Court Rules DVD Burning Software Is Illegal
David Carmichael
http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0204/20.dvdruling.html
Brad
"David Carmichael" <dec...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:0pAZb.5091$w55...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Dave
"David Carmichael" <dec...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:0pAZb.5091$w55...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Andrew Rossmann
@swbell.net says...
A more correct subject would be:
Court Rules Movie DVD Copying software is illegal
--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
Pete
The only reason for the film indusrty going over to DVD was to save cash in
production. The massive savings in production costs [33% +] over film were
never passed on to the consumer. The pockets of the actors and the rest were lined
nicely thankyou. Same applies to CD's and to ages old tapes. Always, the inherrent
savings made were used for purposes other than for the benefit of the consumer. So I
have no sympathy with the film makers whatsoever. They were the ones who created the
monster but now they have discovered their inability to control the technology and
this is just another repeat of history. Big Deal. Until the consumer gets the savings
in costs reflected in the price to be paid there will alaways be the need to get the
product as cheap as possible. The only reason for PC's to have DVD capability at all
- in the begining - was to further the film industies financial interests. No other
reason whatsoever. The capabilities developed now are just an additional knock on
designed purely to create consumer demand for the electronic industry.
Rant over :-))
TommyDale
It's a bit late after the "horse is out of the barn", don't you think?
TommyDale
This article fails to name the court, the location of the case
decision, or any details. Yet it fully details the sales pitch of the
Kaleidoscope product. This could be merely a sneaky advertisement for
the Kaleidoscope people.
will
wrote:
>On 21 Feb 2004 08:05:42 -0800, stormtr...@yahoo.com (TommyDale)
>wrote:
>First click on the audiorevolution.com logo at the top left hand
>corner of the page to get to the home page. Then click on some of the
>other article links on that home page. The articles talk about so many
>different products & topics it kinda' blows yet another corporate
>greed conspiracy theory out of the water. It would have been very easy
>for you to do similar investigation before making your post. I guess
>it's much more fun to be negative & paranoid & attribute a factual
>article to a big company trying to dupe readers into trying their
>product.
The problem is the original post never said which country the ruling
was in if it did occur.
The net is full of companies spamming but not in the correct method,
IE Comm in the subject line. Instead we see posts like the original
taking us to a web site full of advertising.
Why didn't the first person just copy and paste the article with a
reference to the direct link. Instead we see a link that doesn't even
take us to the artcle directly. Which is why I have doubts on the
post.
I will not visit a site posted by anyone as it is. There are sites
that have hidden viruses but even worse have spyware which is trhe
curse of the age.
I don't mind seeing commercial posts in any news group as long as it
has Comm in the subject line so I can choose to filter it out. It gets
ugly when people post a link without anything else and in this case
just a short and very clever way to get peoples attention and then
going to that site.
Simon X.
> > http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0204/20.dvdruling.html
stormtr...@yahoo.com (TommyDale) wrote:
> This article fails to name the court, the location of the case
> decision, or any details. Yet it fully details the sales pitch of the
> Kaleidoscope product. This could be merely a sneaky advertisement for
> the Kaleidoscope people.
The Court ruling is VERY true. It was in San Fransisco, CA
More info here:
ńKs
"TommyDale" <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bf14c408.04022...@posting.google.com...
ńKs
"will" <wi...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:40379561...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
tHatDudeUK
"Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote in message
news:c17egr$ef$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> so what dvd x copy is shite anyways.
Yep, lol. Does this mean DVDdecrypter and Pinnacle InstantCopy are illegal?
:-)
tHatDudeUK
"Pete" <asp...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa17bb11...@news.individual.net...
> In article <0pAZb.5091$w55...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
dec...@swbell.net wrote
> > For the story go to:
> > http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0204/20.dvdruling.html
>
> The only reason for the film indusrty going over to DVD was to save cash
in
> production. The massive savings in production costs [33% +] over film were
> never passed on to the consumer. The pockets of the actors
The actors make little profit from DVD sales, it's the executives and shops
which sell them.
Axel VK
"Simon X." <nob...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:noboubt-5A795D...@r01.iad01.newshosting.com...
But it's meaningless outside the US.
Dave
"tHatDudeUK" <randomcharac...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c18p68$1euujj$1...@ID-158809.news.uni-berlin.de...
Who cares?????? if you have been using software for a while, that you
legitimately purchased, and then someone comes along and says oh BTW that
software is illegal now, would you immediately say ah yep fair enough, i
spent good money of the software, but cos some geezer wearing a wig says its
illegal im gonna stop using it?? of course ya not, its another legal
decision that is too little, too late, just like DeCass case that started it
all against dvd jon.
Dave
"Axel VK" <spa...@pigpond.com> wrote in message
news:4037f26c$0$22518$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
Yep and the company (ie 321 studios) will probably just carry on selling its
product everywhere except the US
OldFartJAC
come from including everything going on this past week. San Francisco the #1
Granola Bowl City in the Granola Bowl State, and home of the 9th Circus
Court.
Bradley Kunkle
randomcharac...@btopenworld.com says...
What the hell have you been smoking? Big name actors make a shitload of
money from DVD sales. Even at 10 cents a disc, when 10 million are sold
world-wide, that's still a million dollars.
While most supporting actors get little or nothing, most of the big
names make anything from a half-cent to 10 cents per disc sold
wholesale.
Mutley
No. They will be the next target of the MPAA and the like. Wake up
folks before it's all gone..
US of A.... Land of the free...Joke these days..
Bob D.
DVD X Copy. Also one of my DVD players that reads +-Rs all right, won't play
X copies.
--
Bob D.
"Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote in message
news:c17egr$ef$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
luminos
marry. Very logical old fart.
