebration Day”, I’ve purchased a few others lately that made you pay for two 1hr CDs of the same show. Another that comes to mind is “Bachman & Turner: Live at the Roseland Ballroom, NYC” Other concerts as well that I can’t recall at the moment. I’m afraid these kinds of idiotic tactics are driving regular folks to illegally download.

If this “unethical big studio tactic” continues I will have no choice but to stop buying DVD concerts. Why in the world are they making me purchase 2-CDs of the same show I want to purchase on 1-DVD only??? I have no intention of ever playing the CDs. Nice going big-money-hungry studios – nice way to turn off your loyal non-stealing customers to folks that now start thinking twice about supporting you…

Oh and if I want to back up the audio portion of a DVD-concert to CD for car listening – that is ethical.

That said I will agree with Dean Rodney that If you own a VHS copy, you can’t download a restored Blu-Ray version or even a restored DVD for that matter. Restoration costs a lot of hard cash and folks ought to get paid for their hard work using expensive equipment. Plus they may include never before released scenes that you didn’t pay for with your original VHS purchase.

I work in broadcast and production and I can see both sides of the issue.

1)Backing up your own copy of VHS, DVD BD or any other format is ethical and as far as I’m concerned legal.

2) Buying a 1991 VHS release and downloading a fully restored 2011 BD release is not ethical or legal

3)Studios making you purchase 2CDs of a show that you only want on 1-dvd is unethical on the studios part and should be illegal.
post #442 of 491
No, I bought a VHS copy of Casablanca and that gives me the right to watch it as often as I want. Are you Bozos actually saying that because I bought something on what was at the time the best available media -and- the very people who produced that product deliberately made that media obsolete that I have absolutely no recourse? Then I'd say it's those very corporations that you two so vehemently defend that are the immoral ones...I would gladly pay a reasonable cost for the media upgrade but that simply isn't offered. 'They' demand I pay the licensing portion again and that just isn't right.
post #443 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:23pm
post #444 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

No, I bought a VHS copy of Casablanca and that gives me the right to watch it as often as I want. Are you Bozos actually saying that because I bought something on what was at the time the best available media -and- the very people who produced that product deliberately made that media obsolete that I have absolutely no recourse? Then I'd say it's those very corporations that you two so vehemently defend that are the immoral ones...I would gladly pay a reasonable cost for the media upgrade but that simply isn't offered. 'They' demand I pay the licensing portion again and that just isn't right.
What if they changed the digital media every 6 months, and the previous version went obsolete including the hardware the plays it? Isn't the movie the same "intellectual property" ?
post #445 of 491
Look, some people just need to see the world in only good or evil terms. To them, gray areas and complex ethical questions don't compute. They have to see good guys and bad guys, even if the issue isn't simple. When they decide on one side of an issue, they proceed to demonize everyone who disagrees.

In this discussion, people who download for any reason are, to them, "thieves' and the studios are innocent victims

Some of us do not require cartoon simplicity in these things, but we instead analyze the issue and understand that the result might not end up not so clearly good or evil.

Look at history first. The traditional way musical artists made money was by charging people for live concerts. Plays were done and people were charged admittance. Movie theaters charged people to show newly released features. All of those kinds of things are still done and vast amounts of money are made with them.

Ordinarily, when a thoughtful person analyzes morality, he looks at who is suffering as a result of some action or inaction,. When you see children dying because some crooked warlord decides to go take the food dropped by airlift for later sale, it isn't hard to find a victims and perpetrators. But in this case of downloading content you already own, where is the suffering?

In this case, there are no dying children, there are only very wealthy people who still have their historical method of making money fully intact. A thing does not become a big moral question because some billionaire decides to scream about it in between his afternoon martinis. So what do you have? You have studio executives just as wealthy as they ever were, if not more, annoyed because they can't force people to pay for their fifth home in Aspen.

You have these same studios defrauding people daily on a massive scale by taking money and looking the other way (or applauding) when a network utterly butchers a movie.

Even if some morality questions arise here, in the big scheme of things, it isn't in the top ten. The ones who are screaming "thief" are not suffering at all, and are behaving immorally on a daily basis.

Of the top one hundred morality questions in the world, downloading doesn't rate an appearance. The only reason we are talking about it is because money is being liberally handed out in Washington DC. in return for favors.
post #446 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:23pm
post #447 of 491
I see little logic in your reply. It is impossible to follow.
post #448 of 491
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:23pm
post #449 of 491
I only buy DVDs of concerts and I’ve been collecting music-concerts on video since I got my first VCR in the 80s. Lately I noticed that if you want to buy a certain DVD-concert the studios make you buy the same program on 2-CDs as well. The latest one I purchased like this was “Led Zeppelin – Celebration Day”, I’ve purchased a few others lately that made you pay for two 1hr CDs of the same show. Another that comes to mind is “Bachman & Turner: Live at the Roseland Ballroom, NYC” Other concerts as well that I can’t recall at the moment. I’m afraid these kinds of idiotic tactics are driving regular folks to illegally download.


The shysters are doing that bc lot's of ppl have stuff like Uconnect in their cars these day's, So, you can play either CD's or DVD's. Good heavens, we can't have ppl playing DVD's in their car can we, let's make em purchase the usless CD's along with the package. But, wait, lets make audio ONLY Blurays. rolleyes.gif
post #450 of 491
Some of the posts above demonstrate exactly WHY there needs to be much stricter enforcement of copyright by the government, because clearly there are a lot of people out there who have just bought into a whole mythology about why it's ok for them to ignore fundamental ethical standards, and which provides them with a hundred reasons why that's so, none of them legitimate of course but nonetheless. This kind 'reasoning' has been propogated on the internet how for a decade and a half or more, and nothing is going to change unless it's forced to change.

Anything that IP owners do, it doesn't matter what, will be an excuse to steal from them. Create better formats and they are ripping us off by making us by the same thing again. Don't make discs that can withstand a hammer blow, they are selling us cheap stuff. Try to protect themselves by suing people who are stealing from them, and they are evil corporations attacking innocent people. Try to stop suing people and get the government to perform it's intended function instead and they are buying lawmakers. Try to get illegally uploaded content off of Youtube and the whole video discussion thread will be filled with vitrol against the evil media companies, for not letting everyone have their product for free.
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