New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal - Page 16

Yes, I agree. Government should do its job and fine the studios and networks heavily for violations of the federal truth in advertising laws. By advertising a production by the same name as what was shown in theaters, with no intention to present that product, and by charging people monthly for content and then providing a hideously mutilated version of that content, these studios and networks are violating the law and committing criminal fraud against the paying consumer. It is time for a civil court remedy also, like a class action lawsuit against these con artists.

The posts above by the apologists for the studios attempt to co opt the ethical argument for themselves, and to falsely paint people who disagree with them as evil or misguided. There exist today many people who cannot even imagine wrongdoing on the part of corporations or the wealthy, as if their wealth proved their virtue. To them, it couldn't be that these studio people are failing to adapt to a new paradigm. It couldn't be that greed is the real motivator for them and that ethics is just a convenient tactic to support it.. The studios are filled with saints who walk about in sackcloth praying.

I see plenty of wrongdoing on the part of the media types the above posters apologize for. I see greed, I see no death or suffering as a result of the claimed activity. I see enterprising musicians and movie-makers adapting to the new conditions, and I see the studios and their apologists complaining about being left behind.

Excuse me, but more than one inspired man of history has noted that we are ALL sinners. Clearly, some people can't or won't grasp that, even if they are handed the evidence on a platter.

@ Dean Roddey: I have to ask if you aren't being just a tad hypocritical in your attack on people who support fair use while being the "Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd", a company which on its own website promotes and encourages violating the law? What do I mean by that? Simply this: Or do you have a robot that will go to your bookshelf, grab a DVD or BluRay, open the case, open the drive on your HTPC, insert the disk, close the drive, etc...

Yes, it is the same content. And as such you shouldn't need to re-license it every 6 months. Unless it is explicitly a rental situation.

I'm not against ripping media, and of course I've said umpteen times in this thread that, as long as you have all the hard copies on your shelf that there's zero chance anything is ever going to happen to you for doing it. My arguments on this thread have been with people who are effectively justifying stealing, blaming the people being stolen from, or making other hypocritcal arguments of that sort. And I've also argued that, relative to the destruction that is being levelled against media creators, that having to put a disc in a player isn't exactly anything like a massive burden.

Anyway, our product has no DVD or blu-ray ripping functionality.We do support ripping CDs if people want to use our functionality for that, but ripping CDs is not illegal and the RIAA explicitly indicates that ripping your own CDs for your own use is not a problem. The way this type of functionality works we couldn't prevent them from using it for movies if they wanted anyway, since media files are just media files and the person who sets up the solution controls what players get invoked and so forth. So they could use it for movies whether we wanted to allow it or not.

Ultimately any product like ours that didn't allow for supporting ripped media wouldn't be a viable product in the automation marketplace. But it's up to the users whether they use it for movies or not. Most of them do, and as long as they are legally purchasing that content, they are in no real danger.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that your product is "GOOD" (presumably because it pays your mortgage), even though it requires the end user to violate the law to effectively use it...While I am "BAD" because my VHS player no longer works and I'd like to watch Casablanca (which I previously bought a license to watch) again? That just seems so wrong to me.

OMG, if you can't see the difference between those two things then I'm just unable to comprehend you. Did I not just explain that we don't provide any functionality that is illegal. Nor do we 'require' that anyone do anything illegal. The media portion of our product is completely optional, as are all of the functional areas of the product. The end users decides what functionality he wants to use. AND that music isn't even in question and that the same functionality is required for music anyway, so even if everyone stopped ripping movies it wouldn't change anything at all in our product? Did you not read any of that?

Then you are comparing that to the fact that you think yoiu should be able to pay half a dollar for some ancient VHS copy of something, and that gives you the right to download any new version of the content you want. That is ludicrous beyond belief.

I'm having a really hard time taking you seriously here, and starting to believe that you may just be a troll looking to stir the pot, because no one could actually be that delusional.

Stumbled? My point is, you lose your credibility to preach 'morals' when you cannot fullfill basic ones of your own. You say we are morally obligated to obey laws, yet you can't even stop at stop signs. You say you "make all efforts" to, but I find that ridiculous that you tried to stop your car but could not. When you get home, do you fail to stop it before getting out??
The point is, no one obeys all laws, all the time. Are we all 100% immoral because of that? No. As a person, I actually go out of my way to help other people, seeking nothing in return. Example: When I drive SUV, I carry a tow rope in winter. Numerous times I bailed people out of snow drifts after they lost control and left the road. They offered me money which I refused. Am I going to hell for downloading something from the internet? Who knows. Are you going to burn for blowing through stop signs?