"OldFartJAC" <ihat...@spamupyours.com> wrote in message
news:24TZb.9707$4K3.6251@fed1read06...
Dave
"Bob D." <bob...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:MbWZb.373957$xy6.1933745@attbi_s02...
> So what is the preferred copy software? I've heard lots of complaints
about
> DVD X Copy. Also one of my DVD players that reads +-Rs all right, won't
play
> X copies.
> --
> Bob D.
>
nero recode, all are much better and in many instances quicker and more
flexible then any version of dvdxcopy.
luminos
"Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote in message
I will reiterate, the real message is that all of these programs, their
programmers, and websites are in jeopardy.
Skid
"luminos" <log...@trip.net> wrote in message
news:CGXZb.8998446$Of.14...@news.easynews.com...
> I will reiterate, the real message is that all of these programs, their
> programmers, and websites are in jeopardy.
>
And I fear you're right about that. A legal precedent has been set that
upholds the catch 22 in U.S. law, that you have the right to copy your DVD,
but you have no right to crack the copy protection necessary to do it.
Those who say DVD Xcopy is crap are right, but they are wrong to think this
ruling doesn't threaten their ripping tools of choice. Once the MPAA decides
to follow in the footsteps of the RIAA and start suing people, the freeware
coders will have to go way underground.
And those who say the California courts are looney are right, but they are
missing the point. The way the DCMA is written, any U.S. court would be
likely to uphold a similar suit against DVD Shrink, AnyDVD, and all the
others that include copy cracks.
And those who say it has no bearing on international law are whistling past
the graveyard. Warner U.K. has filed a similar suit against 321 Studios in
British courts, where the outcome is likely to be the same. Quoting from The
Register U.K.: "Unlike US copyright legislation, UK law regards even copies
made for personal use as unlawful. Tape a CD you legally own so you can play
it in the car, or burn that CD to MP3 and transfer it to your iPod and, here
in the UK, you're breaking the law. Fair use provision does not extend to
these actions, unenforceable though this aspect of the CDPA is." Then
there's the European Union Copyright Directive, which also criminalizes
anything that breaks copy protection.
Up to now, there hasn't been a big push to enforce these draconian laws. But
DVD burners -- which are legal to sell -- are flying off the shelves and you
have only to look at the daily posts in this newsgoup to figure out how
people are using them.
When profits are at stake, corporate lawyers get nasty. When industry groups
with deep pockets talk, lawmakers listen and churn out crap like the DCMA.
The only reason we are able to copy DVDs now is that they haven't figured
out a copy protection scheme that will break our ripping apps without also
breaking playback compatibility.
This is the calm before the shitstorm. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Dr. Bukkake
> The Court ruling is VERY true. It was in San Fransisco, CA
>
A Gay Courtcase....
Couln't Have Been Anywhere Else Than At A Gay Court....
Phil Leonard
<sk...@comcast.NOSPAM.net> writes:
>The only reason we are able to copy DVDs now is that they haven't figured
>out a copy protection scheme that will break our ripping apps without also
>breaking playback compatibility.
There is also a copy protection scheme that Panasonic honors for Satellite and
Cable broadcasts. It's called Content Protection for Recordable Media (CPRM)
and according to my DMR-E30 manual; "you can record broadcasts that allow one
copy, such as CATV broadcasts, on to DVD-RAM (these are CPRM compatible.) It
is not possible to record on to DVD-R."
So far, I have not come across this limitation. And, I wonder about how units
with HDDs would handle CPRM.
Dave
Rubbish, technically they cant touch dvdshrink as its freeware (even if they
stopped the author, others would just carry on developing it) clone dvd they
cant touch as on its own it wont copy copyright material, elbay learnt there
lesson with clone cd, dvd2one has more versions on the web by different
people then i can mention, i dont even think the lastest version comes from
the company originally behind it, nero recode again wont do copyright stuff
on its own, and even if it did, that would be a battle and a half to stop
them (do you know how big the company ahead are??) the only one bit of
software i mentioned that is on a razors edge is anydvd, and even if they
stop that, there are other software utils that do practically the same thing
anyway, the movie, music, and legal industry need to wake up and realise you
are never gonna stop people copying things.
luminos
"Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote in message
>
> "luminos" <log...@trip.net> wrote in message
> news:CGXZb.8998446$Of.14...@news.easynews.com...
> >
> > "Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote in message
> > news:c19gmm$d45$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Bob D." <bob...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > > news:MbWZb.373957$xy6.1933745@attbi_s02...
> > > > So what is the preferred copy software? I've heard lots of
complaints
> > > about
> > > > DVD X Copy. Also one of my DVD players that reads +-Rs all right,
> won't
> > > play
> > > > X copies.
> > > > --
> > > > Bob D.
> > > >
> > > Try clone dvd with anydvd in the background, or dvdshrink or dvd2one
or
> > even
> > > nero recode, all are much better and in many instances quicker and
more
> > > flexible then any version of dvdxcopy.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I will reiterate, the real message is that all of these programs, their
> > programmers, and websites are in jeopardy.
>
> Rubbish, technically they cant touch dvdshrink as its freeware
This has absolutely nothing to do with violating the DMCA. Nothing.
luminos
Let me be clear, whether it is free or not, these programs violate the DMCA
and the authors, websites, and users can all be sued under that federal law.
You are simply wrong here.
Fried Liver
One....the source is usually from another disk...not the
internet....Two there aint the file sharing programs out there to nail
ya.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:10:36 +1300, Mutley <mutle...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
John Owens
The DMCA is not God!
The SF court is almost never upheld in higher courts.
The movie makers don't make the rules as to what is legal or is not
legal!.
Even if they claim that a specific act is forbidden, the claim does
not legally bind the user as long as the user is not violating a
specific city, county, state, or federal law.
If I want to have a backup copy for my individual use alone I should
be able to do so. DVD's are fragile and are thus easily damaged.
As long as I treat the backup copy as a backup copy ONLY, I don't see
that the movie makers are loosing anything that they are entitled to.
All I have done is to preserve my ability to view what I have paid for
even if the origional is distroyed.
If the movie makers provided an exchange of damaged media for new at a
reasionable cost there would be no need for backup.
All the stuff needed for a creating a DVD backup is not cheap.
Those who profit from copying should be nailed to a cross and left out
to rot.
John
Dave
"Fried Liver" <fli...@later.com> wrote in message
news:53bi30pn6vi7i7hn3...@4ax.com...
> There is a big difference between music copying and movie copying.
> One....the source is usually from another disk...not the
> internet....Two there aint the file sharing programs out there to nail
> ya.
>
Dave
Oh dear you didnt read on did you, whether its legal or not, it wouldnt
matter if they did prosecute the author, somebody else would just pick up
and carry on where the program left off, ive already said it once and i say
it again, law or no law, you, them, or anybody else is never gonna stop
copying and software that allows it to take place, its time to wake up, and
realise you cant stop technology.....they said tape would kill radio, that
cd would kill tape, that mp3 will kill cd, FFS get real. will still have all
of them. and it isnt cos of outdated laws.
Dave
Perhaps im wrong, but with the high sales of dvd writers and millions
downloading software to allow copying of dvds, from the vast choice
available, i think we can safely say people and companys dont give a s**t
about the threat of being sued, they said they would sue kazza users, so
lots stopped using it, however a few months on and the amount of users of
kazza has gone back up, the law and all its industry buddies need to sit
down and think of a sensible way technology could be further used, rather
then jumping up and down like a 5 year old kid shouting it aint fair people
are using what is already available and will continue to do so all the time
there is a demand for it.
luminos
"John Owens" <john2n...@westerhall.com> wrote in message
news:qudi309qjqgua7ikh...@4ax.com...
The DMCA was passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton.
Idiot.
OldFartJAC
overturned higher court in the country, who would have thunk it? LOL
John Owens
Yes, perhaps I am an idiot. But then, I know what I am. What about you
luminos?
Signing a law into existance is one thing.
That is, untill the Suprime court decides the constitutionality of its
provisions. Until a law is tested in the courts it's validity is in
question. Thus, NOT THE WORD GOD.
John
Dave
> The DMCA was passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton.
>
> Idiot.
>
RMOFLOL, signed by clinton, the greatest, most honest and truthfull man ever
eh???? LOL *again* I guess thats says it all, or atleast explains why the
DMCA is pathetic.
lask...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> RMOFLOL, signed by clinton, the greatest, most honest and truthfull man
> ever eh????
Dave
<lask...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c1d18d$ehm$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
My view could have been worse, in fact it could have been stained ;D
Fried Liver
Follow closely......
1. People normally just rent a DVD from some place like BlockBuster
then make a copy. Thats video....
2. People normally download music off the internet with file sharing
programs. Thats audio....
3. Put the two together and you get a BIG difference since big brother
will have a hard time proving you copied your blockbuster rentals, but
may nail you for file sharing. Granted people can download movies off
the internet if that is your point.
Dave
> Dave...I thought what I said made sense.
>
> Follow closely......
>
> 1. People normally just rent a DVD from some place like BlockBuster
> then make a copy. Thats video....
Christ you do live in the past, there are binaries newsgroups for dvd movies
and even rooms on irc, it isnt just poor divx films available on the net now
you know.
>
> 2. People normally download music off the internet with file sharing
> programs. Thats audio....
>
funny i thought copying anything you didnt own was just plain illegal.
> 3. Put the two together and you get a BIG difference since big
There is no difference, both are illegal.
brother
> will have a hard time proving you copied your blockbuster rentals, but
> may nail you for file sharing. Granted people can download movies off
> the internet if that is your point.
>
Yes people can download movies off the net, but your big brother theory is
flawed, if your a pirate, and are renting numerous films on a daily basis,
its obvious what you are doing and they dont even have to trace you as the
local vid shop would have all your membership details, downloading or file
sharing you can be totally annonymous if you know what your doing. however
as ive already said there is no difference in legal terms you are breaking
the same laws.
I hope you followed closely.
luminos
"Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote in message
That is for sure.
use...@isbd.co.uk
>
> >
> > 2. People normally download music off the internet with file sharing
> > programs. Thats audio....
> >
> funny i thought copying anything you didnt own was just plain illegal.
>
I can copy Shalespeare's works to my heart's content.
I can take photographs of the view in a public place (mostly)
I can make recordings of the noises I hear out in public
All of the above are copying and, as far as I understand it, legal.
--
Chris Green
Fried Liver
off the internet.
You can also jump off a cliff....but may would chose not to. Of
course...you would.
Dave
> You are an idiot...Dave. If you want to copy movies....don't get them
> off the internet.
I never said i wanted to copy films, i just said you can get them off the
net if you want to. You were the baboon that said to hire and then copy DOH!
you also claimed copying music and film was 2 different things, which if
both are copyright they obviously arnt.
>
> You can also jump off a cliff....but may would chose not to. Of
> course...you would.
>
Errrr, i would respond to that............... and when i can read it and
understand what you mean i will!!!
Dave
<use...@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c1f604$1i6irc$1...@ID-61610.news.uni-berlin.de...
> In alt.video.dvd.software Dave <Fa...@ng.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 2. People normally download music off the internet with file sharing
> > > programs. Thats audio....
> > >
> > funny i thought copying anything you didnt own was just plain illegal.