...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:23pm

No I didn't. here is what I said: To which you answered: Not all stop signs, but you try to at least.
So, even if you only roll through 0.01% of stop signs, and I only downloaded .001% of digital data available, am I still more wrong that you??
And what basis did you make this 'conclusion' ? The only fact I stated in this whole discussion was that I had subscriptions (which expired due to a credit card expiry) to Netflix and Music Unlimited (music based 'netlix' type of service).
If it illegal, then is there really a 'stance' to take?

Except that ripping CD's and movies is illegal under the DMCA, even if the RIAA says you can (source). The DMCA makes exceptions ONLY for educational purposes, documentary filmmaking, or noncommercial videos. You are not allowed to rip or circumvent any media protected by CSS unless for those stated purposes. Are you saying only teachers and documentary filmmakers use your software, or have you now outed yourself as a hypocrite?

Ummm... CDs are NOT protected by CSS. They aren't protected at all, they are just files of raw sample data basically. You may want to consider reading more and linking less perhaps.

And it's doubly silly to try to argue that owners of content cannot allow copying if they want. They clearly can. That's what COPY-RIGHT is. They have the right to control copying and the government cannot interfere with that. Of course if they want to allow you to copy it, they would haven't put copy protection on it. So if it has copy protection, clearly they don't want you to do so.

Mr. Roddey,

First of all, your insulting of people who disagree with you is uncalled for. You should refrain from it.

Here is a simple question -- Do you support the criminal prosecution of studios and networks for violations of the Truth in Advertising laws?? Using the example I raised, where these fine folks 1) advertise the showing of a certain movie, and then 2) show a darkened, cropped, mutilated and adulterated version of that movie.

Note that earlier you claimed that studios had "nothing to do with that" mutilation. I do think your argument on this argument has failed and that studios can and are complicit in this fraud via their contracts.

You have called for the aggressive government prosecution of downloading consumers. Are you or are you not in favor of the aggressive government prosecution of defrauding studios and networks?

Yes or no.

Waiting........ lsol

...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:22pm

Ok, the Yes or No got derailed real quick.

I expect if the question is ignored, or evaded, the answer is that he does not support the prosecution of studios for fraud.

Honestly, at the risk of being really offensive, I think are you are intellectually challenged if you belief that. It's utterly ridiculous. If you think that it's not, I urge you to contact a lawyer and ask him about it. After he stops laughing, he'll tell you it's utterly specious and that you wasted his time.

Your answer is "no".

Thus we demonstrate that you believe certain segments or classes of society should be privileged to violate the law at their whim, but others should conform to the most rigid of moral codes in a similar environment.

Further, you might be surprised at my access to legal resources and expertise

...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:26pm

No I am not trying to argue whatsoever. I was just making a point about breaking the law and morality.
Yes, that is entirely possible to use different words to mean the same thing. However, you changed the meaning of my sentence. I didn't ask if you ever skipped a stopsign in the past. I asked if you completely stop at all stop signs. The reason I brought it up was because this has been happening on forums everywhere; someone "quotes" someone else, and then changes the meaning in doing so. No offense to you, but it is quite annoying.
Did I really state my moral stance on jaywalking, speeding, and downloading?? Or was I playing devil's advocate and posing "what if" questions?

Yeah, I gave up on Deano's hypocrisy of encouraging people to rip movies in a thread titled 'New Ruling Confirms Copying DVDs is Illegal' simply because it pays his bills. Meanwhile he gets very condescending toward me because I dare suggest that you shouldn't have to pay the license fee portion over and over again as you are forced to change media to enjoy the same content.

Wow, I weep for the human race. The internet has made me more and more consider that perhaps Ayn Rand was right all along.

...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:25pm

You two deserve each other, but please leave Alaska alone.

...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:25pm

Nah, you need someplace warm, with lots of sand to bury your head in...You take Hawaii...

I'm subscribed to this thread and I keep meaning to catch up with all the posts but have only been skimming them in the meantime. Since it's headed for a lock, I'll know that I'll be able to catch up soon enough.

Just for the record: I apologize for any acts of snarkiness I committed in this thread. I also have no idea where the folks who decided to sling mud my way came up with the idea that I meant downloading a pirated copy. I didn't. But I still feel that it is pretty unjust of the media distributors that they expect you to pay the full license price every time they force you to upgrade your media.

Oh the communist conspiracy. Remarkable power for a movement that collapsed into dust more than two decades ago. What;s more remarkable is that right wingers think it has merit.as an argument.

All it does is mark people as stuck in the past.

...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:25pm