> >
> Depends if what you're copying is copyright surely:-
True to an extend
>
> I can copy Shalespeare's works to my heart's content.
Believe it or not but officially only with permission
> I can take photographs of the view in a public place (mostly)
Yep, but then if you film me i can demand you hand it over (or a copy of
said film) under the data protection act.
> I can make recordings of the noises I hear out in public
>
Again true to an extend.
> All of the above are copying and, as far as I understand it, legal.
>
Most of the time yes.
Rick Pali
> you also claimed copying music and film was 2 different
> things, which if both are copyright they obviously arnt.
It's not so obvious, depending on where you live.
Rick.
-+---
rp...@alienshore.com
http://www.alienshore.com/seeking/
use...@isbd.co.uk
>
> <use...@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c1f604$1i6irc$1...@ID-61610.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > In alt.video.dvd.software Dave <Fa...@ng.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. People normally download music off the internet with file sharing
> > > > programs. Thats audio....
> > > >
> > > funny i thought copying anything you didnt own was just plain illegal.
> > >
> > Depends if what you're copying is copyright surely:-
>
> True to an extend
>
> >
> > I can copy Shalespeare's works to my heart's content.
>
> Believe it or not but officially only with permission
>
quite a while you know!
> > I can take photographs of the view in a public place (mostly)
>
> Yep, but then if you film me i can demand you hand it over (or a copy of
> said film) under the data protection act.
>
One country, and I doubt it, depends on the exact circumstances.
--
Chris Green
Dave
<use...@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c1geuc$1i22bi$1...@ID-61610.news.uni-berlin.de...
> In alt.video.dvd.software Dave <Fa...@ng.com> wrote:
> >
> > <use...@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:c1f604$1i6irc$1...@ID-61610.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > In alt.video.dvd.software Dave <Fa...@ng.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. People normally download music off the internet with file
sharing
> > > > > programs. Thats audio....
> > > > >
> > > > funny i thought copying anything you didnt own was just plain
illegal.
> > > >
> > > Depends if what you're copying is copyright surely:-
> >
> > True to an extend
> >
> > >
> > > I can copy Shalespeare's works to my heart's content.
> >
> > Believe it or not but officially only with permission
> >
> Whose permission, the original copyright holder has been dead for
> quite a while you know!
>
Well yes obviously, the permission would have to come from whoever now owns
the original written works.
>
> > > I can take photographs of the view in a public place (mostly)
> >
> > Yep, but then if you film me i can demand you hand it over (or a copy of
> > said film) under the data protection act.
> >
> One country, and I doubt it, depends on the exact circumstances.
>
Not one country im affraid, laws like the data protection act arnt just
applicable to the UK, even in the US (not all states at the moment but some)
have similar laws, believe it or not here in the UK you can walk down the
local highstreet, notice the CCTV cameras, walk in to your local council
office (or whoever owns the cameras) and demand that all filmed footage of
you at times and days of your choosing is disclosed to yourself, they cannot
refuse, it is your statutory right, if they refuse they can be prosecuted
using the data protection act, to obtain the filmed footage under the data
protection act, they are within their rights to charge you a fee (which last
time i checked was 10 quid) the same rules here in the UK apply if for
example you are sent a speeding fine where they claim your speed was clocked
on one of the many speed cameras here in the UK, you are entitled to see the
picture the camera has taken of your vehicle speeding, and also the cameras
calibration report, this is good as many of the cameras here in the UK are
not calibrated as often as they should be and therefore you can wriggle ya
way out of the fine :)
Dave
"Rick Pali" <rp...@alienshore.com> wrote in message
news:qEO_b.56811$RTW1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> "Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote:
>
> > you also claimed copying music and film was 2 different
> > things, which if both are copyright they obviously arnt.
>
> It's not so obvious, depending on where you live.
>
True, but where he lives, and the recent legal proceedings that have gone on
there against music sharers, its exactly the same thing.
tHatDudeUK
"Bradley Kunkle" <br...@opi.wsc.edu.nospam> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aa1e85ed...@news-40.giganews.com...
> What the hell have you been smoking? Big name actors make a shitload of
> money from DVD sales. Even at 10 cents a disc, when 10 million are sold
> world-wide, that's still a million dollars.
>
> While most supporting actors get little or nothing, most of the big
> names make anything from a half-cent to 10 cents per disc sold
> wholesale.
I meant from increases in DVD revenue. Something increases you expect to see
the actors get more but I doubt they do.
Dave Haynie
>
><use...@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:c1geuc$1i22bi$1...@ID-61610.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> In alt.video.dvd.software Dave <Fa...@ng.com> wrote:
>> > <use...@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:c1f604$1i6irc$1...@ID-61610.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> > > In alt.video.dvd.software Dave <Fa...@ng.com> wrote:
>> > > I can copy Shalespeare's works to my heart's content.
>> > Believe it or not but officially only with permission
>> Whose permission, the original copyright holder has been dead for
>> quite a while you know!
>Well yes obviously, the permission would have to come from whoever now owns
>the original written works.
Get a clue. No one owns the works of Shakespeare. You can, with
absolute legality, copy them to your heart's content. Despite the
recent efforts of Michael Eisner and the Walt Disney Company,
throughout most of modern civilization, copyrights have been a very
limited thing. Once the copyright ends, the work goes into the public
domain.
Which, of course, means that ANYONE can use the material. So I can
download it here (http://jollyroger.com/shakespeare/), or as a
longstanding part of the Project Gutenberg
(http://www.gutenberg.net/find.shtml)
This is why I have tickets to see a local production (at Appel Farm,
South Jersey) of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" for free next month --
and why there are so many local Shakespeare troupes, worldwide.
Of course, "anything" includes new works, including new copyrighted
works (the GNU GPL was designed as an alternate to public domain, to
ensure derivative works remain free -- normally, they don't, until
they, too, become PD). So, of course, when Baz Luhrmann makes a modern
version of "Romeo and Juliet" with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes,
he doesn't pay anything for the original story. If he didn't write the
screenplay himself (he did, along with Craig Pearce), he would have
had to pay a screenwriter.
Change itself isn't necessary, either. There's a longstanding concept
of a collection copyright. If I put Shakespeare's works together in a
special way, I can copyright the expression of the collection. You can
reproduce each play, word for word, and not infringe my copyright. But
you can't copy anything unique to my collection. I can publish an
annotated version of a Shakespeare work, and similarly, you could copy
the play's text, but not the comments.
>Not one country im affraid, laws like the data protection act arnt just
>applicable to the UK, even in the US (not all states at the moment but some)
>have similar laws,
Far as copyrights go, most civilized countries are members of the
Berne Convention
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html). They don't
have identical laws, but as members, they generally agree with the
spirit of the Berne Convention and international copyright law.
Personal privacy laws are something else, and vary quite a bit between
countries.
Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
dha...@jersey.net| "Get get get get over it!" -Ok Go
"Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.jersey.net/~dhaynie/dbv
Dave Haynie
wrote:
>
>"luminos" <log...@trip.net> wrote in message
>news:CGXZb.8998446$Of.14...@news.easynews.com...
>
>> I will reiterate, the real message is that all of these programs, their
>> programmers, and websites are in jeopardy.
Yup.
>And I fear you're right about that. A legal precedent has been set that
>upholds the catch 22 in U.S. law, that you have the right to copy your DVD,
>but you have no right to crack the copy protection necessary to do it.
That's the DMCA for you -- most of those in the computer business
understood, at the time it was passed, just what a boondoggle it was.
And the courts haven't been friendly toward personal freedoms. They've
even ruled that if something had the effect of copy protection (such
as the crap they've been pulling on "protected" CDs lately), it can be
counted as copy protection under the DMCA, even if my cat is clever
enough to crack it. Basically, big media has been handed a fat legal
hammer that, ultimately, renders them less secure. Sure, they can go
after me if I copy something encrypted (I don't, but that's moot for
the discussion), and they don't have to worry about the quality of
their CP. For me, you, and other consumers.
But we represent, usually, less than 10% of the piracy. So I get in
trouble if I rent a DVD, rip it, and burn a copy (a bone-stupid
practice -- the time involved, the quality loss, anything I'd have in
my collection, I'd pay the $10-$15 for), I can get into trouble. But I
could go buy the bootlegs they sell at the local flea market, no
problemo. And while the Feds could certainly chase the distributer of
such media, it probably originates in Asia. There's no DCMA in Asia.
The basic problem with copy-for-backup, or more meaningful in the
modern age, copy for platform jump (eg, I have about 8,500 of the
songs from my CDs on my M: drive, I stil lown the CDs. It's 100%
legal, but there are companies out there that want me to not have
that) which is certainly a legit right, is the status of the set of
rights know as "fair use". Fair Use is not really a law, it's more of
an exclusion from other laws. There are a few lines in the US
copyright law (somewhere, I found 'em one) which explains some of the
limits on fair use. But there's nothing even remotely close to a
"media bill of rights". This makes it not only possible, but easy, for
Big Media to make the exercise of these rights impossible.
>And those who say it has no bearing on international law are whistling past
>the graveyard. Warner U.K. has filed a similar suit against 321 Studios in
>British courts, where the outcome is likely to be the same.
In fact, I saw a representative from 321 on TV this morning (on
TechTV), who says, as of 12AM tonight, their ripper is out. They claim
to continue to pursue the matter in court, and via lobbying. But when
you add up the cash resources, individual vs. Big media side, it's
insanely unbalanced. Which means, with absolutely certainty, you won't
see change in the USA, at least not with Republicans in charge.
Dave Haynie
wrote:
>In article <0pAZb.5091$w55...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>, dec...@swbell.net wrote
>> For the story go to:
>> http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0204/20.dvdruling.html
>The only reason for the film indusrty going over to DVD was to save cash in
>production. The massive savings in production costs [33% +] over film were
>never passed on to the consumer.
Oh, come on, it's way more than that. The move to DVD was a tremendous
quality upgrade -- better than the LP to CD upgrade which was largely
responsible for the huge recording company profits in the late 80s and
early 90s.
I didn't buy pre-recorded VHS. The quality sucked, it sucked worse
with each and every play, etc. DVD, on the other hand, I buy. The film
companies absolutely did it right. They didn't charge a fortune for
the DVD -- they're usually about the same cost as VHS, maybe a tiny
bit more expensive. But you get dramatically more: far better prints
of the film, far better quality, excellent sound, tons of special
features (largely because they let the directors go nuts, which they
do on the cheap), etc.
In fact, the problem the recording companies are having with CD sales
is very, very much in part due to just how well DVDs have been done.
Everyone has a limited entertainment budget. Ages ago, LPs and
theatrical films were about all you could buy. These days, it's CDs,
DVDs, DVD-As, Video Games, rentals, PPVs, etc. The music people have
the problem that CDs ARE overpriced, in most peoples' view. My kids
love music, but get most of it on the radio, and that's just fine with
them. They spend their money on DVDs and video games. This is the one
thing the RIAA won't even talk about -- they'd prefer to blame it on
piracy. But piracy alone can't possibly explain the drop-off.
>The pockets of the actors and the rest were lined nicely thankyou.
Actors really do make a good living, when they're successful. And
guess what: I don't have a problem with it. No different than paying a
leading sports figure N million a year. It's entirely a free market.
All of these things are ENTERTAINMENT. Luxeries. You don't need them,
not even remotely. If you don't like the film, don't see it. Don't buy
it. No loss to you. Personally, I'll pay the $7.50 for a ticket AND
the $25 for the DELUXE DVD to see the kind of stuff Peter Jackson's
Lord of the Rights did. Or anything Tim Burton does. I'll at least see
any Halle Berry film on HBO, if not in the theatre. My choice, my
cash. If what these folks are doing commands $20 million per film, I
really don't have issues with that. DVDs are still a good deal, IMHO.
If you disagree, don't buy them -- that's no license to steal 'em.
> Same applies to CD's and to ages old tapes.
CDs, I agree about. I never bought may pre-recorded tapes, and my last
I bought in the '70s. Like VHS, a bad quality print on media that
wears out.
>Always, the inherrent
>savings made were used for purposes other than for the benefit of the consumer.
You're confused -- the cost of media production has absolutely nothing
to do with the retail price of a software product. That's true of
music, that's true of video, that's true of videogames and other
computer software. The DVD is just a distribution medium. You're not
buying the movie, you're buying a license for specific viewing rights
to the movie, and some kind of distribution.
Instead of worrying about whether it costs $1.00 or $2.00 to print the
DVD vs. the tape, the real issue is what you get for your money. In
that respect, DVD is infinitely better than VHS. Hey, don't just take
my word for it -- fact is, DVD has already overtaken VHS. The market
has spoken, and found DVD a good value. It matters more when you have
a 65" 16:9 set like I do (I won't buy or rent videos in 4:3 format),
but DVD is pretty much making everyone happy. And with players as
cheap as $20, they're even underpricing VHS players.
>So I have no sympathy with the film makers whatsoever.
Sounds like you're rationalizing bad behavior with straw-man
arguments.
The reason I don't have sympathy for the recording companies is
twofold. First of all, their downright nasty war against little
pirates, many of them kids, is corporate greed at it's worst.
Meanwhile, they continually refused to asknowlege that in truth,
they're their own worst enemy. As I pointed out, there are not
competitive with other media types. You don't have to be a pirate to
get free music -- you'll simply turn on the radio, as my son does. To
him, it would be STUPID to spend money on a CD, when he could have a
DVD or, more likely yet, a new videogame. And he's their future.
Second one is the simple fact that the recording industry has been one
of the most greedy and corrupt that exists. The recording companies
mistreat all but maybe the top artists, demanding all kinds of
concessions. Even though, these days, an artist is ultimately paying
the total cost of their album's production (either in royalty advances
paid back in sales, or just making it themselves in their own project
studio), the recording comapnies aren't simply publishers -- they
usually demand copyright ownership. There are exceptions: REM, Prince,
a few others. But look at most of your CDs (if you still buy 'em);
you'll usually find the record company owns the copyright, though
they're really just the publish. Now got to your bookshelf (if you
have one) -- the books are all copyrighted by their authors.
In short, music will survive, always. The current greedy rat bastards
controlling the industry, they need to fail. Hard and soon. I wouldn't
personally steal one song to make that happen -- I'm better than that,
and I'd hope most of you all are, too. But I buy far less major label
music, and far more independent music these days. And DVDs.
>The only reason for PC's to have DVD capability at all
>- in the begining - was to further the film industies financial interests.
Huh? My PC got DVD recording capabilities to further MY financial
interests, as a small time media producer. So maybe I've sold 500
copies of my film on DVD, but that's 500 more than I would have sold
on VHS in 2002-2003. DVD-R/+R on PCs didn't do squat for the major
film companies; they had dedicated workstations for this stuff, long
before any PC had booted any DVD-R drive. They can throw insane
amounts of money at a DVD drive. Now, sure, playback drives included
on PCs help sell DVDs, but that's also a backward way of looking at
it. The DVD drives were demanded by consumers, which caused PC vendors
to include them. Otherwise, on their paper-thin margins, it never
would have happened.
Dave
"Dave Haynie" <dha...@jersey.net> wrote in message
news:403fb2d3....@news.jersey.net...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:44:01 -0000, "Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><use...@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:c1geuc$1i22bi$1...@ID-61610.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> In alt.video.dvd.software Dave <Fa...@ng.com> wrote:
>
> >> > <use...@isbd.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> > news:c1f604$1i6irc$1...@ID-61610.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> > > In alt.video.dvd.software Dave <Fa...@ng.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > I can copy Shalespeare's works to my heart's content.
>
> >> > Believe it or not but officially only with permission
>
> >> Whose permission, the original copyright holder has been dead for
> >> quite a while you know!
>
> >Well yes obviously, the permission would have to come from whoever now
owns
> >the original written works.
>
> Get a clue. No one owns the works of Shakespeare. You can, with
the word you need to concentrate on is Original, as we will see from the
rest of your post later.
> absolute legality, copy them to your heart's content. Despite the
> recent efforts of Michael Eisner and the Walt Disney Company,
> throughout most of modern civilization, copyrights have been a very
> limited thing. Once the copyright ends, the work goes into the public
> domain.
although a copyright only lasts a certain amount of times, it can be
renewed, an example is imagine you had a original space invaders arcade
board (by your own comments the copyright on that must of ended ages ago)
are you trying to say that you could set up a factory and copy that arcade
board as much as you wanted, with no legal constraints??????
>
> Which, of course, means that ANYONE can use the material. So I can
Yes you can use it but not copy it in its original format, form, factor or
context
> download it here (http://jollyroger.com/shakespeare/), or as a
As that is not in its original written form it and the copyright is expired
its legal.
> longstanding part of the Project Gutenberg
> (http://www.gutenberg.net/find.shtml)
> This is why I have tickets to see a local production (at Appel Farm,
> South Jersey) of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" for free next month --
> and why there are so many local Shakespeare troupes, worldwide.
>
> Of course, "anything" includes new works, including new copyrighted
> works (the GNU GPL was designed as an alternate to public domain, to
> ensure derivative works remain free -- normally, they don't, until
> they, too, become PD). So, of course, when Baz Luhrmann makes a modern
> version of "Romeo and Juliet" with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes,
>
> he doesn't pay anything for the original story. If he didn't write the
> screenplay himself (he did, along with Craig Pearce), he would have
> had to pay a screenwriter.
>
Quite correct cos its his own version, technically he hasnt copied anything,
its like comparing many doom clone games that you can get on your PC
nowadays, basically there all the same, but in legal terms different.
> Change itself isn't necessary, either. There's a longstanding concept
> of a collection copyright. If I put Shakespeare's works together in a
> special way, I can copyright the expression of the collection. You can
> reproduce each play, word for word, and not infringe my copyright. But
> you can't copy anything unique to my collection. I can publish an
> annotated version of a Shakespeare work, and similarly, you could copy
> the play's text, but not the comments.
Quite correct, hence why the jollyroger site you mentioned earlier is
perfectly legal, (ie they have as you put it been put together in a special
way)
>
> >Not one country im affraid, laws like the data protection act arnt just
> >applicable to the UK, even in the US (not all states at the moment but
some)
> >have similar laws,
>
> Far as copyrights go, most civilized countries are members of the
> Berne Convention
> (http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html). They don't
> have identical laws, but as members, they generally agree with the
> spirit of the Berne Convention and international copyright law.
Er that has nothing to do with what i was talking about. Perhaps we both
have our wires crossed!
>
> Personal privacy laws are something else, and vary quite a bit between
> countries.
True, they do vary, i was using it as an example only.
Jason O'Rourke
>although a copyright only lasts a certain amount of times, it can be
>renewed, an example is imagine you had a original space invaders arcade
>board (by your own comments the copyright on that must of ended ages ago)
>are you trying to say that you could set up a factory and copy that arcade
>board as much as you wanted, with no legal constraints??????
You don't see the difference between a game that is less than 30 years
old versus an author that dates back half a millenium? The link he gave
you specified author's life + 50 years. 25-50 years for other types of
work.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
Dave
"Jason O'Rourke" <j...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:c1uot2$tk$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
Oh ok then (even though you avoided the question) hows this do you think its
legal to make a copy of the mona lisa??
Thats old isnt it, surely by these rules you can copy that cant you?
Rick Pali
> do you think its legal to make a copy of the mona lisa??
> Thats old isnt it, surely by these rules you can copy that cant you?
Assuming *you* make the copy, why wouldn't you be able to? I don't know what
The Louvre's policy is on photography is, but I can walk into the National
Gallery of Canada and take hand-held photos of any piece on display. Since
any artwork of similar age to the Mona Lisa isn't copyright protected, I can
do whatever I want with the photos.
Just because the piece doesn't have copyright protection doesn't mean you're
entitled to access it to make a copy...but if you can swing it, there are no
restrictions I'm aware of.
Dave
> "Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote:
>
> > do you think its legal to make a copy of the mona lisa??
> > Thats old isnt it, surely by these rules you can copy that cant you?
>
> Assuming *you* make the copy, why wouldn't you be able to? I don't know
what
> The Louvre's policy is on photography is, but I can walk into the National
> Gallery of Canada and take hand-held photos of any piece on display. Since
> any artwork of similar age to the Mona Lisa isn't copyright protected, I
can
> do whatever I want with the photos.
You could do what you want cos that hasnt broke copyright, ie you havent
reproduce the painting
>
> Just because the piece doesn't have copyright protection doesn't mean
you're
> entitled to access it to make a copy...but if you can swing it, there are
no
> restrictions I'm aware of.
LOL, From that statement you are basically saying you can counterfeit cash
as long as you dont get caught
Rick Pali
> > Just because the piece doesn't have copyright protection
> > doesn't mean you're entitled to access it to make a
> > copy...but if you can swing it, there are no
> > restrictions I'm aware of.
>
> LOL, From that statement you are basically saying you can counterfeit cash
> as long as you dont get caught
I was speaking about copying an old painting, as you very well know. There
is no law against it. There are laws against making fake money, as you also
very well know. But if you want to copy money, you're free to go ahead and
do so.
Jason O'Rourke
>> You don't see the difference between a game that is less than 30 years
>> old versus an author that dates back half a millenium? The link he gave
>> you specified author's life + 50 years. 25-50 years for other types of
>> work.
>
>Oh ok then (even though you avoided the question) hows this do you think its
>legal to make a copy of the mona lisa??
>Thats old isnt it, surely by these rules you can copy that cant you?
Surely you can. You can even sell it if you can get some buyer, though
passing it off as the real thing would be fraud (if anyone pitied the dumbass
who believed you).
I don't believe the art world puts much value on painted copies, no matter how
well done. As for photography, the Mona Lisa is mounted behind glass, and flash
photography is not permitted. Add the crowds and it's pretty difficult to take
a quality photograph, and you'd still have the same issues above. No value.
Nothing precludes you from taking a photograph from the same spot as someone else,
but it's really not that easy to recapture the same essense, or without nice glass,
the same degree of sharpness. Photoshop doesn't make up for everything.
Dave
> "Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote
>
> > > Just because the piece doesn't have copyright protection
> > > doesn't mean you're entitled to access it to make a
> > > copy...but if you can swing it, there are no
> > > restrictions I'm aware of.
> >
> > LOL, From that statement you are basically saying you can counterfeit
cash
> > as long as you dont get caught
>
> I was speaking about copying an old painting, as you very well know. There
> is no law against it. There are laws against making fake money, as you
also
> very well know. But if you want to copy money, you're free to go ahead and
> do so.
ah so theres the dillema the painting is old, money is old also, but you
cant copy that, for many reasons, its the same thing with the painting, you
cant legally duplicate it, the point being, what ive been trying to make all
along is just cos something is old doesnt mean you can legally copy it.
Other laws then get brought into the equation, as you have just mentioned,
whether its shakespeare, a painting, money or many other things, just cos
they are old doesnt mean you can copy them, heck if age was the only factor
in copyright law, then surely there is no reason you cant copy a film that
is say 50 years old, you and i both know you legally cant copy an many old
films, and you cant copy an old painting, laws when it comes to making a
duplicate of an original anything are very complex, this is the point i was
trying to make.
Rick Pali
> ah so theres the dillema the painting is old, money is old also, but you
> cant copy that, for many reasons, its the same thing with the painting,
you
> cant legally duplicate it
Yea, except you can duplicate the Mona Lisa. Why do you think you can't?
Dave
> In article <c20hva$a1v$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Dave <Fa...@NG.com> wrote:
> >> You don't see the difference between a game that is less than 30 years
> >> old versus an author that dates back half a millenium? The link he
gave
> >> you specified author's life + 50 years. 25-50 years for other types of
> >> work.
> >
> >Oh ok then (even though you avoided the question) hows this do you think
its
> >legal to make a copy of the mona lisa??
> >Thats old isnt it, surely by these rules you can copy that cant you?
>
> Surely you can. You can even sell it if you can get some buyer, though
> passing it off as the real thing would be fraud (if anyone pitied the
dumbass
> who believed you).
Er you wouldnt even have to try to sell it to have broken the law. Just by
being in possesion of it you would be breaking the law.
>
> I don't believe the art world puts much value on painted copies, no matter
how
> well done. As for photography, the Mona Lisa is mounted behind glass, and
flash
> photography is not permitted. Add the crowds and it's pretty difficult to
take
> a quality photograph, and you'd still have the same issues above. No
value.
>
> Nothing precludes you from taking a photograph from the same spot as
someone else,
> but it's really not that easy to recapture the same essense, or without
nice glass,
> the same degree of sharpness. Photoshop doesn't make up for everything.
The same could be said for a dvd, a dvd that holds 9gb of info has to be
squashed to 4.7gb of info, thats illegal if its a copyright film, even
though the same essense isnt captured, its the same with the painting, just
cos someone would know its not the real thing doesnt mean you can do it,
whether the thing is copyright protected or not there are certain laws in
place to stop people duplicating things, even if tomorrow there was no
copyright law, you still couldnt legally copy a previously copyrighted dvd,
the films owners would just use another law against you, which basically
leads me back to my very first comment in this thread, nobody (with any
sense) cares if dvd xcopy is illegal or not, the program is crap, there are
far better programs for copying dvds, people do it, people will continue to
do it, the movie and music industry need to wake up, get a grab on reality,
realise they aint gonna stop it, and instead concentrate on spending their
millions on capturing the dodgy market type bloke who flogs joe public crap
quality films, instead of trying to act all high and mighty by stopping a
company selling software to people to allow them to back up their films they
have paid the industry good money for. its called technology, and as we all
know technology only ever moves forward, never back, and thats why the movie
and music industry wont ever stop what they see as a problem.
Dave
> "Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote:
>
> > ah so theres the dillema the painting is old, money is old also, but you
> > cant copy that, for many reasons, its the same thing with the painting,
> you
> > cant legally duplicate it
>
> Yea, except you can duplicate the Mona Lisa. Why do you think you can't?
>
gives a toss dvdxcopy is illegal.........no one thats who.
Rick Pali
> > Yea, except you can duplicate the Mona Lisa. Why do you think you can't?
> >
> Oh FFS i give up
I thought so.
Old Nick
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
>"Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote:
Rick
I keep seeing your replies to "Dave", but I never see "Dave's"
messages. I am not sure, but I think I may have him KillFiled, as
"pest....ignore"
Aaah Yes! *.* drop from:*Fa...@NG.com*
**************************************************** sorry
.........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Spike....Spike? Hello?
Dave
> "Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yea, except you can duplicate the Mona Lisa. Why do you think you
can't?
> > >
> > Oh FFS i give up
>
> I thought so.
>
Dave
"Old Nick" <nsnf...@idodo.net.au> wrote in message
news:vmh840drelitmjdhq...@4ax.com...
WTF are you babbling about?????
Rick Pali
> > > Oh FFS i give up
> >
> > I thought so.
> >
> thats only half the trouble............you started to think.
Go ahead and insult me if that's what you need to do to feel like a man. The
fact is, you couldn't answer a simple question, or decided not to for
whatever reason. I enjoy discussing things but if you're going to start with
the insults, you'll do it without me.
Later Dave.
Dave
> "Dave" <Fa...@NG.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Oh FFS i give up
> > >
> > > I thought so.
> > >
> > thats only half the trouble............you started to think.
>
> Go ahead and insult me if that's what you need to do to feel like a man.
The
Oh dear oh dear me, i really do give up now, talk about banging ya head
against a brick wall
> fact is, you couldn't answer a simple question, or decided not to for
> whatever reason. I enjoy discussing things but if you're going to start
with
> the insults, you'll do it without me.
Right i did answer the question in another post (ie, when i ranted about
copyright laws not being the only laws to worry about when duplicating
things), if you cant remember that, and then say you enjoy disscusing
things, its all a bit pointless isnt it? (talking about things you cant
remember or didnt read in the first place)